Morals.

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal, you said...

''If you are unable to deal with the argument that unconnected religions having the same morals indicates that it is the physical world which motivated those morals rather than the religion itself then simply say so rather than shifting to dishonest tactics completely unrelated to the argument.''

 

i do think this happened originally. as religions became codified, these laws of relationships became part of religious dogma. your morals probably came from Judeo-Christian religious beliefs unless you lived outside of civilization.

 

Isn't it possible that the same physical reality which motivated those morals when religions were made still exist? IE IMO all that has to happen for me to see that it is "wrong" to steal is that my neighbor in preschool gets mad when I steal something and steals it back and it degrades into fighting.

[Tarantism]

some people seem to be unaware that almost all of us have been brought up

surrounded by religious symbols, activities and influences. they think that somehow, they created their own set of morals out of whole cloth. they can't understand that from infancy they have been exposed to religious thought and practices throughout our culture. to those i would ask...which

moral issues have not been addressed by the world's religions? which laws do not have morality from these morals as their base ?

 

my father is a christian. my mother, however, is not.

 

i do not believe that religion effects my life in any way, shape or form, not even with my morals. i think that each person develops their wn set of morals based on three things:

 

1. parents

2. religion

3. social norms

 

so, if i choose not to agree with the values of my upbringing, i choose not to harbor religion. doesnt everyone feel differently about that? no two sets of morals are the same.

 

so, in answer to the question, i would say that religion controls pretty much everything in the world, and that is not nessesarily a bad thing because anyone with the desire to ignore religion can without being too out of the ordinary in society.

 

morals are stemmed from religious beliefs, but that does not nesesarily mean that they go hand in hand, its just too general.

[questor]

Kriminal, morals did not develop recently, and they do not change with each generation. you can't re-invent morals to suit yourself. to think you have a private set of morals is ridiculous, all you would have is a set of personal rules. i'm sure all killers and criminals have their own set of morals..what good are they ?

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal, morals did not develop recently, and they do not change with each generation. you can't re-invent morals to suit yourself. to think you have a private set of morals is ridiculous, all you would have is a set of personal rules. i'm sure all killers and criminals have their own set of morals..what good are they ?

 

Do you actually believe that people follow morals because they were written in a book somewhere thousands of years ago? I don't, I think they follow them because they can see on their own the necessity for them.

 

Alot of people say something is wrong, but give different reasons. Also in my experience people have completely different ideas about what is right and what is wrong and it is only force that causes people to act in the same manner (law etc) If you ask people if something is wrong and why you will get all kinds of different answers.

 

I am not trying to create my own set of morals because I did not create the physical world. This is simply a better interpretation of the physical world then most sets of morals. Its very simple, all people potentially have about the same amount of power, and when you use your power to get something at the expense of others they will get mad and overpower you. Therefore all morals should work towards giving the most amount of people what they want. Aside from this you need to make sure people are not being decieved so they don't know when they are being abused and making sure they can communicate so they can consolidate power to stop someone who is abusing them etc to make sure this system works.

[questor]

Kriminal, in reading your posts, i can't figure out your definition of morals.

your thoughts seem to be defensive moves against others. would you list your definition of morals and list the most important morals people should have ?

[Southtown]

Do you actually believe that people follow morals because they were written in a book somewhere thousands of years ago? I don't, I think they follow them because they can see on their own the necessity for them.

This is EXACTLY why I believe the bible is true. EXACTLY

“

for there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: (

for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts

, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.”

—

Romans 2:11-16 asv

Because the so-called "oppression of the law" is not oppression at all, but inherent! God's instructions were directions on how to live well, for those who choose to.

[Tarantism]

God's instructions were directions on how to live well, for those who choose to.

 

WHHHAt. i disagree. i think that those "directions" are just human nature, or else nothing at all. who wants to be at the bottom of the totom pole of humanity? if someone worte, once, that God said to do something, then all good christians follow, right? Its just a religious law, much like a Law of the United States. a way to keep things in social order, and therefore avoid questioning.

 

i suppose that if you are religious it would make sense that the word of god would be rule.

 

the point? morals= rules, and FINILLY they do stem from religious beliefs, if you see it that way, or at least in the united states, since the "founding fathers" were all verrrrrrrry in tune with their religion (protestants.).

 

i would be really interested to know what would happen if a complete nation of non god fearing, athiest people was to be made, what would their set of morals be like?

[Boerseun]

This thread is also tendering for Theology, dontcha think?

[Southtown]

WHHHAt. i disagree. i think that those "directions" are just human nature, or else nothing at all. who wants to be at the bottom of the totom pole of humanity?

So you're trying to tell me that self-discipline is commonplace?

 

'Who wants to help others at the bottom of that totem pole?' would be a more pertinent question. Answer: a trivial number, because they're all worried about themselves.

 

Its just a religious law, much like a Law of the United States. a way to keep things in social order, and therefore avoid questioning.

You're losing me. First you say morality is human nature, then you say it's propaganda. Which is it?

[Tarantism]

You're losing me. First you say morality is human nature, then you say it's propaganda. Which is it?

 

im not so much sasying that it is propaganda as the way of human society. propaganda would entail that there are half-truths and lies coming from a certain group. im not going t be one to say taht there are (maaaayyybbbeeeeee) but im more saying that it is human nature to want to fit in to a social order, and each social order has its own set of morals essentially. so not propaganda so much as human nature, follow?

[questor]

why do some people have such difficulty explaining or defining a simple concept like morals ? the only reason i can figure out is they don't understand what morals are.

[CraigD]

why do some people have such difficulty explaining or defining a simple concept like morals ? the only reason i can figure out is they don't understand what morals are.

I’m unsurprised that coming to a consensus definition of “morals” is difficult. The English language term has undergone considerable linguistic drift, and the common usage appears to have similarly undergone a lot of change in distant and recent history.

 

In terms of word origin, both the English plural noun “morals” and “mores” come obviously from the latin plural noun “mores” and adjective “moralis”, which, like many earlier words beginning “mor-“ or “mos-“, mean “custom”, “tradition”, or “usual”. While the English word “mores” has retained this meaning, the word “morals”, has come to refer to “rules of conduct” reflective of absolute good or truth, derived either through a process of infallible logic or provided directly by an infallible authority, such as a prophet, or directly from a Divinity. “Ethics”, from the Greek Ethikos, has gone from meaning “custom”, to a common English meaning of “rules of conduct particular to a specific situation or profession,” that is to meaning “specialized morals”.

 

In a way, the drift of the meaning of the world “morals” parallels the emergence of Science, and the modern idea of the goodness of questioning authority. In its original usage, what was “moral” was simple what was traditional – if that tradition included genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice, these practices were deemed “moral”. Early documents attempting to define morals/traditions usually claimed that these traditions being as old as the universe, or at least as old as humanity, and that they had been dictated at some time by a god to a human author (or, in some cases, transcribed from a document created directly by a god). Such documents often contained strongly worded warning against attempting to understand the reasons for these traditions and particularly against attempting to change them. In the case of the many traditions, including Judeo-Christian one, a “satan” or “enemy” was described as being chief in influencing people to question or overturn traditions. The idea of a “fall from grace” due to the failure to follow a critical tradition (eg: not eating the fruit of a particular tree) is often involved in such descriptions.

 

During at least 2 periods in human history, it became more acceptable to question tradition and authority: the Greek and Roman Classical period (roughly 700 BC to 500 AD); and the Renaissance (roughly 1500 AD to present). Note that these time periods are imprecise, and vary by geographic location, so much so that it’s arguable that, for a particular locale, the Classical period and the Renaissance may overlap.

 

During these periods, with their tolerance of the questioning and overturning of preexisting traditions, new traditions were created. A major new tradition of the Classical period is the “new covenant” of Christianity. A major new tradition of the Renaissance is Science. Each was a significant attack on the tradition of its period, and each has endured in some form to present times (roughly 2000 AD).

 

Paradoxically, these new traditions have, in a way, rejected the authority of the traditions of their periods of origin in favor of sources of authority less vulnerable to attack. In the case of Christianity, and many of the religions that preceded it, this authority is an infallible, eternal entity known as God. In the case of Science, this authority is objective reality, which is assumed to exist and, by definition be infallibly true.

 

Adherents to both modern religion (a more broad, so likely more appropriate term than “Christianity”) and/or Science usually assert that knowledge of their defining authorities (God or objective reality) is difficult and possibly beyond human ability.

 

It’s unsurprising that the concept of morals in difficult to define – though its definition may be simple and concise, what it encompasses is complicated and extensive.

[cwes99_03]

Wow, still trying to bend my mind around everything you just said there, but i took something out of it, so I'll make this remark, Craig.

You are suggesting that morals are determined by the populace, and therefore are simply a philosophical consensus of the masses for the period of time that one finds themself in. Funny, my morals are much higher than those held by many in the US today, at least by my definition so I guess that's where the latin roots come in. How do you reconcile different standards for morals?

My clear call for this answer is that true morals aren't what we make of them, but the standards that someone(thing) else set. Can we change moralic values? No. We can only regress or progress. The moral standards themselves remain the same, how we measure up to them changes.

Now what can change is society's view of the importance of morals. Does this mean that the morals of the populace have changed? No. Morals do not belong to the populace.

That is like asking whether the measurement of a foot belongs to the ruler. If I decide to wear away the end of that ruler by some amount, does that change the length of a foot? Nope, a foot is a foot regardless of what is used to measure it. That's why scientists stopped using things that can deteriorate, to measure distance. Instead they turned to light, which they believe to be the most constant thing in the universe.

[Edge]

I agree that biblical morality makes sense, no matter where it came from. But I find it funny how people can agree with biblical morality, and yet reject its connotations.

That makes no sense. If you agree that drinking is bad then you must totally agree with the Q'ran's connotations. They think is bad as well.

 

If you agree with an idea of a political party even when you agreed because it is your ideal (meaning that you didn't know that they had the same idea but on different premises), do you have to agree with everything the party says?

 

How can a man be so right about morality, yet fallaciously claim to be the world's only hope?

This brings another question: are morals absolute or relative? I believe they are absolute, however, religions and cultures have a different set of morals. That's another reason why I don't think morality comes from them.

 

I agree, and again, so does the bible.

Well, that's a point for the bible. Even when that is obvious.

 

I assume you meant "that religion wasn't the product of morals", am I right? But I would ask, what difference does it make, really?

Not much, but it is an interesting discussion. :naughty:

[questor]

Craig, interesting post. do you have difficulty in defining morals ? would you be able to list a number of rules that you would consider moral behavior ?

would you be able to list behavior that you consider immoral ?

[Southtown]

That makes no sense. If you agree that drinking is bad then you must totally agree with the Q'ran's connotations. They think is bad as well.

I haven't read the Quran, so I can't comment. Hell, who knows? I might agree with it. LOL

If you agree with an idea of a political party even when you agreed because it is your ideal (meaning that you didn't know that they had the same idea but on different premises), do you have to agree with everything the party says?

I would think though that any suggested connotations would have to be logically drawn from things I do agree with.

 

A rough example: Bible morality sounds logical and complete as far as I can tell -> Bible says nobody is capable of being perfect (again very logical) -> Bible says everyone needs forgiveness (consistent with previous points) -> a God that would provide forgiveness to anyone who wants it sounds like he holds to his own morality (completely consistent) -> circularly consistent connotations

 

This brings another question: are morals absolute or relative? I believe they are absolute, however, religions and cultures have a different set of morals. That's another reason why I don't think morality comes from them.

Obviously, what people believe has no bearing or relevance. Whatever people consider to be proper behavior, I think the point of controlling our behavior in the first place has to do with what is best for everyone. From that position, I reason what morality should and shouldn't be. And again, the bible seems logical in this light.

[cwes99_03]

This brings another question: are morals absolute or relative? I believe they are absolute, however, religions and cultures have a different set of morals. That's another reason why I don't think morality comes from them.

How can they be absolute and yet different for different religions and cultures? They have to either be absolute or relative. One or the other. My previous post, stated that I believe they are absolute, above the thinking of man, determined by a God which I believe created us and the laws we live by.