Morals.

[Southtown]

We don't start out by knowing everything, we start out with what we know or hope we know and continue on from there. With good people one finds better ways through the woods and paths are found and used.

What reason would you have for rejecting what morality was passed to us exactly, in light of your points? I'm referring to the bible, but the same would apply for other religious beliefs as well, though.

[cwes99_03]

South you've made some good points, thanks.

 

I'm going to post one last time to this thread before moving on to other subjects.

 

1) No one has as of yet ever proven that men existed before religion. Some might suppose this is the chicken/egg paradox, without a paradox. This is in fact not a paradox, though not in the way so many here have supposed, because they believe that men must exist in order to create religion/morals.

If you have read and believed the Bible, the first man was created by God after God had determined what rules that man should live by. We do this every day when we create clocks to tick away the seconds, when we create houses to keep in the warmth on a cold day, when we create anything.

So first God existed. Second, God created everything to his liking setting rules for everything to live perfectly through obedience to those rules/morals/principles. You may disagree with this, but so far you have not been able to prove anything different.

 

2) Man is imperfect. No one human, or coalition of all mankind, will ever be able to solve all of men's problems. This is the errant part of a democracy. Its founders believed that no single ruler could properly rule a nation, so instead the obvious answer was to let the people rule a country. Plato suggested the opposite, that the general populace was incapable of ruling themselves, but that certain so-called enlightened ones would be capable of deciding what was good for all. Both are obviously wrong as is evidenced by the increasing failure of all types of human governments.

 

3) Being imperfect, what is good for one person, will eventually be seen by another as being oppressive. This is the failure of communism. It fails to allow for certain aggressive/prolific types to get ahead by their own means, an imperfection of humans everywhere. They feel like if they can do better, then they should be rewarded and be allowed to stand above the rest. This is the flaw with the idea that humans can create a moral code. Each person believes that if they are smarter, stronger, more pious, then they should be able to determine what is better for someone they see as lesser. We all see the problem there.

 

4) Different moral codes for different groups of people is implying that where you live should determine what moral code you observe. If not where you live, then what you feel should be your moral code. This is the problem with creating philosophies of life/religions. If one does not like a certain set of moral codes/laws, then that one must only think up his own set and say it is his religious belief and that is why he can do these things. This is why the US government does not recognize just anything as a religion, and why it's laws and government separate themselves from religion. That being said, the separation of religion and state, means that the laws of a land are not derived from morals but from mankind's own attempt to create a law that will satisfy all (which as already discussed is impossible.) Several have pointed out that the founding fathers of the US were atheists, who strongly believed in not allowing any religious leader to try and impose his/her beliefs upon the rest (as the church in England and in France had done.)

 

Morals aren't something each of us can determine for ourselves. They can't even be something that each religion determines. No they would have to originate from a much higher power. Religions in turn attempt to identify that higher power and relate what those moral codes are. In so far as today is concerned. The vast culture of religion has in fact failed because they always try to turn to a human to impart these things. Even the ancient Isrealites decided that they wanted a king to rule over them, and God sighed and said to his judge and prophet that it was not he they were turning against but God himself.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

why is it so difficult to determine what constitutes morality ? you know it when you see it don't you? the easiest definition of moral behavior is the Golden Rule. this explains it all does it not ? if all people observed this rule, there would be no reason to form religions or do anything other than to observe the rule. this would lead to fairness, honesty, integrity, helpfulness,

On one level there is certainly some truth in what you say but on another level, in the sense of a systematic approach to it as a species needing it (morality) there's quite a bit missing.

Morality should not deal with just one's relationship to other people, it deals with one's relationship to existence. There is an overlap with science which has been completely ignored. Rational behavior is moral behavior. Science should be considered a moral act.

All work related to discovering the nature of existence is virtuous and should be respected as such. A doctor who uses his knowledge of the human body to save the life of a little child is performing an act of virtue. And the people who identified and gave the doctor that knowledge are no less virtuous although at the time, they were just being 'scientists'. And that goes for the folks who mined the ore to make the steel that created the scalpel that the doctor used to save the life.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

Don't mean to skip your point, steve. But a perfect system should not change. And even if an imperfect system were made perfect through process, it wouldn't stay that way... because it can change

One of the fallacies that stops forward motion is the belief that we have to have everthing nailed down and perfect before we start. That's not true. But, assuming we could identify exactly what was needed in a rational religion over time, at some point it would not change. If human nature changed or evolved, then the system might not apply and would have to change to account for man's new identity.

[Southtown]

All work related to discovering the nature of existence is virtuous and should be respected as such. A doctor who uses his knowledge of the human body to save the life of a little child is performing an act of virtue. And the people who identified and gave the doctor that knowledge are no less virtuous although at the time, they were just being 'scientists'. And that goes for the folks who mined the ore to make the steel that created the scalpel that the doctor used to save the life.

Agreed. But one can trump humanity in the name of science. Virtue must remain the underlying motive. I consider human embryonic stem cell research akin to scrapping new cars to salvage old ones. And doctors don't always save the life, remember that medical knowledge came by trial and error.

 

One of the fallacies that stops forward motion is the belief that we have to have everthing nailed down and perfect before we start. That's not true. But, assuming we could identify exactly what was needed in a rational religion over time, at some point it would not change. If human nature changed or evolved, then the system might not apply and would have to change to account for man's new identity.

I agree here, too. But how can forward progress be ensured. Any good changeable system requires preventative measures against its abuse.

 

And again, on what grounds do we throw out biblical morality, exactly?

[Rincewind]

No one has as of yet ever proven that men existed before religion.

I would say that the proof of it is that religion is a construct of the human mind. If it were otherwise, then there would only be one religion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

But how can forward progress be ensured. Any good changeable system requires preventative measures against its abuse.

Well, I suppose by identifying what it is that we wish to accomplish. What gains do we expect and how would we measure them?

And again, on what grounds do we throw out biblical morality, exactly?

On the grounds that they are based upon commandments. Values are chosen; to live is a choice. We must show that once a person chooses to live, then assuming they are human (and this needs to be understood), the following (which need to be identified) logically follows. Part of the forward motion is the act of nailing this stuff down.

To the extent that biblical morality was rational, those same moral precepts would exist in a rational religion. To the extent that they aren't, they wouldn't.

The work would involve identifying the moral precepts and showing the logic behind those identifications.

[eclectic_aberrancy]

Religion, in a way, was created based on morals (Why do you think that so many share similar morals and values?). Therefore, morals can be attained without religious aid. With experience (and therefore knowledge of yourself and others), come morals.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

eclectic_abberancy:

Religion, in a way, was created based on morals (Why do you think that so many share similar morals and values?). Therefore, morals can be attained without religious aid. With experience (and therefore knowledge of yourself and others), come morals.

Yes. I agree. And it has fulfilled its purpose - but needs to change to reflect a deeper understanding of humanity. Mankind is not just an illiterate shepherd any more or to be more exact, the 'view' of mankind is not as an illiterate shepherd any more.

A valid religion would elevate all people to the same level spiritually. And it would be led by ideas, not people. And God must be pulled from the unattainable to existing within everyone and in my mind at least, should be synonymous with what differentiates us from all other species: our powers of observation. That would connect passion with the search for truth and perhaps fulfill our destiny, if we have one.

[Southtown]

And how would valid morality be enforced, exactly?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

And how would valid morality be enforced, exactly?

Beautiful question. One reason for separation of church and state was to keep some distance between government (which is supposed to be rational) and religion (which by definition hasn't been). I do not advocate connecting them now or ever. Laws will reflect the prevailing atmosphere of morality sooner or later. If we connect rationality to morality, the rest will follow with time.

[Southtown]

Southtown:Beautiful question. One reason for separation of church and state was to keep some distance between government (which is supposed to be rational) and religion (which by definition hasn't been). I do not advocate connecting them now or ever. Laws will reflect the prevailing atmosphere of morality sooner or later. If we connect rationality to morality, the rest will follow with time.

Thanks =) I have a theory regarding the dilema, but it's not an all-inclusive solution by any means. It does however provide both freedom and morality.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4653-why-not-post73103.html

[Drip Curl Magic]

Religion, in a way, was created based on morals (Why do you think that so many share similar morals and values?). Therefore, morals can be attained without religious aid. With experience (and therefore knowledge of yourself and others), come morals.

 

Well, religion, back in the day, was government. I'm pretty sure it was created to scare people into following one ruler. And the reason church and state are seperate, now, is because we now have technology to keep large groups of people under control(guns, bombs, tanks). So, the government no longer needs to scare people into believing that if they don't follow the rules, that they will burn for all eternity. Whoever created religion was a genious.... attacking and manipulating people's greatest fear(death) proved to be the best way to control mass groups of people. So, I think religion was less about morals, and more about control. But on the outside, it's supposedly about morals. But I think morals just come from evolution. Both religion and hirarchy(sp?). I think I'm just rambling now.

[Southtown]

Just look at business practices. Will tobacco companies stop selling cigarettes because they harm people? Or will they wait until tobacco (or any of the addiction inducing additives) is illegal? People tend to settle downward, morality-wise, until they come to rest on the bedrock of the law.

 

So then some kind of law is necessary. Without accountability, morality can be what you want it to be. This wishy-washy morality would completely defeat the purpose of behavioral guidelines, would it not?

 

I would also point out that laws that we contrive are wishy-washy sets of guidelines themselves. So without a "religious devotion" to an unchanging moral code, the value of humanity and the necessity for fair play are disputable.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

People tend to settle downward, morality-wise, until they come to rest on the bedrock of the law.

I'm afraid I disagree. History is full of spontaneous generosity and random acts of kindness. People are fundamentally good. Yes, there are rotten people. But as long as they don't act on their 'rottenness', they can remain in society. I think your conclusion is based upon the fact that our legal system has far too many laws and makes lawbreakers of ordinary, good people. It's not immoral to take a drug to make yourself feel good. But it is stupid if it harms you, permanently in some way. However, you cannot legislate stupidity out of existence.

You simply cannot legislate choices that harm nobody but the chooser. The problems come when we don't consider someone 'under the influence' to be responsible for their actions. If they choose to take a substance that renders them mentally incapacitated, well, any action they take from that point on is their responsibility and they should be held accountable for it.

But we don't do that.

And so we create a problem where there isn't one.

Consider prostitution, for instance. Huge numbers of people participate in prostitution every day by engaging in sex to better their situation. We will never stop it because it take place in every conceivable situation daily. It happens in churches, it happens in mortuaries and it even happens in schools, on airplanes, in bathrooms, in parks and canoes. You name the place, it's been done there. It fulfills a need. It always has and it always will.

And yet, we consider it illegal because it's 'immoral'. I consider that reaction to be insane.

Consider the pain and hardship caused by making prostitution illegal. Consider the gain. Lots of pain. Zero gain.

And because it's illegal in most places, it is forced 'underground' and people become lawbreakers when they engage in it. Because it's illegal, it can't be treated like a business and the owners of the business cannot be protected by the law they help pay for. Women are forced into slavery and cannot get protection. They are beaten and abused and threatened and often killed because it happens in secret.

That pain, that suffering, that insanity can be laid directly on the doorstep of our so-called 'morality'. It is no wonder that there is so much contempt for the church. And that contempt is well earned.

The biggest danger is that we'll give up on the concept of morality, which by definition, defines goodness. Voluntary transactions between consenting adults are fundamentally moral acts. Choices made voluntarily for mutual gain are inherently moral. But because we consider many of those actions to be immoral, it tells me that our idea of 'moral' is all screwed up.

[questor]

just a few thoughts,

there is no proof that people are fundamentally good. people generally do

things that they perceive are beneficial to themselves. frequently this is considered criminal. whether morals and religion originated at the same or different time doesn't matter, the fact is that one feeds on the other.

without fear or respect for a higher power, you will see morality crumble

into a situation of everyone making up their own morality. you can see this already in Hollywood and in liberal thought. since liberals generally do not believe in God, they want to rid the world of this idea of Christian morality so that ''if it feels good,do it". this of course, leads eventually to chaos and lawlessness where everyone makes up their own rules.

[TheBigDog]

You make some good points idsoftwaresteve.

 

Virtually all laws are founded on drawing lines on morality. Murder, pedophilia, rape, incest, kidnapping, poligomy, prostitution and drug laws are all questions of morality. As a society we make choices based upon presumed freedoms versus the safety and security of the members of that society, and the bigger goals of that society. If I want to kill people, society weighs my right to do that against the right of my victims to live. In pedophilia there are people who want to have sex with young people. Society weighs the right of a person to have sex with youngsters with the right of children to be protected from activities that they are not emotionally ready to decide upon.

 

Prostitution gets more complicated because you can make the argument that it is private action among concenting adults. Arguments of public safety and erosion of family units are typical here. I have never understood how exchanging money for sex was different from having sex. We all pay for it one way or another.

 

Drug use is all about public safety. I do not like the way the government prosecutes this. Consumption should be a personal matter. Especially in the privacy of your own home. If you want to grow weed for personal use, more power to you. The government does have the right to regulate commerce. So they can go after the supply of drugs. Dealers should be free game, users should typically get a ticket at worst. Now it gets more complicated when you consider the influence of drugs on people operating dangerous equipment (cars etc.) Operating a vehicle or other such device while under the influence is absolutely a public safety issue. But we should attack that issue, not the choice to imbibe, as long as the drug is detectable. Drugs that are not detectable make it very difficult to hold people accountable for unsafe behavior.

 

Bottom line is that there should be virtually no federal laws. If the people of a particular state wants drugs or prostitution to be legal, the federal government should have no say in the matter as long as that state law does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant federal authority to outlaw state laws, so instead the feds either passes a federal law to trump state law (drug laws), or strong arms the state into compliance of federal wishes by withholding federal dollars (drinking age). Each federal action of that type weakens the diversity of the country and the ability of Americans to live in communities with diverse values and freedoms.

 

If you want prostitution, move to Nevada. And remember these words... It is not cheating if you have a receipt.:lol:

 

Bill