U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 07-20-2012, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 801,971 times
Reputation: 534
Morality cannot be based on a deity because there is the constant impasse of whose deity is right. And since deities have this great system where you cannot ask them directly yet their followers "know" they're right, it leads to conflict between the various faiths. Can you prove that the teachings of any one religion are right vs all the other religions? No? Oh well that probably won't lead to any sort of conflict. It's not like any religion has anything in its belief system that rewards the destruction of any "false" beliefs/deities...

The summation of morality via a deity: I know what is right or wrong because the deity (deities) said so, and no matter what my personal feelings/conscience is in the matter I will do what the religion tells me. That's not morality, that's just obedience.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2012, 03:08 PM
 
2,997 posts, read 2,497,309 times
Reputation: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallisdj View Post
You are welcome to disagree. But I would ask you to consider this:

If there was this Creator as envisioned by Judaic and Christian philosophy, this Creator would not be transparent. IT would be exacting and inflexible. IT would not be passing conflicting laws, rules, and regulations through various human mouthpieces. The Old Testament is extremely guilty of this, as we can determine from various interpretations of the "Law" as the plurialistic Jews (meaning that they worshiped a plethora of gods) were changed through contact with other nations, conquest, dispersion, and finally allowed to return to Palestine under God's son Cyrus.

Instead, we have a Creator that basically gave human beings carte blanche when it came to figuring out how to form a society and how best to keep that society functioning / surviving.

We cannot limit our understanding of humankind to a Biblical reference, as the Bible is a collection redacted merely 3,000 years ago.

There have been scriptures that go back at least twice as long as that, and in these scriptures we find concepts similar to what you pointed out in that post. But these concepts are, in part, alien to the human creature and had to be brought into conciousness by something outside the human, whether they were gods, aliens, or whatever.

Our "closest" animal relatives do exhibit love, morals, and the like but in a context that ensures the survivability of the community. In the 21st Century, we have a lot of time on our hands to expand our "horizons" on what should be moral, ethical, etc. because we do not face the threat of extinction--at least a perception of immediate extinction.

However, given a time when we should be faced with serious questions of survival, God is going to be the first concept to be thrown out. Only when a community can assure itself of survival will it bring back a God concept to give authority to whatever that community has decided to be moral, ethical, etc.
Webster defines Truth as 'Fidelity to the original' or...matching / equal to that which is the original . Unless you can show that non-material things like moral oughtness in addition to logic, reason, rationalizing, love, and abstract thinking came from an original Source such as an accidental unpurposed One Celled Pond Protozoa or from materials leftover from the alledged 'big bang' such as dirt, hydrogen gas, planets, cloud gas, etc.... then it is only logical and conclusive that the Original is the person Creator himself and the only reason why something is wrong is because there is no fidelity to THAT Original.

IE: We know that an action which is impure is absolutely wrong because the Creator is pure in his nature, person, and character. We know that showing love is absolutely right because there IS fidelity to the Original (the Creator) . We know that lieing is wrong because there is no fidelity to the Original because the Creator cannot lie and IS truth.

The standard for which we test whether something is right or not isnt what Man determines based on what century it is or how socially acceptable it has become...but on the highest ORIGINAL Source known to Man. And according to the Declaration of Independence as well as our Founding Fathers, that is the Creator . Not some futile theory constructed by a 19th Century Man called Darwin trying to writeoff God by chemical evolution , nor a one celled accidental pond protozoa called abiogenesis , nor the popular consensus of the masses at some point in history such as today ; the top standard to which everything is measured is the very nature, character, and person of OUR Creator . Thats where our intrinsic Moral Law came from and is infused in everyone of us . We have it, we can grow in it thru further discovery , and it is up to us not to suppress it because WE feel like being in control so our self centered motives /urges/and feelings can be satisfied by pretending wrong really isnt wrong .Nor does it show integrity or maturity to jettison the Creator and pretend he isnt required .
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2012, 03:33 PM
 
2,997 posts, read 2,497,309 times
Reputation: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
Morality cannot be based on a deity because there is the constant impasse of whose deity is right. And since deities have this great system where you cannot ask them directly yet their followers "know" they're right, it leads to conflict between the various faiths. Can you prove that the teachings of any one religion are right vs all the other religions? No? Oh well that probably won't lead to any sort of conflict. It's not like any religion has anything in its belief system that rewards the destruction of any "false" beliefs/deities...

The summation of morality via a deity: I know what is right or wrong because the deity (deities) said so, and no matter what my personal feelings/conscience is in the matter I will do what the religion tells me. That's not morality, that's just obedience.
Its not a matter of which Group says what , just like its not a matter of what the consensus of the populace is concerning any given social issue --- thats NOT what determines the ultimate truth ; to determine WHICH Diety is the correct one can be determined by looking at each Representative (Prophet) of God that came about by what they had to say, how they proved they were a genuine Spokesman for God by performing documented miracles , did they live an exemplary moral life, were their teachings pure, accurate, and without deception , and which Person fulfilled precise prior predictions about thier coming on the scene . The only person in history who fulfilled all of these truth requirements and who said himself that HE was the way, the (original) Truth, and (eternaL) Life ...was Jesus Christ alone. He bodly claimed to be THE Creator that came to earth in a human body. Then to further back it up, he himself predicted he would rise from the dead again which he did according to historically verfiable Documents (both Christian and Secular sources) . The historical evidences are so compelling that THE worlds foremost Court of Law Evidence Professor, Simon Greenleaf, put the evidence to a mock trial as challenged by his students and upon completion he immediately changed from being an agnostic to a devouted Follower of Christ. His techniques are still taught today in virtually every Law School across the Country and a Law School is named after him.

Now, I bring this up in this Forum which is not religion, because we are talking about a standard of morality to which we can determine whether something is absolutely right or wrong to which our Founding Fathers agreed was due to the very person and nature of Christ (God) . The Moral Law is in all of us and it can be discovered more fully by looking at the very nature and person of God , whereas modern narcissitic/hedonistic man not wanting this to be the case would have us believe that such Moral Standards are created BY MAN based on a consensus and an ever changing dependence on how far immorality has become permissible. And this is the sad essence of a post modern era where Man creates a disdain toward moral laws because they are seen as an affront to total freedom to live as one wants.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2012, 04:47 PM
 
Location: The Triad (nc)
16,344 posts, read 18,921,876 times
Reputation: 13193
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5 View Post
Now, I bring this up in this Forum which is not religion, because we are talking about a standard of morality to which we can determine whether something is absolutely right or wrong to which our Founding Fathers agreed was due to the very person and nature of Christ (God) .
Because there are no absolutes. Or so few, and so limited in context, ....

Quote:
The Moral Law is in all of us and it can be discovered more fully by looking at the very nature and person of God, whereas modern narcissitic/hedonistic man not wanting this to be the case would have us believe that such Moral Standards are created BY MAN based on a consensus and an ever changing dependence on how far immorality has become permissible. And this is the sad essence of a post modern era where Man creates a disdain toward moral laws because they are seen as an affront to total freedom to live as one wants.

A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture
to one that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values
is absolutely superior to one that does not.


Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a moral and social nightmare
because the intellectual level of evolution, in its struggle to become free of the social level,
has ignored the social level's role in keeping the biological level under control.
~RP 1991
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2012, 05:14 PM
 
2,997 posts, read 2,497,309 times
Reputation: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Because there are no absolutes. Or so few, and so limited in context, ....


A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture
to one that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values
is absolutely superior to one that does not.


Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a moral and social nightmare
because the intellectual level of evolution, in its struggle to become free of the social level,
has ignored the social level's role in keeping the biological level under control.
~RP 1991
In order ----

1. There ARE moral absolutes and if there werent then you wouldnt be so upset when someone morally violates you in an absolute sense -- your reaction shows that you know and totally embrace absolute moral laws otherwise you wouldnt be indignant . Further, you wouldnt try to cover up something which was wrong unless it was indeed absolutely morally wrong. We hide things because we dont want to be exposed for doing something we know full well was wrong.

2. Then youve just given credence to the 911 Hijackers flying planes into the Twin Towers because their intellectual and social values trumped abiding by absolute moral laws.

3. Intellect and technological advances mean diddly-squat if a Nation is in severe social dissaray by Man making up his own rules to live and work by . The latter has destroyed empires in the past and the U.S. is following suit -- you know the consequences to disobeying absolute moral laws has arrived when 1 out of every 6 middle schoolers have an std...and 65,000,000 american adults have at least one STD with 15,000,000 new cases added annually...with nearly 1,000,000 having died from sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. (And this is just ONE segment of Americas moral woes).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2012, 06:54 PM
 
6,908 posts, read 15,425,406 times
Reputation: 6292
Actions are neither moral or immoral. They are just actions. It's the motivation behind the action that determines whether or not the action has become immoral.

For example. One man bashes another in the head with a brick.
1. he then takes the guy's money and runs off.
2. he did it to stop the first guy from beating a small child,

The ACTION is the same. It's the motivation that makes the difference.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2012, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Murfreesboro (nearer Smyrna), TN
694 posts, read 317,113 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat View Post
But wait, what if there is no creator? and from my point of view, that is not even a "what if" it is a "there IS NO creator"
That being said, Moral actions are beneficial to a person's wellbeing, bring pleasure without harm, whereas immoral actions have a victim, violate other's rights and bring pain and harm to the person. Furthermore, consider that man CAN choose based on the sanctity of life without a creator. We are the creators of our lives. Our actions create reality for us. By making good choices we learn to foster GOOD lifestyles, and by good I mean that which causes no suffering for others or relieves suffering of others.
It is a choice that we each must make
This type of thinking is what is destroying the world. You cannot say there is no creator, nor can you say imperically there is. If someone could prove this one way or the other, no one would need faith. I wholeheardedly believe the Bible, but aside from this, you have to have an unchanging standard of what is moral. If you don't have this, things that were once considered immoral can and will become considered moral if enough people agree or if the action becomes common enough. Not violating others rights can't be part of it because people seem to aquire more and more rights as time goes on. If the numbers of rights people have are changeable due to things that were once priviledges now considered rights, everything becomes relative. Is it moral to steal from someone why has so much that they might not even notice that something has been taken? If they have very much more than they "need", are they being hurt by the theft? if the anwer is NO, by your definition, this would not be an immoral action. it is OK to shoot at someone as long as you don't actually hit them? It can go on and on...

Charles Sands
37129
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2012, 05:59 AM
 
Location: Murfreesboro (nearer Smyrna), TN
694 posts, read 317,113 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2 View Post
Actions are neither moral or immoral. They are just actions. It's the motivation behind the action that determines whether or not the action has become immoral.

For example. One man bashes another in the head with a brick.
1. he then takes the guy's money and runs off.
2. he did it to stop the first guy from beating a small child,

The ACTION is the same. It's the motivation that makes the difference.
Stopping the man from assaulting the child is one thing, but why did he take his money? Are you saying it is OK to steal from someone if it is part of a "higher" action?

Charles Sands
37129
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2012, 08:10 AM
 
2,997 posts, read 2,497,309 times
Reputation: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2 View Post
Actions are neither moral or immoral. They are just actions. It's the motivation behind the action that determines whether or not the action has become immoral.

For example. One man bashes another in the head with a brick.
1. he then takes the guy's money and runs off.
2. he did it to stop the first guy from beating a small child,

The ACTION is the same. It's the motivation that makes the difference.
And what is THE standard for determining if a motivation is right or wrong then ? Is it Mans opinion or is it based on a higher absolute (top) standard by which all right from wrong is measured ?

In your example was it then considered 'right' that he stole the guys money ... even though he stopped a child from being beat ? Hardly. If he would have not stole his money , then you could make it a case of a bad action justifying a worse action IE: Its ok to lie to an armed Robber who asks you if there is anyone upstairs so you can save the life of the person upstairs .
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2012, 08:15 AM
 
2,997 posts, read 2,497,309 times
Reputation: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpsTN View Post
This type of thinking is what is destroying the world. You cannot say there is no creator, nor can you say imperically there is. If someone could prove this one way or the other, no one would need faith. I wholeheardedly believe the Bible, but aside from this, you have to have an unchanging standard of what is moral. If you don't have this, things that were once considered immoral can and will become considered moral if enough people agree or if the action becomes common enough. Not violating others rights can't be part of it because people seem to aquire more and more rights as time goes on. If the numbers of rights people have are changeable due to things that were once priviledges now considered rights, everything becomes relative. Is it moral to steal from someone why has so much that they might not even notice that something has been taken? If they have very much more than they "need", are they being hurt by the theft? if the anwer is NO, by your definition, this would not be an immoral action. it is OK to shoot at someone as long as you don't actually hit them? It can go on and on...

Charles Sands
37129

This is exactly the point ive been making. If there is no absolute standard of right from wrong, then objectively speaking, there isnt really any difference between a Hitler whos motivation was pure in his eyes and in the eyes of his huge army versus a Mother Theresa . When the Creator of us all gets dismissed in favor of moral relativism so its populace can get 'freed up' to live as they like to where nothing is really objectively wrong when it comes to lifestyle choices...then you end up with a Nation like America suffering the measurable consequences of its subjective opinions .
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top