Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Just answer my question, Dude. Please. I beg you. What makes your system of morality better than mine?
Oh that's an easy one.
Because MY system of morality is based mostly on empathy. I would have to ask if I would enjoy being the person I am about to interact with. If I found myself doing something I would almost certainly dislike, I would stop doing it. Of course there is the understanding that the other person is not me and therefore may not mind what I'm doing. However, I can be fairly certain that very few people would enjoy being robbed, lied to, murdered, raped, tortured, have their children kidnapped, extorted, coersed, yelled at, sworn at, belittled, etc. etc.
Am I perfect? Nope. Sometimes I cross the line. I try not to. Because as a citizen of the world, as a human being, I have a pretty good understanding of what most people like and don't like in regards to how they are treated. The little things I could be wrong about, sure, but I haven't run across anyone yet who said, "Psst, can you do me a favor? Could you please steal the $500 I have in my wallet? Being stolen from really lightens up my day!"
Now, why is empathy superior? Because it isn't derived from an authoritarian dictator. Whatever your God says is the ultimate law of the land and does NOT take into account the person(s) you are interacting with. More importantly, your morality is an unthinking morality, one that is based on blind obedience rather than actual kindness.
A classic example is the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham MUST have known that cold-blooded murder was wrong and immoral yet he did not stop even once to question the morality of God's command. In fact, Abraham lied to Isaac all the way through the story - either through omission (not telling Isaac the true reason why they were going to that specific mountain in Moriah) or through a direct lie (when Isaac asked where the sacrificial lamb was, Abraham told him that "God would provide it"). I mean, seriously, where is the morality here, that Abraham deceives his own son to get him to the sacrificial spot, then whips out a dagger and doesn't even apologize to Isaac for what he's about to do. And THIS is where you derive your morality, Vizio?
I find it almost ridiculous that there is even a discussion to be had here. The Abraham/Isaac story proves beyond doubt that empathic morality is several orders of magnitude superior to the kind of blindly obedient religious morality you espouse. If your God ordered you to start a second Holocaust and exterminate the Jews, would you not do so even though you know in your heart that it is an atrocious act?
You claim that morality is written on our hearts by God - yet God has routinely ordered his servants to commit acts you and I BOTH know are immoral (no matter how hard you try to justify them). How could God order someone to act in contravention of the morality you claim is written on their hearts? How could Joshua, for instance, bash through the gates of a city and simply start an indiscriminate wholesale slaughter of women, children, puppies and kittens? Yet that's what he did simply because God told him to.
ANY kind of morality that does not involve the questioning of authority is no morality at all, even if YOU think that authority is perfect. Sorry, but any authority who told me to go off and start serial killing, I would want to know why and how it served the greater good ... AND I would ask God to go find someone else. I could never bear being directly responsible for the loss of a single innocent life, much less an entire city.
But would you murder a city, Vizio, if your God told you to? Would you do it without question? Without fail?
It reminds me of a quote by Heinrich Himmler: "If Hitler told me to murder my own mother, I would do it and be glad for the confidence the Fuhrer placed in me."
Let's assume for a moment that Vizio is right and god is necessary to define right and wrong. This means that any action condoned by god is moral and every action condemned by god is thereby immoral. This standard isn't limited to Vizio's moral sense that things like stealing are wrong. If this moral standard is superior then it must extend to all situations and moral scenarios. For example, what if god came down and commanded someone to kill their children, If Vizio's moral standard is superior, then it would be moral for a person to kill their children and immoral for them not to. People who would follow this command are considered evil and sociopathic by the majority of society, although following this command must be considered ethical by Vizio's moral standard.
The truth is that the sort of moral standard Vizio is advocating is closer to the guide for unthinking and unfeeling automatons. If this standard of morality is superior then I'm a Pignose Puffer fish. Anyone with even an ounce of humanity would see the evil that this sort of moral standard thrives on. Needing god to define morality is nothing more than a way for someone to be vile and evil and think they can justify it. The moral standard that Vizio is espousing doesn't allow someone to condemn evil, all it does is allow them to cause it.
Let's assume for a moment that Vizio is right and god is necessary to define right and wrong. This means that any action condoned by god is moral and every action condemned by god is thereby immoral. This standard isn't limited to Vizio's moral sense that things like stealing are wrong. If this moral standard is superior then it must extend to all situations and moral scenarios. For example, what if god came down and commanded someone to kill their children, If Vizio's moral standard is superior, then it would be moral for a person to kill their children and immoral for them not to. People who would follow this command are considered evil and sociopathic by the majority of society, although following this command must be considered ethical by Vizio's moral standard.
The truth is that the sort of moral standard Vizio is advocating is closer to the guide for unthinking and unfeeling automatons. If this standard of morality is superior then I'm a Pignose Puffer fish. Anyone with even an ounce of humanity would see the evil that this sort of moral standard thrives on. Needing god to define morality is nothing more than a way for someone to be vile and evil and think they can justify it. The moral standard that Vizio is espousing doesn't allow someone to condemn evil, all it does is allow them to cause it.
The basis of my argument is that simply put, the OP is asking which person is "more moral". How do we measure that? What do we consider to be "moral"? How do we measure it? If we can't agree on what that means.....why bother trying to measure it?
Imagine a math teacher trying to teach a class where every kid does what they want. Maybe one decides that 9 > 3. Great. Maybe another decides 9 < 3. Ok. Maybe a third decides they are equal. Maybe a 4th thinks that 9 = Wednesday. If you can't agree on the basics....how can we have an intelligent discussion about it? How does that teacher make them understand basic math?
Without a basic definition and standard of morality....how can ANYONE say that ANYONE is right or wrong? I've been asking that, and no one has been able to give me a truly basic, objective definition. The best anyone has given me is either their opinion, or the opinion of society...or a standard that they simply observe. The problem is, none of these are objective. The next guy can and does disagree with them.
The basis of my argument is that simply put, the OP is asking which person is "more moral". How do we measure that? What do we consider to be "moral"? How do we measure it? If we can't agree on what that means.....why bother trying to measure it?
Imagine a math teacher trying to teach a class where every kid does what they want. Maybe one decides that 9 > 3. Great. Maybe another decides 9 < 3. Ok. Maybe a third decides they are equal. Maybe a 4th thinks that 9 = Wednesday. If you can't agree on the basics....how can we have an intelligent discussion about it? How does that teacher make them understand basic math?
Without a basic definition and standard of morality....how can ANYONE say that ANYONE is right or wrong? I've been asking that, and no one has been able to give me a truly basic, objective definition. The best anyone has given me is either their opinion, or the opinion of society...or a standard that they simply observe. The problem is, none of these are objective. The next guy can and does disagree with them.
Because we all have our own yardsticks. Each of us has an opinion of what is right and what isn't. When a group of people compare yardsticks and find commonalities, a society can be created based on those commonalities, which in turn propagates that yardstick.
Objective moralities, of all stripes are simply an attempt to provide some basis for why a particular yardstick ought to be the one we use, but we have not actually been able to find a true objective morality. There is no evidential basis that one even exists, except as a rationalization.
The reason no one has been able to give you a truly objective definition is that they are all postulated, no one has been able to empirically verify that morality exists as something other than asocial construct. Previously I showed that your concept of morality was just as much a social construct, it just includes your imaginary friend as a participant, who somehow always agrees with you and is used as an automatic trump...
Because we all have our own yardsticks. Each of us has an opinion of what is right and what isn't. When a group of people compare yardsticks and find commonalities, a society can be created based on those commonalities, which in turn propagates that yardstick.
Objective moralities, of all stripes are simply an attempt to provide some basis for why a particular yardstick ought to be the one we use, but we have not actually been able to find a true objective morality. There is no evidential basis that one even exists, except as a rationalization.
The reason no one has been able to give you a truly objective definition is that they are all postulated, no one has been able to empirically verify that morality exists as something other than asocial construct. Previously I showed that your concept of morality was just as much a social construct, it just includes your imaginary friend as a participant, who somehow always agrees with you and is used as an automatic trump...
-NoCapo
So, by your statement here....the point of this thread is meaningless. It's not possible to judge right, wrong, moral, immoral. You cannot tell me if the holocaust was wrong, or anything else.
Because MY system of morality is based mostly on empathy. I would have to ask if I would enjoy being the person I am about to interact with. If I found myself doing something I would almost certainly dislike, I would stop doing it. Of course there is the understanding that the other person is not me and therefore may not mind what I'm doing. However, I can be fairly certain that very few people would enjoy being robbed, lied to, murdered, raped, tortured, have their children kidnapped, extorted, coersed, yelled at, sworn at, belittled, etc. etc.
Am I perfect? Nope. Sometimes I cross the line. I try not to. Because as a citizen of the world, as a human being, I have a pretty good understanding of what most people like and don't like in regards to how they are treated. The little things I could be wrong about, sure, but I haven't run across anyone yet who said, "Psst, can you do me a favor? Could you please steal the $500 I have in my wallet? Being stolen from really lightens up my day!"
Now, why is empathy superior? Because it isn't derived from an authoritarian dictator.
Without a basic definition and standard of morality....how can ANYONE say that ANYONE is right or wrong? I've been asking that, and no one has been able to give me a truly basic, objective definition. The best anyone has given me is either their opinion, or the opinion of society...or a standard that they simply observe. The problem is, none of these are objective. The next guy can and does disagree with them.
I know you like to think morality from the Bible is objective.
It's not.
It never has been.
You also bow to the will of society even when it comes to deciding which moral principles from the Bible to observe. There are hundreds of do's and don't's in the Bible, Vizio. How many of them do you adhere to?
Even God himself changed morality once already (unless you still think we should be stoning to death witches). How do you know it won't happen again? If your vaunted Bible can't keep it straight, why should we consider it objective?
And there are plenty of people who interpret Biblical morality different than you, and others still who place a much greater emphasis on a completely different set of sins. Who is right? Which sets of morality should I adhere to?
And do you adhere to them all, Vizio? Every last rule, every last law, every last word of advice?
I very much doubt it.
Thus even you cannot avoid the subjective aspect of morality - and let's just face facts, it IS subjective.
I know you like to think morality from the Bible is objective.
I think there is such a thing as objective morality. We all agree there are some things that are always wrong.
Quote:
It's not.
It never has been.
You also bow to the will of society even when it comes to deciding which moral principles from the Bible to observe. There are hundreds of do's and don't's in the Bible, Vizio. How many of them do you adhere to?
Even God himself changed morality once already (unless you still think we should be stoning to death witches). How do you know it won't happen again? If your vaunted Bible can't keep it straight, why should we consider it objective?
And there are plenty of people who interpret Biblical morality different than you, and others still who place a much greater emphasis on a completely different set of sins. Who is right? Which sets of morality should I adhere to?
And do you adhere to them all, Vizio? Every last rule, every last law, every last word of advice?
I very much doubt it.
Thus even you cannot avoid the subjective aspect of morality - and let's just face facts, it IS subjective.
Are you ready to concede the idea of objective morality? If not, this is just getting us off track. I'd rather not waste time in the weeds. Let's tackle the big stuff first and not hijack the thread any further.
I think there is such a thing as objective morality. We all agree there are some things that are always wrong.
We all seem to agree, but that doesn't necessarily extend to everyone on Earth who has ever lived. If even just one person does not agree, this seems to disprove your theory of objective morality. Simply because one group of individuals agree that a specific case is wrong, does not make it an objective wrong. It only demonstrates that this group have a common concept of morality, much like all southerners agree that Duke's mayonnaise is the best.
We all seem to agree, but that doesn't necessarily extend to everyone on Earth who has ever lived.
How do you know? What makes you believe that Hitler didn't KNOW it was wrong to do certain things...but suppressed that knowledge?
Quote:
If even just one person does not agree, this seems to disprove your theory of objective morality. Simply because one group of individuals agree that a specific case is wrong, does not make it an objective wrong. It only demonstrates that this group have a common concept of morality, much like all southerners agree that Duke's mayonnaise is the best.
Or it just means that the one person would rather ignore it and just do their own thing.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Well said, Shirina. I agree.
