Who teaches better morals, St. Paul or Mark Twain? (Apostle Paul, believing, religions)
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.
Agreed. So I think we need to lay the groundwork. We've established that if morality is just my opinion, or your opinion, or society's opinion, then it's toothless--and it has no hold on what anyone else says or does or believes. Until we establish that morality comes from something higher than us....we're just going to be arguing a meaningless point.
No. We're not. You are. Civilizations have had morality with and without any god or gods for thousands of years. Otherwise, civilizations would not have developed as they have. Aborigines in the Outback of Australia have morality without God. The Aztec and Inca civilizations had morality in the Americas before they were destroyed by the Christians invading their lands. You have so far failed to acknowledge even a single point that other posters have made. Fact: Morality exists in places were the populations have never heard of any God or gods. Therefore, your statement that morality comes from something higher than us is pure fantasy.
Agreed. So I think we need to lay the groundwork. We've established that if morality is just my opinion, or your opinion, or society's opinion, then it's toothless--and it has no hold on what anyone else says or does or believes. Until we establish that morality comes from something higher than us....we're just going to be arguing a meaningless point.
Woah, wait a moment! You most certainly have not established that! That is my point, morality when viewed pragmatically, appears to be an evolving social construct not a universal absolute.
Morality is meaningless in isolation. If you are the only being existing, what is moral? Can you do anything immoral? No one else can be harmed, no one else can be made happier. Morality doesn't mean anything until there are other entities in play. If you have two people, now morality makes sense as a negotiated code of behavior between people. We agree to limits on our actions in order to coexist. If the power disparity between the two people is large, then the morality is skewed and a set of moral rules that makes that power disparity "right" is agreed upon.
A prime example of this is the way you view God. The power disparity between God and man is ostensibly infinite, therefore "right" is whatever God says it is, because he will kill and or torture you for eternity if you argue. As more and more people are integrated into the morality structure, the balance of power can shift causing a tribal morality to be different than a familial morality. The only reason you can assume that your morality is "objective" is becasue you assume the power disparity between God and man is infinite. No matter what we do, how we grow, what we learn, we will never be able to make God treat us fairly, with dignity, and respect. The downside to this is that there is no reason to believe it is actually true!
So, if you don't want to discuss it any further without everyone automatically ceding you the argument before you start, then you are right, there is nothing further to discuss. The first thing should be establishing the necessity for an objective morality, then the reality of an objective morality, and then we can discuss if your's is the right one.
Woah, wait a moment! You most certainly have not established that! That is my point, morality when viewed pragmatically, appears to be an evolving social construct not a universal absolute.
So then you cannot say with any certainty that anything is wrong? The Nazis were not wrong? After all...they were just following their own set of morals.
Quote:
Morality is meaningless in isolation. If you are the only being existing, what is moral? Can you do anything immoral? No one else can be harmed, no one else can be made happier.
If you create morality, then you get to define what is moral and what isn't.
Quote:
Morality doesn't mean anything until there are other entities in play.
So right and wrong are dependent upon your existence? Why?
Quote:
If you have two people, now morality makes sense as a negotiated code of behavior between people. We agree to limits on our actions in order to coexist.
What makes this definition/standard correct? You can't just make assertions and run with them. Please explain.
Quote:
If the power disparity between the two people is large, then the morality is skewed and a set of moral rules that makes that power disparity "right" is agreed upon.
A prime example of this is the way you view God. The power disparity between God and man is ostensibly infinite, therefore "right" is whatever God says it is, because he will kill and or torture you for eternity if you argue. As more and more people are integrated into the morality structure, the balance of power can shift causing a tribal morality to be different than a familial morality. The only reason you can assume that your morality is "objective" is becasue you assume the power disparity between God and man is infinite. No matter what we do, how we grow, what we learn, we will never be able to make God treat us fairly, with dignity, and respect. The downside to this is that there is no reason to believe it is actually true!
Actually, God determines "right" because he created the universe. He created logic. He created morality itself. The very concept of morality does not exist without him.
Quote:
So, if you don't want to discuss it any further without everyone automatically ceding you the argument before you start, then you are right, there is nothing further to discuss. The first thing should be establishing the necessity for an objective morality, then the reality of an objective morality, and then we can discuss if your's is the right one.
-NoCapo
If you don't believe in the concept of an objective morality, and that morality is not subjective, please explain to me when it would be morally good to torture babies simply for my own personal pleasure. I can't imagine how that would be good. I'm assuming you can't, either.
Let's consider the two cases of where Paul returns the slave verses Huck Finn tearing up the letter to the slave owner of Jim.
Paul returns the runaway slave, Onesimus, to his "rightful owner," Philemon. He preaches that this is the right thing to do.
Huck, on the other hand, fully aware of the lessons he learned in Sunday school and Paul's admonition that slaves belong to owners and runaways need to be returned, does the right thing morally stating "All right, then, I'll go to hell!"
Who is giving better moral guidance here? Paul or Huck Finn?
Why?
It is said that a literary text can be analyzed and interpreted preferring a critical method rather than another, you can use one of them , or perhaps choose the one that you feel are most appropriate from time to time.. according to the information already in your possession.
So then you cannot say with any certainty that anything is wrong? The Nazis were not wrong? After all...they were just following their own set of morals.
Yep, they were, and I think they are wrong. When moralities clash, either one party convinces the other, one party subjugates the other, or one party kills the other. In the case of WWII, moralities clashed and the result is that throughout much of the world it is not part of our shared morality that ethnic cleansing and genocide is a horrific, inexcusable evil. This has not always been the case, individual societies have championed this kind of behavior for millenia, but as our view of what is right and wrong has shifted, we have decided that genocide is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If you create morality, then you get to define what is moral and what isn't.
Kind of. I can make any decision I want, the society I live in will "correct" me is my morality does not line up with the over all culture. Other cultures that interact with mine will "correct" each other, moralities will influence each other in other ways ( intermarriage, syncreticism, etc...) and we will tend toward a consensus that will shift over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So right and wrong are dependent upon your existence? Why?
Becasue morality is a social construct. Morality doesn't mean much to a rock, agreed? morality also doesn't mean much to a single living creature. If you are the only thing in existence, what can you do that is immoral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
What makes this definition/standard correct? You can't just make assertions and run with them. Please explain.
Correct or incorrect, I am trying to describe the phenomenon of morality that we see. You make observations and create a model based on those observations. This is my best attempt to describe the social phenomenon of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Actually, God determines "right" because he created the universe. He created logic. He created morality itself. The very concept of morality does not exist without him.
To quote someone you are very familiar with," You can't just make assertions and run with them." For this to be true, you would need to demonstrate that a God exists, and that He is who you think he is. Otherwise you are arguing that morality is what you say it is because your invisible friend told you so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If you don't believe in the concept of an objective morality, and that morality is not subjective, please explain to me when it would be morally good to torture babies simply for my own personal pleasure. I can't imagine how that would be good. I'm assuming you can't, either.
Back to baby torture are we? you can't seem to get away from it, I would see a shrink about this obsession if I were you...
I think you are misunderstanding me. I did say that morality is subjective. I do not believe it is morally good to torture babies, and I can try to walk you through a logical set of reason why I believe that based on the principles of reciprocity, the maximization of happiness, and the equality of humanity. I don't think you care about that, though. The real answer is that our society has determined, for whatever reasons, that it is evil and will punish you for it. Other societies have allowed forms of baby killing, even painful and gruesome ones, and they believed they were right. I do not, so I will continue to try to influence our shared morality to be more of what I believe to be good and less of what I believe to be bad.
You're being inconsistent. If morality is only based on our opinions, then you have no authority over someone else's sense of morality.
Quote:
When moralities clash, either one party convinces the other, one party subjugates the other, or one party kills the other.
You're failing to account for the existence of morality in the first place.
Quote:
In the case of WWII, moralities clashed and the result is that throughout much of the world it is not part of our shared morality that ethnic cleansing and genocide is a horrific, inexcusable evil. This has not always been the case, individual societies have championed this kind of behavior for millenia, but as our view of what is right and wrong has shifted, we have decided that genocide is wrong.
You seem to want to have it both ways.
Quote:
Kind of. I can make any decision I want, the society I live in will "correct" me is my morality does not line up with the over all culture. Other cultures that interact with mine will "correct" each other, moralities will influence each other in other ways ( intermarriage, syncreticism, etc...) and we will tend toward a consensus that will shift over time.
Yes, and no. You may decide your morality -- but it's only applicable to you -- and those in your control.
Quote:
Becasue morality is a social construct. Morality doesn't mean much to a rock, agreed? morality also doesn't mean much to a single living creature. If you are the only thing in existence, what can you do that is immoral?
If there is only 1 person on earth....say, a woman. Morality does not exist? Suppose she has a child....how does morality get created? It suddenly exists when the baby is born?
Quote:
Correct or incorrect, I am trying to describe the phenomenon of morality that we see. You make observations and create a model based on those observations. This is my best attempt to describe the social phenomenon of morality.
What if I describe it differently? Which one of is is right?
Quote:
To quote someone you are very familiar with," You can't just make assertions and run with them." For this to be true, you would need to demonstrate that a God exists, and that He is who you think he is. Otherwise you are arguing that morality is what you say it is because your invisible friend told you so...
Back to baby torture are we? you can't seem to get away from it, I would see a shrink about this obsession if I were you...
It serves to prove a point.
Quote:
I think you are misunderstanding me. I did say that morality is subjective. I do not believe it is morally good to torture babies, and I can try to walk you through a logical set of reason why I believe that based on the principles of reciprocity,
the maximization of happiness, and the equality of humanity.
Good to hear. So it is not subjective.
Quote:
I don't think you care about that, though. The real answer is that our society has determined, for whatever reasons, that it is evil and will punish you for it. Other societies have allowed forms of baby killing, even painful and gruesome ones, and they believed they were right. I do not, so I will continue to try to influence our shared morality to be more of what I believe to be good and less of what I believe to be bad.
-NoCapo
So, you do thing it's ok to torture babies solely for your personal pleasure IF society says it's ok?
So then you cannot say with any certainty that anything is wrong? The Nazis were not wrong? After all...they were just following their own set of morals.
Actually, if we go by the Christian God, then no, we cannot say with any certainty that the Nazis were wrong. After all, both God and the Nazis committed genocide. Both God and the Nazis waged aggressive wars. Both God and the Nazis advocated and performed slavery. Both God and Hitler were authoritarian dictators. I mean, holy damn ... how CAN we be certain the Nazis were wrong when both Hitler and God are so similar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If you create morality, then you get to define what is moral and what isn't.
Yep, that's exactly what we do. WE decide what is moral and what isn't - as WE have done since the dawning of human intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
What makes this definition/standard correct? You can't just make assertions and run with them. Please explain.
No, no ... what makes YOUR definition/standard correct? Is it whatever your god says? Well, what about the morality of other gods and other religions? Why wouldn't one of those standards be correct? Why does it have to be the definition/standard that you just happen to agree with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Actually, God determines "right" because he created the universe.
Your definition/standard of morality is merely "might makes right." What kind of standard is that, when your God has the same morals as any number of barbarian chieftains?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
He created morality itself. The very concept of morality does not exist without him.
Uh huh ... so do you think your God spent all of his time worrying about what we did with our genitalia? Because were I to guess based on the behavior of many Christians, I would think that Christianity revolves around hating on gays, contraception, and a plethora of other sexual sin - well, except pedophilia, of course.
I know the point has been made a hundred times - that morality existed long before your particular god ever saw the light of day. Many cultures existed just fine - in fact better - before they ever saw a Bible or ever heard the name of Jesus.
One of the ways in which Christianity managed to secure dominance in the Western world was by hijacking everything that had meaning in the lives of those living at the time, including morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If you don't believe in the concept of an objective morality, and that morality is not subjective, please explain to me when it would be morally good to torture babies simply for my own personal pleasure.
Maybe you should ask your God - considering how many children and babies he slaughtered in the Old Testament when he didn't have to.
You're being inconsistent. If morality is only based on our opinions, then you have no authority over someone else's sense of morality.
Again, kind of. Authority is sort of beside the point. I can either force them to do what I want, convince them that I am right, negotiate some common ground with them, be persuaded by their morality, be subjugated, or refrain from any further contact. Who is right or wrong is a little beside the point here, as it is a social construct. The participants' view of right and wrong changes based how the interaction goes, meanwhile my view as a the omniscient 3rd person narrator is unchanged...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If there is only 1 person on earth....say, a woman. Morality does not exist? Suppose she has a child....how does morality get created? It suddenly exists when the baby is born?
In a sense, yes. Before there is a second entity, what can a person do that is immoral? Is there some way to treat an inanimate object that is immoral? Is there something that one can do to one's self that is inherently immoral? I really can't think of anything, can you?
Once there is another entity, morality comes in to play. I actually think in this sense it is only an internal morality, that is the morality of an action is debated within a single actor. The child has years to go before it can express an point of view on the morality of its situation, but the mother can formulate a morality based on assuming that what she wants or needs is also applicable to the child, sort of the primeval golden rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yes, and no. You may decide your morality -- but it's only applicable to you -- and those in your control.
What if I describe it differently? Which one of is is right?
Correct! I can make a moral judgement about those outside of my reach but I am powerless to do anything about it. When my influence expands to the point that there are reasons for others to consider my point of view (we want to trade, we intermarry, I have a bigger army, etc...) then we either negotiate a shared moral consensus or some one applies force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
It serves to prove a point.
Not so far, it hasn't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Good to hear. So it is not subjective.
...
So, you do thing it's ok to torture babies solely for your personal pleasure IF society says it's ok?
[/quote]
Your reading comprehension is a bit lacking Viz. It is subjective, but that doesn't change the fact that I still think I am right... I do not think baby torture is ok, even if some society endorses it. Their subjective moral view doesn't change mine, I still think they are wrong, I just recognize that if I want to change it I either need to convince or coerce them into changing... I can't take the eay way out an appeal to some cosmic constant that only I can correctly interpret, I have to make my case using the elements of human experience available to all of us, like empathy, self interest, and social approbation.
Again, kind of. Authority is sort of beside the point. I can either force them to do what I want, convince them that I am right, negotiate some common ground with them, be persuaded by their morality, be subjugated, or refrain from any further contact. Who is right or wrong is a little beside the point here, as it is a social construct. The participants' view of right and wrong changes based how the interaction goes, meanwhile my view as a the omniscient 3rd person narrator is unchanged...
But ultimately, you don't control if it is "right" or wrong. You just impose your will.
Quote:
In a sense, yes. Before there is a second entity, what can a person do that is immoral?
Is there some way to treat an inanimate object that is immoral? Is there something that one can do to one's self that is inherently immoral? I really can't think of anything, can you?
Suicide....pornography....drugs.
Quote:
Once there is another entity, morality comes in to play. I actually think in this sense it is only an internal morality, that is the morality of an action is debated within a single actor. The child has years to go before it can express an point of view on the morality of its situation, but the mother can formulate a morality based on assuming that what she wants or needs is also applicable to the child, sort of the primeval golden rule.
Again...you really need to establish that argument before you run with it. What defines morality as ONLY being something that happens between 2 people or more?
Quote:
Correct! I can make a moral judgement about those outside of my reach but I am powerless to do anything about it. When my influence expands to the point that there are reasons for others to consider my point of view (we want to trade, we intermarry, I have a bigger army, etc...) then we either negotiate a shared moral consensus or some one applies force.
That contradicts the first point in this post above, where you suggested you can't actually decide morlaity -- but simply impose your will. Wrong is wrong, regardless of belief.
Quote:
Not so far, it hasn't...
You can lead a horse to water....
Quote:
Your reading comprehension is a bit lacking Viz. It is subjective, but that doesn't change the fact that I still think I am right... I do not think baby torture is ok, even if some society endorses it.
Their subjective moral view doesn't change mine, I still think they are wrong, I just recognize that if I want to change it I either need to convince or coerce them into changing... I can't take the eay way out an appeal to some cosmic constant that only I can correctly interpret, I have to make my case using the elements of human experience available to all of us, like empathy, self interest, and social approbation.
But ultimately, you don't control if it is "right" or wrong. You just impose your will.
That is because as a social construct, a culture imposing its will is determining right and wrong, from its viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Suicide....pornography....drugs.
Can you elaborate how these would be immoral? And keep in mind we have specifically postulated only one entity, God is not involved here... Once you introduce God, you have two entities, one of which can impose its will arbitrarily on the other by the means of a massive power disparity, or exacly the situation you are decrying above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Again...you really need to establish that argument before you run with it. What defines morality as ONLY being something that happens between 2 people or more?
This is a good point. So how would you define morality for a single entity? For example, take God. Before he created angels, the universe, mankind, when he was totally and utterly alone in the void, what morality bound Him? What could he do that was right or wrong?
I honestly can't think of any moral issue that has any meaning for a singular entity. Clearly honesty, kindness, fairness, property rights, none of these have any meaning in this case. the only thing you could maybe argue is that self harm is wrong, but why would it be? If there is only one entity, wouldn't whatever it thinks is right, be right? There is no one to gainsay it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
That contradicts the first point in this post above, where you suggested you can't actually decide morlaity -- but simply impose your will. Wrong is wrong, regardless of belief.
Again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove, that morality is objective. I would argue that wrong as well as right are in the eye of the beholder. If I can spread my point of view, then I have effectively decided morality...
-NoCapo
Last edited by NoCapo; 05-01-2014 at 09:18 AM..
Reason: grammer goof
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.
