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.
You keep looking for authoritative. What does that mean? I suspect that the only answer you will accept as authoritative is god.
Do you know of any authoritative source of morality on earth?
Quote:
Sorry, that is silly. God doesn't exist, nor is god a good moral figure. We established that several pages ago.
Utilitarian morality is a practical system because it works. It functions pretty well. It is not perfect, nor does it need to be perfect. It is a good moral system because we understand it (unless you are a particularly obtuse Christian). It is based upon a common human understanding. That is it. There is no more. It is not objective, nor does it flow from a divine being.
But it doesn't work. We've demonstrated that. We've shown that different societies can have different systems of morality.
In fact, any changes will have to come from the Christian community.
Don't hold your breath, Shirina. As these threads illustrate..... it's too fragmented with too many "my way or the highway" believers. Let's face it, telling someone they'll burn forever because of their beliefs is a power trip for many of the people saying it.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-21-2014 at 02:04 PM..
Ah but I DO have an answer. Morality comes from our Creator's purpose for our existence. It is our purpose that defines morality. Everything that is constructive to our purpose is moral. Everything that is destructive to our purpose is immoral. Simple. We either have a purpose for existing or we don't. If we do . . . IT MUST determine morality. I believe we do. You probably believe we do. This eliminates all the caprice in the silly idea that it is God's whim that decides what is or is not moral. All we need to do is determine WHAT our purpose for existing IS and we have all the authority we need for determining what is or is not moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So then you think the source of morality is God?
Yes . . . the very concept of morality obtains its legitimacy from the existence of God who establishes a PURPOSE for our existence. But it is that PURPOSE for our existence and NOT the whims or caprice of God that determine morality. In other words, Vizio . . . morality is NOT whatever God supposedly told our ignorant ancestors through inspiration. It ultimately comes down to discerning with sincere and reasoned effort what the PURPOSE of human existence IS and those things that are constructive to that purpose.
Yes . . . the very concept of morality obtains its legitimacy from the existence of God who establishes a PURPOSE for our existence. But it is that PURPOSE for our existence and NOT the whims or caprice of God that determine morality. In other words, Vizio . . . morality is NOT whatever God supposedly told our ignorant ancestors through inspiration. It ultimately comes down to discerning with sincere and reasoned effort what the PURPOSE of human existence IS and those things that are constructive to that purpose.
So the concept of morality comes from God...but it's whatever people decide?
You have not established that there is a god of any kind
You CAN'T establish that there is any kind of omnipotent, sentient, anthropomorphic being that has a personal interest in every human being
You deny the innate morality of humans
You deny that morality exists and can be defined with the simple construct of "If it feels good, do it. If it harms you or someone else, don't"
I recognize that you don't believe in God. I'm not claiming on this thread yet that God is the source...I'm only clarifying what another poster responded with.
You haven't been able to tell me who is wrong if someone disagrees with you, or how you determine it...but you are clear in the fact that you think you are.
Do you know of any authoritative source of morality on earth?
But it doesn't work. We've demonstrated that. We've shown that different societies can have different systems of morality.
No, not only do I not know of an authoritative source of morality on earth, I am on record in this thread as saying there is none. Do you even bother to read the posts you are replying to?
No, we absolutely have not proven that different societies have different systems of morality. You are trying to slide that through without proving it. Even if a society had a twisted sense of morality, I wouldn't care, as that is not my point. My point is that we can, and functionally have, built a system of morality based upon doing no harm and social empathy. Cupper states it differently than I do, but it is the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So then you have no basis for condemning the Nazis. They were acting upon their social construct of morality.
Sure I do. Let's go back to step one for the 500th time. Do no harm.
Do you need it in caps? DO NO HARM
Perhaps colors? Do no harm.
You keep ignoring the basic, sole, only functional system of morality that people actually adhere to in favor of straw man attacks.
I'm grateful that the inability to grasp the concept of human-based morality is limited to a very, very few.
Love the response.
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.
