Morality

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by RayCaptain, Jun 17, 2018.

  1. hatchet13

    hatchet13 The Nasty Tusken

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    In the middle of the Dune Sea - Tatooine or Austra
    Ratings:
    +29 / 1 / -0
    ......sooooooo no ?
     
  2. Hallsinger

    Hallsinger A Weaver of Tales

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    In the darkest domains of my mind.
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Naw man. Don't even go there. XD
     
  3. hatchet13

    hatchet13 The Nasty Tusken

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    In the middle of the Dune Sea - Tatooine or Austra
    Ratings:
    +29 / 1 / -0
    Would it be immoral to say that its too late and that I not only went there , but I liked it so much I'm gonna just stay .
    There's only one thing better that stomping the life out of a fucking scumbag jawa and that is having two of the little pricks to stomp.
    And only one thing is better that crushing two jawas - that's right - stomping three of them .
    And do you know what is so much better than kill-stomping three jawas ? Kill-stomping four .
    And on
    And on .
    forever
     
  4. RayCaptain

    RayCaptain Generalkommentermarshall of TFF

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,828
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Not where I wanna be
    Ratings:
    +440 / 3 / -10
    This is precisely the conundrum that civilization will face as it grows steadily more secular. Right now, even though the vast majority aren't adherent to any religion (and I do mean adherent and not simply responding to a census that you are of X faith) the institutional echoes of the faithful still exist in some capacity and resonate through Occidental culture. But with the passing of religion from the norm and increasingly extremist take on avoidance of even the illusion of religiosity, you'll see people scramble to explain concepts like right and wrong, much more what goes into either category beyond their personal likes and dislikes. What is more likely though, is that these people will do what they always do in the face of a question that poses difficulty. Just ignore it and press on to legalizing and criminalizing what you like and dislike respectively.
     
  5. TirelessSeven

    TirelessSeven Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2018
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +83 / 0 / -0
    I think morality and religion have been considered separate issues in a number of quite successful societies for a while now. Certainly long enough that we don't have to wonder how morality will change in a society that is, on the whole, becoming less reliant on religion to guide/govern its moral identity. Whether we think it's generally a good or bad thing, we don't have to guess what the consequences will be if more people continue to seek moral guidance elsewhere, we can already see them. Call me a cynic, but I tend to think if it's not one thing trying to pull your strings, it's another, and no institution owns the moral high-ground :rolleyes:, so to speak.

    In response to the prompt in the OP: If we consider morality to mean, what is good and what is bad, do we consider the following statement morally ambiguous?:

    All humans should, absolutely (as a birthright), be afforded the opportunity to live happy and healthy lives?
    (Of course, I'm not suggesting this is in any way possible, only that I think it's a good area to discuss, philosophically)

    Is a happy and healthy life for all even a worthy (morally sound) aspiration for us as a species?
     
  6. Hallsinger

    Hallsinger A Weaver of Tales

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    In the darkest domains of my mind.
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Aaaaand that's the catch. Life isn't about happy, healthy lives for Christians, nor is it about what we deserve. That's why Christianity works. In truth, absolute morality is a standard that no human can achieve. What we "deserve" is to be punished for eternity for every infraction of the moral code, which was created by an absolute God, that we commit. And that's why Christianity is based on the grace and love of the absolute God.

    You say that morality and religion have been considered separate issues in multiple "successful" societies. Define successful. Successful economically? Successful socially? Or successful morally? If you mean successful in terms of economic or social achievements, then I'd ask you how are being moral and being successful in those terms related? Are you saying that because we do the "right" thing that we'll be somehow rewarded by fate?

    And if you are talking about success in terms of morality when separated from religion....how would you define 'moral'? If you don't have a standard outside of social constructs, morality can literally mean whatever you want it to. If morality is simply following the law or following your own 'conscience', then whenever either of those change there is a change in morality. And if morality can change, is it truly morality? Can the definitions of "right" and "wrong" really change with ever ebb and flow of the tide of opinions? Because look at present-day America. Many people believe that abortions are moral, and many believe them immoral. Say abortions are legalized. Does that make abortions moral? And anyway, who are you to decide morality? Who is anyone?

    Just my two cents. :)
     
  7. Hallsinger

    Hallsinger A Weaver of Tales

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    In the darkest domains of my mind.
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    wow man. Just wow. I'm not even gonna.
     
  8. TirelessSeven

    TirelessSeven Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2018
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +83 / 0 / -0
    Hi Hallsinger. I'll try to address all of your questions.

    I'd define a successful society as one in which humans live and work together for the betterment of all (generally speaking). That also falls into the category of a morally successful society, for me. I would add that in a progressive moral society, morality (and the resulting benefits of a (mostly) happy and healthy populace) would be its own recompense. Before I posted, I read all the comments in the thread and found myself nodding when someone said that morality can be loosely defined by the idiom, 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you'. When you consider that statement - even if you don't agree that it's morally sound - the pay-off is implicit.

    Another thing. How societies can interact with one another and be morally successful is extremely interesting to me. Mostly because it's such a difficult problem when - as has been mentioned earlier in the thread - different societies have different standards of right and wrong. I'd argue that it's essential to find common ground, first. Things we can all agree should be considered universally moral.

    I'd define it the same way the dictionary does. Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive. They never have been.

    This, to me is the purpose of the discussion. Can we agree on principles that we now consider to be 'absolutely moral' (and by that I mean unchangeable)? My instinct is, yes, we probably could. Will we be able to find instances in the past where societies haven't adhered to those principles? Absolutely, we will.

    Okay, this is already running away from me. I'll try to brief from here, please don't take it to mean flippant. I'm genuinely interested to hear your views and continue the discussion.:)

    Firstly, I could substitute 'Christianity' with the name of just about any religion with a set of rules and an afterlife - which is quite a lot of them. Secondly, if life isn't about being happy and healthy for Christians, then what is it about? What are the guiding moral principles of your religion and how do you differentiate them from those of other - let's say Abrahamic to take a workable slice of successful world religions - Abrahamic faiths?

    Morality was a topic of discussion for humans long before Jesus challenged the money-lenders. If your whole argument comes down to humans being unqualified to decide what is moral because they're not the God you believe in... then yeah, this whole thread of discussion has probably been a waste of our time.

    (But I don't believe that).
     
  9. Hallsinger

    Hallsinger A Weaver of Tales

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    In the darkest domains of my mind.
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Hey TirelessSeven, you've got some nice points :).

    I agree that in a moral society, healthiness and happiness in general would be a natural result. Just something that struck me as interesting was your use of this quote:
    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
    ....You do realize that that's actually from the Bible, right? And regardless of where it came from, saying is easy, doing is harder. How often do we struggle to actually follow this statement? All the time, for me. One of the great things about Christianity is that we receive the ability from our King to overcome the struggles.

    (Pardon me, I don't know how to quote ppl on here yet)

    "I'd define it the same way the dictionary does. Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive. They never have been."

    Well, whilst the dictionary might define morality and moral as regarding the ideals of right and wrong, it doesn't actually expound as to what right and wrong are. All people are morally corrupt, which automatically disqualifies them from being allowed to determine, not necessarily the definition of morality, but the definition of being moral. That's why we have a God who does it for us.

    "Firstly, I could substitute 'Christianity' with the name of just about any religion with a set of rules and an afterlife - which is quite a lot of them. Secondly, if life isn't about being happy and healthy for Christians, then what is it about? What are the guiding moral principles of your religion and how do you differentiate them from those of other - let's say Abrahamic to take a workable slice of successful world religions - Abrahamic faiths?"

    I'm a little sad, but not really surprised, that you consider Christianity the same as other religions, Abrahamic or not. Before everyone starts thinking of me as a religious fanatic, you might want to do some research. Factually, Christianity is the only religion on the face of the earth with a grace-based system. The Bible has been proved scientifically as one of the most trustworthy historical documents, a collection of separate manuscripts written by different people across centuries, all speaking of a single, unchanging, holy God and His Son. Lots of people like to compare Christianity to Islam or Judaism. Problem--neither Islam nor Judaism are grace based. Judaism is about following the Mosaic Law, whilst Islam is about the Five Pillars, and they actually kill Christians, so...

    Sorry, this is running away from me a bit. My point is you can't actually substitute any religion except maybe Judaism on certain points for Christianity. Judaism because it believes in similar precepts regarding morality, but because they do not accept Jesus or his teachings, they also don't really work in most situations. Anyway, for Christians, life is about "loving your neighbor as yourself", spreading the word about Jesus and His sacrifice, and living for the glory of our King. We strive in life to please Him because of His love for us. What guides our moral principles is those statutes written in the Bible, where many commands were specifically spoken by God or His Son. That is our guide for morality, and we are also guided through gray areas by the Holy Spirit, which acts as a pure, just conscience. That's how we know right from wrong.

    "Morality was a topic of discussion for humans long before Jesus challenged the money-lenders. If your whole argument comes down to humans being unqualified to decide what is moral because they're not the God you believe in... then yeah, this whole thread of discussion has probably been a waste of our time."

    Actually, that is what I believe in. :) Humans don't get to decide what morality is because they are immoral. Only a being who is able to fulfill morality completely is allowed to decide what being moral means. It's like you wouldn't let a convict preside over a trial. It just wouldn't work. In terms of morality, being moral doesn't necessarily mean following what you believe is "right", it means following what He says is right. :) Hope I didn't ramble on too long there...XD
     
  10. TirelessSeven

    TirelessSeven Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2018
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +83 / 0 / -0
    Hallsinger, to quote someone, you just highlight the appropriate section of text in their post and click the 'quote' option. This can be done as many times as you like (I usually read through a post and quote the parts I want to respond to as I go), then, when you come to your own post you'll see the 'insert quotes' option. You can add them all - in the order you selected them - or delete some if you like.

    Yes, I did. I don't actually have an issue with religion, generally speaking (certainly not averse to using it for my own ends:)). The issue, for me, is often not with the text itself, but with how people choose to interpret the text.

    One of the great things about Islam is that we receive the ability from Allah to overcome our struggles.

    One of the great things about Judaism is that we receive the ability from the Torah to overcome our struggles.

    Hang on. Didn't Jesus sacrifice himself for our sins, thus cleansing us of original sin? Why can't some of us be morally decent?

    I'm not really looking for the answer to those questions. The idea of 'original sin' is not for me anyway and I honestly don't want to turn this into a debate about Christian dogma. I disagree entirely with your statement that all people are (inherently) morally corrupt. I do think it's something we have to learn. We're not born with the ability to understand the concepts of right and wrong, but we certainly have the capacity to live morally sound lives. If there's anything we lack in modern societies, it's the means. How can I live an ethically sound life in a developed country? It's pretty difficult when you think about it. Does that mean I lack the capacity to define what a moral life is? No.

    Let's look at the passage in question:

    Life isn't about happy, healthy lives for Muslims, nor is it about what we deserve. That's why Islam works. In truth, absolute morality is a standard that no human can achieve. What we "deserve" is to be punished for eternity for every infraction of the moral code, which was created by an absolute God, that we commit. And that's why Islam is based on the grace and love of the absolute God.

    To save space, I won't bother doing Judaism here.

    I kinda want to ask: In what way is it to be considered trustworthy? But I won't. The Bible has undergone several changes in its existence and shouldn't be considered an unchanged document at all. This is straying a bit far from the OP discussion, but I would be happy to provide links to external articles which prove my point.

    Grace: verb
    1. 1.
      bring honour or credit to (someone or something) by one's attendance or participation.
    Muslims do this. Jews do this. Mormons do this. Buddhists also do this. Grace is not exclusive to Christianity because it gets a lot of mentions in the Bible. We've been ceremonially honouring our dead (and spiritual ideals) since we lived in caves.

    No religion is exactly the same as any other. That's not what I was suggesting. You made a statement suggesting why you thought Christianity was the only moral religion (actually, the only avenue any of us have toward a moral existence). My point was that I could substitute the name of any religion into your statement. I stand by my point.

    Okay, so if you know right from wrong, this is definitely the place to discuss that. That is, after all, what we're attempting. However, if all you have is: Christians are moral - because they are - because they believe in Christian god and Jesus, and worship with grace.

    That's not very enlightening, to me. But point made. I understand you believe that, I just don't agree with you.

    Okay, so if you know right from wrong, this is definitely the place to discuss that. That is, after all, what we're attempting. However, if all you have is: Christians are moral - because they are - because they believe in Christian god and Jesus, and worship with grace.

    That's not very enlightening, to me. But point made. I understand you believe that, I just don't agree with you.

    I know I repeated myself a little there... apologies for that.;)