Morals

[QuirkyTemplate]

Morality.

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, when you see a boat out in the ocean, there are basically three things you are worried about. First, how to steer the boat -- individual ethics. Secondly, how to keep from bumping into other boats -- relational ethics. And lastly, to know what you are doing out there in the first place -- origin and purpose of ethics.

Where does morality come from?

What is the purpose of morality?

In what way does it apply my life?

In what way does it affect our interaction with others?

I was going to post this in the cloning thread, but this subject could easily dwarf the other topic (and as arch/buck have pointed out to me, other moral subjects can be discussed with agreed upon aspects of morality rather than looking at the underlying systems each time you want to discuss a moral issue).

I've thought about it in the past, and have some semi-developed answers to the questions ...

Where does morality come from?
Evil is a departure from the way things ought to be. Because of this, there can be 'good' without there being 'evil'. The source of good is found in the character of God.

What is the purpose of morality?
In relation to us, morality is us approximating the character of God with our own character. We are created in God's image, for God's fame/glory. The more we approximate the character of God, the more we give him fame/glory. The purpose of morality is to give us a 'compass' of where we are in relation to God in order for us to even start approximating him.

In what way does it apply to my life?
The love we have for God in our lives affects each decision we make every day we live. In this way, our trying to have a character that is like God's will impact our personality, our desires, our intellect, and our emotional response to reality -- namely, it impacts all areas of our life.

In what way does it affect our interaction with others?
The love we have for each other in our lives will also affect how we form friendships, how we view ourselves, how we view other people. Our approximating God's character with one another also makes life fuller/richer and more real/honest because in that way we are living our lives as close to reality as we ever could -- they resonate together.

Post away friends. Be prepared to defend your answer, or at the very least, don't be angry if your answer is knocked by someone.

Those 4 questions aren't the whole deal. If there are others that will give greater clarity/direction to the discussion, post that as well.

[Lyle]

Post away friends. Be prepared to defend your answer, or at the very least, don't be angry if your answer is knocked by someone.

Those 4 questions aren't the whole deal. If there are others that will give greater clarity/direction to the discussion, post that as well.

okay, I have a few i think are relevent. relatively speaking anyway...

Do we not create our own morality? putting it plainly, do you think it's a sensible suggestion that we as a society have merely agreed upon certain rules/guidelines etc, that we label "morality?"
um, the purpose of which would be the protection or security of the powerful or the majority. The powerful often being quite a seperate enitity from the majority, it seems to me. whatever. you know what I mean. If one considers that in a serious way then it seems to follow that, if morality is merely popular consensus, is the only thing that stops us from creating our own rules fear of unpopularity?

just a little something thats been weighing on me a bit. is this the sort of question you meant? i hope I haven't derailed your topical train, quirky one.

:)

[Darth Everhate]

So you're saying morality is directly related to belief/faith/religion?
It's a serious question, no jest.
What of different religions that have different beliefs and/or a different god(s)?

I agree with Lyle (damn you for making me say that again).
If morality is exclusive with one's connection to God, and different people feel different connections with different religions (e.g.perhaps I'm a cultist who fully believes that sacrificing children brings me closer to my beliefs or my god) wouldn't the concept of morality be subjective?

What if I'm an athiest? How would you define the morality of an athiest?

Disclaimer: Before people start tearing into each other over this (which will probably happen) please note that these are just questions, I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs.

[Nachtnoir]

Actually, I looked it up. Morality has nothing to do with religion. According to Websters. It does however tie directly to the accepted norm of society. Some ppl have chosen to use the word in a more religious way. But using the accepted definition, and as we are using the English language, spoken by many many ppl all over the world, we should indeed use the definition accepted by the experts, Morality is not based on religion. Another problem with the definition used by those that do not actually speak proper english and use words that they do not know the true meaning of is the fact that groups across our vast nation may think the acceptible norms are different. For example, ppl in San Francisco may think one thing is normal and acceptible while ppl in Des Moines think that something is immoral. This is why making statements about morality are bad when talking to ppl of different socio-economical-geographical positions. What is moral in one place my not be in another.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Do we not create our own morality? putting it plainly, do you think it's a sensible suggestion that we as a society have merely agreed upon certain rules/guidelines etc, that we label "morality?"

That's one option. The social contract that Rousseau, then later Hobbs and Locke talked about. I don't buy it for a variety of reasons.

One, the idea that violating a moral code is the same as the violation of a cultural norm (not showering daily is on equal moral grounds as lying) doesn't seem to describe reality correctly. There is a sense that something else is going on when we do evil. This isn't an argument so much as a reason that the explanation doesn't 'sit right' with my truth-o-meter. It's not consistent with my experience on morality.

Second, defining morals in this way makes them the same as our laws. Legislating morality is then perfectly OK and is actually what we would expect were morals derived from said contract. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily, and it's actually what happens, but it isn't clear to me that morals are formed the same way laws are.

Third, morals are then subjective. If it were the case that morality were subject to us, it makes it (nearly) impossible to live consistently within that framework. The contract requires enforcing moral codes for society to be orderly, but the philosophy gives no justification for that use of force. Everyone is morally ok to do as they please. So at the very best, it's possible to force someone to obey the moral code (the contract), but it's not possible to do so because it's 'right' or you have 'the right' to do so. It's done because the ability to coerce is there, which is consistent, but logically allows for coercion at any level. Morals then have no control over behavior, or only do to the extent that I am not caught by other people or fail to get other people to agree with me. This kind of coercion/counter-coercion is excellent breeding ground for violence. The reason for this is that if something is not based on reason, then the only way to change someone's action in the matter is to use force. In summary, it's either a philosophy that inevitably leads to violence, or it's an unlivable philosophy.

Lastly, as an alternative to the answers I gave, it is at the very best a case of what is called the genetic fallacy. Even if we demonstrated that morals are discovered through common consensus, it still fits consistently within the answers to the questions on morality that I gave earlier.



just a little something thats been weighing on me a bit. is this the sort of question you meant? i hope I haven't derailed your topical train, quirky one.

:)

you did exactly what I was looking for ... good thoughts.


So you're saying morality is directly related to belief/faith/religion?
It's a serious question, no jest.
What of different religions that have different beliefs and/or a different god(s)?

I never said anything about religion. I used "God" often, and many religions talk about God. I don't think they're all right. In fact, it's safer to say they're all wrong than to say they're all right. So to answer the question of "what of the other religions?", my answer is that you have to evaluate the merit of those religions with the tests you use to arrive at truth.


I agree with Lyle (damn you for making me say that again).
If morality is exclusive with one's connection to God, and different people feel different connections with different religions (e.g.perhaps I'm a cultist who fully believes that sacrificing children brings me closer to my beliefs or my god) wouldn't the concept of morality be subjective?

People can be mistaken about what is true without making it subjective. I don't think all religions offer a 'connection to God' because I don't think all religions are true (they're not all completely false either, but logically not all of them can be true).


What if I'm an athiest? How would you define the morality of an athiest?

Atheists need to have an explanation of morality too. The explanation I have would still apply to someone who is an atheist, but that person would not agree with me (obvious reasons). It's similar to saying that I think boats float because of XYZ and someone else would have to either agree or disagree, and if they want a complete philosophy, they'd need to give a ZYX reason why they think boats float.



Disclaimer: Before people start tearing into each other over this (which will probably happen) please note that these are just questions, I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs.

I'm not attacking people. Beliefs are open game in the Deep Thoughts forum :)

but I don't want to do it like a prick and alienate everyone that listens to me. so, please don't take it personally, i'm just trying to be as objective as i can (which i admit, is still pretty biased).


Actually, I looked it up. Morality has nothing to do with religion. According to Websters. It does however tie directly to the accepted norm of society. Some ppl have chosen to use the word in a more religious way. But using the accepted definition, and as we are using the English language, spoken by many many ppl all over the world, we should indeed use the definition accepted by the experts, Morality is not based on religion.


Main Entry: 1mor•al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>

The definition of 'right' and 'wrong' are still at issue. And it doesn't have to be a purely secular explanation as it is defined above.


Another problem with the definition used by those that do not actually speak proper english and use words that they do not know the true meaning of is the fact that groups across our vast nation may think the acceptible norms are different. For example, ppl in San Francisco may think one thing is normal and acceptible while ppl in Des Moines think that something is immoral. This is why making statements about morality are bad when talking to ppl of different socio-economical-geographical positions. What is moral in one place my not be in another.

People can be wrong about things. I hope that we can be rational and honest enough with each other to discuss the ideas that are in contention in order to better understand how reality really is. If we can’t even do it in a forum on the internet, how are we ever going to be able to do it with people we talk to in ‘real life’?

[Buck]

I dont see where the contention is though.


I know of morals. I know I have certain views and opinions. I know that actions are based on thoughts and ideas, but above everything else are very situational. Just because someone knows what the moral thing to do under a given circumstance does not mean they will do it. In the heat of the moment many ill wills have begotten. Does that make a person "Evil"? Where is forgiveness is in this picture?

People define their source of morality very differently. You dont need to cross vast geographical distances to see conflict in views. Lean over to the person next to you and bring up one of the 'taboo' topics and I bet you chances are your views differ on the subject. Does that make one of you "evil" and one of you "righteous" .... I dont think so. On most issues, 90% of relative morality is consistent. Only 'taboo' topics cause all sorts of fireworks and I believe this is because they are 'taboo' and not talked about enough. These hot topics have sides but the sides dont talk to each other and this lack of communication only leads to headaches.

Personally I think that the concept of using "God" as a compass for morality is circular in reasoning and all too often has been used for ironically the opposite of its intent. Look at the Crusades, The Inquisition, slavery in our own nation a couple centuries ago and present day - reality TV. I think that the actual compass for morality is not "God".

To sum it up, cause I dont think Im clear. Personally I believe that God is moral, not that morality is God. Quirk, you seem to be of the opposite view. If you want to talk more on this, Id be happy to have another debate with you, they are always insightful :D

edit-typos, and rewrote a paragraph.

[QuirkyTemplate]

I know of morals. I know I have certain views and opinions. I know that actions are based on thoughts and ideas, but above everything else are very situational. Just because someone knows what the moral thing to do under a given circumstance does not mean they will do it. In the heat of the moment many ill wills have begotten. Does that make a person "Evil"? Where is forgiveness is in this picture?

very good point. knowing what is right doesn't make you a better person.


People define their source of morality very differently. You dont need to cross vast geographical distances to see conflict in views. Lean over to the person next to you and bring up one of the 'taboo' topics and I bet you chances are your views differ on the subject. Does that make one of you "evil" and one of you "righteous" .... I dont think so. On most issues, 90% of relative morality is consistent. Only 'taboo' topics cause all sorts of fireworks and I believe this is because they are 'taboo' and not talked about enough. These hot topics have sides but the sides dont talk to each other and this lack of communication only leads to headaches.

just so i understand your position better ... if people talked about a specific moral topic long enough, without agreeing on any moral system, they'd be able to resolve any moral dilemma that crops up as a result of two people defining morality differently?

I find it hard enough to agree with people who do share my moral system, much less someone who's system is defined differently than my own.


Personally I think that the concept of using "God" as a compass for morality is circular in reasoning and all too often has been used for ironically the opposite of its intent.

How is looking to God for moral reference circular? Also, using the fact that people did bad things in the name of 'God' as an argument against using God as a moral reference doesn't make sense. It's saying ...

p1. A used God as a reference for morality
p2. A did crusades, inquisition, slavery, and reality TV
conclusion: God can't be a reference for morality

I don't see how that conclusion can be reached. What it does show is what you said earlier (which I agree on), just because you know what is right, it doesn't mean you will do it. I think the better argument is:

p1. A believes moral code XYZ.
p2. A violated moral code XYZ.
conclusion: A believes XYZ and volates XYZ.

which says nothing of the merit of the moral code.


To sum it up, cause I dont think Im clear. Personally I believe that God is moral, not that morality is God. Quirk, you seem to be of the opposite view. If you want to talk more on this, Id be happy to have another debate with you, they are always insightful :D

Thanks buck :)

The problem I have with saying that God is moral, but has nothing to do with the definition of what being moral is, is that we then have this moral code that came from nowhere. Not only that, but God is then subject to the code. This has serious issues with defining God as the only truly objective being and also doesn't explain the origin of morality.

But for clarification, I don't think morality is God either. I think that what we call 'good' is God's character, and in that way we have a way of knowing what is good. And that's the crux of it, defining 'good' and 'evil'.

[Lyle]

That's one option. The social contract that Rousseau, then later Hobbs and Locke talked about. I don't buy it for a variety of reasons.

One, the idea that violating a moral code is the same as the violation of a cultural norm (not showering daily is on equal moral grounds as lying) doesn't seem to describe reality correctly. There is a sense that something else is going on when we do evil. This isn't an argument so much as a reason that the explanation doesn't 'sit right' with my truth-o-meter. It's not consistent with my experience on morality.

Second, defining morals in this way makes them the same as our laws. Legislating morality is then perfectly OK and is actually what we would expect were morals derived from said contract. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily, and it's actually what happens, but it isn't clear to me that morals are formed the same way laws are.



I see what you're saying quirk, but I gotta disagree. For the first thing you admit that your assertion of morality and cultural norms being essentially the same bothered you. Not that you had some form of arguing with the idea.
to use your example: neglecting to shower being equated with neglecting to tell the truth.
I happen to think that these two things are very alike in the perceptions of everyday human beings. an interesting distinction I think however is the view that; it is expected of us that we mantain a certain level of personal hygiene.
On the other hand, IMO it is not so much expected that we tell the truth but rather an admirable trait to be found in people. This, if anything would seem to indicate the greater importance, relatively speaking of personal hygiene (or at least the appearence of personal hygiene) as relates to being truthful.
I can't help but think this supports my idea of morality being entirely the whims of the masses.

Again, regarding your second paragraph this is what I am suggesting. You admit yourself that "legislating morality" is what actually happens in society. You aren't convinced that morals and laws are formed the same way, but what this says to me is that they might easily be. A law is passed if a majority approves of it, right? Or more precisely, in a democratic goverment,
a law passes when the chosen representatives of the majority approves of it.
I think I would take some convincing, that conventional morality is not formed in exactly the same way. That way being, a popular consensus as a result of genuinely similar leanings or as a result of some kind of coercion, political or otherwise, I don't think it matters.

It still seems more than likely, to me anyway that morality, instead of being some well thought out secular teaching or indeed, as a result of divine mandate; is quite possibly nothing more than the roughly agreed upon policies of people who do not want to be imposed on in any way. The grudging understanding reached by a large number of timid individuals who are wary of the consequences, should any one person realise that there are no rules so much, no right or wrong- merely what one can get away with and what one can't.

hm..I should probably mention that my own opinions on this are not set in stone. I only bring this question of morality versus consensus up, because it genuinely intrigues me. If someone can convince me otherwise I won't complain. It isn't exactly a rosy view to have to shoulder.. :)

[Anita Blake]

ahhh... just skimmed this. some scattered thoughts....

morality is a social tool used to keep society thriving and alive. without a "moral code" we'd live in chaos, each person doing whatever made them feel good, with no sense of responsibility. I believe morals can be looked at not as simply a "human" construct, but as a natural construct, a genetic survival tool. I believe that most animals who live in a pack structure as we do have their own form of morals, which we look at as "survival mechanisms" and such, without relating them back to our own over-worded concept of "good" and "bad".

i believe it is as such that we create a "god" figure, a supreme moral being we should strive to emulate, mainly to keep our scattered people in line, to maintain the flow of civilization. the more advanced a civilization, the more complex and invasive it's moral code.

i suppose that essentially what i'm saying, since i'm having trouble putting it into words, is that "morals" are in fact laws, they are the unwritten laws that glue a society together, which is why difference societies live by different morals. However, the concept of morals is rather abstract, it's the notion of behaving in a fashion that is acceptable to those around you in order to gain acceptance in their society.

someone said that someone might know what is right and wrong, but then perform the "wrong" action. this is a case of abandoning the morals of a society in order for instantaneous personal gain, of trying to gain position in society, which, if you think about it, is one of the ways that we operate and find acceptable. it's ok to be "immoral" if it gains you a position of power over the moral. This alters morality, showing that morals are an ever-shifting, time-location sensitive concept, also proving that "god" has little place in morality, excepting that many social morals are perpetuated by religions. religions are the cornerstone of a society, offering guidance and a way of life that promises better, that promises reward (heaven, karma, good character) in exhange for suffering(hard work, obeying moral absolutes, keeping society's cogs well-oiled). which is why the current society growing globally is abandoning old religions in exchange for the new religion of science, of the body, or money, because these new religions are less theoretical, more concrete, and offer immediate (if short-term) solutions.

umm... i have no idea if any of that made sense....

[dark fuschia]

This looks interesting. I think its important that we make a clear distinction quickly. I remember learning in school that morals and ethics are two different things, and I remember it taking quite a while to sink in, because they both so often refer to the same thing. This caused much bafflement for me, which is why I so clearly remember this topic, because I somewhat enjoy a bit of bafflement (which is why I like so many of the somewhat baffling people here at the quill.. err I digress...), I think websters gave a slightly misleading definition of the word "morals". Cambridge defines it much more clearly.



MORALS
1 relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. which each person believes in, rather than to laws:
It's her moral obligation to tell the police what she knows.
It is not part of a novelist's job to make a moral judgment.
She was the only politician to condemn the proposed law on moral grounds (= for moral reasons).
The Democrats are attempting to capture the moral high ground (= are trying to appear more honest and good than the other political parties).

2 behaving in ways considered by most people to be correct and honest:
She's a very moral woman.
Oh, stop being so moral!
Is TV responsible for weakening people's moral fibre (= ability to behave well and honestly and work hard)?


Now when Lyle talks about "morals" being something people adhere to to avoid unpopularity, he is actually referring to ethics, not morals.


ETHIC
a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially such a system based on morals:
the (Protestant) work ethic
The ethics of journalism are much debated.
He said he was bound by a scientist's code of ethics.
Publication of the article was a breach of ethics.


If someone wants say they don't believe that morals exist as a universal concept, then if they are to use english correctly, means they should say they don't believe morals exist at all, they believe ethics exist though. Of course, alot of ethical systems are based on morals, or if you don't believe in morals, based on peoples IDEA of morals, which might really just stem from ethical concerns... ie the wish to avoid unpopularity. So I can see how its circular if you don't believe an absolute set of morals exist intrinsic to our human state of being, but there is a very clear difference between morals and ethics if you do believe they exist. Though we know this instinctively, I think if everyone starts using the word ethics in this conversation it may make expressing your view a bit easier.

I was going to say what I think on the matter but there's people in chat :) I'll be back later to join in the conversation.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Very good points wendy, that does clear things up a lot.

[Dregs]

I get the distinct impression that this is going to be another "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. Blah.

[Jennifer]

NO IT ISN'T!!!

[Lyle]

Now when Lyle talks about "morals" being something people adhere to to avoid unpopularity, he is actually referring to ethics, not morals

bugger. see there's too many words.

it's no wonder i get confused, really. :broken:

[QuirkyTemplate]

which is why the current society growing globally is abandoning old religions in exchange for the new religion of science, of the body, or money, because these new religions are less theoretical, more concrete, and offer immediate (if short-term) solutions.

this is kinda off topic (but i'm allowed to do it, it's my thread :quirk: ), is society really abandoning the old religions? and if so, is the reason we're doing it really ethical (to use our new-found terms correctly) and not because we're discovering them to be false/mythical?

[dark fuschia]

I do not know about Anita's answer, but I find most of the times I depart from my morals, it's because I want people to love me, to be precise, because of ethics.

[Buck]

just so i understand your position better ... if people talked about a specific moral topic long enough, without agreeing on any moral system, they'd be able to resolve any moral dilemma that crops up as a result of two people defining morality differently?

See there is the difference in view on morality again. I dont think morality needs to or can be a system. It is too situational. I dont believe morals can be set out black and white enough to code, say an android with them. As an example my moral 'sysem' doesnt really follow any dogma aside from treat others with respect and how I would like to be treated, but even saying that is dumb cause that is not absolute. I can think of many situations where I would kick that crap out of someone but I would view it as moral without question.




I find it hard enough to agree with people who do share my moral system, much less someone who's system is defined differently than my own.


What people dont agree with you? Hmm, I think you should just pull the lever on those insolent bastards.




How is looking to God for moral reference circular? Also, using the fact that people did bad things in the name of 'God' as an argument against using God as a moral reference doesn't make sense. It's saying ...

Im just saying that many people speak of immoral things and cause ill will in "God's name". God envokes fanaticism and that leaves little room for conversation, comprimise or the ability to change their views entirely. It is their way or not at all. Making this point more succinant, thats is the ultimate flaw in "christian morals" that I see. Let me say that this is my opinion and Im open to debating it, but so far I havent been proven wrong.



The problem I have with saying that God is moral, but has nothing to do with the definition of what being moral is, is that we then have this moral code that came from nowhere. Not only that, but God is then subject to the code. This has serious issues with defining God as the only truly objective being and also doesn't explain the origin of morality.

Well so did God create morality with snap of his fingers? Was there a point in time where no such animal exhisted? I cant imagine the absense of morality. Is it just a list of rules that he created and said "Hey guys...this is "good" and that is..."evil"? I cant believe that. You dont need God to define what is morally right to do. Atheists prove this benignly. Some of the better people I have known in my life have been atheists.

Why do we need to know the origin of morality? Who says that morality even has an origin. It's something in the abstract, that only exists in situations and an not be completely defined. Take away situations (the universe) and you have the absense of morality. But is that really absense? Philisophical mumbo jumbo that doesnt mean anything.





But for clarification, I don't think morality is God either. I think that what we call 'good' is God's character, and in that way we have a way of knowing what is good. And that's the crux of it, defining 'good' and 'evil'.

Well good luck with that definition. Like I said, things are very situational. The difference between good and evil is very subtle imho. A level of nuance not definiable completely in any one book or set of commandments. Last I checked thats how 'christian morals' is taught. It just a never ending series of situations, but 99% of the time you can come to the same resolution without mentioning the words God, Christ or Evil. Those words tend to envoke fickle prides.

You have a belief in what morality is and I'll respect it. But Ill ask you this... how does saying that morality is God's character allow you to understand morailty any better? Its not like God came down and said "hey Im God and this cloak here is my morality...feel it with your hands so you can see what its like".

[Anita Blake]

this is kinda off topic (but i'm allowed to do it, it's my thread :quirk: ), is society really abandoning the old religions? and if so, is the reason we're doing it really ethical (to use our new-found terms correctly) and not because we're discovering them to be false/mythical?


a couple things. thanks to wendy, i now realize that what i was talking about was ethics. i think. ~runs screaming and flailing from words that are so closely parallel as to be almost the same thing, but just not ... quite...)

anyhoo. that's a good question. or two good questions. yes, i do believe that our modern society is abandoning, or at the very least, altering in totality, the "old" religions. we frequently give them lip service, and nod and pretend to have a deep abiding respect for them, but when you look at the scope of modern civilization, it seems quite obviously that while we've definitely been shaped by the old religions, we are rapidly abandoning them in favour of things we can more easily define our lives by. the problem with the old religions is that their moral/ethical code makes little sense in contect of new things. which leads to the result of the hudderites, the amish, small sects like that who see that their ethical system cannot co-exist with the modern ethical system, and who are then forced to segregate themselves in order to maintain purity of their way of life (essentially their morals/ethics, created by religion).

the second question you pose is tricky. could it be that our ethics have changed in reaction to the discovery that the old religions are false/mythical? and here i hesitate to use the phrase "false/mythical", because it implies that myths are inherently "false", which as a side topic, i don't believe to be necessarily true. perhaps instead of "false/mythical" i would say "irrelevant to modern life". Many of the old religions (and here i talk not only about christianity) have ethics, morals, and laws specific to the time in which they were created. prohibitions on combining more than one type of fibre for example. for whatever reasons, when the bible was written, it would have been immoral/unethical (here i'm not really sure which, since god said it was wrong. i guess that's morals...) to have a shirt made of a linen/cotten blend. :eyebrow:. I mean, that's just one wacky example. Another being that it would have been moral to stone an adulteress to death (but not the adulterer she adulterated with :dozey: ) in biblical times, whereas if anyone tried that now, there's be a murder investigation and no amount of quoting the old testament would get you off the hook (i hope). Such an act would be deemed highly immoral. So one could say that our civilization has outgrown such old morals as are made evident in the old religions. perhaps a more relevant religio-ethical change has been one in personal relationships... we no longer frown at premarital sex (on the whole, there are still groups of people sticking to their religio-ethical guns on this). People of the opposite sex co-habiting in a romantic relationship are to be found everywhere in the modern civilized world, and only a few bat more than an eyelash at this fact. this is a prime example of the old religion being replaced by the new - the cult of the self. however, though, when you look at this you begin to realize that the prohibition on such relationships likely stems back to the approval of the church/elders/social leaders on all unions that were to produce "legitimate" (to the religious society) offspring. now, we take the view that people should make their own choices, rather than have the elders of the tribe determine what a "good match" is, leading us again into a situation where the individual does what is good for themselves (or what they percieve to be good) rather than what is good for the whole, which is the very meaning (in my mind) of the shift from the "old religions" to the "new". (the old religions focus on the group as a whole, the new focus on the individual)

so in a way, we have found the ethics and morals in the old religions to be false/irrelevant, which perhaps is why we've moved on to a different system. (bear in mind here that i'm not saying that either old or new religio-ethical situation is "better".) perhaps it's all tied to the notion of "freedom" as fought for in america at the dawn of their time, a "freedom" that somehow got turned into "freedom of the individual from all old binding ties", rather than "freedom of a nation as a whole to choose it's own form of government".

and i've strayed far off topic in my analogies, as usual, but i hope this was entertaining and further clarifies what i was saying earlier. :)

[QuirkyTemplate]

See there is the difference in view on morality again. I dont think morality needs to or can be a system.

Hmm, it's probably good to know what you mean by 'system'? Because what you say next ...


It is too situational. I dont believe morals can be set out black and white enough to code, say an android with them. As an example my moral 'sysem' doesnt really follow any dogma aside from treat others with respect and how I would like to be treated, but even saying that is dumb cause that is not absolute. I can think of many situations where I would kick that crap out of someone but I would view it as moral without question.

... I agree with. Well, not completely, but the goodness of one's actions are very situational, and it's very rare to have something black and white enough to 'code an android'. I agree with that.

So to summarize, I think the definition of 'moral system' brings up preconceptions that I didn't intend to convey. My answers to the questions on morality didn't paint a 'black and white' system where X is always right no matter what and Y is always wrong no matter what ... it's very situational still.



Im just saying that many people speak of immoral things and cause ill will in "God's name". God envokes fanaticism and that leaves little room for conversation, comprimise or the ability to change their views entirely. It is their way or not at all. Making this point more succinant, thats is the ultimate flaw in "christian morals" that I see. Let me say that this is my opinion and Im open to debating it, but so far I havent been proven wrong.

heh, a lot of people have trouble changing their views. So if that's a test for whether something is true or not, we're all in trouble :) Seriously, I see the discomfort, and I'm with you that people should be open to discussion, but just because they aren't doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means they're convinced about something. I've run into the same mindset when I've debated with atheists over at infidels.org, christianforums.com, and the like, but that doesn't immediately make them wrong.


Well so did God create morality with snap of his fingers?

Okay, I'll answer this according to my view on God. God exists in three separate beings, all of which are sentient, separate, and yet the same person. this is the idea of the trinity. In regards to good and bad, It makes sense of the fact that God was able to love before anything was created, because there is community in the trinity. So morality was never *snap* created because God has always existed. Humans were created into an existence that already had goodness in it.


You dont need God to define what is morally right to do. Atheists prove this benignly. Some of the better people I have known in my life have been atheists.

That doesn't mean that they were able to define morality outside of God, it just means that they were able to act ethically (think that's the right usage ...).


Why do we need to know the origin of morality? Who says that morality even has an origin.

Knowing about the origin of something helps us understand it better. But really, I'm not arguing that morality has an origin in time (at t+23s origin was formed). I'm more interested in knowing where it comes from.


Well good luck with that definition. Like I said, things are very situational. The difference between good and evil is very subtle imho. A level of nuance not definiable completely in any one book or set of commandments. Last I checked thats how 'christian morals' is taught. It just a never ending series of situations, but 99% of the time you can come to the same resolution without mentioning the words God, Christ or Evil. Those words tend to envoke fickle prides.

pride is an issue anywhere, and a lot of times it's a reason people aren't willing to change their mind on something, so I'm not convinced God, Christ, or Evil are words that make people any more or less susceptible to pride.

however, 'christian morals' is not about how many of the list you're getting right, but it's about living your life for the right person. In the christian scheme of things, your 'moral status' is secondary to your relationship to jesus. the command 'love God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind and love your neighbor as yourself' isn't saying 'follow this list' but it's saying 'desire God; look to jesus, and live for him'. That makes things very situational, but it also gives you a fixed reference.


You have a belief in what morality is and I'll respect it. But Ill ask you this... how does saying that morality is God's character allow you to understand morailty any better? Its not like God came down and said "hey Im God and this cloak here is my morality...feel it with your hands so you can see what its like".

actually that's almost exactly what did happen. God 'became flesh' and lived with us. His name is jesus and there are four different books that talk about the same period of time, focusing on different aspects of his life. These are the gospels. In addition to this, the holy spirit lives in anyone that has faith in jesus. he (holy spirit) guides them into what is true and to what is good, changes their character bit by bit, and gives strength to do the good.

it's not just 'feel it with your hands', it's 'hey, take that old busted up coat off and put this on, it'll keep you warm out there, it's light and easy to move in, and it'll give you strength and direction ... go ahead and take it.'

anita, i'm reading your response and I want to respond to it, but responding to buck has drained me for the morning :) good thoughts though, let me get back on it

[QuirkyTemplate]

anyhoo. that's a good question. or two good questions. yes, i do believe that our modern society is abandoning, or at the very least, altering in totality, the "old" religions. we frequently give them lip service, and nod and pretend to have a deep abiding respect for them, but when you look at the scope of modern civilization, it seems quite obviously that while we've definitely been shaped by the old religions, we are rapidly abandoning them in favour of things we can more easily define our lives by.

did you reach that because of a stastical survery you read at one point, or is it a kind of 'gut feeling'? Because from what I could find regarding religious populations, just the opposite is true.


the problem with the old religions is that their moral/ethical code makes little sense in contect of new things. which leads to the result of the hudderites, the amish, small sects like that who see that their ethical system cannot co-exist with the modern ethical system, and who are then forced to segregate themselves in order to maintain purity of their way of life (essentially their morals/ethics, created by religion).

the hutterites and amish seclude themselves because they recognize modern culture doesn't fit with the morals espoused by their belief system? That could very well be true ... at any rate, they're a small minority of the religion they are ultimately derived from. They basically derive their moral reference from the same place many mainstream christians do.


the second question you pose is tricky. could it be that our ethics have changed in reaction to the discovery that the old religions are false/mythical? and here i hesitate to use the phrase "false/mythical", because it implies that myths are inherently "false", which as a side topic, i don't believe to be necessarily true. perhaps instead of "false/mythical" i would say "irrelevant to modern life". Many of the old religions (and here i talk not only about christianity) have ethics, morals, and laws specific to the time in which they were created. prohibitions on combining more than one type of fibre for example. for whatever reasons, when the bible was written, it would have been immoral/unethical (here i'm not really sure which, since god said it was wrong. i guess that's morals...) to have a shirt made of a linen/cotten blend. :eyebrow:. I mean, that's just one wacky example. Another being that it would have been moral to stone an adulteress to death (but not the adulterer she adulterated with :dozey: ) in biblical times, whereas if anyone tried that now, there's be a murder investigation and no amount of quoting the old testament would get you off the hook (i hope).

I'm pretty sure those were examples of laws in Israel, not so much the underlying moral structure.


Such an act would be deemed highly immoral. So one could say that our civilization has outgrown such old morals as are made evident in the old religions.

ah, but we haven't out grown the morals. the laws aren't part of our society, but the morals are still lingering around (for now).


perhaps a more relevant religio-ethical change has been one in personal relationships... we no longer frown at premarital sex (on the whole, there are still groups of people sticking to their religio-ethical guns on this). People of the opposite sex co-habiting in a romantic relationship are to be found everywhere in the modern civilized world, and only a few bat more than an eyelash at this fact. this is a prime example of the old religion being replaced by the new - the cult of the self.

touché ... touché.


however, though, when you look at this you begin to realize that the prohibition on such relationships likely stems back to the approval of the church/elders/social leaders on all unions that were to produce "legitimate" (to the religious society) offspring.

think so? are you saying the elders had to 'approve' of the marrage first or just make it official?


now, we take the view that people should make their own choices, rather than have the elders of the tribe determine what a "good match" is, leading us again into a situation where the individual does what is good for themselves (or what they percieve to be good) --

or what is percieved to produce the most enjoyment, which is different.


-- rather than what is good for the whole, which is the very meaning (in my mind) of the shift from the "old religions" to the "new". (the old religions focus on the group as a whole, the new focus on the individual)

interesting ... so you think most people nowadays are out for themselves and no one else?


so in a way, we have found the ethics and morals in the old religions to be false/irrelevant, which perhaps is why we've moved on to a different system. (bear in mind here that i'm not saying that either old or new religio-ethical situation is "better".)

Well, false/irrelevant is a bit strong. I think at best we've found them 'less easy' and so we moved to something not so demanding on us.


perhaps it's all tied to the notion of "freedom" as fought for in america at the dawn of their time, a "freedom" that somehow got turned into "freedom of the individual from all old binding ties", rather than "freedom of a nation as a whole to choose it's own form of government".

perhaps ... but i'm not convinced that's exactly right. I think we gotta look to Nietzsche's influence also.

stimulating, as always :)

[Dregs]

(the old religions focus on the group as a whole, the new focus on the individual)


I'm of the opinion that the "old religions" are nothing but cults of the self, just projected onto the group. Just my bit.

[QuirkyTemplate]

I'm of the opinion that the "old religions" are nothing but cults of the self, just projected onto the group. Just my bit.

all of them?

[Anita Blake]

did you reach that because of a stastical survery you read at one point, or is it a kind of 'gut feeling'? Because from what I could find regarding religious populations, just the opposite is true.

mainly from observation and "gut feeling". stats are wonderful liars. they tell you how many people claim to belong to a certain religion, but lots of people call themselves members of a specific religion without even realizing they they are indeed living by the credo of another. perhaps i should clarify my stance on "old religion" vs. "new religion". a person can be a member of both, as the "old religions" have names, places of worship, and often texts to guide them, whereas the "new religions", as i call them, are more ways of life that run contrary to the teachings of the old religions, ie, believing in the absoluteness of the scientific method, inhuman lust for money, etc. there aren't really any stats on those, and many people who "belong" to "old religions" worship at the altar of the new without ever realizing it.




the hutterites and amish seclude themselves because they recognize modern culture doesn't fit with the morals espoused by their belief system? That could very well be true ... at any rate, they're a small minority of the religion they are ultimately derived from. They basically derive their moral reference from the same place many mainstream christians do.

certainly. i was probably talking about ethics again. :) they are definitely a tiny minority, but more likely contain a more pure take on their religion/morals. mainstream civilization tends to feel that morals are bendy. the seclusionist groups are more hard-line, i believe.


I'm pretty sure those were examples of laws in Israel, not so much the underlying moral structure.
yes, but don't forget that the the laws of old (and current laws) are based directly on the morals/ethics of the prominent religion. (also don't forget that many of christianity's rules/laws/ethics were carried over from the old testament)


ah, but we haven't out grown the morals. the laws aren't part of our society, but the morals are still lingering around (for now).
maybe not the morals, but certainly the ethics. unless you make the argument that humanity has never given much more than lip service to ethics, unless it happened to suit at the moment, and argument i wouldn't disagree entirely with.


think so? are you saying the elders had to 'approve' of the marrage first or just make it official?
this is just a theory i have, stemming from likely sketchy sources. but ultimately, yes, i believe that marriage was one way for people to control the flow of their future, particularly at the higher classes. you don't marry down, and marriage was frequently used as a tool for forming alliances, building society, combining assets. even at the lower classes, i think this mindset carried over, as one of the few ways community leaders could influence the growth of their community. frequently the handicapped, those considered "deficient", were barred from marrying. so yes, i think the elders had to approve the marriage, and making it official was the way of showing approval to the entire community. "giving blessing" to the union, providing a positive method of encouragement. a sort of "see what can be yours - the joy of the entire family/community - if you just play by our rules and marry within acceptable boundries" mindset. of course, there have always been people who will do as they choose, and i feel in our day the "people who will do as they choose" are more prevalent.


or what is percieved to produce the most enjoyment, which is different.
pretty much my meaning. :)



interesting ... so you think most people nowadays are out for themselves and no one else?

absolutely. a very common addage that parents teach their children is "look out for #1". this is reinforced perpetually in popular culture and media. the commercial nature of our society practically demands it. it's especially prevalent in places like singapore, where the only things people are concerned with are the "5 C's" - cash, cars, credit cards, condominium, and country club. this is what i would term the "new religion of personal greed", with a look of disdain on my face.



stimulating, as always :)

why thank you! :blush: always a pleasure!

[QuirkyTemplate]

mainly from observation and "gut feeling". stats are wonderful liars. they tell you how many people claim to belong to a certain religion, but lots of people call themselves members of a specific religion without even realizing they they are indeed living by the credo of another. perhaps i should clarify my stance on "old religion" vs. "new religion". a person can be a member of both, as the "old religions" have names, places of worship, and often texts to guide them, whereas the "new religions", as i call them, are more ways of life that run contrary to the teachings of the old religions, ie, believing in the absoluteness of the scientific method, inhuman lust for money, etc. there aren't really any stats on those, and many people who "belong" to "old religions" worship at the altar of the new without ever realizing it.

what do you mean by 'absoluteness of the scientific method?' Is this saying that people believe only what can be determined by the scientific method? Cause if that's the case, then no one really believes in that (because the scientific method is itself unscientific, strangely enough :quirk: ). Or that what we discover via the scientific method is far more likely to be true than what the old religions said? Cause I think most people would agree with that last sentence. Well, the ones I meet with day to day anyhow. However, I don't think that necessarily contradicts -all- of the old religions.

as far as inhuman lust for money goes ... well, that's hardly new :)

but in general, I think you're right. stats aren't reliable for this, 'cause you can be sure that only a small minority really do practice what they wish they did/everyone else did.


yes, but don't forget that the the laws of old (and current laws) are based directly on the morals/ethics of the prominent religion. (also don't forget that many of christianity's rules/laws/ethics were carried over from the old testament)

i agree, but you were equating the two. the laws, while some of them are based on the morals, are not the morals. so the laws become irrelevant varying culture to culture, however the morals didn't/don't.



maybe not the morals, but certainly the ethics. unless you make the argument that humanity has never given much more than lip service to ethics, unless it happened to suit at the moment, and argument i wouldn't disagree entirely with.

Actually, I think that falls right in line with my paradigm on mankind ...


this is just a theory i have, stemming from likely sketchy sources. but ultimately, yes, i believe that marriage was one way for people to control the flow of their future, particularly at the higher classes. you don't marry down, and marriage was frequently used as a tool for forming alliances, building society, combining assets. even at the lower classes, i think this mindset carried over, as one of the few ways community leaders could influence the growth of their community. frequently the handicapped, those considered "deficient", were barred from marrying. so yes, i think the elders had to approve the marriage, and making it official was the way of showing approval to the entire community. "giving blessing" to the union, providing a positive method of encouragement. a sort of "see what can be yours - the joy of the entire family/community - if you just play by our rules and marry within acceptable boundries" mindset. of course, there have always been people who will do as they choose, and i feel in our day the "people who will do as they choose" are more prevalent.

i guess there's a difference between the moral aspects of a marriage and the social ones ... but I'm still not sure that they were originally intended as a means of control for the society. I suppose it's pretty hard to figure that out from what we have to go on .... has there ever been a time in recorded history that marriages have not been in society, so we can look at how the practice developed?


absolutely. a very common addage that parents teach their children is "look out for #1". this is reinforced perpetually in popular culture and media. the commercial nature of our society practically demands it. it's especially prevalent in places like singapore, where the only things people are concerned with are the "5 C's" - cash, cars, credit cards, condominium, and country club. this is what i would term the "new religion of personal greed", with a look of disdain on my face.


can't really disagree with you ...

[dark fuschia]

Well, Malcor and I figured it ALLLL out on MSN. :halo:

Malcor says:
Ms Soulstealer...how goes the day?
wendy says:
cool thnx
wendy says:
I am just writing a post about morals *nods*
Malcor says:
Well...I think one should be required to have morals to write about it, *soulstealer*
Malcor says:
:p
Malcor says:
hehe
wendy says:
:eyebrow:
wendy says:
hmph
Malcor says:
Baby eating, pill selling, and soul stealing isn't a life of morals!
wendy says:
heh, so what, you don't need to boil water to know how it's done.
Malcor says:
Maybe...but you might have to prepare a meal to *know* how its done
wendy says:
nah, I reckon morals aren't that complicated
Malcor says:
You may be right...nothing beats a good filet mignon... ~ponders~
wendy says:
hehe, see now these other posters like Anita and QT get way too caught up in the details
wendy says:
lol!
Malcor says:
:)
wendy says:
*slaps malcor out of it* see now thats whats wrong with humans
wendy says:
they're higher thoughts are too often distracted by thoughts of filet mingon
wendy says:
imagine all we could learn if we didn't allow ourself such thoughts.
Malcor says:
Yes, but when you look a--~drools~ filet mignon
wendy says:
LMAO!
Malcor says:
lol
wendy says:
:rolleyes:
Malcor says:
In summary: A life without thoughts of filet mignon is no life at all. Case closed.
Malcor says:
~nods~

[dark fuschia]

Well I actually was going to write as post here about how I approach morals too, so I'll do that now, since I have important business to attend to which must be put off until tommorrow at all costs.

SO I think morals, being how we decide the difference between wrong and right, come from three separate parts of ourselves. Reason, Conscience and Holy Spirit. Which can also be understood as Reason, Conscience and Intuition for those who don't believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe that we can very easily fool ourselves if we do not consider all three angles.

Reason: this is obvious I suppose, use your brain, think about it, think on the consequences etc and the people who will be affected and how. Question your motives, think upon what you value. There's alot to think about as we all here know.
Conscience: This is more intangable, but we all have it, it manifests itself as guilt when we do the wrong thing, and as guilt when we think about doing the wrong thing. We should listen to it. But it doesn't always help us cos sometimes there are things which will make us feel bad no matter what we do, AND if we do nothing. So we cannot rely on it alone.
Holy Spirit/Intuition: This is something that is also intangible, but comes from outside of ourselves. It's the voice we can almost hear at night when we are alone, the knowledge we somehow have of what is right. It should also be listened to, but in conjunction with the other two, because our senses can fool us. If we want to believe something is right we can mimic this voice internally to the wrong end.

I think we need to use all three to be a moral person because we are all adept at fooling ourselves with all three, but it's very difficult to fool ourselves using all three at once on the same issue.

[QuirkyTemplate]

SO I think morals, being how we decide the difference between wrong and right, come from three separate parts of ourselves. Reason, Conscience and Holy Spirit. Which can also be understood as Reason, Conscience and Intuition for those who don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

Is intuition different than the Holy Spirit, or are you just renaming it for people that don't believe in the Holy Spirit so they'll 'feel better'? Or is intuition an effect of the Holy Spirit, so that they're the same, only one person is acknowledging the cause while the other is just being acted on?


Reason: this is obvious I suppose, use your brain, think about it, think on the consequences etc and the people who will be affected and how. Question your motives, think upon what you value. There's alot to think about as we all here know.
Conscience: This is more intangable, but we all have it, it manifests itself as guilt when we do the wrong thing, and as guilt when we think about doing the wrong thing. We should listen to it. But it doesn't always help us cos sometimes there are things which will make us feel bad no matter what we do, AND if we do nothing. So we cannot rely on it alone.
Holy Spirit/Intuition: This is something that is also intangible, but comes from outside of ourselves. It's the voice we can almost hear at night when we are alone, the knowledge we somehow have of what is right. It should also be listened to, but in conjunction with the other two, because our senses can fool us. If we want to believe something is right we can mimic this voice internally to the wrong end.

I think this is ok if you already know that a certain thing is wrong in general, but need situational guidance. I don't think that this provides a good reference, as such, for knowing what is wrong in general.

I'll give an example. Say I'm confused about the issue of capital punishment. Reason tells me that capital punishment doesn't deter crimes and that it is more expensive (which may or may not be true, that's not the point). So then I move to conscience. My conscience gives me a funny feeling about killing someone. It's not enough to go on because I could have been influenced by someone/something arbitrarily, but it adds. Then Intuition/Holy Spirit tells me next to nothing. So I wait for it, and eventually all I get is a 'don't be so hasty, think it over' response (very common for me, anyhow).

This doesn't talk at all about the wrongness of capital punishment. It looks at the pragmatic points of it, then how I feel about it, and then various reactions when I sit down and ponder it (or meditate on it--same thing), but there is nothing to say that it's right or wrong either way. So I am still kind of looking for an answer to the question. Even though I have these very good methods of discernment, I have nothing to use these methods on. I want to say that this is akin to having very good methods of measuring threads of yarn (you would pull the yarn out, tape one end here, then do this and that, etc) but there is no yardstick to measure it with.

[Wysefool]

Ack! I've been trying to get caught up on this thread, but the abundance of quotes and HUGE postings makes the task quite daunting. So please forgive me if I repeat and already stated position when I finally get to that part of things and stop yammering on like an idiot.

Morals, I feel, are pretty much lies. They are sold to the individual as being a method of maintaining societal harmony and brotherhood and blahblahblah, but really morals are nothing more than a devious method at maintaining control over the populance. I figure if an individuals follow their conscience most frictions within a society will sort themselves.

Or something.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Morals, I feel, are pretty much lies. They are sold to the individual as being a method of maintaining societal harmony and brotherhood and blahblahblah, but really morals are nothing more than a devious method at maintaining control over the populance.

I'd be interested to see how someone would defend this position. As in, is there any reason to believe this is true? A strong argument against this position is the third point to lyle higher up in the thread.


Third, morals are then subjective. If it were the case that morality were subject to us, it makes it (nearly) impossible to live consistently within that framework. The contract requires enforcing moral codes for society to be orderly, but the philosophy gives no justification for that use of force. Everyone is morally ok to do as they please. So at the very best, it's possible to force someone to obey the moral code (the contract), but it's not possible to do so because it's 'right' or you have 'the right' to do so. It's done because the ability to coerce is there, which is consistent, but logically allows for coercion at any level. Morals then have no control over behavior, or only do to the extent that I am not caught by other people or fail to get other people to agree with me. This kind of coercion/counter-coercion is excellent breeding ground for violence. The reason for this is that if something is not based on reason, then the only way to change someone's action in the matter is to use force. In summary, it's either a philosophy that inevitably leads to violence, or it's an unlivable philosophy.

It also leaves a lot of unanswered questions, such as: Is it really devious? How would you prove that? If it is a devious method, who created it? And because they control the population, does that make them necessarily lies?


I figure if an individuals follow their conscience most frictions within a society will sort themselves.

Why is that important?


Thanks for the responses everyone. I've learned a lot from this ...

[dark fuschia]

QT: well the whole point of the list is that you can only do your best, so using my method you would decide that Capital punishment is wrong. Or at least I would. At least till further notice.

As for intuition, I don't say it to make anyone feel better, I really think it's the same thing as the holy spirit, I am sure there are many other names for it too.

[Apoc]

Morality for me is the code of honour, etiquette and respect i believe personally in my being that judges how i should act and how i believe others should also. Respect for others for things i believe and agree to be moral in my mind and disagreement for things i believe to be immoral. It is a code of the mind i believe of the individual.