1) Is God the source of and/or basis for your morality? If not, why not?
2) Can human morality be independent of God, assuming that God exists? Why or why not?
Atheists and agnostics (like me) are welcome to answer Question 2; remember, assume that God exists even if you're certain that there is no God.
Obviously as an agnostic I can't answer Question 1, but my response to Question 2 is that human morality can be independent of God provided that God practices a policy of noninterference, like Aristotle's Unmoved Mover who "makes the universe tick" simply by existing, but does not necessarily even have to have consciousness. But would a God of the sort worshipped by the three major monotheistic religions today have to be the source of human morality? I'm not sure. It's easy to say "yes" because this God issues decrees through prophets/messiahs/incarnations, but on the other hand doesn't the very issuing of the decrees imply that humans are capable of devising our own morality, since God feels the need to dictate it? i.e., you can believe in God as per the Torah or the Qur'an or the Bible but not accept the decrees set forth therein?
I'm interested to hear what people who believe in these religions have to say. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Is God the source of and/or basis for your morality? If not, why not?
No. God is the source of some morality but not all. I believe that there are certain objective truths which are independent of God and which God must follow in order to act as he does.
quote:2) Can human morality be independent of God, assuming that God exists? Why or why not?
This depends entirely upon the concept of God in question. If God created us, gave us laws and will reward us based on our dilligence in keeping those laws then human morality cannot be independent of God.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Yes. Actually, after reading Jacare's post, I'll give a qualified yes. I don't believe that God created morals from nothing—I think morals are universal truths just like physical laws. However, I believe that God has revealed those morals to us, so I'll say that God is the source of my morals.
2. No. At least, I don't think so. I believe that truth and morality exist independent of us. We all have consciences that help us to identify right and wrong, though it's not always a black-and-white issue. Humans can create their own systems of morals without revelation from God, but such systems will almost certainly be a mix of good morals and flawed morals. I'll steal from Jacare again and say that human morals are not truly independent of God—certain elements will be from God, and others will not.
Hmm. Does that make sense?
Now I've edited this post three times in an effort to clarify what I said. I hope I'm not making things worse.
[ August 06, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I realize that Question 2 is religion-dependent. I left it open so people could either reply based on their own religious convictions about God's nature, or reply about several different religions.
I think that human morality is, by nature, independent of God. Human society chooses to define right and wrong for itself. While individuals may or may not adopt God's code of morality, that does not mean that all people will adopt that same code (which some people currently lament). Different societies develop the code of behavior that work best for them. Members of that society are expected to abide by those behaviors, but are not necessarily limited to them. For example, I try to abide by our societies expectations and rules. I also choose to abide by other rules, given by God. There may be some overlap between the two sets of rules (the two definitions of morality) - i.e. you shouldn't murder other people. I think that God issues major rules of conduct, but leaves smaller details to us, to decide what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the smaller things, but that he wants to offer us more freedom and choice. I suppose I like having the comfort of God-given morality because I trust that he knows what is best for me, while I don't have that same trust in society.
Also, I do not believe God to necessarily be The Source of morality, but is my source for morality, if that makes sense. Meaning, that I believe that there are concepts of Truth and Right that exist seperate from God.
I think that moral relativism, while perhaps an appealing concept, cannot work on a societal scale. To have a society function you must agree to all function under the same basic expectations. That doesn't mean that the expectations can't change or shift, but that there must always be a basic code of conduct.
[Edit: I think it's kind of interesting to have 3 people who all belong to the same religion that answer these questions differently. ]
An excerpt from my landmark post, which can be found here :
quote:I have faith in the unknown, and I have faith in change.
I have faith in the ultimate goodness of humanity, and I have faith in freedom. I believe that these two faiths necessitate each other, and it is because of these two faiths that I have not embraced religion. I have faith in humanity’s freedom to make choices.
So what I have is not so different from faith in God. But the nature of my faith means that I have faith in my own ultimate goodness, in my own ability to make choices and determine my own values. It means I understand I do not, cannot, know everything.
And it means I have that same faith in everyone else.
[ August 06, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
From your point of view, where does the 'ultimate goodness of humanity' come from? Or where is it derived from?
I'm not sure I'm asking the question right.
I mean, some theists would say that the ultimate goodness of humanity comes from God. Mormons (some Mormons - others might just say it comes from God) would say that it comes from the eternal, active, creative nature of intelligence(s), truth and light.
[And of course while I"m interested in Kasie's response, I'd also love to hear from any others who would answer 'no' to 1 and 'yes' to 2].
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are two different types of morality. First, you have that which is objectively right and wrong. Second, you have that which is helpful or unhelpful to God's purposes. The first morality applies equally to everyone, and the second morality applies only to those with some level of understanding of God's purposes.
For instance, murdering someone is wrong. Doesn't matter who you are, or what you believe, you did something wrong. Period.
But paying a tithe or an offering is something which is completely dependent upon the believer's understanding. If you believe that such contributions are a necessary part of God's work on earth, then you are, at least to some degree, morally bound to contribute however you can.
The former set of morals is pretty constant and immutable. There can be extenuating circumstances in some cases, but by and large, the general rules are not going to change.
The latter set are completely dependent on the individual and their context. How much do you know? When and where do you live? What is God's purpose for you? You establish the set of rules you live by through your answers to those questions and others.
Problems arise when people confuse the two types of morality. Some folks mistakenly think that EVERY rule dictated by their religion, no matter how insignificant, is a universal, immutable law, and they find themselves unable to adapt to change or tolerate differences in others.
Some people also imagine that because some moral rules proceed directly from God's immediate purposes as understood through religion, ALL moral rules are therefore just as mutable. When they reject their faith in God or their religion, they reject morality along with them, and only come to realize much later that they were throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evie, even if you don't believe in universal morals (e.g. if you're a utilitarian), the question is still relevant. Everyone has some sort of morality system ('amoral' counts, though I have never met or heard of a consciously amoral person), regardless of whether or not he or she thinks it's universal.
I am continuing to mull the other replies over and will be posting again later. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Call me existentialist, but in my opinion that's just the way it is. It doesn't really come from anywhere. It's not something I can particularly argue for...I just happen to believe that basically, fundamentally, we are all born good.
In a way, the English language helps me out -- inhumanity, for example. Someone who is horrifically evil is called inhuman -- Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler, for example. They've somehow learned to or taught themselves to disregard the most basic definition of themselves -- human.
It's very hard for me to graspe onto these views I have without resorting to believing in God. On the one hand, I don't want to believe in some benevolent power -- that's always sounded like hogwash to me. On the other hand, I can't stomach believing everything the Bible teaches. So, to answer your question, I'm really not entirely sure where human goodness comes from. But I've chosen to accept it as a basic truth.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Desire to please (or fear of) God is the source of most morals.
2. Of course there can be morals outside of God. People act morally for many reasons, such as peer pressure. (From friends, parents, your culture, etc.) The problem is that once those reasons for behaving morally are gone, there's no reason for an atheist, etc. to continue to behave morally. In the end, I know I'll hopefully make the right choice regardless of the situation (or who's around) because of my belief in God (not to say that I never screw up!) Without God, there's no reason for most people to be moral when they think no one's lokking.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1)I'm working on sorting that out. On a brief hiatus from religion having had an overdose in my upbringing. To quote myself in another thread
quote: For those of you who do not know me well, I am no longer Fundamentalist, however I grew up with highly rigorous theological training. I am currently taking a hiatus from organized religious activities to figure out what I really believe. I would still generally characterize myself as Christian but a far more liberal variety than what I grew up with.
2)Yes, but a heck of a lot of it has to do with how you were raised. I have been pondering this recently. I have a friend that grew up in the same religious environment as I who is now an atheist. However he is one of the most honest, hard-working people I know. He also demonstrates extreme loyalty to friends, almost making that paramount in his priorities. I suspect I have similar loyalty to friends and we substitute that for our disloyalty to our parents by not necesarily believing what they believed. It is interesting to me that loyalty to a group, whether fatherland, faith or on the smaller scale of friendship, is a paramount concept of humanity throughout history. Loyalty to the group holds even when the group is doing something demonstratably Bad for themselves and others (gangs, hitler etc) so I suspect it is a more fundamental moral or survival code than the sophisticated morality that exists in religion and the courts.
AJ
While on my hiatus from religion/God (which if there is a God I'm sure he understands the reasons for my hiatus) I have not yet killed or cheated anyone, so on a personal level I do believe morality to be external from God. My childhood however may have influenced my morality so strongly that I can never be unbiased when trying to determine exactly what goes into my concept of morality, or why I view a particular act as right or wrong
quote: 1) Is God the source of and/or basis for your morality? If not, why not?
2) Can human morality be independent of God, assuming that God exists? Why or why not?
In answer to your questions, 1. No 2. Yes.
I don't have morals because I believe in God. I think, no offense meant to God, that I would probably have the same type of morality even if I didn't believe in Him at all. I think that everyone deserves to be treated well, so I try to treat them as well as I can.
Of course, I'm not perfect, no one is. I trust God to forgive me for that, just as I trust him to guide me into doing whatever is in His plan for me. (Selfishly, I hope/assume that God wants me to do something that will make me happy.)
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although God follows the rules himself, he defines what is good and bad. He makes laws based on how the universe works. His laws are such that if we follow them, we can eventually become like him. The universals, understood by everyone regardless of their religion (e.g. murder), are also set forth by him, although believers and non-believers alike adhere to them.
Of course he doesn't regulate everything. If you stub your toe, you have obviously gone against the basic rule that toes should be kept away from hard objects. The act is neither moral nor immoral because God has never said "Thou shalt not stub thy toe." But it still hurts, because that's how the universe works.
If you die, you are also just following the basic rules of the universe. God has lots of regulations surrounding death, and death plays a big part of most religions. The LDS regard it as an important step in our progression. But God has not decreed "Thou shalt not die." Death itself is inevitable, an effect of being born, and God allows it to happen. It is not immoral or moral to die.
Also, since God is the absolute, and all good comes from him, then yes, I believe all morals are based on him. [/my beliefs]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Is God the source of and/or basis for your morality? If not, why not? Nope. Apathetic agnostic (apatheist, if you will).
2) Can human morality be independent of God, assuming that God exists? Why or why not? Sure. If morality can be defined as "right conduct," causes and effects can be determined without heavenly rewards or punishments by observing which actions cause the most benefit. Over a period of time these observations would become codified into a framework for societal mores. Or, to be smarky about it, I don't do what I do because I'm afraid I'll get rewarded or smacked in the afterlife. I do it because it's what I have determined is the best thing to do, to be the sort of person I want to be, and I'll let the afterlife (if there is one) sort itself out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Thanks. That makes sense to me. It also kind of answers a question for me about why I like Camus's _The Plague_ so much. There's something very admirable about folks who do good and are willing to make sacrifices not because they think that's what God wants, but because that's what's simply good to do.
Of course, in my opinion true religion leads to the same thing --- morality that emanates from the individual and not from the indvidual's desires to please or not provoke the wrath of God.
In fact, I would hope that that would be what I believe if I didn't believe what I do.
In other words, the goodness of humanity and the importance of freedom of choice are two key principles in Mormon theology. I'd like to think that they'd still be two key prinicples of my own faith even if my 'Mormonism' was stripped away.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:so it isn't necesarily the rewards or smacking in the afterlife but the possible rewards or smacking in the here and now?
Yup. Do my actions benefit others? Do they benefit me, without unnecessarily harming others? Are they fair and balanced? Have I left the world a better place for my actions? Have I acted like the kind of person my dog thinks I am, or the kind of person I want my kids to admire? It matters much, much less to me what a potential deity thinks, compared to what my family thinks of me, or what I think of myself.
"Smarky" is like snarky, only I'm smirking at the same time.
[ August 06, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In respose to afr's last comment, I'd like to revise my own. I think you're right. If all good things come from the Lord, then that has to include one's personal inclinations towards good.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
While I realize that upbringing and social environment have a huge impact on one's morality even if they are not directly responsible for it, I think that for this thread to work we have to pretend that we can be objective regarding the nature of morality. That said, I think answering "I'm a moral relativist" is acceptable even though true relativism is not viable (as has been pointed out).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An objective morality is impossible. By definition, it would imply that for any two moralities m1 and m2, if m1 can be compared in any way to m2, then m1 = m2. In other words, if you can compare two moralities, then they must in fact be one and the same.
Clearly this is not true. You name a moral system and I can make a comparison to it from some other moral system, and if the two moral systems do not agree, they can not, therefore, be one and the same; hence there can be no objective morality.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a god, and it doesn't mean that God, if He exists, doesn't create a morality. But to claim that it is objective is simply a false statement, most likely an attempt to add a suprelative to everything related to God, whether it makes sense or not.
We need a head spinning smiley. Interesting stuff. Now just give me a minute to understand it...
Zalmoxis,
That is perhaps one of the most enlightening views of Mormonism I've ever heard. Thanks, and I'm glad you understood where I'm coming from.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JG: Yes, but for the sake of discussion we have to make that assumption. Otherwise you can't talk about morality at all.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think morality exists, at least not by itself. It's like when someone says they need something (i.e. "I need to get my paper finished!"), they can't actually just need it. They may need it for a specific purpose, like say: "I need to finish my paper to get a good grade in this class", but there has to be clearly defined goals before you can actually need something. I think morality is the same, there is no act that is evil or good. However, if we assume that God exists (Christian God) then we can make some pretty clear goals. For instance, where you would like to end up after this existance.
So if you kill someone the act in and off itself is not morally good or bad, however, if you plan on going any where positive after you die, it's makes it rather hard. It was a bad act to achieve your desired goal. I agree with Geoff, some things even God can not control, like love. Love will always help a person (soul, spirit, whatever) grow, learn, and progress, so if your end goal is to be happy and knowledgable (as I think God's goal is for us) then God not loving us would be bad for that goal.
Now if you want, you can set up a system of morality based on goals that God gives you. If God tells you what you have to do to end up in a decent place a little later on, then God clearly sets up a goal, and you can define morality as the rules that should be followed to get there.
[EDIT: this was before Jeff's post but I don't think our points are really the same... ]
posted
I don't quite see how that excludes the possibility of objective morality, Jeff. Let's use physical laws and theories as an analogy. You believe in relativity and quantum mechanics (and let's assume that relativity and quantum mechanics are scientific laws that will not be proved wrong later). I believe in relativity, but I don't believe in quantum mechanics. The fact that we don't agree doesn't mean that there is no objective truth.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:An objective morality is impossible. By definition, it would imply that for any two moralities m1 and m2, if m1 can be compared in any way to m2, then m1 = m2. In other words, if you can compare two moralities, then they must in fact be one and the same.
You lost me on this one. Can you offer examples of contrasting moralities?
Morals are not only judged on their basis, but also on their results. "Killing is wrong." A clear moral, and a defensible one. "Murder is wrong." A different, but also clear moral. It implies that some killing is acceptable (self defense, perhaps, or criminal punishment) but murder is not.
One of these is incompatible with the other, but arguments can be made for either one. I don't see how we can apply mathematical certainties to anything involving human beings, but I may be misinterpreting what you're saying.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so we're all clear on this one, I don't believe in God, and I don't quit behaving morally when no one is looking. And most other people don't, either.
posted
I'm not even sure I can answer the two questions coherently, given my thinking on the subject. A pair of highly-qualified answers:
1. Yes...sort of. 2. Ditto.
Over the last couple of years I have been developing what I call a "creation ethic" which, simply stated, goes like this:
1. Do not destroy things except to prevent greater destruction or to create greater things. 2. Actively preserve things unless that will lead to destruction of something greater. 3. Create anything you can unless you would have to destroy something greater or allow it to be destroyed.
Obviously, the term "greater" is ambiguous here; I consider sapient life to be the greatest category of things but beyond that the term is variable. Part of the point of such a meta-ethic is that its application depends on one's abilities and on the nature of what has already been created. Other moral rules derive from these depending on what is in existence and one's capabilities. (An example--"thou shalt not kill" is applicable to human subjects but not to immature pequininoes, at least if we consider the carving-up process to be death.)
It is possible to conceive of a God who disagreed with this ethic and valued nonexistence rather than existence, but such a being would not have created us and would probably destroy itSelf as well! Positions that deviate from this ideological framework may be possible but they seem to me to be based on at least the concept of certain created things already being in existence.
There may be holes in the concept, perhaps large ones. If so, feel free to point them out.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zalmoxis, what exactly do you mean by the "goodness of humanity"? That humans will try to do the right thing under normal circumstances? That the existence of humans is good? Or something else?
I find, though, that my own church agrees with yours on the second point. No question there.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Do not destroy things except to prevent greater destruction or to create greater things. 2. Actively preserve things unless that will lead to destruction of something greater. 3. Create anything you can unless you would have to destroy something greater or allow it to be destroyed.
I find this very appealing. I think that the whole reason behind morality (and behind law) is to allow freedom to create. That's why, although I believe in free agency, I have no problem with moral codes (esp. those in relation to lifestyle choices) because it seems to me that some choices lead to more creative force potential (and to creation) than others.
But dang it all if it don't get messy when it comes to practical application and real-life politics.
For example, was the creation of the Glen Canyon dam a creation of greater things or the destruction of something greater than the result?
I like the idea of 'treading lightly' which is what this sort of ethic seems to invoke, but when I look around me it's clear that 'lightly' can often be a hard thing to measure.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus: *Shrugs* I was borrowing the term from Kasie. I liked the way it sounded. I don't for sure what she meant by it.
---
In Mormon terms, I suppose the 'goodness of humanity' would be somewhat analogous to the idea of 'the light of Christ.' Mormons believe that everyone is born with a certain elemental understanding of right and wrong, we call that 'the light of Christ.' In my understanding, it's not just a conscience (although it kind of us), but it's also by virtue of the 'goodness' and 'light' that emanates from Christ (in other words, somehow we are attuned to his perfect example). I don't think that the exact paramaters of that understanding have ever been delineated in Mormon theology, but at their basic, I think it's safe to say that it's golden rule stuff --- treat others with kindness and gentleness, be honest with yourself and with others, etc.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ironically I hadn't really thought of that in terms of treading lightly, though that is one application.
As to goodness...our theology suggests that humans are basically good in the sense that we don't believe in original sin. To say more than that, however, runs afoul of other beliefs such as the present silence of God and the blank slate of human existence at birth. That, I suppose points at one of the biggest differences between the Churches of Christ and LDS.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To add to what Zalmoxis said about the light of Christ: The ultimate effect of the light of Christ is to lead people to the true gospel of Christ, and to enable them to recognize it as true when it is presented to them in the proper spirit.
Maccabeus: That's a good set of rules, but if applied to God as the creator, I think they leave out what I think is the most important part—God created everything with a purpose. Your rules can govern individual decisions at certain points but leave out the sense of an overall plan. A robot, unconcerned with the overall plan, could follow these rules if programmed with a detailed enough hierarchy of what may be destroyed. I would think that a city planner, one who is concerned with what can be built where, might find more use for these rules than a creator with a grand plan. Such a creator would create everything with a purpose. If anything were destroyed it would be destroyed with a purpose higher than just to make way for what was being created. Your rules only relates back to themselves, but I'm talking about a creator with a purpose higher than just creation.
[ August 06, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: JG: Yes, but for the sake of discussion we have to make that assumption. Otherwise you can't talk about morality at all.
Actually, that's not so. You can discuss morality all you want, so long as you do so within a moral context.
For instance, the assertion that it is wrong to beat a child has no intrinsic moral truth to it. However, you easily say that if it is important and good that a child grow up happy and able to interact easily with others of his society, then it is wrong to beat a child.
A lot of what people believe are absolute moralities are in fact relative moralities coupled with societal axioms; essentially, their moral contexts. These axioms plus a set of relative morals can yield a perfectly workable and possibly self-consistent morality. However, the morality itself has no funamental truth or falseness without the axioms, with themselves are more or less arbitrary. (Though very few of a society's axioms will appear to be arbitrary when viewed from within the society.)
posted
advice for robots> (Interesting name, given the post.) Given a state of total nonexistence (aside from a creator) to start with, I'm not certain what additional purpose than to create is possible. I am given to understand that LDS do not consider God to be the ultimate original creator; perhaps you can enlighten me as to whether this is true and what purpose you think is appropriate.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> A lot of what people believe are absolute moralities are in fact relative moralities coupled with societal axioms; essentially, their moral contexts. These axioms plus a set of relative morals can yield a perfectly workable and possibly self-consistent morality. However, the morality itself has no funamental truth or falseness without the axioms, with themselves are more or less arbitrary. (Though very few of a society's axioms will appear to be arbitrary when viewed from within the society.) << (JG)
Right, but for the sake of this discussion does that need to be acknowledged? I don't think it does, necessarily. Not acknowledging it doesn't detract from the discussion and it keeps things less bastract (I think).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the morality itself has no funamental truth or falseness without the axioms, with themselves are more or less arbitrary.
Okay, stipulated. What good does acknowledging this do us? I don't want to sound sarcastic, it's possible that I'm missing a major point in judging moralities by focusing on the rules instead of the goals. Should we be arguiing over the goals before we discuss the ways to achieve them, or are you dismissing the entire question as ultimately unanswerable?
Generally I consider discussions on this level to be entertaining and informative but not terribly useful, like arguing free will vs determinism. Since I have to assume free will either way, it makes little difference in my day to day life. Fascinating to listen to, though.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance, the assertion that it is wrong to beat a child has no intrinsic moral truth to it.
You make a good point, but I don't agree with it. This is effectively assuming that it would be OK to beat a child if A. The child didn't remember it and B. The child bore no marks or lasting injuries. To me, it doesn't matter if the kid grows up perfect, beating a child is wrong.
Maybe it's partly the way my momma raised me. Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Twinky said: Right, but for the sake of this discussion does that need to be acknowledged? I don't think it does, necessarily. Not acknowledging it doesn't detract from the discussion and it keeps things less bastract (I think).
Well, it does and it doesn't. If you don't acknowledge it, then you get people who go around claiming that there exists an objective morality and it's the one they say it is. Crusades and inquisitions have been perpetrated because of this erroneous conclusion, so yes, I think it important to acknowledge it.
quote: Chris Bridges said: Okay, stipulated. What good does acknowledging this do us? I don't want to sound sarcastic, it's possible that I'm missing a major point in judging moralities by focusing on the rules instead of the goals. Should we be arguiing over the goals before we discuss the ways to achieve them, or are you dismissing the entire question as ultimately unanswerable?
I think it's a little of both, actually. I think we absolutely need to discuss the goals -- the basic axioms -- when we discuss morality, because when we assume that our axioms are universal, we essentially overlook the values of other cultures, which is insulting to them.
quote:Chris Bridges said: Generally I consider discussions on this level to be entertaining and informative but not terribly useful, like arguing free will vs determinism. Since I have to assume free will either way, it makes little difference in my day to day life. Fascinating to listen to, though.
I don't think it's quite as moot as free will vs. determinism. I believe that the ramifications of moral relativism has a much more practical impact upon our daily lives. When one culture is willing to die (or kill) to stop the actions of another culture, clearly we ignore the moral axioms of others at our own peril.
Now we may never be able to reconcile our axioms with theirs, but failing to at least make the effort and recognize and discuss the differences is sheer negligence.
quote: Ryuko said: You make a good point, but I don't agree with it. This is effectively assuming that it would be OK to beat a child if A. The child didn't remember it and B. The child bore no marks or lasting injuries. To me, it doesn't matter if the kid grows up perfect, beating a child is wrong.
Maybe it's partly the way my momma raised me.
I was throwing together a facile example. Your actual set of moral axioms are likely to be much more complex than the example I used. Replace my reasons with the complete set of all the reasons why you think beating a child would be wrong and then you'll see the argument still holds.
For instance, one of your moral axioms might be: it is wrong to cause pain. With such an axiom, beating a child again becomes morally wrong.
posted
>> Well, it does and it doesn't. If you don't acknowledge it, then you get people who go around claiming that there exists an objective morality and it's the one they say it is. <<
Yeah, but remember that those people are, in part, the ones I'm addressing my questions to. If I say "well, I want to hear what you think but remember that it's erroneous" then people who do make that claim are less likely to give me input.
In other words, I've sacrificed correctness for the sake of discussion. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've got a point, but I think it's a dangerous thing to do. You're right: they're not likely to listen to you unless you drop this relative morals thing, but then again, if you don't challenge the notion of objective morality, others may start to believe it exists, too.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
