• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

answers about morality?

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
All moral questions can be solved without knowledge (except knowledge about the facts of a specific case).
How so?

So here is a question, please tell me which is more moral:

You have two buttons, one kills a living being, the other kills a living being. you must choose one button. which is the more moral decision?
All knowledge begins with an observation of the senses.
Agreed.
Since our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste or smell it, they must have felt something wrong when a member of the tribe was murdered.
What do you mean? something is wrong? yes, they saw a dead body that died not in a natural way. (like an axe in the head or something)
But, when the killing was in self-defense, it didn't feel wrong.
That is a very wrong assumption.

woman did not have a "self defense" excuse.
children did not have a s.d. excuse.
slaves did not have a s.d. excuse.

I took many years for humans to value children life as we value them today, because today we understand the real value of children. (and it is not being used as a gift to the gods, gladly)
From those observations, our ancestors, proud of their ability to reason, wrote useless laws about killing.
Not all those laws are useless :)
Today, we have comprehensive laws on murder that are still useless.
Agreed :) yet it is much better than the laws on murder 500 year ago :)
And we still have those feelings that our ancestors learned from. We refer to them as "our conscience." So we don't need those laws.
Lost you here,
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately not. I'm an android user myself.



Yeah, I might weight the coding a little different....

images




Yes, how about killing the engine and hitting the brakes for God's sake. The problem with such dilemmas I suppose, limiting the possible solutions causes the dilemma in the first place.
Agreed. render it irrelevant :)
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
The morality will be determined by the survivors. Your family and his family. You could very much kill him and be charged in a civil suit or nothing may happen. You could take your life and be hated by family members for abandoning them. Morality is not determined by us but by how others view the result. For the religious the others would be God. For the non-religious others would be society. Was Hitler moral. What do you think he believed. Again Logically what is the correct step to take.

No you will not know anything about the other person he like you and your families were trapped by a psychotic person.
Yep.
And today we can say that Hitler was no moral at all, as we clearly relate moral to human suffering, especially to major groups of populations, even more especially when being so ordered and planned way of causing suffer.
What Hitler believed is irrelevant, BTW, that is exactly my point :)
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Yep.
And today we can say that Hitler was no moral at all, as we clearly relate moral to human suffering, especially to major groups of populations, even more especially when being so ordered and planned way of causing suffer.
What Hitler believed is irrelevant, BTW, that is exactly my point :)

What a person believes about morals is not important but moral values as a society are very important and exist. Societies themselves use morals to create most laws. Your point about logically defending them is what is wrong. You can't logically defend something that is not logically created. Morals are the collective emotional feelings of society and are anything but logical. What we logically defend are the laws based off of societies moral values.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
I Have yet to come across a situation that involves a "morality" dilemma, that cannot be easily solved if you had more details about the situation.
I find it to be very contradicting with the question of objective moral.

So the answer of theists (that i have met so far) to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.
so in a way they believe (or hope) that somehow one day we will have a knowledge of 100% of everything.
We will know everything that you can possibly know about any situation or event. (i assume it is also the belief of most religions, what you will call "enlightenment" in a way - becoming one with knowledge).

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one :)

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

>>Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?<<

I feel like we talked about this already. It's game theory and the Nash Equilibrium.

 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Today, we had a real life example of this with Donald Trump and the Paris Treaty. He was playing again ex-President Obama and he chose not to cooperate in order to get another four years just like his predecesseor.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
I Have yet to come across a situation that involves a "morality" dilemma, that cannot be easily solved if you had more details about the situation.
I find it to be very contradicting with the question of objective moral.

So the answer of theists (that i have met so far) to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.
so in a way they believe (or hope) that somehow one day we will have a knowledge of 100% of everything.
We will know everything that you can possibly know about any situation or event. (i assume it is also the belief of most religions, what you will call "enlightenment" in a way - becoming one with knowledge).

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one :)

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?
The problem with the concept of morality is that in a sense, atheists, non theists are amoral. Please do not take offense.

The reason for this is that once morality is subjective to each person's individual idea of what is right and wrong, there can be no set morality. Some find child pornography OK, others not, some find the various, and at times frowned upon, social sexual activities such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and what not OK, others not. This is not morality, it is individually practiced principles, and it is amorality, since there is no established set of morality.

I will state that even in the Christian morality scheme of things, there is little or no objective morality because many peoples' morality depend on the church a person belongs to.

If you speak of direct Biblical and Christian morality, it is quite objective. This does not mean that it is without areas poorly defined. At least one important area lacks stronger guidelines. But! What is - is. What is not - isn't.

This means that at times, one must act according to both the knowledge of the morality given, as it is, and in harmony with what seems to be the path that does not incur wrath from above. In at least one such case, this could mean that one takes a path that might be permitted, but is avoided due to the desire to stay as far away from wrongdoing as is possible.

You asked for one question that cannot be solved without knowledge. This may sound odd for a person living in the western culture; the question is: is it permitted to have more than one wife?

The reason this question is legit, is because, though many may not realize it, Christians in the 1st century were permitted to have more than one wife if they were converts. Once they became converts, baptized, they were encouraged to only have one. Encouraged! But, not forbidden to have more than one. Having more than one wife would affect their status in the congregation.

So, does that mean that God, and Christ, does not mind me marrying more than one wife? If yes, how would I go about doing that in a western country so as to satisfy the God and Christ?
 

Ricktheheretic

"Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"
I Have yet to come across a situation that involves a "morality" dilemma, that cannot be easily solved if you had more details about the situation.
I find it to be very contradicting with the question of objective moral.

So the answer of theists (that i have met so far) to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.
so in a way they believe (or hope) that somehow one day we will have a knowledge of 100% of everything.
We will know everything that you can possibly know about any situation or event. (i assume it is also the belief of most religions, what you will call "enlightenment" in a way - becoming one with knowledge).

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one :)

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." Romans 1:18-23, Revised Standard Version

But, what do we know about psychology? Can everyone understand god, morality, right & wrong, etc.? There is evidence of a creator, but Paul of Tarsus didn't predict that science would come up with another explanation of existence someday. Who should believe in god in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary? I believe in the faith of Soren Kierkegard who said the we all have to find god within. We can't know if god exists or doesn't, but we must put our faith in something we cannot prove. Kierkegard's philosophy was in the same school as that of Frierdich Nietzsche, who said "god is dead," and that there could be a metaphysical world above us that wouldn't mean anything to us because we aren't part of it. Existentialism says that "we exist first and must determine our meaning later," nothing can guide us except what we feel and is true for us. Sort of sums up my agnostic position. I don't know if it exists, but I believe in a higher power because that's what my conscience tells me. I know I could be wrong, but no matter what it's real to me because I believe in it. As Kierkegard said, you can live three ways: aesthetically-by sight, feeling etc., ethically-by ethics based on reason and reciprocity, or religiously-by inner-conviction. Does morality have to be about objective facts? Or can it be about a "conviction" you have, whether its real or not? BTW I respect utilitarian schools of ethics (for the good of everyone/socially good), but I don't think anything has be real to us except what is real for us personally. Søren Kierkegaard - Wikipedia Existentialism - Wikipedia Unitarian Universalist Association < is for people who have different interpretations about the meaning of life, including non-theists.
 

Ricktheheretic

"Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"
David Hume saw ethics as subjective, as human perspective. "All swans are white" is what people say, but that's just because no one has ever seen the black swan. We only know what we experience. Personal experience is what life is.
 

LukeS

Active Member
To the OP.

List every exception to "murder is wrong" in a infinite multiverse / or situation of D K Lewis' modal realism.

IMO if "murder is sometimes justified" is true (eg Dr Who murders a dalek) then there is an infinite set of such cases in modal realism. Universe 1, universe 2, universe 3 etc.

And therefore no list will ever be complete, hence the task in impossible, and increasing knowledge makes no difference, just like trying to list odd numbers etc there will always be more there no matter how many you know of...



Drachen_p.png
 
Last edited:

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
What a person believes about morals is not important but moral values as a society are very important and exist. Societies themselves use morals to create most laws. Your point about logically defending them is what is wrong. You can't logically defend something that is not logically created. Morals are the collective emotional feelings of society and are anything but logical. What we logically defend are the laws based off of societies moral values.
Can you give one example of moral law that is not based on knowledge and logic?
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
>>Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?<<

I feel like we talked about this already. It's game theory and the Nash Equilibrium.

This example is false.
They stated they are both accused of a crime that can not be proven, yet if both keep silent, they will receive 1 year jail each.
The immoral here will be to lock a person without a proof to his crime.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
The problem with the concept of morality is that in a sense, atheists, non theists are amoral.
It depends on what you define moral.
Please do not take offense.
Not taken :)
The reason for this is that once morality is subjective to each person's individual idea of what is right and wrong, there can be no set morality.
If you'll read the posts here, I stated the subjective morality (imo) is irrelevant.
It is only relevant in the sense that our society defines morals based on the common subjective moralities.
Some find child pornography OK
Most find it wrong. that is why it is illegal and considered immoral.
We find it wrong because we understand the consequences of such things on our children.
We know humans can be very cruel and selfish, and that sexuality is a very complex and can become very abusive towards other beings.

others not, some find the various, and at times frowned upon, social sexual activities such as fornication,
Usually those who believe god says it is wrong.
adultery,
If a man or woman is in misery in his marriage, would you say it is immoral if he committed an adultery?
It might be considered wrong to cheat, but rarely is it considered immoral. it really depends on the circumstances.
homosexuality
,
Those who think homosexuality is immoral are idiots. plain and simple.
bestiality
That is a very broad issue
, and what not OK, others not.
This is not morality
agreed.
, it is individually practiced principles, and it is amorality, since there is no established set of morality.
[/QUOTE]
there is. we call it social behavior.
I agree with you that me, myself, have no objective morality. obviously.
I have my beliefs of what i think is moral and what not.

Are you a theist?
can you provide an example of a morality decision you can make that i cannot reason with? (exuding things like, it is immoral to say god probably doesn't exist)
I will state that even in the Christian morality scheme of things, there is little or no objective morality because many peoples' morality depend on the church a person belongs to.
Not really.
Maybe in the more simple things. when it comes to hard choices, people will always have their own pov of things.
it might be very affected, though, by preachers and a likes. that is what makes religion or any other non scientific way of looking at things
.
If you speak of direct Biblical and Christian morality, it is quite objective.
Objective? maybe, moral? not so much.
[/QUOTE]
This does not mean that it is without areas poorly defined. At least one important area lacks stronger guidelines. But! What is - is. What is not - isn't.
[/QUOTE]
lol.
This means that at times, one must act according to both the knowledge of the morality given, as it is, and in harmony with what seems to be the path that does not incur wrath from above. In at least one such case, this could mean that one takes a path that might be permitted, but is avoided due to the desire to stay as far away from wrongdoing as is possible.

here are some question that biblical morality fails in answering:

what is more important? life of a human or worship of god?
what is more important? life of animals or worship of god?
life of a child or life of a king?
promised lands or human life?
honor of parents or not suffering of children?

these are all questions that are unsuccessfully answered by the "moral" assumptions made by the writers of the bible.
It is a bold attempt to "inject" other moral thinking to the ancient people, but it very lacking comparing to what we know today.
You asked for one question that cannot be solved without knowledge.
indeed.
This may sound odd for a person living in the western culture; the question is: is it permitted to have more than one wife?
You are asking if it is permitted? or immoral?
these are two different things.
I can present you thousands of people that lead a very fruitful and happy lives being married to more than one wife (both the wives and the husband).
It will be immoral, if the wives have no say about whether or not the want to be one of many.
The reason this question is legit
it is legit, yet again, you don't provide enough information in order to solve it

is the husband a good man?
are the wives happy?
are they well treated?
are the children being raised in a healthy loving environment?
is the husband happy with his wives?
are there any rules that might be considered abusive to the wives?

if the answer is that they all live happy, healthy, free lives, i cant see the immorality of such a thing.
is because, though many may not realize it, Christians in the 1st century were permitted
the word permitted, makes the one permitting to be immoral.
how come you don't see it?
to have more than one wife if they were converts. Once they became converts, baptized, they were encouraged to only have one. Encouraged!
encouraged is another story :)
based on studies and statistics, we can understand if it is a better way to live or not.
but eventually, there is no morality question in such thing.
But, not forbidden to have more than one. Having more than one wife would affect their status in the congregation.
So, does that mean that God, and Christ, does not mind me marrying more than one wife? If yes, how would I go about doing that in a western country so as to satisfy the God and Christ?
Exactly!!!!
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Can you give one example of moral law that is not based on knowledge and logic?

Killing a person is wrong.

Its not wrong in self defense
Its not wrong in war
Its not wrong if your a criminal(We can kill you)
Its not wrong if your defending the law(Cops can kill you)

Its only wrong if you kill a person for personal gain or enjoyment.

How is that logical?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
You are in a room with another man secured firmly to separate chairs on opposite sides of the room. Your family and his are locked in rooms watching you. You have 2 buttons 1 kills you and lets everyone else free, 1 kills hims and lets everybody else free. If you do nothing at the end of one hour everyone dies. Choose logically.
Convince the other guy to press it too and just kill off everyone. Better that than to live in such a world. :)

as for human to human loss. i assume the "cold" decision would lean towards saving our young over adults. i believe many share the same belief as me that nothing is more important than the life of our (each his own) children.
Depends: if the young can't fend for themselves, getting yourself killed just kills them slower.

You have two buttons, one kills a living being, the other kills a living being. you must choose one button. which is the more moral decision?
Rewire it to kill the sadistic jerk who put you in this situation. :)

Today, we had a real life example of this with Donald Trump and the Paris Treaty. He was playing again ex-President Obama and he chose not to cooperate in order to get another four years just like his predecesseor.
What's the point of getting four more years when you're helping take off huge chunks of years off people's lives?

You are in a room with another man secured firmly to separate chairs on opposite sides of the room. Your family and his are locked in rooms watching you. You have 2 buttons 1 kills you and lets everyone else free, 1 kills hims and lets everybody else free. If you do nothing at the end of one hour everyone dies. Choose logically.
Convince the other guy to press it too and just kill off everyone. Better that than to live in such a world. :)

as for human to human loss. i assume the "cold" decision would lean towards saving our young over adults. i believe many share the same belief as me that nothing is more important than the life of our (each his own) children.
Depends: if the young can't fend for themselves, getting yourself killed just kills them slower.

The reason for this is that once morality is subjective to each person's individual idea of what is right and wrong, there can be no set morality.
Do you really think morality is from God?

Sexually abused Amish teen girl was 'gifted' by parents to family's financial backer, court hears
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
To the OP.

List every exception to "murder is wrong" in a infinite multiverse / or situation of D K Lewis' modal realism.
Murder is always wrong.
Killing someone, is not.
IMO if "murder is sometimes justified"
it is not.
is true (eg Dr Who murders a dalek) then there is an infinite set of such cases in modal realism. Universe 1, universe 2, universe 3 etc.
dalek?
And therefore no list will ever be complete, hence the task in impossible, and increasing knowledge makes no difference, just like trying to list odd numbers etc there will always be more there no matter how many you know of...
we disagree on that :)
 
Top