Yikes! A lot of people believe the OT (and its horrific passages of genocide and sex slavery) is part of the inerrant word of God. We are doomed!!Until the OT is scrapped then there are those who will consider such atrosities to be moral
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yikes! A lot of people believe the OT (and its horrific passages of genocide and sex slavery) is part of the inerrant word of God. We are doomed!!Until the OT is scrapped then there are those who will consider such atrosities to be moral
Good point. I would like to explore this point more. Perhaps I'll create a thread about it.The trouble is establishing tangible harms. Harms should be able to be demonstrated regardless of what anyone thinks about them. Which is a lot more difficult than it sounds, for the same reasons as the last post.
Don't remind me, I was trying to enjoy my life in a bubble.Laws can be immoral and discriminatory.
I had a sociology instructor in college who taught that murder is OK in societies having that as the norm. I was horrified. Should I be horrified by this idea?This also brings about another question, is there a universal morality? In the definition of morality; "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
Morality is generally decided based on the society in which you live. So what one group sees as moral another may see it as immoral and vice versa.
We get scared for our children if pedophiles lurk around our children's school, or children's playground or parks. Is that considered a phobia against a group of people?Some seem to think there is no such thing as objective morality because no one can agree. Does this mean laws are immoral and that we should not have laws? (since they are arbitrary and promote the moral views of some but not others).
But can we agree on enough? Things such as: murder, stealing, rape, racism, phobias against various groups of people. Is there really any controversy about these?
I want to agree but have questions.I personally think that there are objective moral directives
Interesting perspective which I hadn't thought of before. That laws are political, not moral.Laws are tools of diffusion and enforcement of political will.
They fulfill a necessary role. It just happens that this role has no moral significance, despite common misunderstandings to the contrary.
Don't remind me, I was trying to enjoy my life in a bubble.
But can we agree on enough? Things such as: murder,
Interesting and useful list.Many years before Moses...
- I have not committed sin.
- I have not committed robbery with violence.
- I have not stolen.
- I have not slain men or women.
- I have not stolen food.
- I have not swindled offerings.
- I have not stolen from God/Goddess.
- I have not told lies.
- I have not carried away food.
- I have not cursed.
- I have not closed my ears to truth.
- I have not committed adultery.
- I have not made anyone cry.
- I have not felt sorrow without reason.
- I have not assaulted anyone.
- I am not deceitful.
- I have not stolen anyone’s land.
- I have not been an eavesdropper.
- I have not falsely accused anyone.
- I have not been angry without reason.
- I have not seduced anyone’s wife.
- I have not polluted myself.
- I have not terrorized anyone.
- I have not disobeyed the Law.
- I have not been exclusively angry.
- I have not cursed God/Goddess.
- I have not behaved with violence.
- I have not caused disruption of peace.
- I have not acted hastily or without thought.
- I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.
- I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.
- I have not worked evil.
- I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.
- I have not polluted the water.
- I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.
- I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.
- I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
- I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.
- I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.
- I have not taken food from a child.
- I have not acted with insolence.
- I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess.
I like your graded approach. But does this mean that we should not have laws against "smaller" crimes, because such laws will be arbitrary (and therefore, I suppose, unjust to some)?
And do we still have traffic laws? (If not, I'm gonna quit driving.)
Psychology articles often mention that psychopaths lack anything resembling a conscience. But the DSM-5 for Antisocial Personality Disorder doesn't mention conscience, or right and wrong.
And depending on how we define murder, murder isn't murder at all anymore.We can all agree that murder is immoral, but unless we agree on which killings are murder the agreement is utterly meaningless.
I have recently changed my mind on the objectivity of morals and am now convinced that some moral values are objective. I'm not sure all or even many of our values can be shown to be objectively moral but equality is an objective moral value and basis for many other values.Some seem to think there is no such thing as objective morality because no one can agree. Does this mean laws are immoral and that we should not have laws? (since they are arbitrary and promote the moral views of some but not others).
But can we agree on enough? Things such as: murder, stealing, rape, racism, phobias against various groups of people. Is there really any controversy about these?
This also brings about another question, is there a universal morality? In the definition of morality; "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
Morality is generally decided based on the society in which you live. So what one group sees as moral another may see it as immoral and vice versa.
Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. Problem is different people have different views as to what represents right and wrong.
So laws against violence and theft are similar to traffic laws; they concern public safety and well-being.Both have more to do with public safety than morality.
I had a sociology instructor in college who taught that murder is OK in societies having that as the norm. I was horrified. Should I be horrified by this idea?
Please share your proof.I can prove to any rational person that racism is objectively immoral.
What definition do you have in mind for the word "equality"?equality is an objective moral value and basis for many other values.
More or less my first post in different words