I know the 10 Commandments, for people to follow, not for the God who wrote it and can read hearts.
-
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!
Why is morality a problem?
- Thread starter tayla
- Start date
We don't need objective morality, we just need self-interest. Nobody wants to be victims of these "things", so we have democracy to create laws to support the self-interest of the majority.
Laws are not (always) arbitrary. They’re often a reaction.
Take traffic laws as an example.
Back when the first motorcar was trundling around I doubt there were many speeding laws or seatbelt laws. But as cars got faster people started to get into accidents. So we started to develop speeding laws.When the seatbelt was found to be extra useful in preventing serious injury in accidents, mandatory seatbelt laws started to come into play. This was even modified only fairly recently with the changes in mandatory child safety seats. It used to be that a baby or infant had a baby seat and a child could get away with just a seatbelt. Maybe a booster seat if they were little kids. Nowadays some places require extra seating protections for kids as old as 10. But this wasn’t an arbitrary thing that just happened. This was based on evidence gathered by observing car accidents and how to prevent or at least minimise injury.
There are some outdated random laws everywhere, to be sure. But this isn’t the same as morality, per se.
A person might find same sex marriage immoral. Fine whatever.
But if the government gives extra benefits to married couples, then one could make the argument that barring that for same sex couples is by definition discriminatory and therefore illegal. Not immoral, but illegal.
Laws are usually flexible and more often than not a reflection of our growing understanding of the world around us. It won’t be perfect, like a lot of morals like to claim they are, but a working progress is fine enough.
Yet he still killed every living thing on this planet except a close buddy, the buddies family and about 20 million animals.
He still told the Israelites to kill men and take women and cattle for themselves.
So is that poor judgement or is that one sick minded dictator?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
For the most part morality is pretty simple for anyone who possesses the ability to empathize. If there's something that you wouldn't want other people to do to you then it's probably wise not to do that something to anyone else.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
There is no objective morality in the ultimate sense....meaning there are no morals which exist in and of themselves. However, one could say that there are morals which are objective with reference to an agreed upon set of rules/morals by a society
You can get some objectivity by pointing out a human problem first, then suggest moral behaviors which resolve it.
I think there are problems which morals are an attempt to solve. Rather than the moral you have to explain what the problem is and demonstrate it. Then you categorize together your morals which are attempts resolve it, and you have to justify those. Problems are easier to identify and categorize than unsourced solutions. If you don't know what the moral is for you can't categorize it. The moral is the answer to a question, so its hard to answer without a question.
Example: Jealousy is a human problem. People disagree about how to resolve it. Its dangerous and is frequently getting people killed. A moral rule attempts to resolve problems like this one. "Is it objectively moral to keep people from cheating on their spouses?" is more difficult to answer than "Do spouses who get cheated on frequently feel enraged?" Thus you begin with the second item and then can attempt to justify your moral based upon a human need for safety. You advise people not to cheat on their spouses. If asked you give your reasons. This provides some objectivity for your moral solution.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There really is no such thing as objective morality.
Like beauty , morality is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Brother. You must distinguish between Morality and Law.
Our morality is partly evolved (hence relatively fixed in all cultures round the world) and partly cultural (hence highly variable around the world).
The evolved part gives us tendencies to act in ways appropriate to gregarious primates who benefit from cooperation. It starts with nurture and protection of infants (as with all mammals) but also includes dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and oddly enough, a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial.
The rest is local, and includes how to act when you meet peers, younger people, social inferiors, older people, social superiors, what varies with whether they're men or women, how to behave at weddings, funerals, at table, at work, how and when to excrete, what to wear and when, on and on through the great list of things that others are going to judge you by.
Evolved morality doesn't exist independently of the brains that react to it, so it's not strictly objective morality. Nonetheless it doesn't have an arbitrary basis, but is a set of tendencies found in us all, albeit the strength of each tendency will vary from person to person.
Two other factors in our morality are our mirror neurons, which allow us to glimpse the world through someone else's eyes (the key to empathy), and our evolved conscience, which gives us the impression that some of the values we hold are of universal application, even though the list of such values will also vary from person to person.
So your morals are from your genes, your upbringing, your culture, your education and your experience; and they will change in various ways across the course of your life, sometimes subtly, sometimes radically, sometimes just as to the order of priorities.
Was the Apostle John aware of these accounts? For sure. Yet he still said "God is love", @ 1 John 4:8.
Why? (Do you know why Jehovah God brought the Flood? Genesis 6:4 reveals part of the reason. It also explains where the ancient Greeks, Romans, and others got their ideas for their gods sleeping w/ human females and producing hybrid children. Where would the human race be today, if God hadn't stepped in?)
I see you overlooked the resurrection I mentioned, that God has promised. It puts certain POVs in perspective.
I see you are using a time machine to excuse the abuses in the bible. I see also that you are using religious confirmation bias to again excuse the abuses in the bible.
Where would the human race be if the imaginary flood didnt happen??? Same place it is when you have dreams.
First you need to show god exists in order to make authoritative claims about supposes gods promises. Sure you are welcome to your faith, but that faith fails miserably when evidence is required
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
Based on experience, they can distinguish what those around them consider right and wrong, and know how to mimic responses. They don’t actually care about such things as mercy, justice, loyalty and other virtues. I think that is because the parts of the brain involved with empathy are also involved in experiencing those virtues.
They believe that people who follow moral codes are sheep. And they are wolves. And that is the way of nature.
Which is awfully close to the popular opinion here on RF, where, IMO, people are scared to go with their gut and say outright ‘murder and rape are reprehensible and immoral’.
Which they are.
This seems like a good scientific statement about what a universal moral code should look like.
Yes, a good perspective on universal morals.
Yes, but there is not much difference between 51% (majority) and 49% (minority). Why should that 1% in the middle choose for the other 99%?
Yes, I think everyone could agree to something like this as the basis for society.
Yes, they are. Thanks for saying so.
It's not 1% it's 51%. Basically democracy, not perfect but nothing better?
You have a better idea? Willing to listen... Just don't know currently of a better way.
Want me to decide? No problem. Rest of the world might take issue though.
Actually have no problem going with my gut, just not sure what my gut is going to say in all possible circumstances.
I've a fairly wide ranging imagination. I can think of scenarios in which rape or murder could prevent greater atrocities.