• 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!

Moral.. What is moral?

We Never Know

No Slack
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

1. No. That's rude.
2. Not typically, but there could be exceptions.
3. No. That's also rude.
4. No. That's lazy. You should get to know them and find a more creative reason to dislike them. :D (Just kidding)

Of course morals vary from person to person.

I read this and thought it was about peer pressure to drink until I saw this:

I don't like peer pressure to take those shots, either. Its frustrating.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party
Yes.
Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?
Morals are basic principles you live by - which does differ depending upon the person.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

(These are the definitions I found, imo they are personal, everyone's morals are all slightly different. But I'd like to think we share similar Values.)
 

We Never Know

No Slack
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

(These are the definitions I found, imo they are personal, everyone's morals are all slightly different. But I'd like to think we share similar Values.)

Yeah I read the definition before I posted the thread. However with many things it seems people are deemed immoral by others if they don't agree with what others feel/think.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
I have pondered this. To set the scene for my thinking on morality; I think that one is acting morally if one is acting within the moral metrics of empathy, equity, cooperation and reciprocity. As such, I think that killing someone in self-defense is immoral, but justifiable. And understandable. Similarly, I consider forcing people to be vaccinated to be analogous. It's immoral, but it is justifiable and understandable.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?
Morals typically revolve around homogeneity. Think about that.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?
2. What if it's things like not drinking while driving. Should we force people to not drink if they are going to drive? Is it moral or not?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?

Different people have different morals but that does not mean there is no absolute right and wrong.
When it comes to threatening people with hell for not believing, how is that even possible for a human being to do? Are they the judge also?
If someone does mention hell or the prospect of no eternal life that cannot be a threat and so would be just a warning of what could happen. If it is a threat then to the hearer then surely the hearer believes already in the concept.
I have heard some people describe it as a threat but I think they are just wanting to practise cancel culture or embarrass people about the content of the Bible.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?


Morals and moral laws were designed with the concept of the team in mind. A team has the potential to be more than the sum of its parts. For example, there is a difference between a pile of parts and these parts all assembled into a sports car. Both contain the same parts, but the when they are assembled into a sports car, they become something special that is more than the sum of its parts.

Morals were not designed to optimize the whims of the individual; parts. Greed would be considered immoral since it only benefits one person at the expense of the team. On the other hand, being a store owner who shops around to provide good products, at a good price to his customers, while being paid a fair profit, can benefit everyone on the team; store owner and his customers. This is moral behavior in terms of free enterprise.

In sports, a good team requires that the players sacrifice their ego-centric whims for the good of the team. The coach will assign positions and limited responsibilities. All the players cannot expect to be the hot dog or the center of attention, if the goal is to create a championship team. That approach makes it too easy for the other team to defend against, thereby undermining the value of the team. The players will need to willingly places limits on their whims, so the team can spread out their play, so it can become more than the sum of its parts. If this is done well, a team can become champions, which then makes all the players, champions. This is how ancient Israel became well positioned even as a small culture. Sometimes small colleges win the March Madness Basketball Tournament, beating larger schools with more potential team members but weaker teams.

If you look at the Ten Commandments, they all have the team in mind, instead of the individual. Thou shall not steal, for example, may not benefit all those individuals who wish something for nothing. However, this sacrifice benefits the team, since there will be more trust among all the members of the team, so they can work together and not waste time and resources being defensive.

Adultery may benefit some horny individuals, but this behavior can create a ripple affect of pain, distrust and anger that can create a cancer within parts of the team. The first command of one God helps the team since more than one God can cause friction and heated arguments, that can divide the team, even if this helps the egos of some preachers, who can prosper by creating discord.

In terms of your list, religions tend to have the team in mind; moral laws. Most of the secular changes are geared more toward the ego; relative morality. The team starts to fragment.

The vaccine would have been more moral; help the team, if the life sciences did not depend as much on rolling dice; statistical methods, to determine who benefitted the most. This irrational approach to science; casino science, will try to create a one size fits all that does not optimize team, since one size does not fit all. In terms of politics, the vaccine was used to divide the country, since rolling dice allows people to bet both ways. The fear of the unknown makes people defensive.

Nonreligious is often more ego-centric, without the moral foundation needed to optimize a team. It may be better for individual egos; but this often breaks one larger team into smaller teams that exclude each other; rich and poor.

The debate between science and religion can become immoral since it divides people on what should be one team of various specialists. I like to assume both say similar things in different ways. We need to learn how to translate.

Politics is based on ego-centric people; in the spotlight, who try to optimize their own needs via pandering to their base of voters, while alienating the other half, instead of looking out for the whole team. This is immoral. Immoral is not a value judgement, but a judgement in terms of team play and championship capacity. I am being a coach, and not a judge and jury. The coach may yell and complain but he also forgives and moves on to the next game.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing
-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot
-Threaten people with hell for not believing
-Dislike people because they like a different party

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?
Like chats about morality, I really think the stuff about the vaccine is interesting that you mention in this regard.

Because on one side you have a virus that is easily spread and killing people, but is it morally right to force people to be injected with a vaccine?

For me in order to answer moral issues, one have to do it from a common perspective, meaning what do we measure what is considered morally right against. Without doing that, I don't think we can even remotely address such question to begin with, as it would simply be each individual's point of view that matters and therefore impossible to validate it objectively.

So just as an example, if we can agree that it is morally wrong to cause harm to others.

Then we can ask ourselves, if we have a virus which can kill a lot of people and is easily spread in the population, but if we have a vaccine that have been demonstrated to work. Are we as individuals morally justified to not take such vaccine?

Obviously we can't simply look at morality from a single perspective, such as "not causing harm to others", because robbing people of their freedom could also be seen as causing them harm. So we are in a sort of dilemma here in that regard.

And I don't think there is a simple and easy answer to this, but I do think we can approach it from a more objective way, if we could also decide that freedom as a right, needs to be justifiable. So freedom in it self as a general idea is not enough to be considered a moral right. For example, driving way to fast down the freeway because one doesn't feel like they should be forced to stick to the speed limit. And in many cases people doing this doesn't end up causing an accident or harm to others.

But if freedom is guided by rationality, more than simply what one think it means to be free. Then we could draw the conclusion, that a person driving to fast on the road, is more likely to put others in harms way than if they stick to the speed limit, because we have prove of there being fewer death and accidents as a result of this. Therefore we shouldn't consider it morally wrong to limit peoples freedom in regards to this.

Do we apply this to the vaccines as well, then we can see that people that are vaccinated are less likely to get severely ill from it and therefore die. But also gives us a fighting chance against the virus.

So even though we could argue that forcing people to get vaccinated is not morally right as it interferes with their freedom, it is not when freedom is not simply seen as a general thing, of people having the right to do as they please. But those that chose to not get vaccinated are definitely being morally wrong if we can agree what we measure morality against, which is that causing harm to others are morally wrong.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?

Not for me. The way I interact with a person or how I think about them may vary from person to person, but they are all being evaluated according to the same set of moral values.

Make fun of people for believing

This is mildly immoral - mostly unfriendly.

But I have to say that most of what is called making fun of beliefs on these threads is not that to me. Most skeptics are telling the believers why they don't believe themselves, and also what's wrong with the science and reasoning in the believer's apologetics. This is often framed by the believer as an attack. I don't consider that kind of behavior an attack, immoral or even unfriendly. It's a principle purpose of this forum.

Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot

That isn't happening, except possibly with children who would refuse a vaccine if their parents didn't hold them down while they were being inoculated through tears. That's forcing a vaccine. If it were happening to adults, I'd have misgivings about it.

What is happening is that people are being told they can't hold a certain job without a vaccine, or get on an airplane, or attend an entertainment venue of some sort, or enter a restaurant. These are not done to force others to take vaccines, although it does give them incentive to do so if their health and the health of others around them isn't sufficient. They are done for health and safety reasons, like forbidding entrance to the unshirted and unshod. Everybody still has the choice to refuse the vaccine just like they have the right to go barefoot, but they may sacrifice some privileges with it..

So, not a moral issue at all, since nobody is being forced to do anything or is having any right violated.

Threaten people with hell for not believing

This is by far the most immoral thing on this list. This is psychological terrorism, and it usually begins in childhood. Some have called it child abuse.

Dislike people because they like a different party

This is not immoral, although party isn't a factor. It's character. I just can't respect people with certain values and opinions, and prefer to not spend time with them.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
If we strip morality from the content of the actual beliefs being professed, and the content of the actions being performed, then all morality will take on an air of absurdity and restriction.

People have already argued extensively on the morality of quarantines, vaccination, and mask mandates, both here on RF and elsewhere. If these arguments have not been able to convince you, in the third year of a global pandemic, why it is necessary or useful to do any of these things, then what, pray tell, would be the point of laying them all out again for the n-th time in this thread?
 

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
-Threaten people with hell for not believing

I think people who do that aren't threatening others in their own view, they warn.
There's a difference between telling a child: "Do not get too close to the road, you might get hit by a car!"
and telling a child: "Do not get too close to the road, or I will spank you!"
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Morals and moral laws were designed with the concept of the team in mind. A team has the potential to be more than the sum of its parts. For example, there is a difference between a pile of parts and these parts all assembled into a sports car. Both contain the same parts, but the when they are assembled into a sports car, they become something special that is more than the sum of its parts.

Morals were not designed to optimize the whims of the individual; parts. Greed would be considered immoral since it only benefits one person at the expense of the team. On the other hand, being a store owner who shops around to provide good products, at a good price to his customers, while being paid a fair profit, can benefit everyone on the team; store owner and his customers. This is moral behavior in terms of free enterprise.

In sports, a good team requires that the players sacrifice their ego-centric whims for the good of the team. The coach will assign positions and limited responsibilities. All the players cannot expect to be the hot dog or the center of attention, if the goal is to create a championship team. That approach makes it too easy for the other team to defend against, thereby undermining the value of the team. The players will need to willingly places limits on their whims, so the team can spread out their play, so it can become more than the sum of its parts. If this is done well, a team can become champions, which then makes all the players, champions. This is how ancient Israel became well positioned even as a small culture. Sometimes small colleges win the March Madness Basketball Tournament, beating larger schools with more potential team members but weaker teams.

If you look at the Ten Commandments, they all have the team in mind, instead of the individual. Thou shall not steal, for example, may not benefit all those individuals who wish something for nothing. However, this sacrifice benefits the team, since there will be more trust among all the members of the team, so they can work together and not waste time and resources being defensive.

Adultery may benefit some horny individuals, but this behavior can create a ripple affect of pain, distrust and anger that can create a cancer within parts of the team. The first command of one God helps the team since more than one God can cause friction and heated arguments, that can divide the team, even if this helps the egos of some preachers, who can prosper by creating discord.

In terms of your list, religions tend to have the team in mind; moral laws. Most of the secular changes are geared more toward the ego; relative morality. The team starts to fragment.

The vaccine would have been more moral; help the team, if the life sciences did not depend as much on rolling dice; statistical methods, to determine who benefitted the most. This irrational approach to science; casino science, will try to create a one size fits all that does not optimize team, since one size does not fit all. In terms of politics, the vaccine was used to divide the country, since rolling dice allows people to bet both ways. The fear of the unknown makes people defensive.

Nonreligious is often more ego-centric, without the moral foundation needed to optimize a team. It may be better for individual egos; but this often breaks one larger team into smaller teams that exclude each other; rich and poor.

The debate between science and religion can become immoral since it divides people on what should be one team of various specialists. I like to assume both say similar things in different ways. We need to learn how to translate.

Politics is based on ego-centric people; in the spotlight, who try to optimize their own needs via pandering to their base of voters, while alienating the other half, instead of looking out for the whole team. This is immoral. Immoral is not a value judgement, but a judgement in terms of team play and championship capacity. I am being a coach, and not a judge and jury. The coach may yell and complain but he also forgives and moves on to the next game.
In short, religious morality is tribal while secular morality is individual?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Not for me. The way I interact with a person or how I think about them may vary from person to person, but they are all being evaluated according to the same set of moral values.
I don't think it was meant that way. It's not about you treating people by different moral standards, it is about different people having different moral standards.
That isn't happening, except possibly with children who would refuse a vaccine if their parents didn't hold them down while they were being inoculated through tears. That's forcing a vaccine. If it were happening to adults, I'd have misgivings about it.
Why? You just said you didn't judge people by different moral standards?
Now you are saying children aren't people?
 
Top