-
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!
Morality is static
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Morals are static, and they should remain so, if we are willing to change our morals to suite a situation than they never meant anything in the first place.
But truth changes: science learns new things everyday. And societies change: There is very little resemblance between us and the societies of 2000 years ago. Even on the personal level, our understanding of things changes as we grow older. The values I had as a kid are "child's play" to me today. So, why should we not expect our morals to change somewhat with time, learning, experience, and age?
Runt
Well-Known Member
I think morals are complete fabrications that really describe, for the most part, what we believe is "good" for us as humans and what we believe is "bad" for us as humans. And it is a little bit about what we "like" and what we "dislike", and what is "normal" and what is "abnormal". All completely subjective concepts, which come together to create completely subjective, nonstatic morals.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I would say that not only are morals not static - they aren't even universal. What is morally correct in the US might be considered immoral (or even amoral) in an Asian society. Come to think of it, not all people in the US would (or can) agree on what is morally right. Examples leap into my mind in the realm of politics, religion, business ethics, etc. When you add in the effect of time on humanities perceptions of right and wrong, it becomes apparent that this is true.
I think Sunstone, pah, and Runt all make valid points in regards to morals.
I think Sunstone, pah, and Runt all make valid points in regards to morals.
Truth does not change. Real truth is not subjective.
I still hold to my childhood values. I will probably hold on to them for my whole life in general(may lapse every once in a while, I'm not perfect
)
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
I believe that a case can be made that morality is not static. We today believe, and consider moral, that "all men(sic) are created equal". This was revolutionary thinking 230 years ago. To make it part of todays moral fabric (here in the US) has taken all the intervening time, and it still isn't part of everyone's moral code here. The implementation of this concept, here in this country, is still subject to argument, debate, and interpretation.
The position of women is society is another instance. We currently believe (generally) in the equality of women and men; before the law especially. This was also a revolutionary concept. It is not considered moral in many places on this planet today.
We are using the same basic documents (the Bible, etc.) as people did 500, 250, 100, 50, 30, 20, etc. years ago when the positions considered moral today were not so considered. Our interpretations and implementation of the teachings in those basic documents have changed, while the documents themselves have not. Thus my case that morality is not static, but dynamic; that it changes with time and the people's education and capacity.
The position of women is society is another instance. We currently believe (generally) in the equality of women and men; before the law especially. This was also a revolutionary concept. It is not considered moral in many places on this planet today.
We are using the same basic documents (the Bible, etc.) as people did 500, 250, 100, 50, 30, 20, etc. years ago when the positions considered moral today were not so considered. Our interpretations and implementation of the teachings in those basic documents have changed, while the documents themselves have not. Thus my case that morality is not static, but dynamic; that it changes with time and the people's education and capacity.
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
I agree that morals are not static. Mine have changed over the years and actually I have stronger morals than I did when I was younger. I have more of a conscience than I did as a younger person. Morals are connected to conscience and conscience is not static.
Reality is not subjective. But truth is not reality. Truth is a testable quality of the relationship between our claims about reality and reality. (I'm getting deep here, and I'm not even drinking -- for shame!) So, the truth of the claims we make about reality do indeed change as we refine those claims to make them more and more accurate (i.e. truthful).Mister Emu said:
Yes, you probably have some values today that you had in childhood, but do you still have all your childhood values? And haven't you added new more mature values as your knowledge and understanding has grown?Mr. Emu said:I still hold to my childhood values. I will probably hold on to them for my whole life in general(may lapse every once in a while, I'm not perfect
Truth is based on reality, for truth to change so must reality. Let me rephrase myself.
Truth does not change unless reality changes.(ex: It is true that G-dubya is president at this moment. If he loses the election, next year at this time that statement would be no longer true. But it would be an unchangeable truth that he was president from 2000-2004)
I still have all my childhood values that I remember. I never said that I have not added to my morals, but that the morals I had then, have now, and any I may gain will not change.
Consider a map, Mr. Emu. The relationship of the map to its terrain is called the map's truthfulness (or falsity). In the same way, the relationship of a claim or proposition about reality to reality is called the truthfulness (or falsity) of the claim or proposition. You know, we really should be drinking when discussing this -- it's the only sacred way to discuss such heavy subjects as the nature of truth.Mister Emu said:
I would say it is called the map's accuracy.
I think we have a different view of the definition of the word truth. I don't think a statement can be partially true, (I do believe part of a statement can be true, and part of it false) but that it can either be true on a whole, or if part of it is untrue then on the whole it is a flase statement.
Accuracy and truthfulness are different words for the same thing, in my book.Mister Emu said:
Yes. Our definitions are similar in some ways, and in some ways we reach similar conclusions, but I think there might be some differences, too...Mister Emu said:
...and that's one of the differences! 2+2=5 is approximately true. To say the American Civil War began in 1860 is false, but it is not nearly so false as saying the American Civil War began in 1710. I believe there are degrees of truthfulness, just as there are degrees of accuracy.Mister Emu said:
At any rate, we're way off topic here, aren't we? I've forgotten how to link this back to the notion that morality is static. I think that if one has had good teachers (in one's parents and others) then one has the good fortune to have been taught a morality that will not need too much adjustment as one grows, matures, and encounters new and varied experiences. But if one has been mis-taught, then one's morality will be a misfit with reality, and one will need to adjust it considerably if one wishes to be happy and not at odds with reality.
To me they are both 100% false, one may be closer to the truth but to me that does not make it more true.
and yes we are off topic so I will cease posting on this subject