why are we moral? why dont we kill each other to get what we want? is that god? well why doesnt a loin kill their young, why doesnt a simple fish defend there young to the death? ...why does a bear take care of there young to the death for 18 month then turn around and kill them, is that genetics or is that the bible, i can quote from the bible too, but its mostly from the jewish part....
-
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!
morals
- Thread starter martenet
- Start date
MerryAtheist
New Member
It's definitely not the Bible, unless bears, lions and fish can read.
Vigdisdotter
Member
It's basic social behaviour and a means of continuing the species.
It boils down to survival of the fittest, but part of what makes something "fit" to survive is being able to function in a group setting.
blackout
Violet.
If nobody stops for red lights,
everybody's chances of accidents/damage/injury/death go up.
(yes, including yours)
As well people can reason and contemplate, and thus empathize.
I would be devistated if 'thus and such',
and so...
you would probably be devistated by 'thus and such'.
Reasons for not devistating one another
are both selfish and empathetic.
everybody's chances of accidents/damage/injury/death go up.
(yes, including yours)
As well people can reason and contemplate, and thus empathize.
I would be devistated if 'thus and such',
and so...
you would probably be devistated by 'thus and such'.
Reasons for not devistating one another
are both selfish and empathetic.
blackout
Violet.
Atomist
I love you.
no... the op sorry for ambiguity.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
meogi
Well-Known Member
Culture.martenet said:
What Earth are you living on?martenet said:
More likely society.martenet said:
Easily available food and a genetic necessity.martenet said:
They breed in the millions. Also, life is hard as a fish... easy prey. There is too great a risk involved in attempting to defend babies that you can't even be certain are yours.martenet said:
I'm not entirely convinced on the bear story, maybe provide some info on that one.
Which do you think has more relevance?martenet said:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
In most cases, killing each other would not help us get what we want.
Edit: I want to stay out of prison. I want to avoid dangerous situations (e.g. life-or-death struggles). I want the benefits of co-operation. All of these desires are best served by not going around killing people.
If one believes in God, then he or she will likely believe that morals came from God. If one doesn't believe in God, then they will believe something else.
What I learned in my Physical Anthro class was a "need" factor (or something like that). In societies like Bushmen, they have less murder because each person is needed in some way. And more "civilized" cultures, individuals are needed less. In the animal kingdom, animals will instinctively want to take care of their young and not eat it- but some species do eat their young, so that can't always be true.
I guess what I am trying to say is I don't know. That is the best answer sometimes. :foot:
This is something that I've always had trouble with. Even if you believe in God, how can you consider him to be the source of morality?
I mean, I can see how a God could declare some set of rules and punishments for breaking them, but simply creating rules doesn't necessarily make those rules "moral". How does even a God elevate his commands from mere rules to actual morality?
Since I believe God created everything, then He would have created morals as well. And flesh (with it's fleshly desires, and not just sex: To me that is what evil comes from,
)
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
It is. We're moral because we're Christ-like, but having the Bible and having a Christ-nature are not mutually inclusive.
so, without being christ-like and without the bible someone is left to complete moral deficiency?
Skwim
Veteran Member
So before Jesus, when people didn't have Christ so as to be Christ-like, no one was moral. Interesting.
Atomist
I love you.
What is christ-like? It seems like an undefined term...
Regardless it seems meaningless and I cite Euthyphro dilemma:
1) Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good
2) is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
I'd say so, yes. But I guess that all depends on how you interpret John 14:6.
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Complete moral defiency is cynicism, the belief that nothing good is possible. One cannot be an admirer and emulator of Jesus Christ and be of a cynical nature at the same time. So even if you don't believe in Christ per se but rather in what he represents, you're safe from complete moral defiency IMO.