42 replies to this topic

[RedInferno]

Do you believe that there is an absolute morality, as in everyone knows right from wrong? If so, do you believe that God gave us our consciense and that there is absolute law?

I want to hear what you all think, it's been a while since we've used our philosophical brain cells.

Start talking

[ShadowFox]

No, you have to be taught right from wrong... you are born up and think "Hey I wonder what happens if I throw this bowl of food on the floor" *spalt* "DUDE THAT'S WAS SWEET, and I think mommy liked it!" *puts another bowl in front of you* "Okay she wants me to do it again" *splat* Mom gets agrivated and smacks you hand "NO!" "Oww... I didn't know any better" *cry*

You learned right from wrong, It's WRONG to throw your bowl on the floor, did you previously know that? No, you were just brought in the world, you don't know about gravity, it's affects, or how angry mom can be

[BlueScreenOfDeath]

In a certain degree Red your right, you do learn right from wrong by trial and error but also i think as our mind matures and we're able to make more complex decisions and experience things, then we learn to know what is right and wrong. Obviously we dont go around killing people because we know its wrong.

[tnctx02]

BlueScreenOfDeath, on Nov 11 2005, 12:11 AM, said:

In a certain degree Red your right, you do learn right from wrong by trial and error but also i think as our mind matures and we're able to make more complex decisions and experience things, then we learn to know what is right and wrong. Obviously we dont go around killing people because we know its wrong.

I agree we learn right from wrong. But do we not go killing because we just decided it was wrong or were we taught that it is wrong? I believe you learn these morals from your peers also.

[tntoak]

1. There is no "absolute" morality. What one group, culture, religion may view as a moral act could easily be viewed as an immoral act in another setting. For example, several African cultures practiced cannibalism, which to them wasn't a matter of "right" or "wrong", but a question of survival. However, western cultures frown upon this, for a multitude of reasons.

2. Morality isn't as simple a thing to define as "right and wrong". It's also a series of societal/cultural "norms" or expectations upon which a value system is based. In essence, determing what is and isn't moral is more of an exercise in assigning values to certain acts instead of simply defining whether a given action is "right" or "wrong"

3. There are occasions where what is "right" and "wrong" in the eyes of the laws of a given society might come into conflict with what individuals within that society consider to be moral and immoral. These situations tend to address issues that are the most controversial in a certain location. The upcoming Supreme Court hearings for Samuel Alito will highlight one such issue.

4. Just because something is "wrong" - the spilling your cereal on the floor is a good example - does not mean that it is either a moral or immoral act. For example, it is illegal (i.e. wrong) to jaywalk. However, the act of jaywalking in and of itself could be considered to be neither moral nor immoral.

Basically, I don't believe that the notions of "right" and "wrong" are tied directly to morality. Furthermore, societal, cultural, and religious differences may change what one views as right/wrong, moral/immoral. There are no absolutes when addressing such issues.

[ShadowFox]

Ergo, Concordantly, Vis a Vis

I'm with tntoak here, he has a good point, but it still says you are taught right from wrong. You can't just walk down the road and to the store and grab a piece of gum and think "I'm so bad I'm doing a wrong thing" without first being told "You have to buy that" But BSOD has a point too, you do, as you grow, get more of a sense of what is right or wrong... Maybe it's actually KNOWN the entire time you just have to wake up that part of you mind in order for it to work... It's all in how you look at it and what YOU believe in. If you believe in God, then you believe there is an age where you are NOT accountable for your actions because you don't KNOW right from wrong yet and therefore if for some reason you passa way before you reach that age you will not be held from Heaven because you did wrong. If you believe EVERYONE in the world knows EVERYTHING, then it just has to be waken up.

I believe we need to be taught incase soemone got lost in my tangent .. and yes, sometimes I just like to type!

[Neon]

I believe we all have a conscience, the only difference being our environment would shape how we gauge different things.

Would you use a cracked Windows XP? I know people who would and some who wouldn't.

The conscience is part of being human and is what sets us from animals, we are aware of ourselves and our surroundings.

IF however you left a child on it's own to survive from the beginning and it did manage to survive, thought processes would be different, without SPEECH how can you think in words, or even know right and wrong exists.

The final answer?

We all have a conscience but we rely on other human beings and family/friends and even people we hate to develop it and know HOW to use it, eventually we get to a stage where we know whats right and wrong because *example person* told us so, then later we know automatically in new situations whats right and wrong.

Also a conscience DEPENDS on knowing about the world your in, animals have no conscience because they don't see past the facia of things, humans work off motives, warnings, signs e.t.c

[RedInferno]

Wow, we are getting real deep discussion here , thnx guys

Just putting a topic to get some more thought here...WOuld you all agree that killing is wrong? For those of you who say that morals are relative, then what if i feel killing is right. If it's all relative, then how can you can accuse me of being a murderer if i feel murder is right? It's all relative. I believe humans are indoctrinated with some morals as soon as we're born, maybe Law differs in different countries because of their societies..But, there are absolute morals in my opinion...SOme things are taught, but many things are there already.

Keep this up

Edited by RedInferno, 11 November 2005 - 06:47 PM.

[ShadowFox]

Killing is a means for survival, and as you put no bounds on it, killing is right. They kill animals every day, millions of them, so we can survive by eating. Killing an animal, TO ME, is okay. Killing a person is not. I don't care if it's war, i don't care if they got on your property, they have the RIGHT to live, weather it was an accident or on purpose. Things can be sovled when you talk about them and try to reach an agreement. If no agreement can be reached contact an authority... don't shoot them!

If it's war, figure out WHY you are going to war (this is directed towards the HIGHER more POWERFUL people who declare war) and reach an agreement... you are adults and you have the power to reason as well as persuade... no need to go blowing up thousands of people just so you can have something or ATTEMPT to have something that seems to most people as petty as a cookie reciepe!

[Neon]

Back when the male was depended upon for food, then murder was ok...

Now we can just easily get food, why kill?

[tntoak]

Quote

Just putting a topic to get some more thought here...WOuld you all agree that killing is wrong? For those of you who say that morals are relative, then what if i feel killing is right.

See the example I gave regarding African cultures that practiced cannnibalism as a means of survival. However, let's assume that you think killing is "right". In most cases, you will be violating the laws of wherever you are when you kill someone. In the eyes of the law, that action is not "right" regardless of your personal opinion. As I stated earlier, morality is based upon a combination of factors, and your personal morality may conflict with that of the society you are operating in.

I also think that there is a difference between killing out of vengeance or to cover up a robbery and killing someone in self-defense. In most societies, the laws do provide for a self-defense situation, although in the US the shithead lawyers try to make the property owner/defender look like the guilty party.

Now for an example more closely related to the question asked. There are several people who feel that it is their moral obligation to kill doctors who perform abortions. Fred Phelps, a infamous preacher in Kansas, even had a website running at one time that was basically photos of so-called "notorious" doctors who performed such procedures, and when one was killed, he put a big red 'x' over their picture and congratulated the person who killed the doctor in question. While Phelps and others with similar beliefs may view such an act as moral and "right", the laws of the states in which they committed these acts do not agree. Likewise, the majority of Americans also disagree with stance, regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of abortion.

The key issue at play here is that individual morals may not mirror those of the society/community one resides in. Additionally, even the act of killing another person is not one that can be discussed as one large chunk. There are numerous subcontexts and specific incidents that would have to be looked at in order to form anything even remotely resembling a cohesive stance on the issue as a whole.

[m.oreilly]

my mantra is "beer and pussy"...(i think cats are cool, and, well, as for
beer...)

[RedInferno]

tntoak, on Nov 11 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

See the example I gave regarding African cultures that practiced cannnibalism as a means of survival. However, let's assume that you think killing is "right". In most cases, you will be violating the laws of wherever you are when you kill someone. In the eyes of the law, that action is not "right" regardless of your personal opinion. As I stated earlier, morality is based upon a combination of factors, and your personal morality may conflict with that of the society you are operating in.

I also think that there is a difference between killing out of vengeance or to cover up a robbery and killing someone in self-defense. In most societies, the laws do provide for a self-defense situation, although in the US the shithead lawyers try to make the property owner/defender look like the guilty party.

Now for an example more closely related to the question asked. There are several people who feel that it is their moral obligation to kill doctors who perform abortions. Fred Phelps, a infamous preacher in Kansas, even had a website running at one time that was basically photos of so-called "notorious" doctors who performed such procedures, and when one was killed, he put a big red 'x' over their picture and congratulated the person who killed the doctor in question. While Phelps and others with similar beliefs may view such an act as moral and "right", the laws of the states in which they committed these acts do not agree. Likewise, the majority of Americans also disagree with stance, regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of abortion.

The key issue at play here is that individual morals may not mirror those of the society/community one resides in. Additionally, even the act of killing another person is not one that can be discussed as one large chunk. There are numerous subcontexts and specific incidents that would have to be looked at in order to form anything even remotely resembling a cohesive stance on the issue as a whole.

Yes, I agree there are certain cases where killing is justified...even in the Bible, God authorized killing for a just cause, like when the Israelites sinned very badly and God could not stand their sin anymore. There are times you can kill, but not cannabilism or anything. As karl mentioned, those guys don't NEED to kill, they have plenty of animals and they're not exactly starving. Why then? Because they believe in that voodoo stuff where you kill a person as a sacrifice. That certainly is frowned upon in most soceities.

You metnioned society and personal morals...God makes soceities, and the laws by which they are governed. So there is a higher morality, and the reason why those african tribes are cannibals is because their religion supports it, and they feel it is right. Well, I believe that there is one God and his morals are the higher authority. Those tribes don't know they are sinning.

[tntoak]

Quote

Well, I believe that there is one God and his morals are the higher authority. Those tribes don't know they are sinning.

That's the same argument people like Fred Phelps use to justify killing physicians who perform abortions. It's also the same argument fundamentalist Muslims use to justify attacking hotels, civilians, etc. The only difference is that the Muslims replace "God" with "Allah". It's a very dangerous argument, because it inevitably gets twisted to promote actions that the Bible, Ten Commandments, etc. specifically forbid and/or prohibit.

Quote

You mentioned society and personal morals...God makes soceities, and the laws by which they are governed.

God doesn't make societies and their laws. When the US was created, the majority of the founding fathers were Deists - they believed in a higher power, but not necessarily the Christian image of "God". That's why the Declaration of Independence refers to a "Creator", a general term for a higher power, instead of a specific reference such as "God" or "Jesus". The foundations for the formation of the US weren't rooted in religious doctrine, as you already have numerous religious groups here in the colonies when the Declaration and later the Constitution were created - by the men present in those meetings. In fact, the founding fathers created the 1st Amendment in direct response to the religious persecution people of many faith systems faced before they left for the colonies and a new life.

You have also contradicted yourself with your statements. You say that God creates societies, then you say that "Those tribes don't know they are sinning.". If God created that society AND its laws, wouldn't they know that by default? You make a blanket statement, then jettison out a bunch of contradictory examples by pleading ignorance on their part.


(I should point out that I debated in college, so a lot of this is being argued because it's fun, not because I necessarily agree with the positions. I just like to see how well developed people's views are)

[BlueScreenOfDeath]

Heres something to consider:

If we take god out of the picture, take society and our 'laws' out then we got survivalism. Then Killing for our own survival isnt wrong . If its survival of the fittest and best then it could be right, and then we have no morality.

i think in a way we "learn" what is wrong and right from society and what they consider right and wrong behavior. Any deviation from that social Norm then its either abnormal or socially not acceptable.