 |
Crow, I'm going to have to beg off this interesting and complicated discussion for a couple of days; thinking more than superficially is too difficult for me right now... my glucometer has been broken for a week, and I'm having a problem getting it replaced. Having lots of problems as I live alone, etc.
I SHALL RETURN!!
Morality is relative.
___________________________
"What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike" [Alfred North Whitehead
"Without doubt the greatest injury... was done by basing morals on myth, for sooner or later the myth is recognized for what it is, and disappears. Then morality loses the foundation on which it has been built'. [Sir Herbert Samuel]
"No morality can be founded on authority, even if the authority were divine". [A.J.Ayer]
"When you prevent me from doing anything I want to do, that is persecution: but when I prevent YOU from doing anything you want to do, that is law, order and morals" [George Bernard Shaw] :)
Hello girl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
1) Yes; don't hit is a moral lesson. I don't see any religion there.
2) Yes; put this in here and wear a raincoat. I don't see any morality there.
excon
Excon,
"Don't hit" is not a moral lesson. It is a LEGAL lesson.
A moral lesson is that hurting others is bad for you, bad for the other person and bad for society as a whole.
But such moral decisions require a system under which to decide what is moral and what is not. From an historic perspective, that system of morality began with and continues to operate with religion as the underlying rules.
For example, if we are to believe the text of the Bible, Sodom was a society in which murder, theft, rape, slavery, and other acts of what we refer to as "immorality" were commonplace and acceptable. They did not have the religious base under whih to decide what was and was not moral, and as a result, they never developed "morality" as we understand it... or any other system of morality, as far as I can tell. Therefore, all the acts that we assume to be "naturally" immoral were not forbidden to their society.
There is no such thing as "morality" from nature. Morality is a concept that had to be developed over time. It did not develop in a vacuum, and it did not come about naturally. It took a long time for us to develop our sense of morality, and that sense only began with religion (an organized set of rules for how to live life) as a source. Absent religion, there is no morality.
The proof is that in some parts of the world, things that we take as immoral are perfectly normal. We know that "hitting" is wrong, but the African Warlord who kills at whim, who beats those weaker than him, who steals from the poor, who does all of these immoral acts, doesn't consider himself immoral for doing those things. And neither do his victims, truth be told... since oftentimes, the victims are themselves perpetrators of the same acts against others who are weaker than they are. There's nothing naturally "immoral" about what they are doing... it is only in OUR highly developed moral view that they are acting immorally.
So, since morality is not "natural", the moral rule of "don't hit" had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is "religion". Without religion, there would be no morality because it could not have come into being on its own.
DC will argue that morality could (or maybe he argues that they did) develop from philosophy rather than religion. However, in this context, I see the two as one and the same. Philosophy is, at its essence the study of how man should live life. Religion is a set of rules for how man should live life. For all intents and purposes, they are the same in the context of the development of morality.
Elliot
Hello Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Bull!
We knew it was wrong to hit long before somebody had to tell us. Just like we knew that murder and stealing was wrong.
Ok, let me think about that for a minute... Soooooo, for the last 150,000 years of our existence, we've only just in the last 5,000 years learned that murder was wrong?? And, we only found that out because God told us??
Elliot, Dude!
excon
(excon - I was going to finish with the comment that conscience is what you're talking about.)
We know that there is such a thing as conscience. In fact, the Bible tells us about conscience, that it predates the Ten Commandments. Conscience is a check on our imperfect nature and makes it possible for people to live together.
If a "conscience" or a "moral compass" is "natural" to humans, why are some people born without one? Why are there dictators, killers, etc. out there who clearly operate without a conscience or a moral compass.
In fact, I'll take that question further. If morality is "natural", why has human history NEVER had a period in which there was no war, no murder, no rape, no theft, no pilaging and plundering those weaker than us?
The fact is that it is those "immoral" acts that are natural to humanity, and "morality" is our attempt to climb above that nature. We had to create that morality, because it WASN'T natural to us.
Otherwise we wouldn't have to teach kids "don't hit". It is that very lesson... a lesson that has to be taught to children before they follow it... that proves that it is unnatural to humanity. If it were natural, it wouldn't have to be taught. It would be instinctive from birth, like suckling.
I know you have a family, Excon. I don't know if you do, Wondergirl. But I have two kids, ages 7 and 5. They fight all the time, as most brothers and sisters do at that age. "Don't Hit" is not a lesson that is natural to them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it to each other. It's a lesson that takes repetition over a long period until children get it. That is NOT how something that is natural is supposed to work.
And please don't argue "outside influences"... my kids don't watch TV or movies, so they aren't getting that violent "outside influence" common to other kids. But they fight anyway, because THAT is what is natural... not "moral behavior".
We can argue about where morality comes from. But to argue that it is "natural" to humanity is clearly wrong. If morality were "natural", we wouldn't need jails, we wouldn't need cops, we wouldn't need a Constitution, we wouldn't need to punish thieves, murderers and other violent criminals, because they would be a lot more rare than they are, because such violence would be unnatural is morality were truly natural.
Sorry guys, but that boat don't float.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I suggest much of your misguided political philosophy stems from your basic misunderstanding of human nature. Certainly, if you believe that people can only do right if they're told what right is, then it follows that you would support the "authority" who's doing the telling.
The concept, therefore, of natural law would be meaningless to you.
I'll just point out a few minute details of your wrongness.
It's natural to be born with two legs, but every once in a while somebody comes along without any legs at all. That doesn't mean it isn't natural to be born with two.
It's natural for us NOT to eat dirt. Nonetheless, children have to be prevented from eating dirt. You seem to be suggesting that if they weren't, we'd be eating dirt.
I'm perplexed by your next statement, though. You also seem to be saying that even AFTER being told the difference between right and wrong by the "authority", that we're not able to do it anyway. I don't disagree. So what?
People don't do good after they've been told about right and wrong. And, they do no better even if they didn't have to be told. You seem to be saying they would. I don't know why you would think that.
You're talking about performance. I'm not. Inherently knowing right from wrong doesn't give humans a leg up on performance.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:33 PM. |