[ETWolverine]

In Stalin's USSR, he wanted to eliminate religion. It was his will that determined what is right and wrong, and perhaps power was his "right" and anything that threatened it was "wrong," thus millions were eliminated. Same thing in Mao's China. Were these countries under these despots civilized?




G&P

Moreover, were they MORAL?

Great points, ITB.

Elliot

[firmbeliever]

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mora....htm/printable

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009...er-of-harvard/

Was reading these links, thought it would be interesting read for this thread.

[inthebox]

Interesting Firm:

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior


There is a section in which they hypothesize that psychopathy / sociopathy has positive and negative evolutionary implications.



If "moralty" is primarily a function or lack of function of certain parts of the brain, can they be held to the same moral standards as the rest of society?




G&P

[ETWolverine]

Interesting Firm:

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior


There is a section in which they hypothesize that psychopathy / sociopathy has positive and negative evolutionary implications.



If "moralty" is primarily a function or lack of function of certain parts of the brain, can they be held to the same moral standards as the rest of society?




G&P

Good question.

Is a sociopath responsible for his immorality? He is mentally incapable of making the same moral judgements that you and I make, because he has no moral compass and no emotional connection to the world around him.

Elliot

[Tokugawa]

Ahh, now we are starting to enter the murky realm of "relativism". The term relativism, as it applies to morality, is quite broad. It should, in my opinion, really be viewed as an exposition of what morality actually is, rather than a "system" that prescribes what one "ought" to do. Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

It might perhaps be wise at this stage to distinguish between the two fundamental ethical disciplines, "Formative" or "Meta" ethics, and "Applied"or "Normative" ethics. Formative/Meta ethics deals with how we distinguish between what is "good" and "bad", and applied/normative ethics deals with the best way of "applying" those conceptions, that is to say, doing good things whilst avoiding the bad.

I personally subscirbe to a form of relativism called "subjective emotivism". I hold that all ethical/moral propositions are essentially emotive statements. The proposition "murder is wrong" is in essence the same as saying "boo to murder!!". Likewise, the proposition "charity is good" is in essence the same as saying "hooray for charity!!". This of course is a "Meta-ethical" theory, and it is I feel the most useful meta-ethical theory there is, in that it answers many questions that other theories cannot.

As for a system of "applied" ethics, I follow no such system at all. Morality is for me extremely personal, and entirely subjective. I operate completely in my own self interest, however my "self-interest" extends well beyond my "self". I am, like Nietzsche, an "immoralist". I do not believe in "our" morality, I believe in "my" morality.

[Tokugawa]

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Mankind is growing up. As the 20th century has shown, growing up isn't easy.

[sndbay]

If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"?

Discipline taught by the experiences that the individual's instinctive nature, distinguished to the conscience mind in what was right or wrong.

Religion and moral law are both geared in setting rule of discipline. However we can learn instinctively by our fears what appears good and what appears bad to us.

The history of experiences that your parents and their parents have lived can effect generation after generation by the instinctive fears past down over the years. (Edit: YES by word of mouth, and what might be shown visually)

[Tokugawa]

The history of experiences that your parents and their parents have lived can effect generation after generation by the instinctive fears past down over the years.

What possible grounds can you have for making such a claim? Unless you are suggesting that "fears past down over the years" are propagated through word of mouth, I would say that you are talking cr@p.

Edit: After reviewing your post, I now realise that you must be referring to "word of mouth", I offer sincere apology.

[inthebox]

Ahh, now we are starting to enter the murky realm of "relativism". The term relativism, as it applies to morality, is quite broad. It should, in my opinion, really be viewed as an exposition of what morality actually is, rather than a "system" that prescribes what one "ought" to do. Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

It might perhaps be wise at this stage to distinguish between the two fundamental ethical disciplines, "Formative" or "Meta" ethics, and "Applied"or "Normative" ethics. Formative/Meta ethics deals with how we distinguish between what is "good" and "bad", and applied/normative ethics deals with the best way of "applying" those conceptions, that is to say, doing good things whilst avoiding the bad.

I personally subscirbe to a form of relativism called "subjective emotivism". I hold that all ethical/moral propositions are essentially emotive statements. The proposition "murder is wrong" is in essence the same as saying "boo to murder!!". Likewise, the proposition "charity is good" is in essence the same as saying "hooray for charity!!". This of course is a "Meta-ethical" theory, and it is I feel the most useful meta-ethical theory there is, in that it answers many questions that other theories cannot.

As for a system of "applied" ethics, I follow no such system at all. Morality is for me extremely personal, and entirely subjective. I operate completely in my own self interest, however my "self-interest" extends well beyond my "self". I am, like Nietzsche, an "immoralist". I do not believe in "our" morality, I believe in "my" morality.

Where does this morality come from? How does each of us have it? Or lack it, for lack of or dysfunction in part of the brain. Is a personal morality , this relativity or subjectivity really just a nice term for selfishness or narcissisism? If so, then Nietzsche's nihilism is justified.






G&P

[cadillac59]

Religion and morality have nothing to do with one another. Some of the most amoral people are/have been highly religious and the most moral atheists.

I like what Bertand Russell said about morality being the result of conflicts of desire: "A man wishes to drink but also be fit for work the next day." It's always two competing impulses that governs our behavior. And morality evolves.

[ETWolverine]

Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

I'm not "hinting" at it at all. I'm saying it straight out... morality is relative to circumstance.

What is moral in peacetime is not necessarily moral in wartime.

What is moral to one culture is not necessarily moral to another.

At the same time, I think it is also fair to say that "our morality" is superior to that of the Huns and the Mongols. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with making a value judgement BASED ON OUR MORALS.

My only point is that, if Christianity and Judaism had never existed, MORALITY would look very different from the standards we hold dear today... and that based on that fact, morality IS based on religion. I am not JUDGING that fact either for good or for bad. I am merely stating it to be true, in my opinion.

Elliot

[cadillac59]

I'm not "hinting" at it at all. I'm saying it straight out... morality is relative to circumstance.

What is moral in peacetime is not necesarily moral in wartime.

What is moral to one culture is not necessarily moral to another.

At the same time, I think it is also fair to say that "our morality" is superior to that of the Huns and the Mongols. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with making a value judgement BASED ON OUR MORALS.

My only point is that, if Christianity and Judaism had never existed, MORALITY would look very different from the standards we hold dear today... and that based on that fact, morality IS based on religion. I am not JUDGING that fact either for good or for bad. I am merely stating it to be true, in my opinion.

Elliot

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

[ETWolverine]

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

How so?

[galveston]

Inthebox made very pertinent observations about Stalin's Russia and Communit China.

Both were laboratories where the absence of religion BECAME the religion, and we know what horrors that created.

Religion can be and has been anything. Bothe Sacred and Secular history shows many cultures where religion embodied human sacrifice and sexual orgies.

The term god, without any qualifiers can mean anything. I am told India has a million of them.

What we are seeing in these posts is an exhibition of a committee attempting to determine which direction is North. On a very cloudy night and without a compass.

Now you have a choice. Do you arbitrarily point and say "North", or do you look to some book to use as a compass?

But which book? Which has credibility?

That is your homework assignment for this month. (Smiley here)

[ETWolverine]

Inthebox made very pertinent observations about Stalin's Russia and Communit China.

Both were laboratories where the absence of religion BECAME the religion, and we know what horrors that created.

Religion can be and has been anything. Bothe Sacred and Secular history shows many cultures where religion embodied human sacrifice and sexual orgies.

The term god, without any qualifiers can mean anything. I am told India has a million of them.

What we are seeing in these posts is an exhibition of a committee attempting to determine which direction is North. On a very cloudy night and without a compass.

Now you have a choice. Do you arbitrarily point and say "North", or do you look to some book to use as a compass?

But which book? Which has credibility?

That is your homework assignment for this month. (Smiley here)

Here's the problem, Gal.

Which book you use will be determined by which book you have used in the past.

It would make no sense to use the Asatru version of morality, because it has no place the modern world. People today do not live for battle (unless they happen to be Klingon). Even soldiers spend most of their time trying to AVOID battle, not find it. So the "morality" of honorable death in battle has no place in the modern world.

It would make no sense to follow the Mongol morality of conquest for peace. Even aggressive nations like Iran and Iraq, who have long histories of trying to conquer each other, don't generally invade each other very often, and even when they do, the do not do so to bring peace and justice. The morality of conquest for peace and justice has no place in the modern world.

The only logical place to look... the only "choice"... is the modern version of morality that we enjoy today. And that morality has its genesis in Judeo-Christian values.

BUT...

As I have said before, if Judeo-Christian values had NOT become the norm, we MIGHT instead see "death in battle" as the morality of the day. And in that case, THAT would be the choice we would be making. That morality, which seems so alien to us, would be the morality that we would be choosing.

It is only because the Bible has become our standard for Morality that we look to it as our standard of morality. In another time and another place, we might be looking at Eddas and the Heimskringla as our standards of morality.

So... which compass we use is determined by which one "everyone else" uses, and by which one we have used in the past. In that sense, the choice has already been made for us.

Elliot

[galveston]

I agree with you Elliot.

I am comfortable saying that the Bible, from which springs Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, has proven reliable over tha millennia, and that is why it is the most widely used "compass" for morality,

Additionally, the teachings of Jesus are far superior to anything else we know.

[NeedKarma]

Then I must be a good christian without ever knowing it!

[cadillac59]

How so?

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

[jakester]

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

Cadillac - you are real bold in making such statements but you provide little reason or justification for your position... bold assertions with pithy comments like these give no insight into how or why you arrived at such a position. Why don't you take a few moments of your time to give reason and substance to it.

I'd personally like to hear what you've got to say but it's boring reading posts like this or the one you left earlier. And it makes you sound like a fool; but I have confidence that you are not.

[Capuchin]

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

If you're going to quote someone, please reference properly, thanks. I think I agree with the point he tried to make when saying that, though.

However it's important to note that religion can also make bad people do good things, if only through the fear of god.

(Not that I really subscribe to the view of identifying 'good' or 'bad' people)