(February 26, 2011 at 1:09 pm)MajorTomWaits99 Wrote: I didn't get how "praying" is moral either. I mean being grateful sure. But mandated Prayer? crazy.

Praying to me is nothing more than a psychological play. By talking to the fictional character, it makes the character seem less fictional and more real...why would they talk to god if he wasnt real? If we taught kids to talk to Spiderman, then kids might actually think he was really real.

Ask the christians.. most say it is all about reinforcing the "personal relationship". Sure, some fundies think that their god will change his grand plan of the univers if you beg him enough, but for the most part fundies admit praying does nothing except reinforce the beliefs.

Right totally agree But how can even they say its MORAL?

(February 26, 2011 at 2:24 pm)MajorTomWaits99 Wrote: Right totally agree But how can even they say its MORAL?

In and of itself it is neither moral or immoral. The act of prayer itself is amoral. What is prayed, on the other hand, can reflect the intent of the one praying. Praying for troops to be protected could be viewed as moral from one side of the camp and immoral from another side.

(February 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Seems Like Captain scarlet is over near the "absurdist/nihilist" side of the philosophical fence where I am. Im Absurdist and find things that arent strictly mechanical materialistic to be subject to humans forcing their own intent and emotions onto something that ISNT human emotions and intent. By what measuring stick do we use to judge religions, governments, societies, and every other human invented ideology? Its all absurd if you ask me. Why cant I just say that I will live and let live if you do the same without having to tag some kind of "meta-ethics" or "philosophie" title to justify it? When does this all break down into some shit that people just made up to make themselves feel better in the presence of a cold, inhuman Cosmos?

Indeed I consider moral nihlism to be the bext explanation in that none is required. I also agree that there is no merit in TAG type arguments. They appear to falsely cystallise abstract things as real things, and dress them up. None are impressive.

(February 18, 2011 at 5:52 pm)OnlyNatural Wrote: I firmly believe that human morality has evolved along with the rest of us

Human understanding of morality evolves, not morality itself. Morality is based on the fundamental principles of right and wrong, which never change. Social and personal attitudes about right and wrong change for various reasons. A good example might be Ben Franklin's views on slavery. Initially he supported slavery because he believed that Negroes were a lesser race, not equal to Whites. Through his own experience he later concluded that he had been wrong in his thinking about Blacks being a lesser race, and changed his position on slavery. His Morality did not change, it was how those fundamental principles, of right and wrong, applied to that issue that changed. Just because something is socially acceptable does mean that it is morally right.

The idea that God 'justifies' morality seems to be a convenient way of avoiding moral responsibility. Saying that your moral's were given to you by a god that is infallible, and that is all the justification you need, is simple a way to avoid having to figure it all out for yourself.

(March 6, 2011 at 2:01 pm)corndog36 Wrote:

(February 18, 2011 at 5:52 pm)OnlyNatural Wrote: I firmly believe that human morality has evolved along with the rest of us

Human understanding of morality evolves, not morality itself. Morality is based on the fundamental principles of right and wrong, which never change. Social and personal attitudes about right and wrong change for various reasons. A good example might be Ben Franklin's views on slavery. Initially he supported slavery because he believed that Negroes were a lesser race, not equal to Whites. Through his own experience he later concluded that he had been wrong in his thinking about Blacks being a lesser race, and changed his position on slavery. His Morality did not change, it was how those fundamental principles, of right and wrong, applied to that issue that changed. Just because something is socially acceptable does mean that it is morally right.

The idea that God 'justifies' morality seems to be a convenient way of avoiding moral responsibility. Saying that your moral's were given to you by a god that is infallible, and that is all the justification you need, is simple a way to avoid having to figure it all out for yourself.

Don't agree corndog. You are suggesting that there are indeed objective moral values (even though they do not bootstrap from a diety). We can agree that human understanding of accpetable behavious changes through time and space. You could account for this:

-there is objective morality which we can uncover (through adaptation and shared understanding), or
-that no such objective moral values exist and it is an illusion to say that they exist at all.

The latter seems to me to be a more parsimonious as I would not have to explain the wellspring from which objective morality emerges. What is the evidence/reasoning for objective morality?

(March 10, 2011 at 6:04 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Don't agree corndog. You are suggesting that there are indeed objective moral values (even though they do not bootstrap from a diety). We can agree that human understanding of accpetable behavious changes through time and space. You could account for this:

-there is objective morality which we can uncover (through adaptation and shared understanding), or
-that no such objective moral values exist and it is an illusion to say that they exist at all.

The latter seems to me to be a more parsimonious as I would not have to explain the wellspring from which objective morality emerges. What is the evidence/reasoning for objective morality?

I'm leaning toward the former, but the use of the word 'objective' is problematic. Since morality only exists in the mind, in that sense it is subjective. But I don't think that precludes the possibility of Identifying absolute right and wrong. I was asked in another thread to describe a 'flawless concept of morality.' I answered:

A flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. It could be applied to any set of circumstance and would yield the morally correct answer in all cases.

Is that subjective or objective?

(March 10, 2011 at 10:42 am)corndog36 Wrote: I'm leaning toward the former, but the use of the word 'objective' is problematic. Since morality only exists in the mind, in that sense it is subjective. But I don't think that precludes the possibility of Identifying absolute right and wrong. I was asked in another thread to describe a 'flawless concept of morality.' I answered:

A flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. It could be applied to any set of circumstance and would yield the morally correct answer in all cases.

Is that subjective or objective?

Prima facie its objective, ie right or wrong in absolute terms that does not vary through time/space.

corndog36 Wrote:Is that subjective or objective?

It's objective. Although I would also argue that it is impossible, in that "fundamental principles of right and wrong" do not exist.

corndog36 Wrote:I think it is possible to arrive at objective moral conclusions, if your moral model is sound.

But the only way to test your "moral model" would be to compare it to reality. But there's no reality with which to compare since the model and the thing you're using it to describe are not distinct.


Consider two people, or two species who have developed different, contradicting moral codes. How do you judge which one is better?
The only way to judge one is in terms of the other, as there is no external "yardstick" by which to measure both.



EDIT:

Quote:Human understanding of morality evolves, not morality itself. Morality is based on the fundamental principles of right and wrong, which never change.

This implies that morality exists independently of human beings or any other species with a moral code.
You are then left with the unenviable task of explaining its origin.

(March 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: This implies that morality exists independently of human beings or any other species with a moral code.
You are then left with the unenviable task of explaining its origin.

Convergent evolution?