Ah Huggy, finding the clumsiest and most tenuous ways to imply you can't be moral without a sky daddy.

(March 23, 2015 at 7:24 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Ah Huggy, finding the clumsiest and most tenuous ways to imply you can't be moral without a sky daddy.

First of all define what sets the standard of morality.

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. - Proverbs 21:2

Certainly not some barbaric old book supposedly inspired by a barbaric old god.

I'll ask again, what sets the standard for YOUR morality?

(March 23, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to say you don't have morals, you were just privileged to be brought up in a society governed by law and order. If for some reason an apocalypse happened and it's everyman for himself, do you hold onto what you deem moral? After all, when it comes to survival, who's to say what's moral? Is it immoral for a lion to kill a gazelle? why then would you consider it immoral to kill to ensure your own survival?

isn't that just survival of the fittest?

If you believe we evolved from the animals, then it was always intended for the weak to be rooted out.

Which means if you think you'll remain moral during an apocalypse, then you'll be among it's first victims.

Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.

As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.

I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.

All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.

I there is an apocalypse, I hope it's a zombie one. I have a membership to Sam's club. That would be the first place I'd run. 1 - it's a concrete building. 2 - they have survival gear, water and rations and 3 - you can't get in without a membership.

(March 23, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'll ask again, what sets the standard for YOUR morality?

Empathy, logic, basic human decency.

(March 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.

As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.

I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.

All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.

I there is an apocalypse, I hope it's a zombie one. I have a membership to Sam's club. That would be the first place I'd run. 1 - it's a concrete building. 2 - they have survival gear, water and rations and 3 - you can't get in without a membership.

Fair enough.

Everything up to and including personal beliefs, interactions within a social contract and 'society' per se, the law, friends, family.

We're not born with a set of morals, we learn them, and they are almost always informed by the context we live in. A hypothetical Christian town in western Europe 1000 years ago would have displayed vastly different behaviour concerning decisions on morality than the same town today, even taking the % of christians within that town as a given. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the context of the moment. Retrospective analysis can certainly bring light to a situation but it doesn't always enable us to understand it. Certain societal customs that existed then were different of those that exist today, and any analysis can often be clouded by today's perception of those actions. Again, doesn't make those actions right, it's just how it is.

You mentioned the milligram experiment. Do you think the results would be different between religious and non-religious demographics?

(March 23, 2015 at 7:48 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'll ask again, what sets the standard for YOUR morality?

Empathy, logic, basic human decency.

Are you saying that soldiers that fought during world war 2 for example, were immoral? Because they would go against YOUR definition of being moral.

No idea how you figure that, Huggy, but expecting you to be able to accurately analyze anything at all is a stretch I suppose.

And to answer your question: no, you unbelievably black-hole-caliber-density motherfucker.