pop morality

[drfuzzy]

---

@ Dritch

Just assuming for the sake of argument, that there is a god (and that is a rather big assumption), at what point in time have people ever agreed about what god's righteousness is?  Man's conception of god's will appears as variable over time as man's morals.  You may argue that you know, but I fail to see how your view is superior to that of other Christians here and now, elsewhere, or past.  If the standard is unknowable, than it is of no practical use.

You see, the extreme variability of man's understanding of god's will suggests that god's will is an idea created by man to bolster particular men's views of morality and nothing more.  It's better to leave god out of it, as then we can discuss what morality is best in a rational manner.

I suggest this standard:  on any given moral question the rule should be that which a person who is not yet born and does not yet know what his race, gender, sexual orientation, or place in society will be would consider to be the best rule.  Applying this standard requires dispassion and reason, and would result in fairness. I will not hold my breath for the standard to be applied though because our morality is not entirely born of reason.  It is a product of empathy, which is why our moral standards are higher with regard to those we know or can otherwise identify with, than it is with regard for those we don't know or can't identify with.  The "other" is always given less rights be it because they differ in income, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, language, profession, or dress. Biblical morality demonstrates this clearly.  Hebrews are expected to treat those they identify with (other Hebrews) better than those they don't (everyone else).  The adult male Hebrews writing the OT naturally give more rights to adult male Hebrews.  The adult Christian men writing the NT naturally give more rights to adult Christian men.  Naturally, they denigrated the rights of Jewish men who rejected Christianity.  

---

Far from behaving better when applying god's standard, people use god's standard to justify their lack of empathy for others.  Thus, the differing standards for: the chosen people versus all other people; my gender versus other genders; people of my faith versus people of other faiths; people of different incomes versus people of my income and so on.  Selfish people have used god's standard to justify everything from socialism (easily justified by Jesus's teachings) to capitalism (easily justified based on god's obvious preference).

Remember recent studies (Nov. 2015) in empathetic behaviors in religious vs. non-religious children?  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/no...kids-study  

A quote from this report:  "The findings “robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households”.  
     Older children, usually those with a longer exposure to religion, “exhibit[ed] the greatest negative relations”.
The study also found that “religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies”. Children from religious households “frequently appear to be more judgmental of others’ actions”, it said."  

In a nutshell, if you're raised to think you have gawd on your side, are following the ultimate set of moral rules, then the people who don't follow your gawd's rules are "those evil people over there".   Anyone who doesn't agree with you needs to be punished.  Converted, maybe.  You turn into a judgmental little shit who thinks they are better than the non-humans who don't agree with you.

[dyresand]

I said it once i'll say it again there is no such thing as pop morality.
We as a species because were animals more specifically highly evolved mammals.
There is a lot of things passed down and morals is one of them. This is why for the most
part we don't go running around killing people left and right for superstitious beliefs any more
for the most part. And the other reason why we all believe for the most part that slavery is wrong,
rape is wrong, child marriage is wrong, pedophilia is wrong because you know what the bible
is accepting of all of those. Where as there is a big difference from theistic to non theistic morality
a big one non theistic morality we are kind and accepting of one another were as theistic morality
is the opposite and tends be regressive. Seriously if you believe we need a god for morals or even a book
there is something wrong and you need to take a deep breath and look at facts. Look at secular morality and
what it accomplishes and look at what theistic morality want what it does. I can tell you a this the pope
he made the aids problem worse in africa by saying condoms are bad that was the popes own morals at work.
So his morals harmed others because those people morals are easily changed because the pope has the illusion of power.
And not to mention people suffer from aids and hiv and other various things so the pope saying condoms are bad
he just took a country that was doing well mind you keeping aids and hiv under check and control and people started
to suffer because of him.

[veoli]

Pop Morality 2016 - giving you such hits as "God croons so softly over your soul", "A little bit of sulpher aint gonna hurt" and "I will survive (Judgement)" 

!

[dyresand]

To be honest here hell seems like more of pleasant place to go if you think about it.
You would meet so much interesting people not to mention if hell is such a hot place get this
all the smart people are in hell already so you know they made some sort of A/C unit by now.
Mean while in heaven all you have is the boring people that always want's to talk about
how they love god.

[Athene]

Drich
Homosexuality and Abortion are two good examples of how pop morality has changed it's 'values' concerning these two subjects. Just one or two generations ago these two social issues were THE most Immoral thing one could do in this society. Now the most immoral thing one can do is try and prevent someone from being gay or having an abortion.

The most? I don't think so, Drich.
Good old-fashioned murder has probably always been the standard.

Drich
So my question is, if you have a heart that blindly accepts everything society tells you is 'moral'/You justify your morality by using common/pop arguments, and you have no system of checks and balances outside of what society defines as 'moral' how then are you any different than dark age Christians, North Koreans, ISIS, Taliban, Nazis, the US slave traders/owners, The US citizens who supported the wholesale slaughter of the Indians Etc??

Society doesn't determine my sense of morality. Morality is a direct of result of my capacity for empathy. That's how and why I can make the determination that certain actions of a fictional character would be immoral if he were real, as well as how I could come to the conclusion that a currently accepted societal norm is NOT okay. I don't require anyone to tell me when something is immoral. If I can visualize something happening to myself or my children and know that it would cause needless pain, grief, anguish, and/or suffering, I can reasonably assume that no one else would want it done to them.

[brewer]

[edit] My behavior then becomes my direct offering of Love to God. [edit]

I think it would like to see more self flagellation from you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Holy fucking shit TrueChristian kudosed my Sam Harris quote.

Poe's temporary atheistic slip?

[Nihilist Virus]

Pop morality is a term I use to describe what the popular culture deems moral. Pop morality is an ever changing standard. It's what is popularly defined as right and wrong, here in this country/your country, and now/current generation, could easily be held as Immoral a generation ago or perhaps even in a future generation. This is also true even in this current generation, but perhaps in a different region or country. because this ever changing standard is unique to a specific time and place to a specific people I use the term pop morality.

Homosexuality and Abortion are two good examples of how pop morality has changed it's 'values' concerning these two subjects. Just one or two generations ago these two social issues were THE most Immoral thing one could do in this society. Now the most immoral thing one can do is try and prevent someone from being gay or having an abortion.

The problem with pop morality is, that every generation and ever culture thinks that they are good and are doing the 'right thing.' but again the 'right thing' varies wildly from region to region/generation to generation. Self righteousness kicks in, and someone makes a judgment. (look at the last epicurean paradox thread for the typical atheist 'judgement.')

Now that said, without any absolute standards, what makes any of you think that your current acceptance of pop morality as being 'the good and right thing' makes you any different than those who have accepted the pop morality of their time and or culture? Meaning if you have no absolutes standards in your life (like the bible,) and if you were born into Hitler's Germany, under North Korean rule or maybe under an ISIS state, and just like you do now, you blindly follow and do not challenge pop morality of your culture, how then would you find your way back to what you now consider to be 'moral'?

Or do you agree that your current sense of 'morality' is trivial? If so, why try and judge God by it? Why assume that living a simply 'moral' life is enough for anything? What makes your version of 'morality' any better than anyone else's? Are you all so foolish to think that the people who live their versions of 'moral' lives think themselves as evil, even if it means killing you and people like you?

Look at us now. We think it right to kill terrorists, we do not see ourselves as being evil for killing someone who would disrupt our lives in such away.. and yet somehow it's wrong when they do the same thing? Again the point being they do what they do (shoot up magazines and cut of heads) in the name of what they think is right. Just like we do.

So my question is, if you have a heart that blindly accepts everything society tells you is 'moral'/You justify your morality by using common/pop arguments, and you have no system of checks and balances outside of what society defines as 'moral' how then are you any different than dark age Christians, North Koreans, ISIS, Taliban, Nazis, the US slave traders/owners, The US citizens who supported the wholesale slaughter of the Indians Etc??

All of these people followed their 'pop morality' to it's logical end. How is the modern westerner any different? What about your system of belief transcends what other generations will deem 'immoral?' and if you do not have this absolute morality, then how are you in a position to judge ANYONE Else's system of right and wrong?

I find it amusing you think that we "have a heart that blindly accepts everything society tells" us. Atheism is still counterculture. You're the one blindly following. Perhaps you'll become atheist if atheism overtakes religion in your lifetime.

Also I fail to see how your absolute morality is any good at all. No "Thou shalt not rape" law on the books. Slavery A-OK. Don't like pop morality? Prefer Biblical morality?

Two highly influential documents were written by racist, sexist, genocidal, conquesting, slave-driving rapists: one was the American constitution, the other is the Bible. But you see, we have amended the constitution over the years. Are the amendments bad? The emancipation proclamation was pop morality. Do you stand by slavery or should we amend the Bible?

[Mudhammam]

Pop morality: A term coined by Drich to avoid confrontation with the moral progress that thinking people have made in the last 2,000 years.

[Cato]

Drich,
What you try to claim as objective morality is nothing more than 'pop morality' (the rest of us simply say morality) circa 500 B.C. All you have done here is tell us you prefer the good old days, which makes you a cretin in consideration of today's norms. Congratulations. The rest is noise.