Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:50 pm
So how does this help your idea that god has made certain things intrinsically good?
If I were you, I think I would feel a cognitive dissonance.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Posts: 951
Threads: 19
Joined: April 26, 2015
Reputation:
26
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:52 pm
Quote: Do you have any answers for me in regards to my original post?
Here’s my answer again, in case you missed it:
Human beings determine what is good and bad, and it’s subjective, and changes over time.
Quote: So if murder is wrong, where did this law come from? If this is a universal truth, where did this truth come from and who/what determined it to be what it is?
What you’re most likely trying to do here is say, god implanted this notion of morality into us, which is just dishonest. For the most part, people want to be treated well, so we had this crazy idea that maybe if we treat others with respect, that we will be treated well in return. People don’t want to be hurt, so they try not to hurt others. There are some exceptions (murderers, rapists, etc.), because, apparently god didn’t implant this morality you’re suggesting into the minds of everyone. As for the minority of these ‘bad’ people, they actually just want to feel good as well, but do it in a more sadistic way (by most people’s standards). People want to feel good. If people want to get along with their family, they are kind to them, that’s also how we operate best as a civilized society, because that’s how we survive in a society the best. Don’t you feel that if everyone was good to each other, and we had laws protecting the good people, that that would be the best way to coexist?
There were times, 10’s of thousands of years ago when humans, and our cousins were killing each other quite often. Finally, I think they slowly realized as a majority, that they didn’t want their family members dying anymore because, they loved them, so laws started to appear to protect the lives of our species (refer back to my original answer up top). Because, again, humans just want to be happy, it’s not god giving us morality. You can take a look at the old testament, and see what god was commanding people to do. Sorry, I don’t get my morality from a book written by people, whose morality was fucked up beyond imagination.
Nothing complicated in what I'm saying here. The why be good garbage argument, and the where do morals come from argument need to just die already. It's common sense.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' -Isaac Asimov-
Posts: 400
Threads: 0
Joined: November 4, 2014
Reputation:
3
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2015 at 8:55 pm by comet.)
deleted
Posts: 8661
Threads: 118
Joined: May 7, 2011
Reputation:
57
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2015 at 8:56 pm by Aroura.)
Do you realize you couldn't even get consensus on your"murder is universally wrong" proposition? This alone should be showing you that there simply are no universal morals.
Killing other humans is often considered wrong, but there are always situations where it is also acceptable. Even, sometimes, what we would call murder.
Take the common college class example. There is a train coming, and the track divides nearby. On track A you see 10 people are tied to the tracks, and this is the track the train is on. They will die of you do nothing. There is one person tied to track B. You cannot reach the people to untie them in time, but you can flip the track switch to switch the train to track B. Do you actively take action to kill one person? It's murder to do so, even if it saves the lives of 10 other people.
So, do you murder one person to save 10?
Another common one, is, would you murder a Hitler as a baby, if you had a chance?
These are thought experiments, but real life examples have come up. The point is, you can't universally say anything is morally right or wrong because everything is conditional.
In general, I would personally go with the least harm thing. The best moral choices are those that cause the least harm. Then we all get to sit around defining and weighing what constitutes harm.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
(June 15, 2015 at 7:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do we instinctively know what's moral, or do we have to be taught? Your god clearly thinks it's the latter: despite claims of morality being written into our beings fundamentally, he still had to literally come down and tell us what's up. He had to step in: from his point of view, morality apparently has to be taught.
For me though, the source of morality is easy, though actually executing on it is less so: we live in a reality, that obeys consistent physical laws. We are biological organisms that, in turn, obey those laws as a function of our biology; what it means to be a living entity is an objective fact, what harms us, what benefits us, what allows us to survive, are all discoverable and consistent amongst everyone. Given this, there are certain fundamentals of being human that can be known to be universal: pain means bad things, pleasure means good things, we all know what injury is, what death is, and so on. I doubt anyone would argue that being mauled by a cougar is a good thing for us, at least in a physical sense.
We evolved a certain way, and what you see as an instinctive understanding of morality is actually just the execution of that evolution; we can tell without thinking too hard what events would be bad for us, and we have a natural aversion to those things, which are both good survival mechanisms, because you can identify danger and want to stay away from it. When you see these things happening to others your empathy kicks in, and you begin thinking transpositionally; what's bad for you is bad for them, and you'd prefer that it not happen to anyone else either because you can empathize, which is a good trait to have for a species that survives via cooperation and so on. I don't think I need to tell you that our position as the dominant life form on the planet is down largely to our willingness to cooperate and share knowledge.
That's really all you need, to think through a moral system. Basics lead to more complex moral tenets, as you encounter more scenarios and compare them to this common set of objective facts about being alive, in conjunction with your empathy. Yes, it's a big topic that's highly contextual, but it's not something that's impossible to reason out on your own. You don't need some god handing down moral laws, because by and large you already know what's good for you, and can extrapolate from there.
To further clear it up for you, I think we instinctively know that treating others well is the moral thing to do. For me though, Christianity has taken it deeper and taught me *why* this is the moral path and why it is important. Also, treating others well is very general and broad. It has also helped me with the finer issues that are more specific.
Thank you for your well thought out answer. This has definitely helped me understand your perspective on the origins of morality.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 400
Threads: 0
Joined: November 4, 2014
Reputation:
3
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:54 pm
we can't know yet. We can say the data suggest no-nothing counters observations. We can say everything is linked. We probably are part of a larger more complex system. And that everything we define is defined through the human brain.past that ... I got nothing. 'Bout the only thing I can say is that all the magic stuff and finger pointing, lightning bolt tossing Omni dude type stuff is most likely is not real. That being said, for now, focusing on love and compassion is good stuff.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:55 pm
You say by default we all know what is good. I would call that an evolutionary trait of our species. I think you might agree, but then add that god worked that out for us. To which I would say, why stop there? Lets create another redundant level that causes god to work out what is good through evolution. Lets call him Frong. Why did Frong make god use evolution to allow us to feel what is good? Because another being higher than Frong caused him to do that.
Or you could just stop at evolution, and cut off all unnecessary explanations.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 8:57 pm
(June 15, 2015 at 7:54 pm)IATIA Wrote: As to the OP, good is relative to cultures and society. It is a part of our upbringing and depending on the influences one has been exposed to, will determine the moral values of that individual. And of course, there are always the psychopaths that genetically cannot help themselves due to chemical imbalances or full-fledged genetic disorders.
Ask a headhunter if they are doing good or bad.
Iatia, I struggle with this thinking. Forgive me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're saying that morality is never universal and always dependent on what a particular society believes. There are plenty of society's who believe horrendous things are "good." Don't you think they are wrong, regardless of what they think?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 951
Threads: 19
Joined: April 26, 2015
Reputation:
26
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Quote: Don't you think they are wrong, regardless of what they think?
Yeah, morality is subjective. It differs from person to person.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' -Isaac Asimov-
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 15, 2015 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2015 at 9:14 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 15, 2015 at 8:14 pm)abaris Wrote: (June 15, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Isis thinks it's ok and even good to kill infidels. But they are wrong. It is never moral to murder someone, and that is what it is regardless of what anyone may think. That's what I mean when I say it is a universal truth.
Really? So go tell that to your evangelical brethren in christ, who repeatedly call for killing gays and transgender people.
There's only a very thin layer of society preventing these people to act out on the very same vile impulses as ISIS. The only difference being the god franchise. And sometimes that layer breaks. Then some abortion doctor is killed or 87 people on the island of utoya. And please, don't come with the "no true scotsman" argument of Anders Bervik Brejvik not being a christian. He claimed to do what he did in the name of christianity against islam.
So christianity certainly isn't a safety belt against human depravity. And I'm not even speaking about catholic priests raping children - yet.
Wow, I don't know of any Christian who believes killing people for being gay or transgender is good.
I don't know how they can think that if it's so against the teachings of Christ.
If I ever come across any Christian who believes this, I will definitely say something!
Luckily, only 8 abortion doctors have been murdered in the past 40 years. It definitely isn't some sort of prevalent Christian belief!
I 100% agree with your assertion that "christianity isn't a safety belt against human depravity." Humans beings are never perfect and are still capable of doing bad things, even if they are Christians. And there are bad seeds in every group.
(June 15, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (June 15, 2015 at 8:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To answer your questions:
1. We believe that God's laws establish moral/immoral, since we believe that He is the master of the universe.
So if god decided to invert the current moral status quo, so that everything good became bad and vice versa, you would suddenly change your beliefs entirely and your moral system would do a one-eighty?
Too many christians avoid this question by saying god wouldn't do that, but please don't; it's a hypothetical, it doesn't have to happen in real life.
Quote:Well, it depends on which parts of the bible you are referring too. Christianity defines itself by the New Testament. The gospels, and the teachings of Christ. From that, you will most definitely see that the things you listed above are contrary to Christian teaching.
But the old testament is still the same god, yes? All that evil stuff is still in his past.
A big part of my belief in God is my belief that He is unchanging. So if He "changed" things like that, He wouldn't be the God I thought I knew. And of course, I wouldn't change my beliefs regarding morality.
Yes, the OT is the same God, but the people of the time and who wrote the OT did not fully understand Him. This is part of the reason why Jesus came. To show us what God is really like and how we should really be. Jesus himself talked about this multiple times, most famously when he said "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'[url=http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm][/url] But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
That is why so many Jews of that era did not accept Jesus. Because their understanding of God was so different from what Jesus brought to the table. They wanted someone who would fight and help them kill off the Romans as they believed was the right thing to do. Jesus told them differently.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
|