Morality versus afterlife

[RoadRunner79]

Roadrunner: OK, so you're talking about morality objective from the point of view of humans, not universally objective. But what is morality? How do you define it?

I think that this works: Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. It is the determination of what should be done and what should not be done. Morals deal with behaviors as well as motives.

Indeed, I didn't mean killing someone is trivial. I meant it is trivial to say that given the choice of killing someone or not, the answer is to not kill them. There are no conflicting factors. That's why I would like examples where a more complex decision must be made, a "lesser of two evils" situation. But then, it depends what you mean by morality. If your definition is just "what God wants", then weighing up outcomes from our perspective is irrelevant anyway.

I don't think that for the purpose of this conversation, that we need to dive into complex or controversial issues. It only muddies the water. Torturing and killing someone for the pleasure of it, is simple. And I would argue that it is always wrong, in an absolute and objective sense. You need to explain how this can be moral in a relativistic or subjective way. Also, in my view, morality is based on the nature of God. But it would seem more useful to determine the nature of morality, before exploring the cause of that nature.

Regarding empathy, no I'm not saying empathy is morality. I'm saying it's a good scientific explanation for why we care about each other, and I call these attempts to tailor our actions in this respect morality. Without empathy, it becomes more complex. Someone without it may have very different ideas about what is a "good" and "bad" thing to do. They don't have the innate sense that you speak of.

But yes, morality is ultimately a matter of opinion. We just happen to agree, as humans, on quite a lot of it because most of us do have empathy. But we don't agree on every detail. I define it as a value judgement, and the judgement requires a judge. It doesn't even have to be a human, many animals have a sense of "fairness". If you're going to say the judge is God, then you need to explain why I should care about God's opinion and how this has anything to do with the wellbeing of life on Earth. If it doesn't have anything to do with wellbeing, then I would personally find it totally irrelevant. Just because something is objective (or in this case, external), doesn't mean it is of any use.

According to your view, doesn't someone without empathy, just have a different morality than you? It is subjective right? No more good or bad than yours or mine.

Do you care about morality? Do you think that there is a right and wrong outside of your own opinions and preferences?

[robvalue]

Long old rant for a RoadRunner

If I get a good reply to this, I might respond in video format as this has the potential to be interesting.

---

OK, you define morality as "right" and "wrong". Now what do those words mean? Specifically. This is important, because without precise definitions those words are entirely subjective. If you want there to be an objective standard, you need to say exactly what those words mean, in a way that isn't at all dependent on anyone's opinion.

Until we can agree that, the discussion can't continue. No, I don't think "right" and "wrong" exist independent from my opinion. Not at all. Nor do I believe there is such a thing as a correct morality. I do however care very much about morality.

My morality is based in a very simple premise: try to do things that help people (and animals) and don't do things that harm them. That deals with most situations pretty easily. It's when conflicts arise and compromises have to be made that it becomes difficult, and people will disagree as to the best way to proceed.

Again, you've talked about torturing someone or not torturing them. There is no conflict. If morality is only objective in extremely obvious cases, then it's of no use. Of course I will agree that there are some things which are "always wrong". But always wrong in my opinion, subject to what I consider to be important, not objectively wrong. Because objectively wrong doesn't mean anything. If it does mean something, it needs to be precisely defined. The universe moves from one state to another. How do you determine which state is better or worse, without first agreeing on what is important within the universe?

I'll give you an example. A baby has been diagnosed with a condition so that it will live with a certain amount of pain for the rest of its life. The only way to stop this pain is to administer a treatment, which must be done before its first birthday. The treatment will stop the pain, but will reduce the lifespan by a certain amount.

So we have an undesirable outcome, whatever we choose. We have leaving someone in pain constantly, or we have reducing their lifespan. How do we decide what is the "objectively moral" thing to do?

Yes, someone without empathy will have a different morality than me. This is not surprising, as everyone has a different morality. What you're referring to is that it is probably more different. I define morality as a value judgement rather than a measurement. If it's objective, it should instead be measurable. If you can tell me how to measure the morality of an action, in a way that everyone would get the same "answer", then that would be objective. But then I'd argue that it is also useless, because you have subjectively decided on that standard by which it will be objectively measured. Whether you base it on your empathy or on your interpretation of a book, it's still subjective.

As an example, the "mass" of an object is determined by a procedure, which arrives at the same answer no matter who does it. The mass is objective. However, by deciding on this procedure, we're subjectively choosing an aspect to measure in the first place. The "mass" of the object is an abstract notion, it doesn't exist independently as a number floating above the object. If we measured it in a different objectively defined way, we'd get a different number. But it so happens that this "mass" is incredibly useful and has practical applications. Whereas if a particular person fixes morality to be measured by what they think is important, or what they think the general consensus is, then what use is it to anyone else? It could represent an average, that's all. Literally almost everyone will disagree with the results, since they won't mindlessly follow the "measurement" in the same way they would use the measurement of "mass" because it has very specific, demonstrable purposes.

---

[Pat Mustard]

God's Law is Righteousness, Man's 'want to do' version of God's Righteousness is 'morality.'

Keeping in mind that man's 'morality' changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation. does not make what pop culture defines as 'morality' moral or right for a lack of a better term. it is simply 'right' for those in the majority..

That said without an absolute like God's standard of righteousness what keep society grounded in any sense of right and wrong? for instance what keeps a more advanced society from pushing a more primitive culture off it's lands and drives those people off the edge of extinction? Kinda like what America did with it's Indians? Or what Germany did with it's Jews? or what the world does with unborn babies it does not want.. Without some form of God's Righteousness pushing us to act in all instances, their wouldn't be Indians in America any more, Jews in Europe, or any restrictions on abortion.

So given the two choices of living under evil incarnate/man's morality and God's righteousness I choose God's righteousness and system of redemption, eternal life or not.

"Righteousness" yea and? Fans of Allah think they are "righteous" too. Sunnis and Shiites also think their god is "righteous"

"God's standard", yea and? Conservative Baptists and Liberal Baptists don't agree on what "God's standards" are.

There wouldn't be any Indians in America? First off, the Natives were here first, and Europeans invaded the continent, stole their land, killed them off, and your argument is they should be thankfull God didn't allow them all to be murdered? Secondly, the word "Indian" was a fucking mistake. It was used because Columbus thought he had reached India. 

Same with the Jews, how the fuck can you sit there and justify the claim of a perfect security guard who watches as 6 million Jews get murdered, and while 50 million civilians and soldiers worldwide on all sides died as a result of WW2. 

God, " Yea Natives, sorry about all the small pox stuff and Andrew Jackson, but buck up, at least I didn't allow my fans to murder you all".

God, "Sorry Jews, I could have prevented the Holocaust and never let it happen at all, but buck up, at least I didn't allow all of you to die".

How warped does your logic have to get to justify such a selective deadbeat of a character? Fucking sick.

Of course the most common argument used to kill the natives was that they weren't human because they weren't christian and unknown in the sight of god. And those that converted? Killed for perverting christianity, just like the moriscos and conversos back home.

[Edwardo Piet]

More thoughts for Roadrunner:

You seem to be presenting a pretty common argument, that if morality is subjective, no one can ultimately be "right". You find this situation unacceptable. But your feelings about the situation, don't alter the facts.

I made a short video about this very subject a while ago, so I'll put it here again instead of repeating myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LN-oKZIUeY

The start of this video, you told me to stop doing something (and listen) that interrupted my mayo making

Other than that great video!

#I'mafuckturtlenotafukweasel #funnyasfuckthough #keepitup

[robvalue]

Thanks!

Ah yes, the intro is out of date. I've since learned that wanking while watching my videos is not just acceptable but necessary.

This argument I think reveals one of the biggest reasons religion is so popular: people often can't stand to say "I don't know". They'd rather have an answer, any answer, than accept this.

[Drich]

God's Law is Righteousness, Man's 'want to do' version of God's Righteousness is 'morality.'

Keeping in mind that man's 'morality' changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation. does not make what pop culture defines as 'morality' moral or right for a lack of a better term. it is simply 'right' for those in the majority..

That said without an absolute like God's standard of righteousness what keep society grounded in any sense of right and wrong? for instance what keeps a more advanced society from pushing a more primitive culture off it's lands and drives those people off the edge of extinction? Kinda like what America did with it's Indians? Or what Germany did with it's Jews? or what the world does with unborn babies it does not want.. Without some form of God's Righteousness pushing us to act in all instances, their wouldn't be Indians in America any more, Jews in Europe, or any restrictions on abortion.

So given the two choices of living under evil incarnate/man's morality and God's righteousness I choose God's righteousness and system of redemption, eternal life or not.

"Righteousness" yea and? Fans of Allah think they are "righteous" too. Sunnis and Shiites also think their god is "righteous"

I could see how an ignorant man would think this (because to the ignorant all religion is the same) but in truth their are literally '99 attributes and/or names of allah and 'righteous' aint one.'
http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-at...-of-allah/
Righteousness is not a foundational pillar of Islamic life.

"God's standard", yea and? Conservative Baptists and Liberal Baptists don't agree on what "God's standards" are.

They can agree on a great many things concerning 'standards of God.' They simply do not understand we have the freedom to bind ourselves with laws if it is our conviction to do so.

There wouldn't be any Indians in America?

not a student of history are you? The prevailing sentiment of towards the American indian was to 'convert them or kill them all.' Much like hitler's attitude with the Jews. However it was the pleas to human decency and the social experments (in which they took children and trained them to be 'white God fearing people' that planted the seed that they were indeed humans, just born into a 'bad'/different society.

First off, the Natives were here first, and Europeans invaded the continent, stole their land, killed them off, and your argument is they should be thankfull God didn't allow them all to be murdered?

Strawman, no.
The argument is if we live by what society dictates/without God. the Indians would not be here, or did you not know we were putting them into camps and infecting them with small pox and starving them to death?

Secondly, the word "Indian" was a fucking mistake. It was used because Columbus thought he had reached India. 

So?
Who are you to take the name off the table?? I live near the Seminole INDIAN Tribe, they like most Indians prefer to have a choice as to what they call themselves. It just so happens 'folk' around here In SEMINOLE county like the term indian whatever its source.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...es-respond
Seem to be a common sentiment.
The problem being 'P/C' is it is a form of control. It is away to control people which is the real social evil.

Same with the Jews, how the fuck can you sit there and justify the claim of a perfect security guard who watches as 6 million Jews get murdered, and while 50 million civilians and soldiers worldwide on all sides died as a result of WW2. 

lol, what makes you think God is meant to off security against death? Look here sport, Death is your ultimate evil, it just so happens to be your birth into eternity. The only way Death becomes a 'bad thing' is if You fear eternity.

God, " Yea Natives, sorry about all the small pox stuff and Andrew Jackson, but buck up, at least I didn't allow my fans to murder you all".

God, "Sorry Jews, I could have prevented the Holocaust and never let it happen at all, but buck up, at least I didn't allow all of you to die".

How warped does your logic have to get to justify such a selective deadbeat of a character? Fucking sick.

Both Holocausts were answers to the same prayer.

The Jews wanted/Needed their Holy Land back, further more the Holy Land is the Game board where the final plays of humanity are made.

2000 years of world history proves that the world was not just going to give the jews back their land. Yet for 2000 years this was the chief prayer of all jews. However the World demanded a HIGH cost of the holy Land and the payment was to be made in Blood and all up front. Make no mistake the Jews getting to return to Israel was only made possible by their sacrifice, the world would have it no other way. Look at WWI where the Same players divided up the world the first time (all except Japan) and the jews were not a consideration. It wasn't until the world's blood lust was satiated that they were given their land back by the then leaders of the world.

But to facilitate all of this God needed a very strong pro and antagonist. The Antagonist need the strength and resources of all of Europe and apparently north Africa to create a machine capable of processing the millions of jews it took to buy back the holy Land from the world. Likewise the protagonist needed vast natural resources to defeat this machine once the payment of the Jews was made. Because once started the machine used to kill the jews would not stop with just them. So their needed to be a country with the money and natural resources equal or greater than those of all of Europe and North Africa. But here lies another problem Resources of this nation given the original native peoples beliefs would not allow to be accessed. Which is why they lived just outside of their own personal stoneage until forced to contend with 'the white man' who was bent on taking (via his own pop morality at the time) So God allowed that introduction far enough back so that this continent would be ready to stop 'that' war.

[SofaKingHigh]

"Righteousness" yea and? Fans of Allah think they are "righteous" too. Sunnis and Shiites also think their god is "righteous"

I could see how an ignorant man would think this (because to the ignorant all religion is the same) but in truth their are literally '99 attributes and/or names of allah and 'righteous' aint one.'
http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-at...-of-allah/
Righteousness is not a foundational pillar of Islamic life.

"God's standard", yea and? Conservative Baptists and Liberal Baptists don't agree on what "God's standards" are.

They can agree on a great many things concerning 'standards of God.' They simply do not understand we have the freedom to bind ourselves with laws if it is our conviction to do so.

There wouldn't be any Indians in America?

not a student of history are you? The prevailing sentiment of towards the American indian was to 'convert them or kill them all.' Much like hitler's attitude with the Jews. However it was the pleas to human decency and the social experments (in which they took children and trained them to be 'white God fearing people' that planted the seed that they were indeed humans, just born into a 'bad'/different society.

First off, the Natives were here first, and Europeans invaded the continent, stole their land, killed them off, and your argument is they should be thankfull God didn't allow them all to be murdered?

Strawman, no.
The argument is if we live by what society dictates/without God. the Indians would not be here, or did you not know we were putting them into camps and infecting them with small pox and starving them to death?

Secondly, the word "Indian" was a fucking mistake. It was used because Columbus thought he had reached India. 

So?
Who are you to take the name off the table?? I live near the Seminole INDIAN Tribe, they like most Indians prefer to have a choice as to what they call themselves. It just so happens 'folk' around here In SEMINOLE county like the term indian whatever its source.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...es-respond
Seem to be a common sentiment.
The problem being 'P/C' is it is a form of control. It is away to control people which is the real social evil.

Same with the Jews, how the fuck can you sit there and justify the claim of a perfect security guard who watches as 6 million Jews get murdered, and while 50 million civilians and soldiers worldwide on all sides died as a result of WW2. 

lol, what makes you think God is meant to off security against death? Look here sport, Death is your ultimate evil, it just so happens to be your birth into eternity. The only way Death becomes a 'bad thing' is if You fear eternity.

God, " Yea Natives, sorry about all the small pox stuff and Andrew Jackson, but buck up, at least I didn't allow my fans to murder you all".

God, "Sorry Jews, I could have prevented the Holocaust and never let it happen at all, but buck up, at least I didn't allow all of you to die".

How warped does your logic have to get to justify such a selective deadbeat of a character? Fucking sick.

Both Holocausts were answers to the same prayer.

The Jews wanted/Needed their Holy Land back, further more the Holy Land is the Game board where the final plays of humanity are made.

2000 years of world history proves that the world was not just going to give the jews back their land. Yet for 2000 years this was the chief prayer of all jews. However the World demanded a HIGH cost of the holy Land and the payment was to be made in Blood and all up front. Make no mistake the Jews getting to return to Israel was only made possible by their sacrifice, the world would have it no other way. Look at WWI where the Same players divided up the world the first time (all except Japan) and the jews were not a consideration. It wasn't until the world's blood lust was satiated that they were given their land back by the then leaders of the world.

But to facilitate all of this God needed a very strong pro and antagonist. The Antagonist need the strength and resources of all of Europe and apparently north Africa to create a machine capable of processing the millions of jews it took to buy back the holy Land from the world. Likewise the protagonist needed vast natural resources to defeat this machine once the payment of the Jews was made. Because once started the machine used to kill the jews would not stop with just them. So their needed to be a country with the money and natural resources equal or greater than those of all of Europe and North Africa. But here lies another problem Resources of this nation given the original native peoples beliefs would not allow to be accessed. Which is why they lived just outside of their own personal stoneage until forced to contend with 'the white man' who was bent on taking (via his own pop morality at the time) So God allowed that introduction far enough back so that this continent would be ready to stop 'that' war.

You are no different to an Islamist extremist.  Some of your views on morality and history are truly repugnant.  Yet they're justified, in your eyes at least, because God allowed it.

If you were from the Yemen, or Palestine, you would have blown yourself up a long time ago.

[Drich]

I could see how an ignorant man would think this (because to the ignorant all religion is the same) but in truth their are literally '99 attributes and/or names of allah and 'righteous' aint one.'
http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-at...-of-allah/
Righteousness is not a foundational pillar of Islamic life.

They can agree on a great many things concerning 'standards of God.' They simply do not understand we have the freedom to bind ourselves with laws if it is our conviction to do so.
not a student of history are you? The prevailing sentiment of towards the American indian was to 'convert them or kill them all.' Much like hitler's attitude with the Jews. However it was the pleas to human decency and the social experments (in which they took children and trained them to be 'white God fearing people' that planted the seed that they were indeed humans, just born into a 'bad'/different society.

Strawman, no.
The argument is if we live by what society dictates/without God. the Indians would not be here, or did you not know we were putting them into camps and infecting them with small pox and starving them to death?
So?
Who are you to take the name off the table?? I live near the Seminole INDIAN Tribe, they like most Indians prefer to have a choice as to what they call themselves. It just so happens 'folk' around here In SEMINOLE county like the term indian whatever its source.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...es-respond
Seem to be a common sentiment.
The problem being 'P/C' is it is a form of control. It is away to control people which is the real social evil.

lol, what makes you think God is meant to off security against death? Look here sport, Death is your ultimate evil, it just so happens to be your birth into eternity. The only way Death becomes a 'bad thing' is if You fear eternity.
Both Holocausts were answers to the same prayer.

The Jews wanted/Needed their Holy Land back, further more the Holy Land is the Game board where the final plays of humanity are made.

2000 years of world history proves that the world was not just going to give the jews back their land. Yet for 2000 years this was the chief prayer of all jews. However the World demanded a HIGH cost of the holy Land and the payment was to be made in Blood and all up front. Make no mistake the Jews getting to return to Israel was only made possible by their sacrifice, the world would have it no other way. Look at WWI where the Same players divided up the world the first time (all except Japan) and the jews were not a consideration. It wasn't until the world's blood lust was satiated that they were given their land back by the then leaders of the world.

But to facilitate all of this God needed a very strong pro and antagonist. The Antagonist need the strength and resources of all of Europe and apparently north Africa to create a machine capable of processing the millions of jews it took to buy back the holy Land from the world. Likewise the protagonist needed vast natural resources to defeat this machine once the payment of the Jews was made. Because once started the machine used to kill the jews would not stop with just them. So their needed to be a country with the money and natural resources equal or greater than those of all of Europe and North Africa. But here lies another problem Resources of this nation given the original native peoples beliefs would not allow to be accessed. Which is why they lived just outside of their own personal stoneage until forced to contend with 'the white man' who was bent on taking (via his own pop morality at the time) So God allowed that introduction far enough back so that this continent would be ready to stop 'that' war.

You are no different to an Islamist extremist.  Some of your views on morality and history are truly repugnant.  Yet they're justified, in your eyes at least, because God allowed it.

If you were from the Yemen, or Palestine, you would have blown yourself up a long time ago.

what are you talking about? I started out Buddhist or at least grew up in the shadow of Buddhism. I did not follow a religion simply because that was how I was raised. I would like to think I would have done the same and seek God no matter where I started out.

And as far as History is concerned WE are the authors of it. WE Demand blood, WE demand total and absolute control. WE decide to kill everything not like us. GOD Stops us.

You seem to have lied to yourself as to the nature of who is responsible for both holocausts. God lets us do our own thing, we are the evil of this world, the only problem is 'we' don't like admitting it so 'we'/you blame God.

[GrandizerII]

God lets us do our own thing,

If you watch and stand by as someone else is being raped, do you just stand there and do nothing?

[robvalue]

Did someone say rape and murder is the worst we can do to each other?

Blimey. That isn't even remotely true. The worst we can do is imprison someone their whole life and subject them to horrific torture of every description, keeping them alive as long as possible.

Thanks, God. That's a really important option to have.