Darwin, the Destroyer

[AVG-JOE]

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.

If this were true, there would be no need for laws, judges and sanctuaries of penance. We would all behave because it's the right thing to do.

Morality remains in the mind of the beholder, and moral judgement remains subjective to the beholders ability to enforce their moral code.

 

[ilia25]

The point I make is that morality is subjective.

I understand, but I it is not true, at least not when it is generalized like that. There is basic understanding of right and wrong that is shared by all people. I'm not sure if you can call it subjective, because it is the same for all people (excluding mentally ill).

Murder is always wrong and immoral -- you can only rationalize it as a lesser evil. But evil nonetheless.



Like I said, people can differ on details. Morality comes from reasoning, and some issues are complex and people come to different conclusions.

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.



Some complex issues take a lot of experience to understand. Humanity learns on its mistakes, that is why something that was not acceptable in ancient times is acceptable now, and vice versa. But the same true for many other things, like science or medicine.

Our understanding of the world around us evolves with time, but it is not the same as saying that different people see different worlds. We all see the same skies above, the same stars, rivers and mountains, cars on the streets and so on. Same with morals -- on the basic level they are the same.

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

That's the point. It's NOT the same for all people. Everyone gets to decide absolutely, and in the privacy of their own minds what is and what is not moral, and 'legal' has little to do with it.

If you decide that gambling is moral, it is for you. If you decide that queer sex is immoral, it is. Simple as that.

Yes, but do you really think that the morality of murder of an innocent or a theft are just as controversial? Or that there were times in the ancient history when doing those things was considered a virtue?

I think that when it comes to the most basic and most important things the morals are universal. People may only differ on less important matters (and, btw, those differences remain between Christians as well).

 

[ilia25]

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.

If this were true, there would be no need for laws, judges and sanctuaries of penance. We would all behave because it's the right thing to do.

May be we disagree on the meaning of morals. I think morals are nothing more than understanding of what is good, and what is evil. But even if a person has this understanding, it does not mean that he/she would always do the right thing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

methinks you two agree more than disagree. you appear to talking at each other instead of to each other.

happens, it's the nature of the medium

 

[AVG-JOE]

'morality' is whatever he who has the biggest stick says it is, and Earth has yet to produce a god who isn't impotent to say otherwise.

Again, morality does not depend on the size of your stick. Hurting others is bad and that is true whether you using big or small stick. Of course people can always choose to do bad things -- and that is where having the biggest stick helps.

I think he was trying to say that people throughout history have frequently been coerced toward good/evil deeds. I could be wrong.

Not at all, although what you say is perfectly true and relevant.

What I mean is that powerful people dictate the morality of the people around them.

In the sticky story of human history, nobody in this day and age believes that the kingdoms of Pre-American Europe were an example of fairness and equity, and in the same vein, nobody denies that "it's good to be the king".

If some asshole has control of a piece of property on this planet that's big enough to have a seat at the United Nations, and he decides that 'moral behavior' includes using heavy military weapons against his neighbors because they don't subscribe to the 'correct' Ancient Story of Origins, God and Human Morals, what could you or I possibly say to challenge that? It's the same as the moral rationalization that all truly powerful people use when justification of their actions becomes necessary.

He who carries the big stick, makes the morals. It's why democracy is so messy.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Same thing. If you live in a society, it will punish you for anti-social behavior -- which will be bad for you.

People act morally for their own good -- and they don't need the Bible to know that those things are related.

My issue with this post is not that moral behavior exists independent of the Bible, but the assertion that antisocial behavior is synonymous with "bad." That's an odd bit of logic. So, when Rosa Parks sat in the "White Only" section of the bus, was she bad?

Well, do you think Rosa Parks was anti-social? Because I don't

Meh, it depends on how one defines "antisocial." If one uses the DSM, then no. If one uses a more abstract definition such as "hostile to or disruptive of normal standards of social behavior," then an argument can be made. I was mostly interested in what your response would be. I'm simply not certain how synonymous "antisocial" is with "bad."

 

[AVG-JOE]

But again, on the basic level the morals are the same for everyone.

If this were true, there would be no need for laws, judges and sanctuaries of penance. We would all behave because it's the right thing to do.

May be we disagree on the meaning of morals. I think morals are nothing more than understanding of what is good, and what is evil. But even if a person has this understanding, it does not mean that he/she would always do the right thing.

We are close... I don't flat out disagree with you. My thesis is that, while the understanding of what is good and what is evil may run along a common thread among humans, with most of us having some grasp of what we collectively consider "common sense" & "decency", we are each tasked with deciding in the privacy of our own hearts when we've sinned. This is what sets sociopaths apart... they can learn to live within the law because it makes sense in the long run, but there is no right and wrong, only indifference and desire and they'll feed their appetites based on a simple risk / reward analysis of any given opportunity.

Are sociopaths immoral, amoral, or neither?

Can someone be held accountable when they are truly clueless about the morals you cherish and positively do not care what you think? You bet your ass they can. For behavior. That's why Religious Code MUST take a back-seat to Civil Law.

 

[ilia25]

My issue with this post is not that moral behavior exists independent of the Bible, but the assertion that antisocial behavior is synonymous with "bad." That's an odd bit of logic. So, when Rosa Parks sat in the "White Only" section of the bus, was she bad?

Well, do you think Rosa Parks was anti-social? Because I don't

Meh, it depends on how one defines "antisocial." If one uses the DSM, then no. If one uses a more abstract definition such as "hostile to or disruptive of normal standards of social behavior," then an argument can be made. I was mostly interested in what your response would be. I'm simply not certain how synonymous "antisocial" is with "bad."

That's right -- I'm not certain either because it depends on definition of "antisocial" and "bad". And I'm not sure we really want to go there, unless we have to

 

[Gadawg73]

We have a Congressman down here that claims the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is false.
And we wonder why we get beat in elections.

 

[ilia25]

If this were true, there would be no need for laws, judges and sanctuaries of penance. We would all behave because it's the right thing to do.

May be we disagree on the meaning of morals. I think morals are nothing more than understanding of what is good, and what is evil. But even if a person has this understanding, it does not mean that he/she would always do the right thing.

We are close... I don't flat out disagree with you. My thesis is that, while the understanding of what is good and what is evil may run along a common thread among humans, with most of us having some grasp of what we collectively consider "common sense" & "decency", we are each tasked with deciding in the privacy of our own hearts when we've sinned.

No argument here What I don't like is the notion that the morals are in the eye of beholder. Taken to extreme, it could mean that everyone decides on what is moral at random, so we may end up with half of us thinking that murder is bad, and the other half would think that by all means, let's kill everyone! And that only religion can keep some order in that department.

In reality, humans have different opinions on many things, but they also in agreement on many others -- and the latter tend to be the most important ones. And that happens naturally, w/o any divine intervention.

This is what sets sociopaths apart...

That is true. What sociopaths lack is compassion (because they are mentally handicapped), they are not aware that they are hurting other people -- or how badly the others are hurt. That is why they are unable to come up with the same moral rules.

Can someone be held accountable when they are truly clueless about the morals you cherish and positively do not care what you think?

Unfortunately, we have to make an example of them. But otherwise we should treat them as either mentally ill, or unlucky.

That's why Religious Code MUST take a back-seat to Civil Law.

Definitely -- if only because the the civil law and morals evolve, benefiting from the experience that humanity accumulates over time.

 

[ilia25]

We have a Congressman down here that claims the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is false.
And we wonder why we get beat in elections.

We all suffer because America is a deeply religious country.

 

[AVG-JOE]

May be we disagree on the meaning of morals. I think morals are nothing more than understanding of what is good, and what is evil. But even if a person has this understanding, it does not mean that he/she would always do the right thing.

We are close... I don't flat out disagree with you. My thesis is that, while the understanding of what is good and what is evil may run along a common thread among humans, with most of us having some grasp of what we collectively consider "common sense" & "decency", we are each tasked with deciding in the privacy of our own hearts when we've sinned.

No argument here What I don't like is the notion that the morals are in the eye of beholder. Taken to extreme, it could mean that everyone decides on what is moral at random, so we may end up with half of us thinking that murder is bad, and the other half would think that by all means, let's kill everyone! And that only religion can keep some order in that department.

In reality, humans have different opinions on many things, but they also in agreement on many others -- and the latter tend to be the most important ones. And that happens naturally, w/o any divine intervention.



That is true. What sociopaths lack is compassion (because they are mentally handicapped), they are not aware that they are hurting other people -- or how badly the others are hurt. That is why they are unable to come up with the same moral rules.

Can someone be held accountable when they are truly clueless about the morals you cherish and positively do not care what you think?

Unfortunately, we have to make an example of them. But otherwise we should treat them as either mentally ill, or unlucky.

That's why Religious Code MUST take a back-seat to Civil Law.

Definitely -- if only because the the civil law and morals evolve, benefiting from the experience that humanity accumulates over time.

Regarding 'eye of the beholder' being the law of the moral land on this wet rock, we may have to agree to disagree. Until a God or Government shows up that can enforce a particular moral code, we are all free to write our own. My humble opinion.

Sitting in judgement. That's the hard part of operating a civilization. Deciding the right and wrong of any given situation involving humans has NEVER been outside the purview of Man. Until a God comes along who can enforce HIS judgements on us, it's up to us to build and defend a list of moral behavior and try to learn to live together.