morality and ethics

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by JBeukema, Jun 23, 2009.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

    Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

    How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?
     
  2. ZhaoYun
    Offline

    ZhaoYun Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    As is generally the case, I endeavor, as well as I am able, to behave in accordance with my morals, which are founded in my ethics.
    I don't understand, particularly since you have distinguished morality and ethics, what you mean when you say "sense of morality". I spent many years developing my understanding of both, and believe, like every other idiot, that they are self justifying.
    And an example would be helpful for me in understanding the third question, about society and it's "ethical codes".
     
  3. Tinktink
    Offline

    Tinktink Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    418
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +23
    My question here is why in the world is this posted here? Religion has nothing to do with morality or ethics, considering religious faith is based on neither.


    Doesn't this belong in Health and Life style?
     
  4. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    [​IMG]


    One's personal morality...

    (emphasis added)

    :eusa_whistle:

    Simple: what ethical system do you support, or how do you feel a society should cvome to agree to one?

    why is a morality and ethics thread posted in 'religion and ethics'?

    are you serious? :eusa_eh:

    aint that the truth ;) :lol:


    :eusa_eh:
     
  5. ST34
    Offline

    ST34 BANNED

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    Ratings:
    +6
    both

    in both these cases religion is not only useless but even harmful
    on the other hand, in both cases can be helpful some ethical theories, and especially such like utilitarianism, which is saying that: 'good is what is useful' so 'the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results' and usually useful is this what is rational

    basing on such principles, I for example deem that abortion is wrong because I wouldn't want to be in place of killed child, gay marriages are wrong because evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal, penalties for criminals should be high, because I would prefer to meet with the same criminal after fifty years than after one year, and so on
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2009
  6. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,712
    Thanks Received:
    7,230
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,768
    Yes

    No

    Very carefully
     
  7. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    I disagree. Homosexual behavior is seen in many species in nature, and is therefore natural. This renders your argument that ' evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal' meaningless and fallacious. Nature renders that which is natural. That which is natural is normal. That includes homosexuality. Furthermore, homosexuality could be a side effect of sexually antagonistic evolution (thereby being a signal of 'positive' development of a population), and serve to feminize male brains so they adopt 'feminine' roles (such as protecting children while most males are away, while being larger and stronger than females on average) while simultaneously serving as a natural means of birth control
     
  8. ST34
    Offline

    ST34 BANNED

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    Ratings:
    +6
    and what do you think about abortion ?

    what do you think about high penalties for criminals ?

    Homosexuality is abnormal from biological point of view, Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction, it isn't work in cases of dysfunctions and sicknesses (it wouldn't exist without reproduction, it arose ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION and nothing else, too strong feminization of male brains is contradictory with this fundamental principle). Your 'basing' on Science is in this case untrue and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC.

    your way of thinking in this case is too schematic, you should read my other thread:
    'democrats' and 'republicans' in all areas ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2009
  9. DamnYankee
    Offline

    DamnYankee No Neg Policy

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,516
    Thanks Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +441

    What difference does it make? It isn't going to change anything.
     
  10. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Opposed, save for medical necessity

    define 'high penalties'


    Incorrect. Normality is that which is 'normal' or common. This is the same argument I refuted above; you have merely replaces 'unnatural' with 'abnormal'. You must do more than play this silly game of semantics to rebut my refutation.

    Evolution did not 'create' sexuality 'as' anything or for any purpose. That which made more copies of itself has a higher probability of prorogation, nothing more. Furthermore, you have yet top demonstrate that it is 'good' to be 'normal' or to reproduce.

    It arose for no purpose. It arose because those creatures that engaged in it made more of themselves more efficiently than those that did not. There is no purpose or goal when it comes to evolution. To personify the process in such a manner as you have is fallacious.

    Incorrect. Evolution effect populations, not individuals. If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population,. one would expect them to remain around. Remember that one need not reproduce to 'succeed' in tthe 'game' of evolution; to have one's close relatives reproduce (passing along the same genomes/alleles) is also 'success' by the same standard.

    Incorrect. My basis is valid, while yours relies on fallacious personification. I draw conclusions based on the evidence, while you seek out evidence to support your conclusion. Your entire approach is fallacious and unscientific in nature.

    My thinking in this matter is based on rational thought, where yours is based on justification of your beliefs and personal opinions.
     

Share This Page