Do We Even Know What Good And Evil Are Anymore??

[MissileMan]

Whose intellegence and whose knowledge? If I gain a different set of intellegence and/or knowledge, would it then be OK for my morals to be different? How different is acceptable?

This actually happens. Consider isolated tribes of cannibals. To them it is morally acceptable to serve up a heaping plate of missionary mash. But then consider their intelligence and knowledge...they are hardly more than jungle animals intellectually.

Whether or not that is acceptable would depend on whose kitchen you are sitting in.

 

[dilloduck]

This actually happens. Consider isolated tribes of cannibals. To them it is morally acceptable to serve up a heaping plate of missionary mash. But then consider their intelligence and knowledge...they are hardly more than jungle animals intellectually.

Whether or not that is acceptable would depend on whose kitchen you are sitting in.

So if cannibals ate your family, it's ok as long as they do it in their kitchen?

 

[MissileMan]

LOL and where did the do unto others philosphy come from???

Just because you can find it in the bible, that doesn't mean that it was invented by the Christians. I suppose the concept of "thou shalt not steal" was never ever conceived of before the bible was written.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

So if cannibals ate your family, it's ok as long as they do it in their kitchen?

 

[MissileMan]

So if cannibals ate your family, it's ok as long as they do it in their kitchen?

If you were born and raised in that tribe, you'd think so.

 

[Bonnie]

This actually happens. Consider isolated tribes of cannibals. To them it is morally acceptable to serve up a heaping plate of missionary mash. But then consider their intelligence and knowledge...they are hardly more than jungle animals intellectually.

Whether or not that is acceptable would depend on whose kitchen you are sitting in.

Hence the whole point of this discussion.......Do we accept their behavior as okay because they are not as evolved or intelligent as us, or is not killing supposed to be universally understood???

 

[MissileMan]

Hence the whole point of this discussion.......Do we accept their behavior as okay because they are not as evolved or intelligent as us, or is not killing supposed to be universally understood???

Let's say for instance that they decide to build a coast-to-coast road through the middle of the amazon basin. The bulldozer bursts into a hidden valley where this tribe of cannibals lives. Authorities are called to the village where they find the remains of hundreds of humans. Do you arrest the entire village and charge them all with murder?

 

[freeandfun1]

Let's say for instance that they decide to build a coast-to-coast road through the middle of the amazon basin. The bulldozer bursts into a hidden valley where this tribe of cannibals lives. Authorities are called to the village where they find the remains of hundreds of humans. Do you arrest the entire village and charge them all with murder?

No. You just eradicate them where they stand.

 

[dilloduck]

Let's say for instance that they decide to build a coast-to-coast road through the middle of the amazon basin. The bulldozer bursts into a hidden valley where this tribe of cannibals lives. Authorities are called to the village where they find the remains of hundreds of humans. Do you arrest the entire village and charge them all with murder?

Of course not----you would first have to get them all a lawyer, health care, a psychologist , and their food of choice of course. You volunteering?

 

[Bonnie]

Let's say for instance that they decide to build a coast-to-coast road through the middle of the amazon basin. The bulldozer bursts into a hidden valley where this tribe of cannibals lives. Authorities are called to the village where they find the remains of hundreds of humans. Do you arrest the entire village and charge them all with murder?

Many thought Christopher Columbus was horrible for introducing Christianity to natives, however they were in many ways primitive and barbaric before that, and now Christanity is prevalent, and the barbarism for the most part has stopped. How about we look at it like religion is a way of enlightening people whose intellect is dark due to lack of religious morals??

 

[MissileMan]

Many thought Christopher Columbus was horrible for introducing Christianity to natives, however they were in many ways primitive and barbaric before that, and now Christanity is prevalent, and the barbarism for the most part has stopped. How about we look at it like religion is a way of enlightening people whose intellect is dark due to lack of religious morals??

How about we look at it like religion is a way to assuage fear of the unknown, e.g. "what happens when I die?" and a way to explain things that are unexplainable given our current knowledge, e.g. "where did our universe come from?"

And I guess I'm beating a dead horse trying to convince anyone here that morality isn't limited to the religious, so I'm gonna bury the nag. (pun intended)

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm curious to know where that number came from. According to the histories I've read of the Revolutionary Era, somewhere between 95-98% of all Americans were churchgoers.

Thats not true. Churchgoers back during the Revolution were pretty sparse. Alot of it had to do with how spread out the people were and from what I saw in the wilderness areas there were far more men then women and when men outnumber the women there is less religiosity.

I cant remember what book i read all in. all i know is it was by a Professor who did alot of research on the subject named Stark. It was a pretty interesting book. it basically analyzed religious growth and apparently the religions or rather denominations that demand more from the membership are the ones that grow. very interesting read.

 

[oxbow3]

Hi GOP_Jeff. I don't have the book here (I'm at my parents house for the holidays). It's actually called How we Believe though. My mistake. More info:

Michael Shermer, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (New York: Owl Books, 2000), p. 25.

As for a point made by another individual, the "do unto others rule" was around way before the Bible. I will look for more data on pre-biblical morality that I can link to online. The following link is to an article on the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association website. There is a slight bias as a result but all the information is factual to my knowledge. I actually quite enjoyed reading it. Really was an eye-opener into how civilized so called "barbarian" civilizations of the past actually were.

http://nosha.secularhumanism.net/essays/sierichs6.html

As for where we would get morals if not from our religion, one smarter than me has observed that morality comes first from love that we feel for our families. It is this desire to see only the best and to avoid any harm coming to them that probably evolved into fullblown codes of ethics and morality. For instance, no-one in their right mind would kill their own son, no matter what he did (Take that, Abraham!).

Morality becomes harder as we come out further from the family unit. It still seems hard to kill a friend, less difficult to kill a member of the community, and the easiest to kill those outside our community. The whole thing is compounded when a threat against the family/community is perceived. Then it becomes even easier to act immorally against "outsiders."

Part of the problem today is that as our cities get larger, our communities are getting smaller and smaller, as most people live in cities or suburbs where the majority of the community members are strangers (atleast in the 1st world). This makes it easier for people to act immorally, as the personal connection inevitably breaks down. In general, people only keep in contact with a maximum of about 150 other individuals. Any more and the tribal bond (man lived in tribes for most of its existence as a species) does not seem to hold.

 

[oxbow3]

cannibalism is an extreme case of when morals clash. I can tell you that most cannibals actually ate the bodies of community members who had died as a way to have their wisdom, strength, etc. live on though them. A minority of cannibals, mostly in the pacific islands, did practice cannibalism on captured enemies. Thankfully, this practice has died out.

We ourselves still practice behavior that other cultures might find questionable, though. Circumcision could be seen as child torture by an outsider. Yet we practice it, largely because of religious precedent. Doctors have found limited health reasons for circumcision, yet this was fairly recently and really has little to do with the underlying reasons for its universal practice in the West. The point is that it has lost its shock value because our culture is inured to it.

How would you feel if you found a group of people worshipping the image of a mutilated, bloody, dead man? What if they told you that he was their God? It seems disturbing when put this way, yet we all think very little of exposing children to the image and descriptions of a crucified man everytime we go to church. Again, its a case of cultural norms; our viewpoint changes depending on whether we are on the outside looking in or vice versa.

 

[oxbow3]

Churchgoers back during the Revolution were pretty sparse. Alot of it had to do with how spread out the people were and from what I saw in the wilderness areas there were far more men then women and when men outnumber the women there is less religiosity.

those are good points. Some people might not have gone because it was too far but it has been my experience that one can generally make time for the things that are really important in one’s life. Furthermore, you would see a higher spike in church attendance after the frontier families began to become surrounded if that was the sole explanation.

American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution (!), to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today.

By the 1850's most of the states were no longer frontier. The Mormons settled Utah in the 1840's when it was virgin territory, for instance. I would expect much higher percentages of church attendance from these people than 34%, especially as this was the period when America was supposed to be undergoing a great religious revivial IIRC.

I think the reason for the rise in church attendance throughout American history is more social than spiritual. People back then knew all their neighbours and had large, extended families usually living with them. They had greater social connectedness than we do in many ways. It is hard to meet new people in the suburbs or cities nowadays if you are not a social animal. It may be that church is simply the best place to go to meet others who share your values, interests, etc. The religion is a part of the reason people stay to be sure, but spirituality often involves a sense of community as well, a feeling of being part of an organization with a higher goal and the manpower to reach for it. The social aspect of this trend is hard to ignore.

 

[Tippy Toes]

I think that morals are legislated, and it amounts to what is good for the majority most of the time, but not necessarily. Slavery would have been good for the majority, but it had a deep sense of wrongness, and even though many very religious types had slaves, it still was justified by them as ok.

Many times murder is justified when it has been done in the name of the Lord, or whatever religion you believe.

I really think that because humans can think they make decisions about right, and wrong and although religion can play a part, you don't need it to know what is inherrantly wrong.

Religion can say don't steal, but most of us do at some point in time. Many would murder if they could get away with it. That's why I think we have to have a society, and structure, and laws.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How about we look at it like religion is a way to assuage fear of the unknown, e.g. "what happens when I die?" and a way to explain things that are unexplainable given our current knowledge, e.g. "where did our universe come from?"

And I guess I'm beating a dead horse trying to convince anyone here that morality isn't limited to the religious, so I'm gonna bury the nag. (pun intended)

It's more than that though. It's rules for living.

 

[dilloduck]

How about we look at it like religion is a way to assuage fear of the unknown, e.g. "what happens when I die?" and a way to explain things that are unexplainable given our current knowledge, e.g. "where did our universe come from?"

And I guess I'm beating a dead horse trying to convince anyone here that morality isn't limited to the religious, so I'm gonna bury the nag. (pun intended)

Since spirituality has existed for thousands of years, (as long as man has) can you provide examples of morality that did not arise out of it ? The crux of your argument appears to be that man has no soul that a higher power can communicate with and the only way morality can arise is out of rational thinking.

 

[freeandfun1]

I read a really good piece on this topic yesterday while sit'n in the doctors office. The piece was in an old US News Magazine, but damn, it nailed the stupidity of the lefts "don't impose your values on me" argument.

---- I found the article and I have started a new thread ----

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=226538&postcount=1

 

[Thornton]

Here's my take on it. I think man has love and stuff. Not necessarily from a god, just inside. Like no matter how mad we get some of us just couldn't actually kill someone else. When we get real mad we can say it and some things would even justify it, but we couldn't actually *pull the trigger.* Why some people can cross the line is what we would call evil. It can't be some moral thing cause we're all taught the same things are right and wrong. It has to be something inside.

Technology in medical studies shows more all the time about brain chemistry. So if it's all true and it's how we are born then no decisions we make really come from anywhere except what our own body makes in our brains. If the chemistry is off then people do bad things. That seems to be what separates
people that are considered immoral from those who are moral.

You've seen it where people have a lot of kids all raised in the same house by the same parents under the same circumstances and for some reason one turns into a killer. If it was morals and religion instead of something like brain chemistry, how could that happen?