Zone1 If I had not been raised Catholic... it would have been a disaster

[nomadic5]

Lots of people think that there is some universal moral code. I don't agree with anyone who says that ---------

I used to think like this myself.

My life started going DOWNHILL and then I hit the ground and... big, hairy story... so awful I cannot bring myself to talk about the details of it, even though it was many moons ago.

It was JESUS, through the rosary who helped me to deal with what happened and how to go on. I didn't have a clue w/o Him

 

[ding]

It's not universal because humans do not populate the entire universe.

And you cannot counter the fact that what has been considered good and evil has changed over time. That morality is not only subjective but it is also flexible.

Of course morals are universal. Men's perceptions don't define it. Logic does. And even when some believed one way others believed the other way.

 

[ding]

No it doesn't. The standards have been established over time by societies and as such those standards have evolved and will keep evolving.

And only children have an expectation of fairness. Adults know that there is no such thing in nature as fairness and that nature is not good or evil it just is.

Tell me when a person sets out to rob you what fairness do you expect? If a person attacks you do you expect he will fight according to some set of agreed upon rules? If you have to defend yourself physically will you fight "fair"? I wouldn't.


Fairness is a human construct that is based in cooperation and the survival of a society. It does not exist in nature.

Believe whatever you want. It doesn't affect me at all. I don't have anything else to add or need to. Morals are effectively standards and standards exist for logical reasons. Which is all that needs to be said.

 

[ding]

And when ? refute that evidence as I have done?

And there is nothing between me and any gods.

I couldn't care less. You will reap what you sow just like everyone else. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.

 

[ding]

So what?

Lots of people think that there is some universal moral code. I don't agree with anyone who says that and the history of the human race proves my point.

Why do you think because I have taken parts of Buddhism into my personal philosophy that I must agree 100% with everything any Buddhist ever said.

So... you aren't a Buddhist. You believe that morals can be anything man decides them to be.

 

[JustAGuy1]

if I'd been raised Protestant, I would likely dislike the Catholic Church because that is what I was taught, and Protestant pastors are good at getting their congregations to do that.. I see evidence of THAT all over the place and have for many years... Fortunately, I had a fairly devout Catholic father... then I had EXPERIENCE... always a great teacher

So your experience invalidates everyone else's?

 

[Blues Man]

Truth is not at all relative, never has been, never will be (Notice how I use commas! Amazing!)

Reality is not at all relative, never has been, never will be.

Morals have nothing to do with truth and everything to do with whether or not certain behaviors are acceptable to society

 

[nomadic5]

Morals have nothing to do with truth and everything to do with whether or not certain behaviors are acceptable to society

no, when something is egregiously harmful for one person, it is nearly always harmful for another who does the same thing and in the case of sexual morality, well, I will delete the words "nearly always" and just say ALWAYS

It is, for example, ALWAYS a matter of grave consequence to fornicate. You can create a child that you may decide you don't want because you don't want the relationship anymore... which makes you think of murdering the child (2 mortal sins, one leading to thinking of committing another)

But I get it that you don't believe in an all powerful God judging humans some day...

 

[Blues Man]

Of course morals are universal. Men's perceptions don't define it. Logic does. And even when some believed one way others believed the other way.

No they aren't and human history proves it.

Morals change morals are flexible human behavior has proven it

Login is a man made system defining the rules of valid inference with its roots in ancient China India and Greece

 

[Blues Man]

no, when something is egregiously harmful for one person, it is nearly always harmful for another who does the same thing and in the case of sexual morality, well, I will delete the words "nearly always" and just say ALWAYS

It is, for example, ALWAYS a matter of grave consequence to fornicate. You can create a child that you may decide you don't want because you don't want the relationship anymore... which makes you think of murdering the child (2 mortal sins, one leading to thinking of committing another)

But I get it that you don't believe in an all powerful God judging humans some day...

That's because people are more alike than they are different. And people were having children way before there was any organized religion. The idea that having children out of wedlock was bad for a society because it brought about more poverty, more crime more problems for society as a whole was never even considered until there were societies

You like to ignore the power that society has over people.

Human behavior is extremely predictable.

 

[Blues Man]

So... you aren't a Buddhist. You believe that morals can be anything man decides them to be.

History proves that not me.

Morals have changed as we have evolved and as societies have evolved. There was never any one set of universal morals

 

[Blues Man]

I couldn't care less. You will reap what you sow just like everyone else. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.

And I am one who is doing his best to reduce the suffering of people and animals. Who is doing his best to leave the earth just a little bit cleaner and healthier than it was when I got here. And I don't need any gods to tell me that these are noble causes.

That sound horrible to you doesn't it?

 

[nomadic5]

That's because people are more alike than they are different. And people were having children way before there was any organized religion. The idea that having children out of wedlock was bad for a society because it brought about more poverty, more crime more problems for society as a whole was never even considered until there were societies

You like to ignore the power that society has over people.

Human behavior is extremely predictable.

This is baloney

Children need to be raised in a 2 parent home where the parents love one another and are committed to one another.

When that is not the case, the children suffer, often growing up to be criminals, murderers

 

[ding]

No they aren't and human history proves it.

Morals change morals are flexible human behavior has proven it

Login is a man made system defining the rules of valid inference with its roots in ancient China India and Greece

Even when slavery was accepted there were those who knew it was wrong. So arguing that because more people believed that slavery was moral that didn't make it moral. And in fact, is an idiotic argument.

 

[ding]

History proves that not me.

Morals have changed as we have evolved and as societies have evolved. There was never any one set of universal morals

Just because some people believed one way does not make it true or moral. Morals, like truth and logic, exists unto itself and cannot be made to be anything man wants them to be.

 

[ding]

And I am one who is doing his best to reduce the suffering of people and animals. Who is doing his best to leave the earth just a little bit cleaner and healthier than it was when I got here. And I don't need any gods to tell me that these are noble causes.

That sound horrible to you doesn't it?

I think you thinking you are good person because of what you think is like looking through both ends of binoculars. You see far away objects as close up and close up objects as far away. You would be much better off if you thought less of yourself and more of others. Then you would be on the good side of the dunning effect.

 

[Blues Man]

This is baloney

Children need to be raised in a 2 parent home where the parents love one another and are committed to one another.

When that is not the case, the children suffer, often growing up to be criminals, murderers

Only in the context of a society.

When people lived in small tribal and familial groups everyone cared for the children. The men hunted, the women reared the children

It wasn't until people started living in large stationary settlements that people only cared for their own children.

Hell the very concept of a "childhood" is a very modern one.

 

[Blues Man]

Even when slavery was accepted there were those who knew it was wrong. So arguing that because more people believed that slavery was moral that didn't make it moral. And in fact, is an idiotic argument.

So what?

It was accepted in large by society for centuries then it wasn't. That's all morality is; accepted behavior and unacceptable behavior as decided by society



Therefore morals of societies change. if morals change then morals are relative.

The changes in morality can be directly related to the percentage of the population that is educated and literate. Humanism had its inception in the Renaissance.

 

[Blues Man]

I think you thinking you are good person because of what you think is like looking through both ends of binoculars. You see far away objects as close up and close up objects as far away. You would be much better off if you thought less of yourself and more of others. Then you would be on the good side of the dunning effect.

I'm not the only one who thinks reducing suffering of humans and animals is a noble cause.

You think it isn;t because I don't involve any gods in my choices.

 

[ding]

So what?

It was accepted in large by society for centuries then it wasn't. That's all morality is; accepted behavior and unacceptable behavior as decided by society



Therefore morals of societies change. if morals change then morals are relative.

The changes in morality can be directly related to the percentage of the population that is educated and literate. Humanism had its inception in the Renaissance.

So what? I told you so what.

Even when slavery was accepted there were those who knew it was wrong. So arguing that because more people believed that slavery was moral that didn't make it moral. And in fact, is an idiotic argument. Morals like logic and truth are independent of man. It's not a popularity contest. It's a logic thing. Standards exist for logical reasons.