Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[ding]

ONE CAN ARGUE that without morality, there can be no society.

Not exactly. It would be a less peaceful, harmonious and orderly society. It would be much more chaotic.

And just look: as our morality crumbles around us, so goes our society.

Exactly. Less peacful, less harmonious and less orderly. But it's still a society that exists though. Just not a very good one.

 

[Chuz Life]

That's because some believe morals are a human construct. So of course they don't believe in moral or immoral choices. They believe - like you do - that morals are made up. That there is no real such thing as good or evil. That all that exists is survival, pleasure and pain. Are you suggesting there's something more? You can't have it both ways. I'm getting sick and tired of people who try to have it both ways. You can't believe that morals are relative and expect anyone to accept your morals are the moralistic beliefs that should be followed as if they were absolute. Double standard much?

Absolutely I believe in gravity. That's why I don't jump off of buildings. Because I know that gravity will make me fall. So I disagree that there is no belief involved. Maybe you are confused about why I believe in gravity. It's the same reason I believe in God. Personal experiences. I have personally experienced the effects of gravity, so I know gravity is real. I have personally experienced the effects of God, so I know God is real. I didn't need Newton to tell me what would happen if I jumped off of a building. I knew what would happen. I only needed Newton to tell me how much force my body would experience when it splattered onto the surface.

Isn't that the point I was making? That you are making moral arguments you shouldn't be making. It seems to me that moral relativity much more closely matches nature. It's not immoral to survive even when that survival is at the expense of something9th 9 else. How is that not relative?

Interesting comments.

I suppose on a technical level, I too think morals or morality are a human construct but only to a point.

My philosophy (realism) is that rights, morality, etc all extend from the inherent right to life, self defense, etc.

 

[ding]

Interesting comments.

I suppose on a technical level, I too think morals or morality are a human construct but only to a point.

My philosophy (realism) is that rights, morality, etc all extend from the inherent right to life, self defense, etc.

Morals are effectively standards and standards exist for logical reasons. I'm not arguing for relative morals. I'm arguing for absolute morals because logic is absolute. I'm pointing out that people who say they believe in relative morals behave as if they believe in absolute morals.

 

[toobfreak]

Not exactly. It would be a less peaceful, harmonious and orderly society.

Without morality, society dissolves into anarchy.

 

[ding]

Without morality, society dissolves into anarchy.

Yes, but even an anarchistic society is still a form of society. It's called the rule of might. Man prefers to live under the rule of right. The problem is getting man to actually do it,. Instead of rationalizing they are doing it when they aren't.

 

[Chuz Life]

Morals are effectively standards and standards exist for logical reasons. I'm not arguing for relative morals. I'm arguing for absolute morals because logic is absolute. I'm pointing out that people who say they believe in relative morals behave as if they believe in absolute morals.

I don't see that we are all that far apart.

Thanks!

 

[ding]

I don't see that we are all that far apart.

Thanks!

Me neither. And if we aren't, that's alright too.

 

[alang1216]

That's because some believe morals are a human construct. So of course they don't believe in moral or immoral choices. They believe - like you do - that morals are made up. That there is no real such thing as good or evil. That all that exists is survival, pleasure and pain. Are you suggesting there's something more? You can't have it both ways. I'm getting sick and tired of people who try to have it both ways. You can't believe that morals are relative and expect anyone to accept your morals are the moralistic beliefs that should be followed as if they were absolute. Double standard much?

No, flawed logic. That there is no real such thing as ABSOLUTE good or evil. But that does not mean that all that exists is survival, pleasure and pain. That is absolutely wrong. Good and evil exist, they are just relative to each culture.

Absolutely I believe in gravity. That's why I don't jump off of buildings. Because I know that gravity will make me fall. So I disagree that there is no belief involved. Maybe you are confused about why I believe in gravity. It's the same reason I believe in God. Personal experiences. I have personally experienced the effects of gravity, so I know gravity is real. I have personally experienced the effects of God, so I know God is real. I didn't need Newton to tell me what would happen if I jumped off of a building. I knew what would happen. I only needed Newton to tell me how much force my body would experience when it splattered onto the surface.

You don't need to believe in gravity, it exists outside of your belief system. The opposite is true of God, he only exists within your belief system. Your personal experiences are yours alone, not shared by anyone else and completely unconvincing to me.

Isn't that the point I was making? That you are making moral arguments you shouldn't be making. It seems to me that moral relativity much more closely matches nature. It's not immoral to survive even when that survival is at the expense of something else. How is that not relative?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Nature is amoral, period. Human culture is unique and does have a moral code, but it is relative to that particular culture at that particular time.

 

[ding]

No, flawed logic. That there is no real such thing as ABSOLUTE good or evil. But that does not mean that all that exists is survival, pleasure and pain. That is absolutely wrong. Good and evil exist, they are just relative to each culture.

That's not true. At any point in a society there will be people that disagree with the norm. Even when slavery was accepted as moral there were people who disagreed. But the funny thing is that whenever you make your moral arguments - which is all the time - you use logic to convince people why your beliefs should be accepted. You don't use polling data.

If what you say is true, then it was moral for the US and Israel to attack Iran because their culture said it was. I skip that whole argument and say it's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of perceived survival. It's Darwinian. And to my surprise, I find atheists who want to dismiss Darwin and make moral arguments.

 

[ding]

You don't need to believe in gravity, it exists outside of your belief system. The opposite is true of God, he only exists within your belief system. Your personal experiences are yours alone, not shared by anyone else and completely unconvincing to me.

Incorrect. Everything is made manifest by mind. I already knew everything I needed to know about gravity to survive because I experienced it. I didn't need to know the equation for it. Everything we do is based upon some belief or another. You are downplaying the role of belief. A belief about something plays a role in every decision we make. We don't make decisions because we don't believe something. We make decisions based upon the things we believe.

The thing about experiences is that everyone has them. And they aren't all that different. I don't need to see the letters in your mailbox to know you got letters. I know there is a truck that delivers letters to my mailbox and can see he is stopping at each mailbox. Whatever experiences you experience other people are experiencing them too. And we all pretty much respond with the same human emotions. You aren't feeling anything alien that no one else has felt.

I love your circular logic that God only exists as a belief. That God can't be extant or real or outside of made up. Is it any wonder you have never found God? You've never looked because you don't believe God exists. That is the definition of circular logic.

I don't really care to convince you. I couldn't care less what you do. But you're here trolling in a religious forum, so it does seem you care what others believe.

 

[ding]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Nature is amoral, period. Human culture is unique and does have a moral code, but it is relative to that particular culture at that particular time.

You couldn't understand my point was that people like you who say things like you just said belie those beliefs when you make your moral arguments?

 

[ding]

That there is no real such thing as ABSOLUTE good or evil.

Is logic absolute or is logic relative?

Are there objevctive reasons for why something is considered moral or immoral? Is objectivity logical or illogical? When trying to find the highest standard is it better to use emotion and subjectivity or logic and objectivity. Which way is one likely to discover objective truth or reality?

 

[alang1216]

That's not true. At any point in a society there will be people that disagree with the norm. Even when slavery was accepted as moral there were people who disagreed. But the funny thing is that whenever you make your moral arguments - which is all the time - you use logic to convince people why your beliefs should be accepted. You don't use polling data.

Whatever point you are trying to make is too murky to discern.

If what you say is true, then it was moral for the US and Israel to attack Iran because their culture said it was. I skip that whole argument and say it's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of perceived survival. It's Darwinian. And to my surprise, I find atheists who want to dismiss Darwin and make moral arguments.

Of course it was moral or the US and Israel to attack Iran because their culture said it was. Just as it was moral for Iran to attack the US and Israel because their culture said it was. What part of 'relative' don't you understand?

 

[ding]

Can you offer a successful example of a society that operated by the Rule of Law–or one truth?

Apparently it's really hard to get everyone to follow "do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor do unto you." Maybe that's why we have to write a gazillion laws but don't you believe that that would be a good example of one truth that if everyone followed would solve our problems overnight?

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. Everything is made manifest by mind. I already knew everything I needed to know about gravity to survive because I experienced it. I didn't need to know the equation for it. Everything we do is based upon some belief or another. You are downplaying the role of belief. A belief about something plays a role in every decision we make. We don't make decisions because we don't believe something. We make decisions based upon the things we believe.

The thing about experiences is that everyone has them. And they aren't all that different. I don't need to see the letters in your mailbox to know you got letters. I know there is a truck that delivers letters to my mailbox and can see he is stopping at each mailbox. Whatever experiences you experience other people are experiencing them too. And we all pretty much respond with the same human emotions. You aren't feeling anything alien that no one else has felt.

I love your circular logic that God only exists as a belief. That God can't be extant or real or outside of made up. Is it any wonder you have never found God? You've never looked because you don't believe God exists. That is the definition of circular logic.

I don't really care to convince you. I couldn't care less what you do. But you're here trolling in a religious forum, so it does seem you care what others believe.

The question was on morality and everyone is able to address that issue.

Do you believe in ghosts? Why? Have you honestly looked as hard as you looked for God?

 

[alang1216]

You couldn't understand my point was that people like you who say things like you just said belie those beliefs when you make your moral arguments?

What exactly was my moral argument? That there was no absolute morality?

 

[ding]

Whatever point you are trying to make is too murky to discern.

And here I thought saying, "At any point in a society there will be people that disagree with the norm" is straightforward.

 

[alang1216]

Is logic absolute or is logic relative?

Are there objevctive reasons for why something is considered moral or immoral? Is objectivity logical or illogical? When trying to find the highest standard is it better to use emotion and subjectivity or logic and objectivity. Which way is one likely to discover objective truth or reality?

Unfortunately for you, reality contradicts your wish for an absolute moral code to justify your belief in God. Check the polling data if you don't believe me.

 

[ding]

The question was on morality and everyone is able to address that issue.

Absolutely. What gave you the impression I believed otherwise?

Do you believe in ghosts? Why? Have you honestly looked as hard as you looked for God?

Do you see me here criticizing people for believing in ghosts? Because if you had, you would have probably seen that I had done an objective assessment beforehand and not be commenting on something I knew nothing about.

 

[alang1216]

And here I thought saying, "At any point in a society there will be people that disagree with the norm" is straightforward.

You should have stopped there. The rest was a mess.