Spirituality
22 Jan 17
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI'll break it down for you.
My daughter started walking at 10 months, I didn't have to teach her. It happened automatically. What is your point? How does this relate to us learning that murder is wrong without having to think about it?
I wasn't born with the notion that murder was wrong. At some point, during my early infancy/childhood, the moral standard that 'murder was wrong' became part of my core beliefs. - Now that I am an adult I don't have to stop and think if murder is a good thing to do. My response is 'automatic,' ingrained into my psyche/conscience. That is my point. (Which for whatever reason you are unable to grasp).
I don't have to think about whether murder is wrong, just like I don't have to think about walking (having to be mindful of ever step I take). Some moral decisions I will indeed have to stop and consider, but murder being wrong isn't one of them.
If you can't comprehend the above then please don't waste either of our time by responding. You don't have to agree with it, but at the very least demonstrate you have read and understood what I have said. - It really is tiresome to take the time to answer one of your questions only for you to completely misread and then respond to your own misreading rather than what has actually been said. This tactic completely destroys the concept of discussion and you effectively just end up speaking to yourself.
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSleeping and giving up are the same thing. 😉
Well, at 4am in the morning (GMT) I was actually sleeping. Does that qualify as giving up?
Some moral codes are automatic within us (don't require thinking about). The obvious one being 'murder is wrong.' Although automatic, like walking, it still requires learning at some early stage in our lives. (When it becomes part of our core morality).
So, a moral sense is automatic after we learn from being told murder is wrong, the influence of environmental and social factors, but a sense of right and wrong are not innate to our nature. In other words, we learn morality.
This perspective renders the concept of morality relativistic and subject to interpretation based on a subjective point of view.
Objective absolute standard of morality therefore does not exist.
No wonder it's a dog eat dog world. The absence of a universal objective and absolute moral standard applied equally across the board is for animals in conflict in quest of survival. Evolution at its best has produced a species capable of self annihilation.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephw"This perspective renders the concept of morality relativistic and subject to interpretation based on a subjective point of view."
Sleeping and giving up are the same thing. 😉
So, a moral sense is automatic after we learn from being told murder is wrong, the influence of environmental and social factors, but a sense of right and wrong are not innate to our nature. In other words, we learn morality.
This perspective renders the concept of morality relativistic and subject to inter ...[text shortened]... in quest of survival. Evolution at its best has produced a species capable of self annihilation.
Agreed. That's the boat we find ourselves in. (A boat fashioned by our own hands. Why you would want to jump into the water is beyond me). Morality comes from man, for the benefit of man. Mutual cooperation is why we survive and flourish as a species.
"Objective absolute standard of morality therefore does not exist."
Agreed. Moral standards may (and do) vary from society to society, though usually align on the really important standards around murder and the like. (Though may not always do so). Again, this is reality. Perfect universal morality and justice are not, no matter how much we would like it to be so.
14 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThis is a question that you have continually dodged. I predict another dodge.
"This perspective renders the concept of morality relativistic and subject to interpretation based on a subjective point of view."
Agreed. That's the boat we find ourselves in. (A boat fashioned by our own hands. Why you would want to jump into the water is beyond me). Morality comes from man, for the benefit of man. Mutual cooperation is why we s ...[text shortened]... y. Perfect universal morality and justice are not, no matter how much we would like it to be so.
"If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?"
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs always you don't respond to the two answers I directed at you, but instead respond to a reply I made to someone else. Why do you do that?
This is a question that you have continually dodged. I predict another dodge.
"If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?"
And what dodge? Have I not already told you that I fully accept morality may vary from society to society and that what I view as right might not be considered so by someone from a different society (and vice versa). I don't have a problem with this as 'I don't believe in moral absolutes!' What part of that are you not getting?! It is you FMJ who is obsessed with 'being right.' I'm content with being right within my own moral framework and in accordance with my own conscience.
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"That's the boat we find ourselves in. (A boat fashioned by our own hands."
"This perspective renders the concept of morality relativistic and subject to interpretation based on a subjective point of view."
Agreed. That's the boat we find ourselves in. (A boat fashioned by our own hands. Why you would want to jump into the water is beyond me). Morality comes from man, for the benefit of man. Mutual cooperation is why we s ...[text shortened]... y. Perfect universal morality and justice are not, no matter how much we would like it to be so.
A subjective point of view. One that confines the mind to finite possibilities.
"Why you would want to jump into the water is beyond me)."
Because that's where an open mind swims.
"Morality comes from man, for the benefit of man."
You know there's no God, and you know morality comes from man. Cite the authority from which you draw those conclusions.
"Mutual cooperation is why we survive and flourish as a species."
An odd thing to say since we're assured of mutual destruction, never ending wars, famine, pestilence, murder, strife and conflict.
Where's man's morality? One would think that by now with all this idealistic cooperation, flourishing and surviving everyone would be on board and there'd be peace. Four hundred million years and getting worse.
You need to make a reality check my friend. 😉
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwYou wouldn't exist Joe if our species hadn't discovered the benefits of cooperation. That doesn't mean we are perfect. 'Idealistic' terminology is your bag dude.
[b]"That's the boat we find ourselves in. (A boat fashioned by our own hands."
A subjective point of view. One that confines the mind to finite possibilities.
"Why you would want to jump into the water is beyond me)."
Because that's where an open mind swims.
"Morality comes from man, for the benefit of man."
You know there's ...[text shortened]... Four hundred million years and getting worse.
You need to make a reality check my friend. 😉[/b]
15 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDude! We wouldn't exist for a lot of reasons if, if, if...
You wouldn't exist Joe if our species hadn't discovered the benefits of cooperation. That doesn't mean we are perfect. 'Idealistic' terminology is your bag dude.
Meanwhile back on topic... some say yea, others nay. The question is, does an absolute standard of morality exist, or is morality a subjective standard of conduct based on human experience, and therefore subject to change?
One is absolute. The other isn't. The problem seems to be in proving it one way or the other. So where's the proof?
I guess it depends on what source one trusts in. Is it in man, or is it in God?
I don't trust man. Just sayin'.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
15 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwAnd sir, I don't trust God.
Dude! We wouldn't exist for a lot of reasons if, if, if...
Meanwhile back on topic... some say yea, others nay. The question is, does an absolute standard of morality exist, or is morality a subjective standard of conduct based on human experience, and therefore subject to change?
One is absolute. The other isn't. The problem seems to be in proving it ...[text shortened]... on what source one trusts in. Is it in man, or is it in God?
I don't trust man. Just sayin'.
No absolutes. Just man made morality.