21 Jan 07
i don't agree. there are some fundamental values that are wrong no matter the culture. although this still sounds like egocentric(how do we know wich are these values) we all agree that murdering people is wrong for example. but still there are exceptions to all fundamental moral values.
fundamentalism is wrong because it allows no exceptions. there is no absolute good or evil. although murdering people is wrong, would you not allow a person suffering from a disease be euthanised? in this case, wrong is not killing the person, it is denying him/her death and relief.
21 Jan 07
Originally posted by Zahlanzithen there is capital punishment - back to Saddam & pals and hanging...oh no, not that topic again!!!!!!!!!!!
i don't agree. there are some fundamental values that are wrong no matter the culture. although this still sounds like egocentric(how do we know wich are these values) we all agree that murdering people is wrong for example. but still there are exceptions to all fundamental moral values.
fundamentalism is wrong because it allows no exceptions. there is n ...[text shortened]... hanised? in this case, wrong is not killing the person, it is denying him/her death and relief.
21 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by hoven5thWhen talking about values or morals the subject of religion usually is not far behind. Why is this you ask? It is because if there is no God, then morals in and of themselves do not exist, rather, morals would then only exist to the exent in that they are merely a human construct. You might even then say that morality is self righteous in nature. Thus morals become a set of standards via laws or social norms by which people within any given society attempt to coexist in an orderly and peaceful manner for the overall benefit of that society. The problem with this, however, is that such morals are relative or changing in terms of the perceived needs of a society thus the term "mob rule" applies to some degree. Also you will find that the morals of the state can change the morals of the society in which they live. For example, in the states abortion was deemed morally wrong by the majority of society at the time Roe vs. Wade was passed. However, some 40 years later after the state shoved their morality down the throats of those within society, now the majority of society today supports abortion as being morally justifiable. Slavery in the states is another example. Once the larger part of society thought of slavery as morally justifiable. However, once it was deemed immoral by the state over the years society has now villanized slavery as being morally unjustifiable. So I suppose had men like Hitler taken over the world antisemitsm would have been the law of the land and killing a persecuting Jews would have slowly been adopted by the majority of the respective societies Hitler ruled as being morally justifiable as well.
Is there a such thing as "correct" morals or values? Can one culture legitimatly lay claim to any one, much less an entire set of values?
As you can see, such relative morality can be unsettling to say the least. However, absolute morality is based upon religious beliefs. Absolute morality is based upon the premise that there is a God who has moral standards that NEVER change via which was the wind is blowing. Therefore, you may find yourself in a society that accepts certain behavoirs such as abortion being a social norm, however, you do not have to feel as though you need to adopt the morality of the state in which you reside from the laws of men, rather, you can adopt and hold onto what you perceive the laws of God as being.
21 Jan 07
Originally posted by whodeyIt is wrong to assume that without religion you are merely a construct without religion.
When talking about values or morals the subject of religion usually is not far behind. Why is this you ask? It is because if there is no God, then morals in and of themselves do not exist, rather, morals would then only exist to the exent in that they are merely a human construct. You might even then say that morality is self righteous in nature. Thus mor ...[text shortened]... e laws of men, rather, you can adopt and hold onto what you perceive the laws of God as being.
It is the opposite, without having to blindly follow the belief that you were "CONSTRUCTED" by god. And that you have to follow his rules or face his wrath, is to behave like a robot.
It depends on your stating point or axioms. Unfortunately religious people are so blinkered they assume the same set of axioms apply to everyone. The old "i think therefore I am" can lead you to a much more consistent and absolute moral code.
21 Jan 07
Originally posted by whodeyThis only works if you are religious.
When talking about values or morals the subject of religion usually is not far behind. Why is this you ask? It is because if there is no God, then morals in and of themselves do not exist, rather, morals would then only exist to the exent in that they are merely a human construct. You might even then say that morality is self righteous in nature. Thus mor ...[text shortened]... e laws of men, rather, you can adopt and hold onto what you perceive the laws of God as being.
21 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeynicely put ...
When talking about values or morals the subject of religion usually is not far behind. Why is this you ask? It is because if there is no God, then morals in and of themselves do not exist, rather, morals would then only exist to the exent in that they are merely a human construct. You might even then say that morality is self righteous in nature. Thus mor e laws of men, rather, you can adopt and hold onto what you perceive the laws of God as being.
did you write that yourself?
edit ..
The distinction between personal morals and that of the society/culture one lives in is an important one.
That's how Western cultures manage to get along with each other IMO.
Unfortunately, that's also the reason we don't get on as well with Totalitarian type cultures.
A strick Christian and a Agnostic can live as neighbors in peace in W. Europe or America, never imposing themselves on each other.
Can that happen in N. Korea?
21 Jan 07
5 edits
Originally posted by jammerYes I did write it myself. Thanks for asking. You are right about totalitarian type of cultures. They tend to be less forgiving of opposing views and insist more so on the "mob rule" or "state rule" model. I have found, however, that the more oppressive these types of rule becomes, however, the more we tend to struggle against such rule. You see we have an innate sense that we were given freedom of choice by our Creator to choose right from wrong or to serve him or not to serve him so who is man to violate such freedom of choice? Such rule via oppression ALWAYS breeds resentment and in the end such rule is on borrowed time. Also an adoption of contrary morals to that of their oppressors is often adopted as a backlash to such oppression. Sharia law anyone?
nicely put ...
did you write that yourself?
edit ..
The distinction between personal morals and that of the society/culture one lives in is an important one.
That's how Western cultures manage to get along with each other IMO.
Unfortunately, that's also the reason we don't get on as well with Totalitarian type cultures.
A strick Christian and a Agn ...[text shortened]... W. Europe or America, never imposing themselves on each other.
Can that happen in N. Korea?