Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't know what is it you are driving at. Why don't you make it easier for both of us by getting straight to the point. Then perhaps we can have a more fruitful discussion. Let me start the ball rolling by trying to answer you step by step, and then hopefully you would soon make yourself clear.
[b]But of course it's OK for God to go against His own standard when he drowned everyone-- including unborn infants.
So you are also saying that it is amoral of God to take a life? Is is wrong for the giver of life to take the life that he has given?
By saying it is wrong for God to do something, you are assuming that there is such a thing as ri ...[text shortened]... e is such a thing as absolute right and wrong, you are actually admitting the existence of God.[/b]
OK, first of all, I agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong, thus good and evil.
Secondly, I agree that there is a moral standard by which to differentiate between good and evil, though I am not sure if there is a necessity of a moral 'lawgiver'. But beyond this point, I begin to disagree.
My moral standard is based on my living environment and my upbringing. I admit that sometimes, I might also be influenced by standards from a foreign customs and cultures. This need not be alarming, since I am a strong believer of considering other standards so that I might then take what I feel good and discard what is not.
In that sense, I readily admit that since the environment that I live in is ever changing, so will my moral standards. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong for us to change for the better. If we see something not so accurate, and then we change to improve that standard, why should that be bad?
But for argument sake, even if there is a moral lawgiver as you put it, why do you jump to the conclusion that that moral lawgiver must be god? Why can't it be my parents or my neighbours? We all decide how we would live. We all decide how we should act in a particular circumstance. But of course not all of us would agree; because some of us have different standards. But that is not the most important thing. What more important is that the majority of us agree on a certain standard. So, yes, to answer you earlier question, in some cultures, maybe adultery is morally acceptable, although I doubt it. In some soceities, prostitution is acceptable and even legalised.
Finally, I do believe in the existence of god. But I don't think that that should be the starting point as far as moral standard is concerned.
So how about you build on this and maybe we will soon get to the point?
1 edit
Just to throw a stick in the works. Is sex outside marriage morally wrong if nobody is negatively affected the process?
Part of what I am getting at, is that there is a difference between the concept of wrong in Christianity and morally wrong. I believe that a Christian can believe something to be wrong while not believing it to be morally wrong.
Originally posted by twhiteheadInteresting question. Based on my personal upbringing, I think sex outside marriage is morally wrong. But actually, why should it be? I watch in the movies that many western soceities have that freedom as far as sex in concerned. But from a conservative type of soceity where I am from, this so-called free sex is considered to be morally wrong. I am sure there are many people from the western world also have the same view. Which again proves that different people have different moral standard. And I also want to emphasize the changing nature of moral standard.
Just to throw a stick in the works. Is sex outside marriage morally wrong if nobody is negatively affected the process?
Part of what I am getting at, is that there is a difference between the concept of wrong in Christianity and morally wrong. I believe that a Christian can believe something to be wrong while not believing it to be morally wrong.
Although I don't believe in the god of the bible, it is still interesting that even in the bible, standards are not fixed. The standards in the bible can also change with time. You see, for example, at one time, probably due to the circumstances, sex between siblings were allowed. (Otherwise, how did we all come from Adam and Eve?). But later, god (of the bible) decided to disallow incest.
I think I agree with you that one can believe something to be wrong while not believing it to be morally wrong.
Here is a suggestion: Morals are not relative. Something is morally wrong if it affects others in a significantly negative way and not doing it would not significantly affect you negatively. What is relative is how we judge the effects of an action.
Morals are distinct from sins. For example eating pork, may be considered a sin in sum belief systems. It would not be considered morally wrong to eat pork, though possibly morally wrong to offend God by eating pork.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat sounds like the utilitarian position, which I agree with.
Here is a suggestion: Morals are not relative. Something is morally wrong if it affects others in a significantly negative way and not doing it would not significantly affect you negatively. What is relative is how we judge the effects of an action.
Morals are distinct from sins. For example eating pork, may be considered a sin in sum belief systems. I ...[text shortened]... onsidered morally wrong to eat pork, though possibly morally wrong to offend God by eating pork.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs masturbation a moral act? It doesn't affect other negatively, and not doing it wouldn't affect you negatively?
Here is a suggestion: Morals are not relative. Something is morally wrong if it affects others in a significantly negative way and not doing it would not significantly affect you negatively. What is relative is how we judge the effects of an action.
Morals are distinct from sins. For example eating pork, may be considered a sin in sum belief systems. I ...[text shortened]... onsidered morally wrong to eat pork, though possibly morally wrong to offend God by eating pork.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I agree with you. But you'd be surprised how many people think that it is an immoral act. So again we see that standards are different between different people/cultures etc.
I don't think anyone can claim it is immoral except in the context that either they are offended by it or they think God will be.
For a similar reason, I am of the opinion that sex outside marriage is not immoral if it is mutual and does not have a negative effect on others. But many people think it is.
I look at it this way: Sex is essentially pleasure. Well, of course to some people, it can be more than that. If I were to go to a massage parlour to get a massge from a female massuer, I think the majority would say it is not an immoral act.
OK, fine. What if that massage was not for the purpose of remedying some sprain neck or any other healing remedies. What if it is purely for pleasure? Would it then be immoral? I still think many would say no, it is not immoral. But why is it that when it comes to pleasure connected to the sexual organs, then it becomes immoral? Here, I think it has a lot to do with the upbringing. But that can change.
Many, many years ago, when the white people landed on the shores of the less-civilised countries, they were disgusted when they saw naked aborigins. They thought it was immoral to expose their bodies. Then many centuries later, the reverse has happened. We from the developing countries are amazed when we see the white people lying totally nude on the beach during summer. Standards can change with time.
OK, let me throw this at you:
Imagine two people, A and B fishing in a boat. They each caught a fish. By them killing the fish, it is an immoral act?
Now A caught the fish because he needs it to feed his family at home. Their lives depend on that catch. Otherwise they will go hungry. Therefore, he must catch a fish whether it is immoral or not.
B, on the other hand, is catching the fish for the fun of it. He doesn't really care what happens to the fish after he has caught it. Maybe he will eat it. maybe he won't, maybe he will let it go after he took some pictures of it. Is it an immoral act to kill an animal for the fun of it?
As it turned out, after he caught some fish, B decided that instead of letting it go, he might as well give it to his friend who happens to like eating fresh fish. Therefore B had his fun, and the fish won't go to waste. So in this third case, was B's act an immoral act?
Originally posted by ckoh1965We often extend our moral values to animals and sometimes even plants. To what extent we do this depends on both cultural values and personal upbringing.
OK, let me throw this at you:
Imagine two people, A and B fishing in a boat. They each caught a fish. By them killing the fish, it is an immoral act?
Now A caught the fish because he needs it to feed his family at home. Their lives depend on that catch. Otherwise they will go hungry. Therefore, he must catch a fish whether it is immoral or not.
B, ...[text shortened]... his fun, and the fish won't go to waste. So in this third case, was B's act an immoral act?
Originally posted by ckoh1965moral standards depend on us, our culture, upbringing; but where is the absolute in any of the above? I think that the claim that 'I have a superiour moral value set' is fooling no-one except the claimee.....
So it seems that we have reached some sort of concensus on moral standards here. We've also cited some examples to go with it. That should be plenty to help you to get to your point, dj2? How about it?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by ckoh1965OK, first of all, I agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong, thus good and evil.
I don't know what is it you are driving at. Why don't you make it easier for both of us by getting straight to the point. Then perhaps we can have a more fruitful discussion. Let me start the ball rolling by trying to answer you step by step, and then hopefully you would soon make yourself clear.
OK, first of all, I agree that there is such a thing as ri ...[text shortened]... is concerned.
So how about you build on this and maybe we will soon get to the point?
You need to be a little more clear here. Do you mean to say that absolute right and wrong exists? In other words, what is wrong for you is wrong for every other person, and what is right for you is right for every other person. If this is not the case, you need to realise that nothing you say will make sense, because what you consider to be wrong may be considered to be right by someone else. And thus in essence morality is meaningless. And this entire discussion would be meaningless.
Secondly, I agree that there is a moral standard by which to differentiate between good and evil, though I am not sure if there is a necessity of a moral 'lawgiver'.
If you are refering to an absolute moral standard that applies to all people, then an absolute point of reference is required as the 'moral lawgiver' else there cannot be an absolute moral standard.
I will try to make time to respond in a lot of detail to the rest of your post. At the moment I have a lot of time constraints. Hang in there.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes, that is what I am saying. Something which I consider to be right may not be right to another person, and vice versa. What is deemed right and wrong depends on different sets of criteria for different people. I don't know if there is such a thing as ABSOLUTE morality that you are trying to establish here. But I fail to see why you think morality is meaningless if there is no absolute moral standard.
[b]OK, first of all, I agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong, thus good and evil.
You need to be a little more clear here. Do you mean to say that absolute right and wrong exists? In other words, what is wrong for you is wrong for every other person, and what is right for you is right for every other person. If this is not the case, ...[text shortened]... ail to the rest of your post. At the moment I have a lot of time constraints. Hang in there.[/b]
You have your own moral standard which you obviously based on your God's 'laws'. And I have my own standards based on something else. In some cases, say, the crime of murder, we may agree with each other. In some other cases, we may not agree. Yet in some other cases, we might agree, but to a different extent. We may want to debate on such disagreements; we may even go to war because of our disagreements. But all this doesn'nt mean that morality is meaningless. At least my moral standard still means a lot to me, I don't know about you.
There are three main uses for the word 'moral' that I know of. Even though they are somewhat related they have distinct meanings (in my opinion).
1. moral of a story
This is often a lesson and often trying to teach the importance of community. ie if you treat others as if you don't need them then when you do need them they wont be there for you.
2. sexually related morals
This is when you say someone has 'loose morals'. It often means someone who is promiscuous. This does not however necessarily mean he is ethically wrong in his actions.
3. ethical morals.
This is specifically when you talk about something being the morally correct course of action