1. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    18 Sep '10 13:50
    I want to add that there is nothing wrong with getting married, but equally there is nothing wrong with not getting married with someone you might be involved with.
  2. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    69530
    18 Sep '10 15:27
    Originally posted by lausey
    I would still say absolute morality does not exist. Individual morality does.

    This goes by my point that we have evolved instincts which benefit society as a whole. These instincts give us individual morality. Morality that will tell us that rape wouldn't be the right thing to do. I mentioned earlier that dogmatic beliefs and upbringing can overwhelm these ...[text shortened]... said that this is the right thing to do for people who want to be together romantically.
    Also interesting. I understand what you're saying.

    The other thing here is with absolute individual morality there could be some problems, people can differ, and laws can not exist.

    Lets take this example: Two people are married. The man catches his wife with another man.
    The wife claims she's not having an affair but just casual sex. She doesn't have a problem with it.
    The husband claims she is having an affair. He has a problem with it.

    Who is right? Within her (the wife's) individual moral laws it is OK to do such things. We all know for a fact that sex with someone else within a marriage will break up that marriage, cause its not the right thing to do. If the wife does not change her individual moral to be universal, she will be teaching someone else wrong.

    Lets stand still at Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani's case. Firstly she knows the punishment for adultery. If she wasn't ready for marriage she could have stopped it. If she was forced into marriage as some cultures do, it is really unfortunate and then she could have filed for divorce. I have to be honest in saying I really don't know a thing about force marriages, but I have in the last 5 minutes read that many, and I really mean many woman run away from forced marriages.

    I do not agree to what she did and what they want to do with her, but 99.9% elsewhere in the world adultery is a big no. The death sentence. Well this is a whole debate on it self. The thing is, people must be praised with good deeds and obviously punished for the bad ones however, the punishment must fit the crime/deed.

    If you look at the history of the death penalty, it is slowly abolishing and only 58 nations are still using it (Wikipedia). Some not for years now.

    I have read that the rules to death penalty has flaws. People get the death penalty for distributing Bibles, adultery, perjury, drugs etc. Where do we draw the line? I am getting carried away here on the death sentence, sorry 😉

    Why if it's absolute moral in these peoples culture to kill Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani for the deed would they even care for the attention she is receiving world wide? What has changed? If they wanted to proof something - this was their chance.

    Thus for me it is clear that absolute moral must exist.
    We can read more at the following site for more inside and reference on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    18 Sep '10 18:02
    Originally posted by jaywill
    The problem which many relativists seem to miss is that a great many examples of what they would call relative moral standard, upon closer examination turn out to be something else.

    Take for example your sentence with an example:

    Morality is "nonetheless relative to our culture and our time".

    Okay, to show respect in the US you shake hands upon ...[text shortened]... ways in which it is practiced.

    Just one example there. ( I may have loosely quoted you ).
    Again, showing respect to another when meeting for the first time is a relative moral. How many of the american soldier showed this respect when meeting a vietnameese in the jungle during the war? Was the first thought in the soldier's head: "Wow, a gook! This man looks respectable. I must show him my respect."? No, rather: "Shoot first, ask later."

    So even this is not an absolute moral, but relative the situation you're in.

    I might be wrong that there is no absolute moral, but I cannot find an example of it. But even if I do, the most of our moral is relative, in some way.

    But I don't want to go deeper in the subject if it is just a matter of semantics. The point is that we are all children of our own culture, and our own time. Do we behave correctly? Someone might thing we're not.
  4. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    18 Sep '10 19:47
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Also interesting. I understand what you're saying.

    The other thing here is with absolute individual morality there could be some problems, people can differ, and laws can not exist.

    Lets take this example: Two people are married. The man catches his wife with another man.
    The wife claims she's not having an affair but just casual sex. She doesn't ha ...[text shortened]... e for more inside and reference on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
    For starters, I will be seeing something from a secular evolutionary perspective, which is very different from your creationist viewpoint. Naturally what I post will be from my point of view.

    Lets take this example: Two people are married. The man catches his wife with another man.
    The wife claims she's not having an affair but just casual sex. She doesn't have a problem with it.
    The husband claims she is having an affair. He has a problem with it.

    Who is right? Within her (the wife's) individual moral laws it is OK to do such things. We all know for a fact that sex with someone else within a marriage will break up that marriage, cause its not the right thing to do. If the wife does not change her individual moral to be universal, she will be teaching someone else wrong.


    From a secular point of view, marriage really has no relevance here. You can also apply this to an unmarried couple where by it causes the relationship break up. The reason for the break up is because there needs to be a prior agreement about the bounds of the relationship. Some people have open relationships where they find it perfectly acceptable to have sex outside the relationship. Are they wrong? It shouldn't concern us what they find acceptable, just what we find acceptable in our own relationships.

    If in this scenario there is disagreement about it being correct, then there has been conflict of opinion about what is acceptable in the relationship and what isn't. As far as the wife is concerned here, she is happy with an open relationship, and he isn't. It should be established early in their relationship what they are allowed to do or not to do.

    As far as I am concerned, the law shouldn't have to intervene here. Sex outside marriage should not be made illegal or even be considered universally immoral. In this case, morality should remain within the bounds of the relationship itself and should not be any concern of others.

    There is a sitation where the law does need to intervene though. If there is a relationship break up, then there are clear disputes if they are living together and material possessions are involved, or if there are children, but that is another matter. These disputes need to be resolved by establishing what agreements have been made from the beginning. Helping resolve this may require having a court battle to decide.

    As for cases of death penalty for adultery. As you can probably establish from what I said above. I wouldn't consider adultery to be illegal, although it could be immoral within the bounds of the relationship. Someone who commits adultery in a country where there is risk of being sentenced to death is taking a great deal of risk, but knowing the risks and doing it anyway doesn't necessarily mean that people who have a better developed morality can intervene and help her.

    Considering religion has taken morality from our instincts (in my point of view), and re-applying that back to society, then in a superficial sense, if it does improve that person's character, then maybe it isn't such a bad thing. However, this morality remains stagnant though as it does not change, and likely to not have changed for a very long time. Some people also use religious scripture to commit questionable acts.

    Coming back to the point that morality comes from evolutionary instinct which benefit society as a whole. Naturally evolution isn't perfect. We can always improve our decisions about what benefits society over all, and hence improve our morality on an individual basis.
  5. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    18 Sep '10 20:17
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Must be a spammer in real life? Looks like it 😉
    Disney, me or you? I just thought it was funny that a site about a "proof" of the existence of God turns out to be by Disney, which I associate with fairy tales.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    18 Sep '10 20:273 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Again, showing respect to another when meeting for the first time is a relative moral. How many of the american soldier showed this respect when meeting a vietnameese in the jungle during the war? Was the first thought in the soldier's head: "Wow, a gook! This man looks respectable. I must show him my respect."? No, rather: "Shoot first, ask later."

    So ur own culture, and our own time. Do we behave correctly? Someone might thing we're not.
    =========================================
    Again, showing respect to another when meeting for the first time is a relative moral. How many of the american soldier showed this respect when meeting a vietnameese in the jungle during the war? Was the first thought in the soldier's head: "Wow, a gook! This man looks respectable. I must show him my respect."? No, rather: "Shoot first, ask later."
    ========================================


    I think your issue misses the point. I tried to show that accross different cultures, showing respect is universal. I showed that the WAY that is practiced may be different.

    This is not saying that EACH and EVERY time two people will practice such a respect. There may be reasons that two people will suspend or even insult one another. For example in a WAR between two peoples.

    I don't think the suspension of behavior for another situational behavior reaction, ie. in a conflict, proves the moral standard does not exist.

    =========================================
    So even this is not an absolute moral, but relative the situation you're in.
    =========================================


    I disagree. Valor in warfare as opposed to cowardice is also something of a universal standard of morality. Here in the warfare situation you have a tension between two morals - bravery and valor in combat and friendly mutual respect.

    I don't think that the tension as to how a person should behave - either according to one standard or another in a given situation prove moral values are relative.

    There is a time to exercise valor in armed conflict and there is a time for peaceful mutual show of respect.

    =================================
    I might be wrong that there is no absolute moral, but I cannot find an example of it. But even if I do, the most of our moral is relative, in some way.
    =============================


    We're kicking it around and trying to discover the truth. Probably a few posts may not solve all the philosophical problems of it. In the above problem as whether to take aim and fire or show friendly respect in one way or another we should not confuse changing situational behavior with unchanging moral values.

    ==============================
    But I don't want to go deeper in the subject if it is just a matter of semantics. The point is that we are all children of our own culture, and our own time. Do we behave correctly? Someone might thing we're not.
    ====================================


    I would ask:

    Is there any country or culture where running away in battle is admired ?

    Is there any culture in which double crossing all the people who have been kind to you, is admired?

    Is there any culture in which murder is a virtue ?

    Is there any country where cowardice is considered higher then bravery?

    It seems that certain principles are understood by everyone, regardless of culture.

    But another thing: Saying there are universal standards moral value is not saying that we are always willing, or able to live up to those lofty standards.

    I may be annoyed with my co-worker and it irks me to show him respect this morning.

    I think there is a difference between what is and what ought to be.
    We may and do fail to live up to a moral duty often.
    Weakness in living up to moral duty does not prove there is no objective moral standard.
  7. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    18 Sep '10 21:321 edit
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Disney, me or you? I just thought it was funny that a site about a "proof" of the existence of God turns out to be by Disney, which I associate with fairy tales.
    It isn't by Disney. Just the site redirects to a Disney site if you click on their "Exit". 🙂

    EDIT: I figure they are trying to imply that if you reject their views, then you are living in a fantasy world.
  8. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    69530
    21 Sep '10 12:37
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Disney, me or you? I just thought it was funny that a site about a "proof" of the existence of God turns out to be by Disney, which I associate with fairy tales.
    I would guess you're the spammer - it just shows you're missing the point here and by only posting what you posted and not really giving your opinion in the whole discussion makes you bit of an irritation - like spammers are 😉
  9. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    69530
    21 Sep '10 12:41
    Originally posted by lausey
    For starters, I will be seeing something from a secular evolutionary perspective, which is very different from your creationist viewpoint. Naturally what I post will be from my point of view.

    [i]Lets take this example: Two people are married. The man catches his wife with another man.
    The wife claims she's not having an affair but just casual sex. She do ...[text shortened]... at benefits society over all, and hence improve our morality on an individual basis.
    It is quite amazing how different everybody experiences this. I have recently spoken to a view Christians, and it is obvious that everybody that I have spoken to agrees with me. Obviously I will assume most/every evolutionist will agree with your point of view.
  10. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    69530
    21 Sep '10 12:54
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [b]=========================================
    Again, showing respect to another when meeting for the first time is a relative moral. How many of the american soldier showed this respect when meeting a vietnameese in the jungle during the war? Was the first thought in the soldier's head: "Wow, a gook! This man looks respectable. I must show him my respe ...[text shortened]... kness in living up to moral duty does not prove there is no objective moral standard.
    You're saying stuff that I pretty much agree with a lot.

    I feel that absolute universal moral must exist for humans - else what will be right or wrong.

    Now another question that come to mind (AND WE MAYBE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD - Not sure if this forum is the right place for it though.) is: is the death sentence morally right?
  11. Standard memberKnightWulfe
    Chess Samurai
    Yes
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    66095
    21 Sep '10 13:07
    The general "arguments" that this site is using are similar to those type of "arguments" used for "proving" that Obama is a Muslim conspirator and to "prove" the whole conspiracy theory (pick one). There is no actual concrete evidence, but you use subjective content that could be used to "prove" any number of things.

    Take your website and plug in the "Flying Spagetti Monster". The website can thus be used to prove the existence of the FSM and the whole Pastafarian "religion".
  12. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    21 Sep '10 13:51
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Obviously I will assume most/every evolutionist will agree with your point of view.
    I wouldn't go that far.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree