Originally posted by Conrau KSo you have "morality" as some external thing then? Okay, where does it come from?
No, I said "morality is approachable through reason".
I can answer the question evolutionarily. Morality is simply a case of being empathetic enough to appreciate that the things we would not like done to us are things we should not do. Sometimes, people let others tell them what is moral and what is not - that's called religion.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, morality is something abstract. Essentially, morality is a system of behaviour adopted by a group (ethics, might be a better term to replace morals) that optimizes their satisfaction. I wouldn't consider such a basis for morality "external" but we can both agree that it is approachable through reason.
So you have "morality" as some external thing then? Okay, where does it come from?
I can answer the question evolutionarily. Morality is simply a case of being empathetic enough to appreciate that the things we would not like done to us are things we should not do. Sometimes, people let others tell them what is moral and what is not - that's called religion.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut that makes morality objective doesn't it? If it's part of our evolutionary makeup, it's not subjective (at least some basic morality such as what you outlined).
So you have "morality" as some external thing then? Okay, where does it come from?
I can answer the question evolutionarily. Morality is simply a case of being empathetic enough to appreciate that the things we would not like done to us are things we should not do. Sometimes, people let others tell them what is moral and what is not - that's called religion.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz[/i]Please read the encyclical `Mit brennender Sorge`, published in 1937.
RABID FUNDY ALERT!!!!
Well, if he wasn't a Christian, and he didn't believe he was doing God's work (quite why God doesn't do his own work is anyone's guess) why did he write
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." ([i]Mein Kam consistent illusion, science is still the best way we have of rationalising it"
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
scottishinnz ... `Well, if he wasn't a Christian, and he didn't believe he was doing God's work (quite why God doesn't do his own work is anyone's guess) why did he write ...... etc `
Do you really believe that Hitler wrote this because he was a Christian ? Hitler was a very clever manipulator. Even now people fall for his lies. The reasons why you, scottishinnz, are so eager to uncritically swallow his lies are more than obvious.
Originally posted by scottishinnzMaybe it would help your analyses and the subsequent understanding of things if you made a distinction between `Christianity` and the `Teachings of Christ`. They are two seperate things.
Well, Hitler WAS a Christian, and whilst it may not have been his primary motivation, he certainly did think he was doing God's work. He certainly believed it. Likewise, I could mention the actions of the medieval church, the inquisition, or the crusades. The Christian church has so much blood in its hands, there is no way anyone could call Christianity "moral".
Originally posted by scottishinnzscottishinnz said `Morality is simply .... `
So you have "morality" as some external thing then? Okay, where does it come from?
I can answer the question evolutionarily. Morality is simply a case of being empathetic enough to appreciate that the things we would not like done to us are things we should not do. Sometimes, people let others tell them what is moral and what is not - that's called religion.
If anyone starts a description or a definition with `X is simply ..... `
.... let all the alarmbells ring because here is someone at work who most likely has a tendency towards a thing called `reductionism`.
2 edits
Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that ethics are universal and not `subjective`.
The Church teaches the existence of the `Natural Moral Law`, which is written in our hearts and which can be read using human reason. However, the Natural Moral Law can only be read correctly if human reason is enlightened by the Spirit of Truth, Love, Life and Justice.
Opening yourself to the spirit of lies, hatred, death and injustice, meaning opening yourself to sin, will darken your judgement severely and it will make a true and `objective` interpretation of the Natural Moral Law impossible.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot really, the evolutionary part of it is one, but it's also taught to us by our parents. For example, we think it's morally wrong to eat people, however, other cultures do not think it's wrong. Of course, there is an evolutionary reason for this too, but since cannibals can be converted to, for example, christianity, and their morals changed, suggests there is a subjective element to it.
But that makes morality objective doesn't it? If it's part of our evolutionary makeup, it's not subjective (at least some basic morality such as what you outlined).
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat a condescending twit you really are.
scottishinnz said `Morality is simply .... `
If anyone starts a description or a definition with `X is simply ..... `
.... let all the alarmbells ring because here is someone at work who most likely has a tendency towards a thing called `reductionism`.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAbsolutely, Christianity is a religion with buildings and a hierarchy. The teachings of Christ are lost to history, all we have is the words that others wrote down, long after his death.
Maybe it would help your analyses and the subsequent understanding of things if you made a distinction between `Christianity` and the `Teachings of Christ`. They are two seperate things.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf anyone starts a sentence with...
scottishinnz said `Morality is simply .... `
If anyone starts a description or a definition with `X is simply ..... `
.... let all the alarmbells ring because here is someone at work who most likely has a tendency towards a thing called `reductionism`.
"If anyone starts a description or a definition with 'X is simply...' [then] let all the alarm bells ring..."
...then let all the alarm bells ring, because here is someone at work who most likely has a tendency towards a thing called "reductionism".
Originally posted by scottishinnz"The universe would by no more or no less terrifying for either one of us. The only thing that would change would be your ability to deal with it. The universe is what it is, there is no "terrifying reality"." SCOTTISHNZ
I agree with marauder. 😴
It doesn't surprise me that you disagree with me - you've already shown the ability to write contradictory posts back to back. I wouldn't call morality "mere fantasy", and I certainly wouldn't be so narcissistic to claim it to be a uniquely "human construct". There is most definitely "morality" within the animal world, es ...[text shortened]... you comfort. Is that what it is? The concept of death is too hard for you?]
This seems a curious thing to say since our emotinal reaction to the universe has a lot to do with our world views. In any case the universe might not change much but the concept of what lies behind or beyond it (God or nothing) can vary a great deal.
Originally posted by scottishinnzyou've already shown the ability to write contradictory posts back to back.SCOTTISHNZ
I agree with marauder. 😴
It doesn't surprise me that you disagree with me - you've already shown the ability to write contradictory posts back to back. I wouldn't call morality "mere fantasy", and I certainly wouldn't be so narcissistic to claim it to be a uniquely "human construct". There is most definitely "morality" within the animal world, es ...[text shortened]... you comfort. Is that what it is? The concept of death is too hard for you?]
I'll admit to this . I do have a bad habit of arguing rhetorically or hypothetically and putting forward a position that is not what I believe. I need to be clearer when I am saying what I believe and when I am articulating what i think others believe. Can I say that whatever position I have put forward about life being ammoral in this thread is not what I believe in reality. Thanks for pointing this out , but do realise I am not being contradictory.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think ultimate morality is based on God's nature and therefore is not arbitrary. God is love . Ultimate objective morality is based on the law of love. God wills love to reign in the universe. However , if it was somehow God's will that morality was based on blancmange it would still be objective to US which is the main point. It would take it out of the realm of human opinion and argument. It would no longer be subjective to human beings.
Geez, it'd be nice if you at least understood your own position. Your notion of morality is not objective at all. Your notion is arbitrary and subjectivist, remember? You think moral truths supervene on whatever it happens to be that constitutes God's will. (...even if it somehow happens to be blancmange -- to borrow an old example of your own.)