1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneYou could perhaps argue that the use of nuclear weapons in a military theatre would have been justified, but the use of such a weapon against a civilian target was cruel in the extreme. To have then repeated such a heinous act on a second city was truly diabolical, and to defend such actions as morally correct... well, it bespeaks a pretty warped sense of ethics to me.
Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many more lives than they cost.
Truman had all the intelligence, including how many millions of Japanese died defending Iwo Jima, Saipan and Okinawa, to tell him that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost tens of millions of Japanese lives, many of them civilians.
30 million vs. 330,000. You make the decision.
Originally posted by checkbaiterWay to miss the point dude.
The following story from the Tao helps me understand that man really does not know what is good nor bad.
Maybe
There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The ...[text shortened]...
Only God is truly good and only God can define morality, what is good or wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf everyone gets to make up their own rules on what is good or bad, or even for
You could perhaps argue that the use of nuclear weapons in a military theatre would have been justified, but the use of such a weapon against a civilian target was cruel in the extreme. To have then repeated such a heinous act on a second city was truly diabolical, and to defend such actions as morally correct... well, it bespeaks a pretty warped sense of ethics to me.
that matter if any society can find it acceptable to do to those they do not like the
most diabolical acts, why isn't that than good, at least in the society’s eyes where
those things are called for and done? We see the rise in the world today places that
call for the beheading of some that disagree with them, isn't that good in their
eyes, and who am I, or you, or anyone else to disagree? If there isn't a MAIN
theme of what is good and bad for all, than isn't it a matter of getting many to buy
into an idea so that any idea can be thought of as good? After all if anything can
be called good if we say so, than there really isn't any difference between the
military or civilian targets, those too would be just a judgment call no different
than any other.
A standard of right and wrong that could cover all time and places couldn’t come
from us in my opinion, it would require something of a higher order than just an
acceptable societal judgment call of the day.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeyWhat drives that 'universal morality', that you say is based on the golden rule? For you? Is it upbringing, intuition, etc., what is it for you?
The way I see it, we all have a universal morality based upon the Golden Rule.
There, that was easy. Sorry to end the thread so quickly. :'(
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is ridiculous to suggest that a subjective take on morality leads to everybody making up their own rules as to what is good or bad. Most adult human beings are easily able to conclude without recourse to scripture that intentionally causing suffering to other human beings is morally wrong. Those that are incapable of this reasoning are generally considered to be mentally deficient.
If everyone gets to make up their own rules on what is good or bad, or even for
that matter if any society can find it acceptable to do to those they do not like the
most diabolical acts, why isn't that than good, at least in the society’s eyes where
those things are called for and done? We see the rise in the world today places that
call for the behead ...[text shortened]... ething of a higher order than just an
acceptable societal judgment call of the day.
Kelly
Again and again in this forum I have seen theists arguing that their religion offers some sort of 'real' or objective morality which is in some way better than that of atheists and it is just errant nonsense, ignorant and insulting to boot. Christianity, or any religion, can only offer some form of codification or framework for understanding the natural morality which is inarguably present in all right-thinking human beings regardless of their religious persuasion.
One of the wonderful things about christianity is that the study of scripture encourages one to consider the ethics and morals of one's actions. One of the terrible things about it is that it allows some of it's proponents to behave in ways which are clearly morally wrong and then use some pithy quote from the bible to justify themselves. Do you think Jesus would approve of the use of nuclear weapons on civilian centres? Do you think Jesus would approve of the use of the death penalty? Do you think Jesus would approve of the use of deadly force against intruders in your home? If you think the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then I think that you might have misunderstood the message he was trying to get across to you.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSo you think morals belong to the "most" people, not the subsets? I'd also
It is ridiculous to suggest that a subjective take on morality leads to everybody making up their own rules as to what is good or bad. Most adult human beings are easily able to conclude without recourse to scripture that intentionally causing suffering to other human beings is morally wrong. Those that are incapable of this reasoning are generally c ...[text shortened]... I think that you might have misunderstood the message he was trying to get across to you.
point out that not everyone who has murdered people were people who
believed in God, god, or gods. So how do you gather everyone's opinion to
know what right or wrong? You do seem to think you have a clue, but others
else where believe otherwise, so how would I know who to believe?
Kelly
Morality can be judged objectively in the form of statistics, just compare the rate of violent death per person or rape per person, whatever you want to measure where the difference is in this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Then ask yourself, is there some major difference between morality practiced by majorly religious countries Vs majorly atheistic countries.
Seems to me the proof would be in the pudding.
I have not done such an analysis but I bet someone has, who I don't know.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat 'subsets' are you talking about?
So you think morals belong to the "most" people, not the subsets? I'd also
point out that not everyone who has murdered people were people who
believed in God, god, or gods. So how do you gather everyone's opinion to
know what right or wrong? You do seem to think you have a clue, but others
else where believe otherwise, so how would I know who to believe?
Kelly
Do you have any statistics about the religious beliefs (or absence thereof) of murderers? That would be interesting I think, and probably relevant to the discussion too.
As for who to believe, believe yourself.
3 edits
Originally posted by apathistHas anyone said that on this thread?
The majority says so, and that is your moral compass?
Saying that it is possible to establish a consensus through reasoned debate and applying commonly accepted principles is not the same thing as saying the majority is always right in every instance. But it is a reasonable place to start. Many of the great improvements in social values have come about in this way.
But I would be interested in your alternative.
So far, the only one that has been proposed, as far as I am aware, is to follow one specific religion that the majority of the world does not adhere to. No-one has, as yet, explained why we should follow this particular religious moral framework as opposed to any other that exists.
And I don't suppose anyone will.
Originally posted by kd2aczA shared morality is beneficial to society.
What drives that 'universal morality', that you say is based on the golden rule? For you? Is it upbringing, intuition, etc., what is it for you?
I believe the Prisoners Dilemma (iterative/infinite version) shows
that cooperation/altruism can be beneficial to both parties.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatA subset could be a nation, whoever said "most people" I assume was talking
What 'subsets' are you talking about?
Do you have any statistics about the religious beliefs (or absence thereof) of murderers? That would be interesting I think, and probably relevant to the discussion too.
As for who to believe, believe yourself.
about all of them so even a country now could be a subset. I'm just asking
how to find the correct yard stick to measure with when speaking about what
is good or bad, since people have condemned nations for their actions do we
have to have a world government and how will that be better since it will be
run by people who have the same faults as those that run countries?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMorals are contagious - we tend to have similar morality to our family, friends, relgious group, nation.
A subset could be a nation, whoever said "most people" I assume was talking
about all of them so even a country now could be a subset. I'm just asking
how to find the correct yard stick to measure with when speaking about what
is good or bad, since people have condemned nations for their actions do we
have to have a world government and how will that be ...[text shortened]... since it will be
run by people who have the same faults as those that run countries?
Kelly
Perhaps in time a United World would embrace a consistant moral code.
(Dont hold your breath though)
Originally posted by wolfgang59So my question remains unanswered and that is where do we go, if our nations
Morals are contagious - we tend to have similar morality to our family, friends, relgious group, nation.
Perhaps in time a United World would embrace a consistant moral code.
(Dont hold your breath though)
are not the answer why would a one world government be? That would simply
be a bunch of people no different than those running our nations, so why would
giving them more power be better? With the different nations you can at least
leave one and go to another, with a one world govenrment that is gone, we
would all be stuck with what we got, and being a subgroup with different views
than the ruling party would be, well not a good place to be.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not sure what your original question was.
So my question remains unanswered and that is where do we go, if our nations
are not the answer why would a one world government be? That would simply
be a bunch of people no different than those running our nations, so why would
giving them more power be better? With the different nations you can at least
leave one and go to another, with a one world g ...[text shortened]... bgroup with different views
than the ruling party would be, well not a good place to be.
Kelly
I dont think there is anything to fear from a shared morality providing that
morality does not discriminate. That morality would be in a state of constant
flux as it bent and swayed with public opinion but would be generally
consistent. (eg I can envisage a future where the whole population would think
capital punishment morally wrong)