-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Of course, rape is an issue today. but no individual can define the morals and ethics of the society. Because of the greater evolving standards of our culture he had to retract and apologize for the remark. Things are changing and evolving, but we have a ways to go.
Many conservatives appeal to an ancient cultural paradigm.
Last edited:
Slightly concerned well end up on a tangent based mostly around formal categorisation of knowledge but...
Are you suggesting that morals and ethics as a social construct is an objective truth, and it's their details which vary? Or are you suggesting morals and ethics across societies have the same basis, and it's the finer details which vary?
I disagree with the latter, though there is a high level of commonality.
Enough difference exists that I see them as subjective, albeit with broadly common elements around societal cohesion.
Electra
Active Member
'group' morality defiantly evolves, there is a place for group and individualistic morality as they work together. if we are talking about our current reality, we can see for example that touching a woman who is a co-workers bum is unacceptable as their boss. This was something that was once just seen as 'part of the job' and many people brushed it of. Now, as our 'group morality' has progressed this is seen as unacceptable.
I don't find it productive to use sensationalised hypothetical so i don't really have an opinion as to if i went into the future and they said that rape was a 'good thing for the future of mankind'. If we look at our current reality we can see people saying that immigration is bad and to further the country we must limit our immigration acceptance. People see that as a good thing, to protect the certain society, they would probably say this is a good thing for the future of mankind. Here, you can see contradicting group morality as there is also a group of people who can see the inhumane ways immigration policies act out.
a. Would you appreciate the future society's continuing evolving morality?
I would hope that morality continues to grow.
b. From your POV in the present, would you view those people in the future as moral?
I would respect that i do not know the full picture, i do not know if this is a certain morality from a group or from the whole or from the individual. I will never accept someone elses view of morality as the facts, i would have to look into the facts myself and then i would come to a conclusion.
c. Had it been up to you, if there was another way for the human species to survive, bearing in mind that the best way is to do said acts, would you prefer going for the best way or for a different way, which may be considered in the present as more moral, but in the future, not the best or easiest way for mankind to survive?
We are looking again at what you mean by 'best'. Mega companies have near to slave labour because it is 'best' for their company. Does this mean it is the 'best' way to do it? Most productive to who? To certain people getting money and others suffering. I think if we look at your example it would not be the 'best' way because we are not looking at the group as a whole. As I said, it is hard to discus a hypothetical that isn't very tangible.
Using another example that isn't really tangible, if say, a god thought it was best for human race to have another flood and that humans would be able to have a more fulfilling life rebuilding the world again. Would that be better then having so much struggle and so much pain trying to turn the world around? Is a little pain worth saving a more pain? I don't know, i wouldn't know until i had to make a decision like that ;P.
I mean, i guess we can all see putting down a pet when they are in pain is a good idea. We are not quiet there with humans though. Even though that is 'killing' someone can it be justified to reduce the overall amount of pain??
I don't find it productive to use sensationalised hypothetical so i don't really have an opinion as to if i went into the future and they said that rape was a 'good thing for the future of mankind'. If we look at our current reality we can see people saying that immigration is bad and to further the country we must limit our immigration acceptance. People see that as a good thing, to protect the certain society, they would probably say this is a good thing for the future of mankind. Here, you can see contradicting group morality as there is also a group of people who can see the inhumane ways immigration policies act out.
a. Would you appreciate the future society's continuing evolving morality?
I would hope that morality continues to grow.
b. From your POV in the present, would you view those people in the future as moral?
I would respect that i do not know the full picture, i do not know if this is a certain morality from a group or from the whole or from the individual. I will never accept someone elses view of morality as the facts, i would have to look into the facts myself and then i would come to a conclusion.
c. Had it been up to you, if there was another way for the human species to survive, bearing in mind that the best way is to do said acts, would you prefer going for the best way or for a different way, which may be considered in the present as more moral, but in the future, not the best or easiest way for mankind to survive?
We are looking again at what you mean by 'best'. Mega companies have near to slave labour because it is 'best' for their company. Does this mean it is the 'best' way to do it? Most productive to who? To certain people getting money and others suffering. I think if we look at your example it would not be the 'best' way because we are not looking at the group as a whole. As I said, it is hard to discus a hypothetical that isn't very tangible.
Using another example that isn't really tangible, if say, a god thought it was best for human race to have another flood and that humans would be able to have a more fulfilling life rebuilding the world again. Would that be better then having so much struggle and so much pain trying to turn the world around? Is a little pain worth saving a more pain? I don't know, i wouldn't know until i had to make a decision like that ;P.
I mean, i guess we can all see putting down a pet when they are in pain is a good idea. We are not quiet there with humans though. Even though that is 'killing' someone can it be justified to reduce the overall amount of pain??
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The human ownership of being moral and ethical was removed when science was invented and acted upon, for Satanism was the UFO irradiation of the Nature of life on Earth. When space the Holy Mother womb in scientific quotations owned held cold radiation that owned no movement to harm God the Earth anymore.
How the relativity of life existing was taught against immorality itself and then identification of the reason it was communicated/transmitted by scientific use of unnatural radiation radio waves. That did not support bio existence existing.
So egotism was stated in an expressive human ideal to be the biggest problem that humans had to face. The ownership and expression of it.
Natural and moral human behaviour. We live with parents....who become old and grand parents. We lived communally in groups who supported the group behaviours.
The old would tend to the minding of the young and the healthy would go to work...so the elder were entitled to be called elder and also wise.
Work was for the young and healthy...as it should be and entitled leadership should only be held by the aged and wise in a group extended family living experience, a civilization for morality aspects of true human rationality.
Now when a male pretended in science that he was as God was, a Creator and actually set a huge new mass of cold clear gases on fire his own self...proof of that event is to see cold clear night time gases still burning at night...UFO cause. We should not see any gas light at night time...as proof that science believed it was God...because they too made the gases become of light.
Where that egotistical lying self expression in the sciences of males came from historically. And the changing of scientific or morals in that male determined known circumstance was only changing his spirituality consciousness by a non nuclear science practice.....as proven. Life developed from its Second Coming Jesus sacrifice into the expression of the Dark Ages...re emerged and began to re develop their morality and spiritual purpose.
As soon as the nuclear was re practiced again, morality left the building.
And the Elders of the past and how they had tried to establish a common human community goal of extended family was removed. Actually can be studied as proof to self that it was. All the hard fought for purposeful community world meaning, gone.
Now the Earth is sharing a consequence of allowing our fight for human family rights to fall behind in its choices. And it may have been due to the elder family values having diminished itself...about a human's place in the social order of our natural life.
Not ever did a family member complain about working in a mutual group community family support about anyone in that Elder state owning something better than what they owned. For they knew that if they did not support that Elder awareness then the family community would fail.
But when that Elder placates that he is something especial as compared to his family only proves that he should not be that Elder in charge of anyone....for his rightful passage was to honour his family and their unity.
How the relativity of life existing was taught against immorality itself and then identification of the reason it was communicated/transmitted by scientific use of unnatural radiation radio waves. That did not support bio existence existing.
So egotism was stated in an expressive human ideal to be the biggest problem that humans had to face. The ownership and expression of it.
Natural and moral human behaviour. We live with parents....who become old and grand parents. We lived communally in groups who supported the group behaviours.
The old would tend to the minding of the young and the healthy would go to work...so the elder were entitled to be called elder and also wise.
Work was for the young and healthy...as it should be and entitled leadership should only be held by the aged and wise in a group extended family living experience, a civilization for morality aspects of true human rationality.
Now when a male pretended in science that he was as God was, a Creator and actually set a huge new mass of cold clear gases on fire his own self...proof of that event is to see cold clear night time gases still burning at night...UFO cause. We should not see any gas light at night time...as proof that science believed it was God...because they too made the gases become of light.
Where that egotistical lying self expression in the sciences of males came from historically. And the changing of scientific or morals in that male determined known circumstance was only changing his spirituality consciousness by a non nuclear science practice.....as proven. Life developed from its Second Coming Jesus sacrifice into the expression of the Dark Ages...re emerged and began to re develop their morality and spiritual purpose.
As soon as the nuclear was re practiced again, morality left the building.
And the Elders of the past and how they had tried to establish a common human community goal of extended family was removed. Actually can be studied as proof to self that it was. All the hard fought for purposeful community world meaning, gone.
Now the Earth is sharing a consequence of allowing our fight for human family rights to fall behind in its choices. And it may have been due to the elder family values having diminished itself...about a human's place in the social order of our natural life.
Not ever did a family member complain about working in a mutual group community family support about anyone in that Elder state owning something better than what they owned. For they knew that if they did not support that Elder awareness then the family community would fail.
But when that Elder placates that he is something especial as compared to his family only proves that he should not be that Elder in charge of anyone....for his rightful passage was to honour his family and their unity.
That's a good point.
However, if one were to live in such a society in which one is aware that at any moment a sexual predator could attack them, and though they know that allowing this is important on some level but they themselves don't want to go through with it...what would you call that?
Self preservation instinct.
What sane person wishes to endure psychological trauma even for the “greater good.”
Besides there are some instances where the onus of blame is still put upon the victim in a way that calls into question their own morality. So I mean it’s not like rape is a clear cut moral issue even now. (To be clear I consider rape to be immoral and unethical.)
Incidentally your comment reminds me of the dystopian novel A Handmaid’s Tale.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's like a puzzle as the pieces come together, as we learn our understanding of things becomes clearer. Our morality evolves in this regard. But it isn't like what's obviously a hot air balloon becomes a kitten as the last piece fits into place. Morals aren't going to radically shift randomly unless they were based on something completely arbitrary like religion. Morality based on reason and compassion remains solid and consistent even as it develops. We're not going to just wake up one day and decide out of the blue that rape is somehow ok.
Well, hence the usage of the term of "evolution" with regard to morals. Presumably, if such a reality would come to be, it would come from a gradual process. I guess the way I worded it in the OP wasn't well enough.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
For people like him, they cling to a primitive past. He prefers a "morality" that empowers those who authored it. It's about control rather than justice or compassion.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I meant "evolution" in the since of becoming more refined via a body of ever growing knowledge and understanding. It comes into greater focus, but doesn't mutate into something different entirely. For example, if the basis for your moral code is reason and compassion, rape could never become acceptable due to its consequences. That rape causes severe psychological trauma is an objective fact.
I think you might be nutpicking an extreme view here.
Rape is not conducive to human survival although it has been considered moral in the past.
Has it occurred to you that morals are capable of changing for the better and not only for the worst?
Rape was just the example used at the time. Insert whatever immoral act you wish. Does your answer remain the same?
Certainly. But I, as a religious person, view that there are some morals that are objective. My questions were for those that view morals as less-objective (different degrees of subjectivity). Also, arguably, if it is useful for the survival of mankind, could not the changing of morals be seen as changing for the better, as the meaning of "better" itself shifts?
The trouble I have is envisioning the unknown.
We would have to know why it became considered better. For example I would have no hesitation about telling a lie to save the human race, but under ordinary circumstances I wouldn’t see how telling a lie would save the human race.
For example people who smuggled Jews out of formerly Nazi germany lied to the government, drugged the nostrils of detection dogs etc. whilst these sorts of actions would not normally be conducive to human prosperity, under a particular set of circumstances they became moral.
So I would say rather than arguing abstractions we should probably look at concrete examples, in other words lay out what you think should not be changed, and we can consider whether these things should (for the known circumstances) be changed, or whether they should not be.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
a. I wouldn't approve of it because it oppresses someone else and takes away from their self determinism, but I would appreciate it dependent on the context. Moral evolution doesn't necessarily mean improvement but what is considered moral by the majority at a given time. The scenarios mentioned would contribute negatively to the survival of society because eventually there would be an uprising which is inevitable when people are oppressed. Funny enough there is a show exploring this topic called The Handmaid's Tale. In the show (and the book) fertility rates have collapsed and fertile women are captured and placed in child bearing slavery. In this scenario I would say that it is for the best of mankind and society for them to have children but they should still choose their partners.
b. I can't answer that because I wouldn't be thinking in terms of morality. My empathy for the oppressed would tell me that the society is messed up, but that is just how I feel about it. I am aware that if I grew up in that society I wouldn't feel the same way as I would now.
c. I would support the autonomy of the self. People should be educated about the situation and come to their own conclusions on the matter. At the moment we already do things which isn't the easiest route for survival but we do them because of our empathy. For instance, logically if someone is a murderer or commits another crime it would be best to eliminate them from the face of the earth so that they do not commit crimes in the future, but because of our empathy and hope for others we don't kill them, but imprison them and maybe try to reform them.
I do not believe this is off tangent as per topic, because the leaning of the introductory post is from a traditional theist view of the necessity of Revelation and spiritual laws for morals and ethics. The alternative presented in a negative light is the 'being up to you' to determine morals and ethics in a humanistic basis. Also presented was a negative outcome of an evolving natural evolution of morals and ethics.
First, I avoid the contradiction 'objective truth.' Objectivity has no n of anything being true, ah . . . truth. My use of objective is in terms have an objective basis in the evidence of the nature of being human The foundation of the nature of human morals and ethics is based on the objective knowledge of paleontology, anthropology and sociology. The fact that common foundation of the objective basis for morals and ethics having pretictable evolving patterns in the different cultures of the world over time. Objectivity being having an objective basis in the evidence outside the mind of humans. The fact that all cultures in the history of humanity have a moral principle;
Thou shalt not commit 'wrongful death.'
The subjective attributes of morals and ethics that vary form culture to culture and time to time without an objective common basis for the evolution of morals and ethics. A subjective attribute would be that different cultures over time define what is 'wrongful death' differently.
The sort of justification would matter then. For example, in our society, a soldier is considered justified in killling an enemy soldier. Hence much depends on the merits of the said justification.
For example, it maybe that human biology had altered such that conception can only occur during forcible sex.
This would be an unfortunate scenario if relating this to human biological imperative. I would disagree could see this from the anthropological ancient cultural perspective where excessive male dominance was the rule. This is actually likely the case in com ancient cultural standards..
From Evolution and Sociology on Religion and Morals; Aug. 8, 2007 ...
A social phenomena may develop for any number of reasons, and and it may persist:
- because "it is useful for the survival of mankind," or simply
- because it has not proved sufficiently deleterious to have been deselected.
As for "Changing Morals" and rape, what changed was the perception of women. For an inordinate period of time women were viewed as property and rape as property damage. Some might argue that we have not progressed all that much.