Does morality come from the scriptures ?

[Kerr]

Describing "immoral" actions as socially unacceptable.

Which would be very close to the same thing (not exactly, since morality is on an individual level and not a social, but still close enough).

 

[Commoner]

I would have to want to make the change. But it could be made. We can change our truths. You make it sound like it's impossible, maybe you've never done it before? Having gone from being a devout fundamentalist Christian for the majority of my life to what I currently believe, I know that a person can change what they see as true.

I am not arguing that we cannot change our truth or that it does not change. I thought I had made it clear - I am arguing that we cannot choose to change our truth. The change started before we chose anything. We wanted it before we chose to do it. Etc...

You said it yourself, you would have to want to make the change.

I was getting to the larger point, that I didn't choose to be an atheist. I did not choose that god does not exist. It just doesn't. I also didn't choose that the grass is green. It just is. It's not moral, it's not immoral, it just is the way it is.

That doesn't mean that if I wake up tomorrow and the grass is yellow, that it wont be yellow. But that is not a choice I can make.

 

[TheKnight]

Which would be very close to the same thing (not exactly, since morality is on an individual level and not a social, but still close enough).

I guess.

I am not arguing that we cannot change our truth or that it does not change. I thought I had made it clear - I am arguing that we cannot choose to change our truth. The change started before we chose anything. We wanted it before we chose to do it. Etc...

You said it yourself, you would have to want to make the change.

I was getting to the larger point, that I didn't choose to be an atheist. I did not choose that god does not exist. It just doesn't. I also didn't choose that the grass is green. It just is. It's not moral, it's not immoral, it just is the way it is.

That doesn't mean that if I wake up tomorrow and the grass is yellow, that it wont be yellow. But that is not a choice I can make.

So I take it you don't believe in a person's ability to make choices?

I, personally, believe that a person has full control over their lives. In the sense that we can choose everything about ourselves and how we relate to the world around us. Especially when it comes to our ideas about truth and the way we see the world.

 

[Commoner]

So I take it you don't believe in a person's ability to make choices?

I, personally, believe that a person has full control over their lives. In the sense that we can choose everything about ourselves and how we relate to the world around us. Especially when it comes to our ideas about truth and the way we see the world.

I think we can make choices, I just think some choices aren't available. I can't choose to spontaneously burst into flames.

Although I would say, as a side note, that the concept of free will could certainly make for an interesting debate.

 

[TheKnight]

I think we can make choices, I just think some choices aren't available. I can't choose to spontaneously burst into flames.

Although I would say, as a side note, that the concept of free will could certainly make for an interesting debate.

I would agree that some choices aren't available. However, I do believe that we are able to make choices concerning our behavior, our ideas, our perceptions, our outlook, and even our very nature.

 

[Commoner]

I would agree that some choices aren't available. However, I do believe that we are able to make choices concerning our behavior, our ideas, our perceptions, our outlook, and even our very nature.

Ok, let me give you this challenge: choose a trivial "truth", something that would not matter one way or the other. It must be something relatively objective. I used the example "the grass is green". To me it wouldn't matter much if it were yellow, for instance. Or red. I wouldn't like purple grass, yuck.

Once you've chosen it, change it. Choose that grass is yellow. Or whatever you've chosen. Any luck? Is the grass yellow yet?

Of course, you could argue that, to a degree, everything is just "perceived" truth, but still, I'm having a hard time with the grass thing. I can easily imagine it yellow, but I still know it's green. I can change the definition of green, maybe that'll do the trick. No, no luck, still know. Well, I'll keep trying. Let me know if you've had more success than me.

 

[prayersofjerusalem]

no...comes from the spirit of Christ

 

[TheKnight]

Ok, let me give you this challenge: choose a trivial "truth", something that would not matter one way or the other. It must be something relatively objective. I used the example "the grass is green". To me it wouldn't matter much if it were yellow, for instance. Or red. I wouldn't like purple grass, yuck.

Once you've chosen it, change it. Choose that grass is yellow. Or whatever you've chosen. Any luck? Is the grass yellow yet?

Of course, you could argue that, to a degree, everything is just "perceived" truth, but still, I'm having a hard time with the grass thing. I can easily imagine it yellow, but I still know it's green. I can change the definition of green, maybe that'll do the trick. No, no luck, still know. Well, I'll keep trying. Let me know if you've had more success than me.

My grass is already yellow. Changing perspective, as I said, isn't something you can do overnight, or in a flash. But it can be done.

 

[Commoner]

My grass is already yellow. Changing perspective, as I said, isn't something you can do overnight, or in a flash. But it can be done.

For this decade (is that enough time?), I think I'll choose that a supermodel brings me a jug of cold beer every hour and pays my rent every month. I'll also choose that that is moral. And so it will be.

Roger Federer will start his singing carrier and I will win five Grand Slams without ever lifting a tennis racquet. Wars will turn to yellow grass and light will turn to candy cones. Sound will be five meters long and E will equal MC Hammer. Round squares will feed the starving children and make fair-play blue.

Also, grass will still be green, except for war. I will choose that these things are true, and so it will be.

 

[TheKnight]

For this decade (is that enough time?), I think I'll choose that a supermodel brings me a jug of cold beer every hour and pays my rent every month. I'll also choose that that is moral. And so it will be.

Roger Federer will start his singing carrier and I will win five Grand Slams without ever lifting a tennis racquet. Wars will turn to yellow grass and light will turn to candy cones. Sound will be five meters long and E will equal MC Hammer. Round squares will feed the starving children and make fair-play blue.

Also, grass will still be green, except for war. I will choose that these things are true, and so it will be.

I never said you can change others people's lives. Like I said, "I believe that we are able to make choices concerning our behavior, our ideas, our perceptions, our outlook, and even our very nature."

Not someone else's behavior, ideas, perceptions, or outlooks.

 

[Commoner]

I never said you can change others people's lives. Like I said, "I believe that we are able to make choices concerning our behavior, our ideas, our perceptions, our outlook, and even our very nature."

Not someone else's behavior, ideas, perceptions, or outlooks.

What other people? Oh, Federer and the blond? I didn't change anything, it just is the way it is. Oh, just a minute, I'm getting a new beer...

I just changed my perception of what the world looked like, even if nothing changed at all for anyone else. If I can pick and choose, and there is not even an approximation of an actual absolute truth, then it doesn't really matter. But even if you forget about my two friends and all the other people in my little story, I don't think I can do any of that in any practical terms.

If I were able to choose to believe in supernatural beings, I surely would. Maybe not god, because I don't find the notion that appealing (although if it looked like the french blond...). But I wouldn't mind believing in Santa Claus or little flying babies with little imaginary bows and arrows and little friendly pixies. Why not?

For me to believe in things, I must first have some indication that they are true, I must be convinced they exist (by evidence, experience, other people) or at least not be convinced that they don't exist (some trivial things we just take for granted, it's just more practical). Furthermore, I think if I were actually able to just choose to believe anything, even things that I find absurd (now), I would have have to seriously question my sanity.

Imagine believing in little (invisible) green gnomes that stay under your bed and sneak around your room at night stealing your underpants and you will not get an inch closer to how absurd I find the idea of any omnipotent being actually existing and telling me to read a certain book and telling me to act a certain way. I assure you, I cannot choose to believe in one.

I think you genuinely feel one can choose to believe in god, only because you already believe in god and always have on one level. If you found the idea absurd, you would not expect someone to believe in it without evidence (at least some missing underpants).

(Btw, when/if you imagined the invisible green gnomes in your mind, were they green? Or invisible? Both?!Yellow??!)

 

[TheKnight]

For me to believe in things, I must first have some indication that they are true, I must be convinced they exist (by evidence, experience, other people) or at least not be convinced that they don't exist (some trivial things we just take for granted, it's just more practical). Furthermore, I think if I were actually able to just choose to believe anything, even things that I find absurd (now), I would have have to seriously question my sanity.

Imagine believing in little (invisible) green gnomes that stay under your bed and sneak around your room at night stealing your underpants and you will not get an inch closer to how absurd I find the idea of believing in any omnipotent being actually existing and telling me to read a certain book and telling me to act a certain way. I assure you, I cannot choose to believe in one.

I think you genuinely feel one can choose to believe in god, only because you already believe in god and always have on one level. If you found the idea absurd, you would not expect someone to believe in it without evidence (at least some missing underpants).

I guess that's true.

 

[Commoner]

I guess that's true.

What? Stop agreeing with me!!?

But I'm sure you would still say atheism, though I don't think it's really an "ism", is immoral. I would have no problem studying the Torah, for instance, if I were made to see it as a moral thing to do, despite the fact I don't believe in god. I certainly strive to act morally in every situation.

Being kind to one's neighbour might be the moral thing to do for a Christian, because god said it is (and other reasons, I'm sure), but that doesn't mean I disagree on the point. I just disagree on why it's a moral thing to do.

 

[TheKnight]

What? Stop agreeing with me!!?

But I'm sure you would still say atheism, though I don't think it's really an "ism", is immoral. I would have no problem studying the Torah, for instance, if I were made to see it as a moral thing to do, despite the fact I don't believe in god. I certainly strive to act morally in every situation.

Being kind to one's neighbour might be the moral thing to do for a Christian, because god said it is (and other reasons, I'm sure), but that doesn't mean I disagree on the point. I just disagree on why it's a moral thing to do.

There's nothing I can learn from the idea that God (who I consider to be the axiomatic existence) does not exist. Granted, I do not believe that God exists, but that God is existence. The essence of God's existence is most prominent in non-existence. God does not exist. God is existence.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I see things such as Shabbat observance, Torah study, and homosexual sex as matters which are morally pertinent to us. And I also know them to be moral matters that most people do not discern in the appropriate moral manner.

In essence, from my standpoint of what morality consists of, a person is not able to completely discern it all. That was my initial point. You asked which parts of morality an Atheist could not discern. I simply listed them...

Of course, this whole discussion is premised by our agreement on what is/isn't moral.

I think the last sentence is perhaps one of the most fundamental that i have seen lately here.:yes:

Of course you are right.
And of course if you defined morality as the teachings of ones religion then the argument that morality comes from religion and cant be archieved differently would be a no brainer of course.

I think many people (including me) ascribe to the term morality a codex of behaviour. In such a sense it is more "ethics".
Morality thus mostly can be reduced to very simple yet in my view efficient teachings dealing with the question of "harm" and the opposite (dont know the english word).
In short one could find some formulation like:
1) morally bad is what harms others
2) morally good is what is beneficial to others
3) morally neutral is the rest.

In such a system homosexuality is no problem, nor is studying the torah morally relevant (it would be neutral).
You might now say that this is a limited view of your morality (i would rather say that they are different with some parts overlapping), but of course one would have to ask you what your morality entails and why we should all call THAT morality and not anything else.

 

[TheKnight]

I think the last sentence is perhaps one of the most fundamental that i have seen lately here.:yes:

Of course you are right.
And of course if you defined morality as the teachings of ones religion then the argument that morality comes from religion and cant be archieved differently would be a no brainer of course.

I think many people (including me) ascribe to the term morality a codex of behaviour. In such a sense it is more "ethics".
Morality thus mostly can be reduced to very simple yet in my view efficient teachings dealing with the question of "harm" and the opposite (dont know the english word).
In short one could find some formulation like:
1) morally bad is what harms others
2) morally good is what is beneficial to others
3) morally neutral is the rest.

In such a system homosexuality is no problem, nor is studying the torah morally relevant (it would be neutral).
You might now say that this is a limited view of your morality (i would rather say that they are different with some parts overlapping), but of course one would have to ask you what your morality entails and why we should all call THAT morality and not anything else.

This is true. The only problem I have with such a system is...why would we care about harming or being beneficial to others? Or in essence, how can you enforce such a moral system? In my opinion, you can't logically enforce such an opinion because there are times when harming someone could be both "good" and "bad" (IE giving a child a shot--which harms the child but allows it to be vaccinated).

 

[Commoner]

This is true. The only problem I have with such a system is...why would we care about harming or being beneficial to others? Or in essence, how can you enforce such a moral system? In my opinion, you can't logically enforce such an opinion because there are times when harming someone could be both "good" and "bad" (IE giving a child a shot--which harms the child but allows it to be vaccinated).

Well, how could we not care. Hit your neighbour over the head with a chair and he's likely to respond in a way you won't find very appealing. And in fact, this is what we do when we're children. We are often mean to others and take their toys (if we can). But we soon find out that if we were to continue doing that, no one would want to play with us. Furthermore, we recognize that other beings, in particular other people, feel and experience things similarly to us. So it logically follows that you should not harm others because you would not want to be harmed. You help others, because you would want the same to happen to you if you were in a similar position. We adopt these ideas and generalize them to most of our behaviour. That's how we get started.
Of course, living in a civilized society, we have developed the science of morality, ethics, to help us deal with more complex issues. We have laws, that enforce certain moral standards... Probably no need to mention that this is only a very crude description and over-simplification of a very complex issue.

Now, as far as the specific issue of vaccination is concearned, I don't really see the issue. I can clearly see how the benifits of vaccination outway the harm of a little needle prick. If a car is about to hit a person, you push the person out the the way. I'm sure it'll hurt when they hit ground. Perhaps I don't fully understand what you meant by the example? It's not about "not doing harm" per se, but rather acting in a way that minimizes harm.

 

[TheKnight]

Well, how could we not care. Hit your neighbour over the head with a chair and he's likely to respond in a way you won't find very appealing. And in fact, this is what we do when we're children. We are often mean to others and take their toys (if we can). But we soon find out that if we were to continue doing that, no one would want to play with us. Furthermore, we recognize that other beings, in particular other people, feel and experience things similarly to us. So it logically follows that you should not harm others because you would not want to be harmed. You help others, because you would want the same to happen to you if you were in a similar position. We adopt these ideas and generalize them to most of our behaviour. That's how we get started.
Of course, living in a civilized society, we have developed the science of morality, ethics, to help us deal with more complex issues. We have laws, that enforce certain moral standards... Probably no need to mention that this is only a very crude descriptions of a very complex issue.

Now, as far as the specific issue of vaccination is concearned, I don't really see the issue. I can clearly see how the benifits of vaccination outway the harm of a little needle prick. If a car is about to hit a person, you push the person out the the way. I'm sure it'll hurt when they hit ground. Perhaps I don't fully understand what you meant by the example?

My point is, once you justify that harming someone can lead to good. Where do you draw the line? Suppose I believe that killing my baby will help it because I don't want it to have to experience any of the pains and suffering that this life has? Suppose I want to kill you in order that you don't have to experience that suffering? At what point can we logically draw the line?

The problem with the whole "do unto others as you would have the do unto you" thing is, what if I like being hurt? Should I hurt others? What if I like being alone, is it OK for me to be a ******* then? What if I like hurting other people and don't care that they don't like it? Does that make it OK? What if I see life as survival of the fittest. I do what I can to get the most power, money, stuff, etc. Even if it means killing people, breaking the law, and losing friends...does that mean it's Ok for me to do? If someone kills me and I don't care, should that make it OK for me to kill them?

 

[Kurt31416]

My point is, once you justify that harming someone can lead to good. Where do you draw the line?...

With the Golden Rule, as Hillel and the historical Jesus of Thomas said.

 

[Kurt31416]

The problem with the whole "do unto others as you would have the do unto you" thing is, what if I like being hurt?

Well for starters, Hillel and Jesus stated it as "do not do what you hate". And implicit in the statement is the assumption that you aren't nuts.

Can the axiomatic system, the rules, solve all cases? No, but no other axiomatic system will ever be able to either. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.