How does one choose?

[Jinse]

Just a thought. If you believe that your god has created all humans including us who do not believe in him or is not certain about his existence with the ability to choose and discern the right from wrong you would not have to ask and wonder how. This question makes your god not powerful enough because the way you put things here it seems that a person cannot be moral without him. If that god is powerful enough he sure has a way to make his creations stand alone even without him. Sorry.

 

[Muffled]

maybe just maybe it's based on what he needs and and how the acquisition of what he needs is acquired by the least effect it has on those around him

That is a subjective outlook. Morality can't be subjective or it wouldn't exist as a concept. That would be like saying that a tree can sometimes be a flower if the person wishes to see it that way. Ojectively a tree is inherently a tree and a flower is inherently a flower.

 

[Muffled]

Just a thought. If you believe that your god has created all humans including us who do not believe in him or is not certain about his existence with the ability to choose and discern the right from wrong you would not have to ask and wonder how. This question makes your god not powerful enough because the way you put things here it seems that a person cannot be moral without him. If that god is powerful enough he sure has a way to make his creations stand alone even without him. Sorry.

This is an oxymoron.

God is capable of making people moral but then it wouldn't be without Him if He did.

Certainly people have the ability to choose right from wrong but they don't always have the knowledge or the will to choose right. Perhaps the greatest instigator of evil is the incarnation of men. Engendered is a forgetfulness of thier origen and too much emphasis on physical existence.

 

[Muffled]

then why was there knowledge of evil before man ever knew what evil was?

I believe you are referring to Adam and Eve as not perceiving evil until eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The truth is that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, only the first people of their race at that time. The people who preceded Adam and Eve had a moral structure and those who did not adhere to it.

 

[waitasec]

That is a subjective outlook. Morality can't be subjective or it wouldn't exist as a concept.
That would be like saying that a tree can sometimes be a flower if the person wishes to see it that way. Ojectively a tree is inherently a tree and a flower is inherently a flower.

what you fail to understand is that we are all born with an innate sense of empathy because we are social animals...except for those who are not, and those we call deviants.
since we are born with this innate sense, we understand that concept. just because we want something doesn't mean we should take it from someone else...
for example one may be doing something that is moral in their eyes, but from another perspective they are doing something immoral as they are taking something from someone else..their right to choose to marry someone of the same sex, or euthanasia or the use of contraceptives ... taking someone's right away is immoral because it is an act of control, would you agree?

 

[waitasec]

I believe you are referring to Adam and Eve as not perceiving evil until eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The truth is that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, only the first people of their race at that time. The people who preceded Adam and Eve had a moral structure and those who did not adhere to it.

then jesus wasn't one man...
the last adam...

1 cor 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

gen 2:7
7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[Muffled]

what you fail to understand is that we are all born with an innate sense of empathy because we are social animals...except for those who are not, and those we call deviants.
since we are born with this innate sense, we understand that concept. just because we want something doesn't mean we should take it from someone else...
for example one may be doing something that is moral in their eyes, but from another perspective they are doing something immoral as they are taking something from someone else..their right to choose to marry someone of the same sex, or euthanasia or the use of contraceptives ... taking someone's right away is immoral because it is an act of control, would you agree?

I haven't seen this and doubt you could prove it.

That seems to be a somewhat valid point since all of nature seems to have that tendency.

That tends to be the attitude of groups, ostacizing anyone outside the group.

The group dynamic does not necessarily alter the view on theft unless the group as a whole believes theft is wrong or the leader of the group is powerful enough to enforce a belief that theft is wrong.

The issue of rights usually stems from the Bill of Rights which is a man engendered policy. Societies do control their members to some degree and societies ususally believe that they have a right to do so. However societies can be just as immoral as individuals.

 

[waitasec]

I haven't seen this and doubt you could prove it.

A large part of how we relate to people emotionally may be hardwired into our DNA. A new study suggests that character traits such as being open, caring, and trusting are so strongly linked to a certain gene variation that a total stranger, simply by watching us listen to another person, may be able to guess whether we have the variation with a high degree of accuracy.

Is empathy in our genes? - CNN.com

That seems to be a somewhat valid point since all of nature seems to have that tendency.

bzzzzzzzzt wrong....

That tends to be the attitude of groups, ostacizing anyone outside the group.

oh i see so murder is acceptable behavior in a social environment?

The group dynamic does not necessarily alter the view on theft unless the group as a whole believes theft is wrong or the leader of the group is powerful enough to enforce a belief that theft is wrong.

first you need to define empathy...then ask yourself if this ^ makes any sense...

: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2
: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
Empathy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The issue of rights usually stems from the Bill of Rights which is a man engendered policy. Societies do control their members to some degree and societies ususally believe that they have a right to do so. However societies can be just as immoral as individuals.

then segregation was right?


i think you better quit while your behind, unless you want to keep embarrassing yourself....nothing like cheap entertainment

 

[Muffled]

A large part of how we relate to people emotionally may be hardwired into our DNA. A new study suggests that character traits such as being open, caring, and trusting are so strongly linked to a certain gene variation that a total stranger, simply by watching us listen to another person, may be able to guess whether we have the variation with a high degree of accuracy.

Is empathy in our genes? - CNN.com

bzzzzzzzzt wrong....


oh i see so murder is acceptable behavior in a social environment?


first you need to define empathy...then ask yourself if this ^ makes any sense...

: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2
: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
Empathy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

then segregation was right?

i think you better quit while your behind, unless you want to keep embarrassing yourself....nothing like cheap entertainment

So what does that mean then? Is morality determined by genetics when there are diferent results with different people? Ie I don't have to be moral because it isn't in my genes. Isn't there a "Y" Chromosome problem that psycho killers have but they aren't excused because of it.

According to God it was. He wanted His people segregated from people who believed in false gods so that they wouldn't be tainted by them. However that does not mean segregation in the south on the basis of race had any validity.

Glad to be of service. However I find debating a good way to learn things. The environment vs inheritance discussion has a long standing tradition. So my question is this: Should morality be based on variable genetic and environmental phenomena or should it have a consistent original source. Genetics doesn't care if a person turns out good or bad, so it doesn't seem like a good source of morality to me.

 

[waitasec]

So what does that mean then? Is morality determined by genetics when there are diferent results with different people? Ie I don't have to be moral because it isn't in my genes.

yes morality is subjective. in certain cultures it acceptable to have female circumcision...in others it is understood as an evil act.

Isn't there a "Y" Chromosome problem that psycho killers have but they aren't excused because of it.

that is why we call those with that problem "deviants"...as they are not a part of the norm....and a problem you need to address as to why one would be born with this condition.

According to God it was. He wanted His people segregated from people who believed in false gods so that they wouldn't be tainted by them. However that does not mean segregation in the south on the basis of race had any validity.

one may be doing something that is moral in their eyes, but from another perspective they are doing something immoral as they are taking something from someone else..their right to choose to marry someone of the same sex, or euthanasia or the use of contraceptives ... taking someone's right away is immoral because it is an act of control, would you agree?

Glad to be of service. However I find debating a good way to learn things. The environment vs inheritance discussion has a long standing tradition. So my question is this: Should morality be based on variable genetic and environmental phenomena or should it have a consistent original source. Genetics doesn't care if a person turns out good or bad, so it doesn't seem like a good source of morality to me.

there is no original source as you can plainly see.
you're right, natural selection is doesn't care...who ever is the fittest will survive...and we are animals who have the ability to reason that 2 heads are better than one to ensure survival as solidarity is formed. it makes sense to apply empathy as we are all social animals.

 

[Muffled]

yes morality is subjective. in certain cultures it acceptable to have female circumcision...in others it is understood as an evil act.

that is why we call those with that problem "deviants"...as they are not a part of the norm....and a problem you need to address as to why one would be born with this condition.

one may be doing something that is moral in their eyes, but from another perspective they are doing something immoral as they are taking something from someone else..their right to choose to marry someone of the same sex, or euthanasia or the use of contraceptives ... taking someone's right away is immoral because it is an act of control, would you agree?

there is no original source as you can plainly see.
you're right, natural selection is doesn't care...who ever is the fittest will survive...and we are animals who have the ability to reason that 2 heads are better than one to ensure survival as solidarity is formed. it makes sense to apply empathy as we are all social animals.[/quote]

I suppose scientists would argue for an accident of birth but my belief is that there are no accidents. God either is causing this to happen or allowing it to happen. It would appear to be a drastic situation to be born into and certainly not one that I would choose. Since I believe people are rewarded or punished by reincarnation, then it would appear to be punishment and not only for the perpetrator but also for the victims.

I do not agree. There are no rights. Our constitution guarnatees some rights because the writers were seeking protection that couldn't be erased by laws. Is there a right to life (guaranteed by the constitution)? Not according to God. Life is a gift that He can take away. It is as the DMV says you don't have a right to drive a car but a privilege to do so. You don't have a right to live but having a life is a privilege that God can grant or not.

I see no such thing. It is true that God is not as obvious as some would wish.

These are contradictory statements. Somehow there are those who don't agree that they have to be limited to physical realities. ie Scientists work against nature to remove disease. So much for natural selection. Modern day science allows the weak to survive. The same is true for morality. It is not necessary for man to take his morality from nature but if man can do whatever he wishes, it still isn't a good source of morality, because each person wishes something different.

 

[illykitty]

I go by the simple rule of "Do what you want unless it harms someone." If you have the slightest bit of common sense and experience in life, you know what harms and what doesn't.

Don't need to believe in god to follow this. But I do personally believe in a divinity, I just know that I can be moral without it too.

 

[Muffled]

I go by the simple rule of "Do what you want unless it harms someone." If you have the slightest bit of common sense and experience in life, you know what harms and what doesn't.

Don't need to believe in god to follow this. But I do personally believe in a divinity, I just know that I can be moral without it too.

It sounds simple but many books have been written on the subject. For instance Homosexuality is thought by some not to harm any one but that is not the case.

What is common sense? My pastor suggested it meant common morality which may or may not be consistent with Christianity. What gives you the idea that you actually have common sense?

Experience is a good teacher but a person has to make mistakes and learn from them. I know someone who has an STD who thought that the prohibition of sex outside marriage didn't make any sense. Why learn the hard way when there is a way that saves a lot of grief.

Actually He claims that you will be unable to be perfect in all your ways. Maybe you are just doing what is right in your own estimation.

 

[templetest]

I hear people say that they don't need God to be moral.

My question then is how is a person to choose?

I suppose that a position could be taken that everything is moral. Then murder and rape and beastiality and torture are all fine and dandy.

One could look at things logically. For instance Jezebel had a logical solution for Ahab's desire for a man's land. Simply kill the man and take his land.

Can a person rely on laws or traditions?

There once was a law that stores couldn't open on Sunday now there is no such law. Evidently laws change according to what people wish them to be. It used to be that holidays were celebrated on the traditional day but now holidays are often selebrated on a convenient monday. Evidently traditions change as well.

Chrsitians/believers don't hold the key to morality, no matter how much they like to think they do.
I'm not a Christian these days and, even before I was one, my morality was fine. My morality hasn't changed from day one until today, no matter what I believed when.
Morality is strictly up to the individual to decide for themselves.

 

[Muffled]

Chrsitians/believers don't hold the key to morality, no matter how much they like to think they do.
I'm not a Christian these days and, even before I was one, my morality was fine. My morality hasn't changed from day one until today, no matter what I believed when.
Morality is strictly up to the individual to decide for themselves.

A person who isn't changed by Christianity is a Christian in name only IMHO.

 

[cablescavenger]

I hear people say that they don't need God to be moral.

My question then is how is a person to choose?

I suppose that a position could be taken that everything is moral. Then murder and rape and beastiality and torture are all fine and dandy.

One could look at things logically. For instance Jezebel had a logical solution for Ahab's desire for a man's land. Simply kill the man and take his land.

Can a person rely on laws or traditions?

There once was a law that stores couldn't open on Sunday now there is no such law. Evidently laws change according to what people wish them to be. It used to be that holidays were celebrated on the traditional day but now holidays are often selebrated on a convenient monday. Evidently traditions change as well.

Rape, murder and bestiality is fine and dandy if you are a murderer, rapist or zoophile.

There is nothing to stop any member of society becoming one of these things, yet the vast majority of people aren't.

The reasons for this are quite simple and do not require a God by way of explanation, they can be explained by social interaction, education and learning by experience.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It sounds simple but many books have been written on the subject. For instance Homosexuality is thought by some not to harm any one but that is not the case.

Then who does homosexuality harm? Keep in mind that I will not be accepting any answers based on personal belief rather than actual, tangible, real-world examples.

What is common sense? My pastor suggested it meant common morality which may or may not be consistent with Christianity. What gives you the idea that you actually have common sense?

This is a fair enough question. After-all, in the words of Oscar Wilde, "common sense is neither common nor sensible". The phrase "common sense" has been used to justify a lot of unreasonable positions. However, while I'm loathe to put words in their mouth, I think the kind of "common sense" illykitty meant was more "the general use of logic and reason".

Experience is a good teacher but a person has to make mistakes and learn from them. I know someone who has an STD who thought that the prohibition of sex outside marriage didn't make any sense. Why learn the hard way when there is a way that saves a lot of grief.

Your example is obviously pretty flawed, since marriage is not a guarantee of protection against STDs. Marriage is not a contraceptive (well, maybe in some cases). In any case, learning from experience is far more valuable than simply holding to a point of view just because it's what you were told. If it weren't for experience, we'd still be considering black people second-class citizens. The only reason we did so in the first place was because we failed to question the outdated values of our elders, and we came to change and improve upon it by witnessing the plight of black people and came to a common understanding of human rights via the actions and words of hundreds of thousands of protestors. Morality learned through experience is infinitely better than morality that is merely hard-wired into us, because it allows us not only to better ourselves and work for the common good, but to better the morals and values that are passed from generation to generation.

 

[Muffled]

Rape, murder and bestiality is fine and dandy if you are a murderer, rapist or zoophile.

There is nothing to stop any member of society becoming one of these things, yet the vast majority of people aren't.

The reasons for this are quite simple and do not require a God by way of explanation, they can be explained by social interaction, education and learning by experience.

Some sociopaths have become so because of their soical interaction.

Who is writing the textbooks and why is the text valid?

There is something to be said for this but more than likely a rapist learns that he enjoys raping from his experience.

 

[Muffled]

Then who does homosexuality harm? Keep in mind that I will not be accepting any answers based on personal belief rather than actual, tangible, real-world examples.

This is a fair enough question. After-all, in the words of Oscar Wilde, "common sense is neither common nor sensible". The phrase "common sense" has been used to justify a lot of unreasonable positions. However, while I'm loathe to put words in their mouth, I think the kind of "common sense" illykitty meant was more "the general use of logic and reason".

Your example is obviously pretty flawed, since marriage is not a guarantee of protection against STDs. Marriage is not a contraceptive (well, maybe in some cases). In any case, learning from experience is far more valuable than simply holding to a point of view just because it's what you were told. If it weren't for experience, we'd still be considering black people second-class citizens. The only reason we did so in the first place was because we failed to question the outdated values of our elders, and we came to change and improve upon it by witnessing the plight of black people and came to a common understanding of human rights via the actions and words of hundreds of thousands of protestors. Morality learned through experience is infinitely better than morality that is merely hard-wired into us, because it allows us not only to better ourselves and work for the common good, but to better the morals and values that are passed from generation to generation.

Everyone. However a concrete example will help I suppose. A homosexual who would not take part in a heterosexual act has deprived his/her parents of the possibility of grandchildren.

This is not likely. My wife says that I lack common sense but my strength is in logic and reasoning. I think she means knowledge from experience ie one does not stick ones hand in the fire because it will hurt. She does not have to reason as to what will happen if she sticks her hand in the fire because she already knows.

You are in error. Most states require a blood test before marriage. Granted one could still contract an STD after marriage if a partner isn't faithful but then the whole idea is that one should not be unfaithful in marriage. In the best case scenario neither party has had sex outside of marriage when they get married and never have sex wtih anyone while married. Following God's law would prevent a person from contracting an STD.

You are in error. People can tell lies but God doesn't. Getting an STD is not a better experience than not getting one because the person listened to God and obeyed Him.

That is nonsense. Expereince taught slave owners that slaves meant that they could be wealthy. It was a religious belief that God loves everyone equally that led to the end of slavery.

You are laboring under a delusion. We had nothing to do with it. Those in power did what was right because they believed in doing what is right. Protests only revealed to those in power that there were those who were not doing what is right.

 

[vepurusg]

I go by the simple rule of "Do what you want unless it harms someone." If you have the slightest bit of common sense and experience in life, you know what harms and what doesn't.

That's not at all the case- common sense doesn't help people distinguish fact from fiction, or reality from delusion and rationalization.

Have a look at some counter-intuitive statistics to see just how large the disconnect can be, and beyond that, look into psychology and defense mechanisms.

There's a great book you should read:

Amazon.com: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts (9780151010981): Carol Tavris, Elliot Aronson: Books
"Mistakes were made (but not by me)"

Some counter-intuitive statistics:

Counterintuitive Statistics


You can't just make a guess as to what hurts other or not- a guess subject to all of our irrational cognitive biases- and assume that guess is right. That's how people get hurt.

How many people really think about what they're buying, or at even informed on it, when they go to the store? How many people buy goods built on the backs of slave labour?

How many young people who readily protest against animal experimentation go to McDonald's afterwards for a burger without even thinking about where the hamburger came from?

Hypocricy is the name of the game when people do not critically analyze their actions and make themselves informed of the world around them on an objective basis.

In order to have a good chance of knowing what hurts others, we have to understand the problem using objective methodology and be aware of our biases so we can control them.

Logic, critical thinking, and crucially objective empirical evidence as provided by science.

ImmortalFlame said it pretty well:

This is a fair enough question. After-all, in the words of Oscar Wilde, "common sense is neither common nor sensible". The phrase "common sense" has been used to justify a lot of unreasonable positions.

It's just not enough make a wild guess. Particularly on a topic as monumentally important as harming others- arguably the most important moral issue in our lives.

However, while I'm loathe to put words in their mouth, I think the kind of "common sense" illykitty meant was more "the general use of logic and reason".

Maybe, but the 'general use of logic and reason' is profoundly rare. Those things of course lead to science, and they lead to awareness of rationalization and defense mechanisms to help us thing more critically and objectively, but to actually get there (or anywhere near it) is a very uncommon accomplishment.