McBell
Unbound
and how is it any different with the "Golden Rule"?Well, you'd have to know how they wanted to be treated and sometimes that would not be what they really need or deserve, or what is best for them.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
and how is it any different with the "Golden Rule"?Well, you'd have to know how they wanted to be treated and sometimes that would not be what they really need or deserve, or what is best for them.
that would be boring...Here is a really novel idea...
talk to them...
Not necessarily
people break laws, but moral people dont
There are no absolutes in life.
I think the head of the satanist church said it best when it came to a concept of pain being immoral. You have a a person who enjoys pain and a sadist. The person says to the sadist hurt me and the sadist says no. Out of the two who's moral value was correct? Again that proves that you can't define moral values by pain vs pleasure.
So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?
We each have our own idea of what is right and wrong, derived from the values our society impresses on us as children. Morality is just the consensus of that society.So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?
Murder is defined as killing another without justification. While murder has generally be considered wrong, what is considered justified has not. History is full of societies which condoned killing within (human sacrifices) and outside (war) of the group.As for whether or not something is right or wrong, I do think there are a few standards there. Murder is generally something that is considered wrong in most societies. It makes sense as we are social creatures who depend on others. But in general, right or wrong is a subjective matter, as morality does change throughout the ages.
Knowing how others want to be treated can be difficult. I think Confucius put it best as "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do unto others."the golden rule is fine as far it goes.
I prefer the Platinum Rule:
Treat others as they would like to be treated.
I totally agree with this.Morality is the manner in which one conducts oneself when interacting with others. It's also justice and balance. The best morality is guided by reason and compassion rather than by arbitrary social norms and superstitions. Dignity and integrity, honor and honesty, etc. all ties into the depth and worth of the self.
The best morality is guided by reason and compassion rather than by arbitrary social norms and superstitions.
If you maintain that right and wrong are social or personal creations, how can any morality be better than another?
If you maintain that right and wrong are social or personal creations, how can any morality be better than another?
Nice straw man.
I said nothing at all about giving others what they want.
I said treated as they want to be treated.
How does morality work in this case? Opinions?
[youtube]x4c_wI6kQyE[/youtube]
The part in brown is irrelevant to objectivity. That there is even one person--you--who has some measure from which to judge "Yes, it's moral," or "No, it's immoral," means that there is an objective right.It's immoral to you, but not to me or him.
And saying something is immoral to you is pointless, which makes it pointless to have morals, since when does someone with a different moral code care about your opinion? Since when does a criminal care about the law?
So I just had an argument online where someone said God defines morality. Obviously I had to argue that point but how do you define right and wrong, how is the conscious developed, and what is morality exactly?Is there such a thing as right and wrong?
Your logic is saying that laws==morality, and I don't think anyone here would agree.
no body seemed to get the point that moral people dont need laws
they are above law because they are moral. Will moral people break some laws created by other people, yes...and christianity makes allowance for such breaking of law if the law is immoral.
By saying: "people break laws, but moral people dont", it was understood as : 'People break laws, but moral people don't break laws'.