Morality: Do you agree

[Polymath257]

Bad analogy. We have objective measures that show that the earth is not flat. But what is objectively wrong in being naked in public?

I don't think there is anything objectively wrong about being naked in public. But there are laws against it. Laws frequently ban things that are not morally wrong, but that the society does not want to encourage.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if public nudity were legal.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think there is anything objectively wrong about being naked in public. But there are laws against it. Laws frequently ban things that are not morally wrong, but that the society does not want to encourage.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if public nudity were legal.

My guess is that many believers would disagree. For many of them "modest clothing" is a moral imperative.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course: humans are not animals, not matter what evolutionist try to imply with their philosophy of the survival of the fittest.

Humans are biologically animals. More specifically, we are placental mammals. This is shown by the simple fact that we have hair and our young are developed internally and nourished by a placenta.

Everyone has an idea of what a correctly oriented population and an uncivilized community are.

And yet, somehow, people disagree about specifics. Often, the 'correctly oriented' society according to one tradition is 'uncivilized' according to another.

 

[Polymath257]

My guess is that many believers would disagree. For many of them "modest clothing" is a moral imperative.

I see it more as a politeness.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But God would give a foundation for it, right? Assuming that God is real.

Yes indeed, I see your observations are correct.

The guidance and laws covering virtues and our required morality are given by God in every age.

Regards Tony

 

[Polymath257]

God's servants obey biblical principles not precisely because they are necessary for this system of things, or because they are consider legal or illegal in the secular sense, but because in addition to coming from a higher and more righteous source of wisdom, it is what is required of those who will live on earth forever.

What I find interesting about this is that it implies that God is NOT the source of morality, but merely has a better view of it than we do.

It also begs the question why anyone would *want* to live on Earth forever.

 

[Eli G]

No one wants adults to corrupt their children. In many countries, the corrupters of minors and those who abuse them are condemned. This morbid desire to expose oneself publicly is obviously an unhealthy desire of some people who have lost their sense of decency. They want to impose their own views on sexual matters and other liberties that they take on others.

Everyone knows that if sex is not controlled, societies get sick and can disappear as a result of contagion of all kinds of diseases.

For me in particular, I would like to live in a world where the innocence of children is respected and in which they can naturally arrive at the moment for everything that their own bodies will tell them and not because some sexual pervert talked to them about sex, touched them inappropriately, or showed them things they weren't supposed to see at their age.

 

[Eli G]

What I find interesting about this is that it implies that God is NOT the source of morality, but merely has a better view of it than we do.

It also begs the question why anyone would *want* to live on Earth forever.

You probably mean: why anyone would *want* to live on Earth forever IN THESE CONDITIONS.

The real thing is that millions of people want to life longer, and that is why medicine exists.

 

[sun rise]

One thing that has not been mentioned is the debate about morality or moral behavior in non-human creatures. The debate is not whether or not dogs, corvids etc have a fully developed morality but whether there are elements of morality such as a sense of fairness and the evidence is that there is. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html for example

So from this we can see that some foundations of morality are present in the non-human creatures.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Without a moral judge (such as a God) where would objective morality come from? Which is naturally implied in his argument.

Said in another way, who decides that killing another person is objectively morally wrong?

Just because there is a law or a rule, that doesn't imply a law giver. We have natural laws in science. We also have laws of logic. We discover these laws (or rules) via inquiries into math and science. Some might postulate that the same sort of discoveries might be made from our inquiries into ethics.

But God would give a foundation for it, right? Assuming that God is real.

Nope.

 

[Altfish]

So if objective morality doesn't exist, your moral opinion as a person is valid or to be taken seriously when calling another person immoral? That is his claim, that without objective morality, your moral judgement is simply your opinion and therefore in sense invalid.

No, morality evolves with human evolution. Morals are man made, not god made.
e.g. 100-years ago women were treated as 2nd class citizens, men ruled the roost. That is today morally wrong.
God given morals ("Though shalt not worship any other gods than me") are fixed and unchanging.

Keeping slaves is immoral; but not according to religious teachings

 

[Eli G]

Just because there is a law or a rule, that doesn't imply a law giver. We have natural laws in science. We also have laws of logic. We discover these laws (or rules) via inquiries into math and science. Some might postulate that the same sort of discoveries might be made from our inquiries into ethics.



Nope.

Mmmh. I disagree.

The logical way to explain the existence of order in a universe that supposedly arose on its own is that there was a hand behind its raise, ordering everything. That's the logical way to explain it to someone who doesn't have a preconceived idea about the non/existence of a Designer of the universe.

 

[sun rise]

morality evolves with human evolution. Morals are man made, not god made.

That assumes that God did not create moral evolution.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

No, each person decides their morality for themselves, even religious people. A religious persons morality is no more valid than my morality.

 

[Eli G]

No, morality evolves with human evolution. Morals are man made, not god made.
e.g. 100-years ago women were treated as 2nd class citizens, men ruled the roost. That is today morally wrong.
God given morals ("Though shalt not worship any other gods than me") are fixed and unchanging.

Keeping slaves is immoral; but not according to religious teachings

Easy to say ... not that easy to demonstrate. How can the idea of guilt for harming another arise in an animal?

 

[Heyo]

One thing that has not been mentioned is the debate about morality or moral behavior in non-human creatures. The debate is not whether or not dogs, corvids etc have a fully developed morality but whether there are elements of morality such as a sense of fairness and the evidence is that there is. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html for example

So from this we can see that some foundations of morality are present in the non-human creatures.

I don' think that is in dispute. We and all social animals have innate behavior that is conducive to a social community.
But I wouldn't call that morality. Morality only emerges when we think about why we have these tendencies. I'm not sure if other animals than us are doing that.

 

[Eli G]

I don' think that is in dispute. We and all social animals have innate behavior that is conducive to a social community.
But I wouldn't call that morality. Morality only emerges when we think about why we have these tendencies. I'm not sure if other animals than us are doing that.

And you are right. This behavior in animals is instinctive, and that is another prove they were created with what they needed to adapt and survive.

A lion does not attack an animal without a "good" reason. He does not think about it, he just knows it.

 

[Altfish]

That assumes that God did not create moral evolution.

Yes.

 

[Altfish]

Easy to say ... not that easy to demonstrate. How can the idea of guilt for harming another arise in an animal?

Through training. My dog has learnt not to bite. My children were taught that biting was wrong.
My children never went to church, had very limited exposure to religion; they have excellent morals

 

[Eli G]

Through training. My dog has learnt not to bite. My children were taught that biting was wrong.
My children never went to church, had very limited exposure to religion; they have excellent morals

Good. That is why God gave us his written word: to educate us on what is correct and what is not.

Is. 48:17 This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel:
“I, Jehovah, am your God,
The One teaching you to benefit yourself,
The One guiding you in the way you should walk.
18 If only you would pay attention to my commandments!
Then your peace would become just like a river
And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.
19 Your offspring would be as many as the sand
And your descendants as its grains.
Their name would never be cut off or annihilated from before me.”

Like you are to your children, Jehovah is to the human beings. Some are rebellious like some children, that is truth.

Did you know that for the formation of the first international declaration of human rights several leaders of different religions were summoned to express their points of view?