Morality

[Debunker]

As a youth, I got my values from my mother and religious fanatics where my mother took me to church.My religion almost destroyed my mind and my character. College at the university saved me. I still believe in the power of faith but how I know right from wrong is by natural philosophy. I figure out from experience and reasoning how things should be and then I check with the Word of God to confirm that my reasoning is correct. The Bible, in most cases, does not dictate my beliefs but it does confirm my beliefs.

 

[Frank Merton]

"I think it sad to see people demanding justice. We get no justice; the world is what it is. "Life is a *****, and then you die." Frank Merton

:sarcastic

Dear Wombat--you amaze me, not just with your rudeness.

 

[Meow Mix]

I ask Mr. Nash.

In what sense do you relate Nash Equilibrium to morality?

 

[Meow Mix]

Some moral questions seem to have a logical basis to me through the categorical imperative.

For instance, the concept of "theft" presupposes that the concept of "property" has meaning in order to give meaning to "theft;" but once you give meaning to the concept of "property" then "theft" self-contradicts.

Nathaniel Branden calls this the "fallacy of the stolen concept." I tend to agree.

When it comes to other bits of morality, I think the golden rule seems to work pretty well.

As a final thought, it seems interesting to me that religious folks think they get their ethics from some absolute source since from my perspective their religions are man-made anyway.

 

[Wombat]

Dear Wombat--you amaze me, not just with your rudeness.

Dear Frank-- I am amazed that you think quoting you twice and not adding a single word of my own could be conscrewed as “rudeness”.

Does the juxtaposition of your own contradictory words and pov offend or embarrass you?

 

[Wombat]

Some moral questions seem to have a logical basis to me through the categorical imperative.

For instance, the concept of "theft" presupposes that the concept of "property" has meaning in order to give meaning to "theft;" but once you give meaning to the concept of "property" then "theft" self-contradicts.

Nathaniel Branden calls this the "fallacy of the stolen concept." I tend to agree.

"Property is theft" Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Yea...It has a wonderfully appealing philosophical ring with which one can "tend to agree" .....right up to the point at which your wife’s waters have broken and someone has stolen your car.

(No proprietorial intent in the expression “your wife”...she is a free agent ;-)

 

[Frank Merton]

Dear Frank-- I am amazed that you think quoting you twice and not adding a single word of my own could be conscrewed as “rudeness”.

Does the juxtaposition of your own contradictory words and pov offend or embarrass you?

As I said, you amaze me; are you being deliberately obnoxious in order to get my goat?

 

[Frank Merton]

Some moral questions seem to have a logical basis to me through the categorical imperative.

If you refer to Kant, I would say I think he did the best think yet on the question of how to rationally derive moral rules.

For instance, the concept of "theft" presupposes that the concept of "property" has meaning in order to give meaning to "theft;" but once you give meaning to the concept of "property" then "theft" self-contradicts.

Well this is not Kantian to my knowledge, and seems silly. There are ways to give meaning to the term property that don't have that effect.

When it comes to other bits of morality, I think the golden rule seems to work pretty well.

How so? It is a cliche Jesus took from the prevailing folk wisdom and doesn't work if you take it literally.

As a final thought, it seems interesting to me that religious folks think they get their ethics from some absolute source since from my perspective their religions are man-made anyway.

True enough, but I think a religious base for ethics works better than the biological base I sometimes see.

 

[Wombat]

As I said, you amaze me; are you being deliberately obnoxious in order to get my goat?

To recap Frank...
In #108 I ask you six pertinent questions seeking to explore/understand your stated pov.
In #109 you ignore all questions, fire a shot about my “statement” being a “rant” but can’t/won’t say how or why this is so in your eyes and conclude with Straw Man fabrication of what I said- “if I like it it is true, if I don't like it it is false.”

In #111 all this is pointed out to you-
“Well...yours is an interesting approach to discussion, dialogue, debate and argument Frank.
You ignore all points and question (6 that seek to explore/understand your pov) and all that examines wether ‘justice’ is a principle worthy of being “liked/disliked”.
Without saying a word as to how or why it is so you dismiss all as a “rant” and resort to straw man “approach to philosophy”- “if I like it it is true, if I don't like it it is false.”
Fact is I sought to examine reasons for liking ‘justice’ and sought to question, examine and understand your reasons for not.
You do your own “philosophy” of dislike of justice a profound injustice through your inability to explain or defend it .”


And you ignore same.

In #120 I quote you twice and need add no word of my own-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Merton
If the policeman detains me, I want my lawyer just as much as the next man.

"I think it sad to see people demanding justice. We get no justice; the world is what it is. "Life is a *****, and then you die." Frank Merton
This you take to be “rudeness” #122


Asked “Does the juxtaposition of your own contradictory words and pov offend or embarrass you? #125

You wonder if I am “being deliberately obnoxious in order to get my goat?” #127


Frank....have a look at the emotive terms you employ without explanation- “rant”, “rudeness”, “deliberately obnoxious”...and my offense is what?
To ask you pertinent questions regarding your pov?
To juxtapose, without comment, your pov when it contradicts itself?


I have no desire whatsoever to get your goat Frank...I have two fine goats of my own thanks...but it would be nice to get a straight answer to a straight pertinent question without all the unexplained and inexplicable emotive umbrage.


But that is a prospect of rapidly diminishing probability.

 

[Nooj]

Some moral questions seem to have a logical basis to me through the categorical imperative.

For instance, the concept of "theft" presupposes that the concept of "property" has meaning in order to give meaning to "theft;" but once you give meaning to the concept of "property" then "theft" self-contradicts.

Nathaniel Branden calls this the "fallacy of the stolen concept." I tend to agree.

I don't understand.

How is that a moral question?

 

[Frank Merton]

If the policeman detains me, I want my lawyer just as much as the next man.

I think it sad to see people demanding justice. We get no justice; the world is what it is. "Life is a *****, and then you die." Frank Merton

These statements are not contradictory, and if you weren't in such a hurry to have an argument you would realize it.

When I find people using dogmatic or derogatory words and accusing me of things or ideas I did not say, I tend to skip the rest of the message and go to the next person. When they persist I tend to tell them to get lost (in various ways, usually more politely).

I use boards to learn and to practice my writing skills, not to engage in arguments with people whose minds are already chiseled in granite (and I don't expect to change anyone's mind about anything -- it just simply will not happen in this sort of an environment). Therefore I rarely engage in exercises of explaining what I mean when what I say has been distorted, or in refuting objections others raise, especially when the tone is argumentative and the milk is sour.

Of course the objections can be interesting, and can be expressed in a Socratic way, in which case I am delighted, and engage in a conversation. This happens at least half the time.

 

[Wombat]

These statements are not contradictory, and if you weren't in such a hurry to have an argument you would realize it.

When I find people using dogmatic or derogatory words and accusing me of things or ideas I did not say, I tend to skip the rest of the message and go to the next person. When they persist I tend to tell them to get lost (in various ways, usually more politely).

I use boards to learn and to practice my writing skills, not to engage in arguments with people whose minds are already chiseled in granite (and I don't expect to change anyone's mind about anything -- it just simply will not happen in this sort of an environment). Therefore I rarely engage in exercises of explaining what I mean when what I say has been distorted, or in refuting objections others raise, especially when the tone is argumentative and the milk is sour.

Of course the objections can be interesting, and can be expressed in a Socratic way, in which case I am delighted, and engage in a conversation. This happens at least half the time.

To repeat-
Frank....have a look at the emotive terms you employ without example or explanation- “rant”, “rudeness”, “deliberately obnoxious”... “dogmatic/derogatory words”, “accusing me”
(Not once do you quote or give any example of what you’re talking about)
and my offense is what?
To ask you pertinent questions regarding your pov?
To juxtapose, without comment, your pov when it contradicts itself?


I have no desire whatsoever to get your goat Frank...I have two fine goats of my own thanks...but it would be nice to get a straight answer to a straight pertinent question without all the unexplained and inexplicable emotive umbrage.
..............
To add
You say I’m “ in a hurry to have an argument”, you suggest I have employed “dogmatic or derogatory words and accusing you of things or ideas you did not say”.
I say I&#8217;m patiently asking pertinent questions, asking you what >precisely< I have said that was &#8220;rude&#8221;, &#8220;dogmatic&#8221;, &#8220;derogatory&#8221; or how you have been falsely &#8220;accused&#8221;.
Clearly you're upset...it would be nice to know >what over<.

"If the policeman detains me, I want my lawyer just as much as the next man.

I think it sad to see people demanding justice. We get no justice; the world is what it is. "Life is a *****, and then you die." Frank Merton"


These statements are contradictory, and if you weren't in such a hurry to just get upset without explanation/justification you would realize it.
It&#8217;s UseNet Frank, open public forum, if you don&#8217;t like folk juxtaposing your contradictions...don&#8217;t put em out there.

 

[Polarcrest]

Morality is a social aspect. What might be concidered taboo for some is common practice. Morality is not some god given mystery. Nor is it an evolutionary trait.

We think it's wrong to kill because we are brought up that way. If you were to be brought up that killing is ok then you would do it without any moral problems.

Is it moral in the united states for a man to rape and beat his wife? Well of course not. But in many other countries...you can't rape your wife. Even if she is forced that is not rape. Also you can beat your wife if she isn't obedient to you.

In Iraq, if I was walking down a street and I saw a man and a woman. If I was to look at her first a traditional man would take her home and beat her because she was to attractive.

Now it's true that times are changing and practices like that are going out of style. But that is how their society is changing and growing.

God does not give us built in morals. We learn them from what our society has laid down as right and wrong.

 

[ellenjanuary]

True enough, but I think a religious base for ethics works better than the biological base I sometimes see.

Thus spoke god.

I've been in denial, of course. I didn't wanna see it, I didn't wanna justify it, I wanted no part of it - but I accepted the title; bout time to shut up and do the job. Next century, however, if they should ask - but who created god?

You can say, why; Frank Merton, of course.

 

[Frank Merton]

Thus spoke god.

I've been in denial, of course. I didn't wanna see it, I didn't wanna justify it, I wanted no part of it - but I accepted the title; bout time to shut up and do the job. Next century, however, if they should ask - but who created god?

You can say, why; Frank Merton, of course.

It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.

 

[diosangpastol]

whatever it is, has it proven itself indifferent or not?

Unfortunately proof will not come to those who rejected Him and His creations. Proof awaits death, and after death the proof of His judgment.

why are you assuming purpose...what is the evidence for this claim?

The fact that you can question and reject the creationist's claim of God's existence is proof in itself that you have a purpose. That is, to live your life according to your own purpose whatever that purpose maybe, not on somebody else's. And a man who has an innate purpose in his heart cannot claim Mr. RANDO M CHANCE as his creator, for Mr. Rando M. is a strawman without a purpose, and a being without a purpose cannot ever, ever create something that has an innate purpose in its own mechanisms (e.g. clock), much more to create somebody that has innate purpose in his heart. Even Mr. Quan Tum or Mr. Relati Vity are based on scientific formulas and assumptions that are exact and has its own specific purpose and functions...however you define it.

exactly.
tell me why would a supreme being revert to ultimatums to manipulate the desired outcome of control? this supreme being doesn't know very much about the human psyche. once it reverts to fear mongering it ceases to be a supreme being and becomes an extension of mans insecurities by using tyrannical methods by the use of fear.

Religion indeed is imposing, it tends to control you either by fear, false aura of authority or charisma. The supreme being you may be referring to are the strawman that many religious authorities are promoting or you may have grown accustomed with, you may be witness to religious abuse and atrocities, or a victim perhaps. But Christ is not religion, nor religion is Christ. Truth is, Christ breaks the bondage of this religion.

indeed we are ignorant...but it is also arrogant to assume it's origins and functions, as if there were a purpose or having the audacity to think we have the capabilities to understand when we ask "why". science has only begun to understand the how...
but what we do know is how little we know and how small we are and insignificant to the workings of the cosmos and the micro world. for our very existence is hanging on the balance of a very thin line in respect to their circumstance.

Is it too arrogant or too imposing for you to hear perspectives, claims or opinions other than yours?

if anything humanity needs a dose of humility, for no one is singled out by faith to be on the right side, thats just an arrogant notion and arrogance doesn't go well with knowledge. knowledge is attained by humility... and how is one humble when they assume a divine purpose and assume we could understand the why of it all.

I hope we could demolish this arrogant strawman, the one who is imposing his belief on you, I thought that we are just discussing...

i have a kitten who is the most audacious and arrogant creature known to me. it's sole purpose is to become a fighting machine...it thinks my fingers are there to play with and my feet are there to attack. it even thinks the vacuum cleaner is her nemesis... this is her reality...is her reality of any concern to me? would i hold her accountable for not understanding my reality?

The parallel is too far off, anyway, just to show you how too far off is your parallel, I will answer:

"Yes, I would hold that kitty responsible if it disobeyed me despite my continous meowws communicated through my cat messengers, or if it disobeyed me despite my production of a written kitty life manual called the Kitty bible, in Meoww version, readable and understable by common cats. Anyway, even without my pro-pets and kitty bible, this kitty should understand that only an intelligent designer can make a nice and comfortable kitty bed for him"

so if there was a 1st cause, call it god, nature or the universe, do you really think it is concerned with how we live our daily lives?

You wouldn't know the concern of someone if you reject that someone in the first place and if you cut off yourself from whatever form of communication with that someone. For example, how can a beneficiary accuse somebody of apathy, when the beneficiary doesn't even want to open the letter of concern that the sender sent him? The sender even sent verbal messages in old times, and ultimately sent his most precious son to communicate his message to the recipient? But the recipient still refuses to believe and accuse the sender of apathy?

it a bronze age idealism that you subscribe to if you do... not to mention a tyrannical dictator for which you clearly established believing in when saying

Surely, it is your freewill and conscience dictating this post of yours, without the influence of the 'dictator'

no my friend, our conscience, integrity and self dignity will be our judge...
no scapegoat to rely on. we only have ourselves to blame.

This is self-centeredness, the core of atheism. And this is rejection of one of the basic premise of Christianity, which is the presence of a Righteous Judge.

 

[ninerbuff]

How do you decide whether something is right, wrong, good, bad, useful, unuseful and so forth? Where do you get your morality from?

Part of mine came from my family and culture. The rest comes from just using my own logic, experiences and understanding of how my fellow humans may be affected.

 

[waitasec]

Unfortunately proof will not come to those who rejected Him and His creations. Proof awaits death, and after death the proof of His judgment.

if you died met your maker and came back we should talk...but somehow i doubt that...
death is not an issue for me, i am not afraid of death. what i am afraid of is if i would have any regrets..."if only i did..."

nature has shown itself to be indifferent.
nature doesn't care who i sleep with, where i go to school, or if my favorite football team wins. it doesn't care if i was born in the middle east or in beverly hills...if i get sick or if my muscles are cramping. it doesn't concern itself with how i spend my money, or what kind of music i listen to. it doesn't care if i'm successful or not... nature does not care one way or the other...

The fact that you can question and reject the creationist's claim of God's existence is proof in itself that you have a purpose.

yes the purpose is to make informed decisions because of my integrity, self respect and dignity.

That is, to live your life according to your own purpose whatever that purpose maybe, not on somebody else's. And a man who has an innate purpose in his heart cannot claim Mr. RANDO M CHANCE as his creator, for Mr. Rando M. is a strawman without a purpose, and a being without a purpose cannot ever, ever create something that has an innate purpose in its own mechanisms (e.g. clock), much more to create somebody that has innate purpose in his heart. Even Mr. Quan Tum or Mr. Relati Vity are based on scientific formulas and assumptions that are exact and has its own specific purpose and functions...however you define it.

you are claiming our lives are in existence because of some divine purpose...if that were the case why are we subjected to so much chaos...from diseases to accidents to misunderstandings between 2 reasonable people.
you call it chance because you are looking at it within the confines of purpose...a force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled;
we were not created by any purpose divine or not, for any reason. all we are aware of our integrity and self dignity.

my purpose is to find truth. evolution has been supported by evidence...creationism has nothing but faith.

Religion indeed is imposing, it tends to control you either by fear, false aura of authority or charisma. The supreme being you may be referring to are the strawman that many religious authorities are promoting or you may have grown accustomed with, you may be witness to religious abuse and atrocities, or a victim perhaps.

indeed

But Christ is not religion, nor religion is Christ. Truth is, Christ breaks the bondage of this religion.

this is what i mean by an undue sense of importance. why would any god be concerned with our daily lives? you may call it a relationship, no offense, it's an absurd notion to think like that..

Is it too arrogant or too imposing for you to hear perspectives, claims or opinions other than yours?

i am going to quote someone else who explained this best...

I am not &#8220;hurt&#8221; by the actions of religious people, so long as they confine their irrational beliefs to themselves or to their place of worship. But you and I are both hurt when these people use their irrational beliefs to obstruct promising scientific research (e.g. stem cell research); or when they challenge establish facts and theories (e.g. evolution); or when they condemn initiatives that will alleviate human suffering (e.g. providing contraception to 3rd world countries); or when they deny basic human rights (women&#8217;s rights, gay rights); and so forth.

I hope we could demolish this arrogant strawman, the one who is imposing his belief on you, I thought that we are just discussing...

i was talking about my experience with christianity...as a believer and as an observer of those who believed as i did when i was.
and for the reasons just stated---^

The parallel is too far off, anyway, just to show you how too far off is your parallel, I will answer:

"Yes, I would hold that kitty responsible if it disobeyed me despite my continous meowws communicated through my cat messengers, or if it disobeyed me despite my production of a written kitty life manual called the Kitty bible, in Meoww version, readable and understable by common cats. Anyway, even without my pro-pets and kitty bible, this kitty should understand that only an intelligent designer can make a nice and comfortable kitty bed for him"

well that's exactly what i am trying to say.
sure a cat has to learn their boundaries, like the dining table is off limits. and whenever the cat jumps on the table i squirt some water, i will not eventually throw her in the fireplace for disobeying me...right? how can i expect a cat to understand my reasoning the dining table is off limits? that would be ludicrous.
and how can we expect to understand the chaos around us? it is an arrogant notion to assume we can understand the why...when we've only touched the surface of the how...

You wouldn't know the concern of someone if you reject that someone in the first place and if you cut off yourself from whatever form of communication with that someone. For example, how can a beneficiary accuse somebody of apathy, when the beneficiary doesn't even want to open the letter of concern that the sender sent him? The sender even sent verbal messages in old times, and ultimately sent his most precious son to communicate his message to the recipient? But the recipient still refuses to believe and accuse the sender of apathy?

well the difference here is, in order for the beneficiary to receive anything, they need to give up reason and logic in order to make uninformed decisions...

Surely, it is your freewill and conscience dictating this post of yours, without the influence of the 'dictator'

because i do not subscribe to fear mongering...

This is self-centeredness, the core of atheism.

belief in a deity goes against the basic principles of humanism. it is faith after all that calls integrity and self dignity self-centered. tell me where did the age of enlightenment come from? not from any religious dogma.

And this is rejection of one of the basic premise of Christianity, which is the presence of a Righteous Judge.

is that the crux of it all, fear of what happens after you die?

at the end of the day...the ones who claim moral superiority are no more capable than i, in any way shape or form.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Morality is not absolute...there is no final arbiter...there is only karma...there is only causality.

Laws and rules and morals are as empty and unreal as other subjective human concepts.

You can know the difference from right and wrong...but that is above all laws and rules and moral precepts.

 

[waitasec]

karma is unrealized retribution