Morality

[Pah]

Couldn't agree more, although I am curious as to what you mean by "exception".

An exception to muder would be in the act of war. An exception to stealing may be in the loaf of bread to feed a family.

Alright, here we go with th tricky word play so I better be careful . Now, ofcourse as a Christian Theist I believe that morality has only one origin. My earlier statement was more of a recognition of different philosophical explainations. I am not stating that they can both be true since they contradict each other (First Principle of Noncontradiction)

. If you understood that morality is taught, then one morality is not truer than another. It is what is passed on by parents and peer. From this "taught" position, a person may understand the reasoning from the learned morality and apply it to varying situations.

This statement is dependant on no more than a worldview, but I won't get too far into that and risk going off subject in this thread.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Okay

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

If you understood that morality is taught, then one morality is not truer than another. It is what is passed on by parents and peer. From this "taught" position, a person may understand the reasoning from the learned morality and apply it to varying situations.

I was speaking of different philosophical explainations of moral origins. I.E. who or what was the originator, not that one morality is "truer" than another.

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria

 

[Pah]

I was speaking of different philosophical explainations of moral origins. I.E. who or what was the originator, not that one morality is "truer" than another.

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria

Okay - I wasn't sure I understood you

 

[chuck010342]

Can we distinguish from an absolute morality versus a universal morality?

I thought they were both the same. Please define absolute morality versus universal morality.

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

yes

Even if we recognize that morality is the social behavior of society, can we not recognize that there is a religious morality based on religious society?

yes we can.

In this thread, secular definitions and statements must also apply to sectarian thought. We won't talk about relative morality until we can establish the understanding of religious morality.

sectarian thought? you mean thinking like a sect?

you mean that relative morality will not be discussed? Good relativism is self-refuting anyway.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Moral Judgements

Saying that something is morally wrong is essentially an expression of one's act of willing that nobody should do it (unless there is some other, over-riding reason). It is a thus a public, rather than private, preference, in so far as it is intended to apply to everybody, not just oneself. One can find an adumbration of this theory in Thomas Hobbes, where he says that a law is just if a rational being would will that everyone should obey it. My claim is that we say a rule is morally right if we will that everybody obey it.

 

[dan]

Aw Dan, you did this before (good to have you back posting, by the way). If you have the knowledge, it would be nice to give instead of some direction to an unfocused schooling attempt. I can't imagine a single moral principle that is absolute, an absolute would have to be without exception. Universal does not make that definitional claim - it says many, many people follow a common morality.I'm curious as to why you say morality may not apply to a society. Do you know a society that has no rules?

And I'm quite unclear what you mean "a religious morality based on religious society; it just isn't the right morality"

I'm sure you're wrong about that. Even the morality captured in American law understands that there are differences. International law is different than Federal law and differant again from State law. Each provides to their jurisdiction a varying picture of proper, acceptible behavior.

About society:
If you exist completely isolated from humanity there is no society. Do you have morals to follow. I submit that you do, ergo, morality can exist without society.

About universality:
Universal means it is universally true; that it has no exceptions. Absolute means the same thing. Look it up in the glossary of any philosophy textbook.

About religious societies:
Certain religious societies creat certain morals. The Puritans lived by a strict code of morals that were not good for society. They were not the right morals. In the middle east their religion condones female circumcision, a practice abominable in the eyes of God and most rational human beings. Their reasoning? A woman with no clitoris will have no desire for pre-marital sex and no desire for adultery after marriage. The problem is it robs the woman of one of her most sacred gifts, that of sexual intimacy.

About moral relativity:
Lawmakers are not moral philosophers, and I draw a big line between the two. Lawmakers today follow moral relativity because they have nothing else on which to base morality, as the push for less and less faith in this country has emasculated our ethics. Ask any philosophy teacher if moral relativity has a philosophical leg to stand on.

 

[Pah]

About society:
If you exist completely isolated from humanity there is no society. Do you have morals to follow. I submit that you do, ergo, morality can exist without society.

. Rules of behavior are imposed. Even the "wolf child" followed the rules of the pack - an animalistic society. The individual removed from all contact, including animal, operates under instincts and learned survival techniques and I consider that amoral.

About universality:
Universal means it is universally true; that it has no exceptions. Absolute means the same thing. Look it up in the glossary of any philosophy textbook.

Sorry, I went to Websters and my distinction holds under common usage of the term. If you equate the two then there would be no universal morality either. Thus a univeral morality doesnt not carry a conviction of truth (not that an "absolute truth" does either).

About religious societies:
Certain religious societies creat certain morals. The Puritans lived by a strict code of morals that were not good for society. They were not the right morals. ...

Are the "right" morals religious as well? or do they/can they predate a religious influence. Can they spring from areligious principles?

About moral relativity:
Lawmakers are not moral philosophers, and I draw a big line between the two. Lawmakers today follow moral relativity because they have nothing else on which to base morality, as the push for less and less faith in this country has emasculated our ethics. Ask any philosophy teacher if moral relativity has a philosophical leg to stand on.

You're jumping the gun - can you hold that thought untill we get to it?

 

[Quiddity]

Rules of behavior are imposed. Even the "wolf child" followed the rules of the pack - an animalistic society. The individual removed from all contact, including animal, operates under instincts and learned survival techniques and I consider that amoral.

Actually this is common misconception. The human animal possess NO instincts. An instinct is defined by 5 things: 1. Must be brought on by a stimulus that only has to occur once 2. Consistant throughout the entire species 3. Complex in nature 4. Must occur in the same sequence always 5. Completely innate, UNLEARNED. Just took sociology.

Are the "right" morals religious as well? or do they/can they predate a religious influence. Can they spring from areligious principles?

Personally it would make much sense if morals be found in one entity. Otherwise we are left to our own faculties. If that's the case then we are obviously never going to agree as to what is right and what is wrong. We may find common ground on some things but we may miss some crucial ones.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Actually this is common misconception. The human animal possess NO instincts. An instinct is defined by 5 things: 1. Must be brought on by a stimulus that only has to occur once 2. Consistant throughout the entire species 3. Complex in nature 4. Must occur in the same sequence always 5. Completely innate, UNLEARNED. Just took sociology.

Interesting topic and perhaps (I disagree with some that you've specified) a better word may be used. But it changes little from the instance I gave as example

Personally it would make much sense if morals be found in one entity. Otherwise we are left to our own faculties. If that's the case then we are obviously never going to agree as to what is right and what is wrong. We may find common ground on some things but we may miss some crucial ones.
~Victor

If we are not left to our own faculties then it becomes less and less a morality and is replaced by command. The infant has no morality except by the command of parents and a willingness to please them. It is not till reasoning is applied to the "commands" that it becomes a full adult morality

 

[chuck010342]

hey Pah are you planning to reply to me? :162:

 

[Pah]

hey Pah are you planning to reply to me? :162:

Well yeah, but the first reply I made after you posted I thought answered the question.

But I did miss this - sorry.

sectarian thought? you mean thinking like a sect?

you mean that relative morality will not be discussed? Good relativism is self-refuting anyway.

No and no. Sectarian is an opposite of secular. Later in the thread we'll talk about relative morality but not till be get a definition of morality down first.

 

[Quiddity]

Interesting topic and perhaps (I disagree with some that you've specified) a better word may be used. But it changes little from the instance I gave as example

Gotcha...just letting you know is all.

If we are not left to our own faculties then it becomes less and less a morality and is replaced by command. The infant has no morality except by the command of parents and a willingness to please them. It is not till reasoning is applied to the "commands" that it becomes a full adult morality

Ok, I do agree here Pah, but as you know that reason can get subjective and goes deep into metaphysics. You begin to have people say things like "well it's reasonable to me". This doesn't accomplish the means. Only having something to correct you can do that. Problem is that many don't like to submit to something other themselves.

~Victor

 

[chuck010342]

.

]No and no. Sectarian is an opposite of secular. Later in the thread we'll talk about relative morality but not till be get a definition of morality down first.

sectarian morality. There are a bunch of those. Every religion has its own version of morality don't they? How are we going to get a definition down?.

how about we define morality as "The Moral law"?

 

[Quiddity]

sectarian morality. There are a bunch of those. Every religion has its own version of morality don't they? How are we going to get a definition down?.

how about we define morality as "The Moral law"?

Morality can never be defined by the efforts of man alone. I certainly wont hold my breath.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Morality can never be defined by the efforts of man alone. I certainly wont hold my breath.

~Victor

That's where we have tremendous disagreement. I feel that even with "divine attribution" morality is the work of man.

And I certainly can't be called immoral or even amoral.

 

[michel]

Morality can never be defined by the efforts of man alone. I certainly wont hold my breath.

~Victor

Wow, that is so Judgemental ! Are you suggesting that atheist cannot have morals?:areyoucra

 

[Quiddity]

That's where we have tremendous disagreement. I feel that even with "divine attribution" morality is the work of man.

And I certainly can't be called immoral or even amoral.

Pah, my point is that although secular and religioius socities both struggle with this. The difference lies in that religious organizations appear to do a better job and have some sort of solution to this (morality). This is of course if it's followed properly. The only reason some may see the bad in religion (some, not all) is because they form and gather. This makes it easier to categorize and point out flaws. This really can't be said about the secular world, because they don't really do that. They function by "the buck stop here" and feel uncomfortable submitting to something other themselves. This is the root of many problems.
Hope this clarifies things.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Wow, that is so Judgemental ! Are you suggesting that atheist cannot have morals?

No I was not suggesting that. They can indeed have them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Then you would be against an absolute morality but you had said nothing about universal morality - or have you?

I think you would need an absolute philosophy to have and absolute Morality. And I don't think there is one.
All religions would individually say there is, Which shows there is not.
Terry
______________________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

 

[Quiddity]

I think you would need an absolute philosophy to have and absolute Morality.

Can you explain this please? I don't see how this follows...

~Victor