|
| |
morality_anchored
|
|
|
stork daddy
|
some would claim that without a god or ultimate reference, there can be no fixed morality and so we are lost in a sea of moral relativism. i do not think this is strictly true. perhaps on a time scale beyond human existence it is true to say that there is no fixed morality, but then morality as we know it is something which would be meaningless without humans.
and i think the solution to moral relativism is to say that there are fixed human desires and moral capabilities which have developed in us through evolution, both biological and cultural.
this means that to be human is to share a common moral compass which is not going anywhere anytime soon.
the variations in morality you see across cultures then, seem less significant than the commonalities.
when the "developed" countries look down upon the "barbarism" of clitorectomies and stonings, it would do best to see how it too is capable of such barbarism, and to find instruction in what circumstances have allowed it to progress in restraining the worst in human nature.
of course, speaking for america, it is hard to see how a country that solves poverty by building prisons and electric chairs has any moral high ground.
|
050113
|
| |
... |
|
|
minnesota_chris
|
I think the whole idea with a moral anchor is, if all else goes bad, you're STILL going to act the same way. It's not negotiable.
I think with the nonbelievers, morality is just one of several priorities. Treating people decently is ok, until things go bad, and then that might go out the window, who knows?
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Then again, Chris, believers' morality can be just as contingent on exigence. For instance, turn the other cheek... unless you have to defend yourself, or especially if feel like you need to go to war. Of course, much is said about Christ overturning bankers' tables to justify why in this instance, when it comes to morality, Christians can have their cake and eat it too. But does this mean that Christians (or other realists for that matter) are morally anchored? Naturalists can and do make similarly tenuous arguments that their actions, when they seem plainly incongruous to their professed secular moral beliefs, are in fact in perfect harmony. I guess it's easier for Christians, though, to "follow their morality" (nominally, that is)when they are actually subverting it because they can exploit the bible's many inconsistencies to appear consistent. So I guess theistic moralists can appear (at least to themselves or to those unwilling or unable to pay attention) more morally anchored, because secular moralists don't have the benefit of appealing partially rather than holistically to some dubious interpretation of some obscure corner of a very old, sketchily translated sacred text to justify whatever loathesome yet expedient (for them) action (such as slavery, opression of women and gays, etc.) they feel they need to take at the moment.
Ultimately, even if you don't feel that there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the bible, you'd probably admit that there are some (if not many) Christians who don't operate at optimal morality--like priests who molest kids or Jerry Falwell--but who nevertheless truly believe that they are still morally right. Personally, I don't like it when bad guys can be bad and still think they're good. I'd rather my bad guys be morally adrift and aware of it rather than anchored by the delusion of moral superiority. So at the very least, theism is an imperfect moral anchor, not demonstrably better than (and quite possibly inferior to) secular morality at ensuring moral consistency.
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Because as I understand it, secular morality is supposed to be rational. Theistic morality is not, and thus appeals to rationality (like an appeal to consistency) can be brushed off as irrelevent.
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
dafremen
|
The road has sides for a reason. Without the boundaries that define the trail, eventually the path would cut a swath miles wide, and the destination? Who knows where the road would lead?
CERTAINLY we can cross those boundaries. Certainly we can travel outside the lines. But not usually without consequences, if not imposed upon us by others, dished out to us by life.
In the end, the sides of the road remain, and we can always find our way back to that path. We always have an indicator of how far we have strayed.
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
dafremen
|
"So my friend is watching this 'Girls Gone Wild Video' when I walk in the front door. It was pretty f*cking apalling. 8,000 screaming drunks standing around trying to prove that human dignity is on the decline."
"Yea, but I mean, live and let live...ya know?"
"Sure. I'm not a censor or a prude by any means, in fact I'm a very active defender of freedom of expression, but I also feel that we have a responsibility not just to ourselves and our families, but to all people. When I see 50 guys stuffing fruit into a woman's body then trying to dig it out on video, I think...what the f*ck have we been reduced to?"
"But I mean, hey..everyone was consenting right?"
"Well, yea...but it's not so much how it reflects on the girl receiving the fruit, she obviously has issues. It's more how it reflects on those that were taking advantage of her issues/drunkeness/stupidity because they could. If I knew a mentally retarded girl that would give head for an ice cream sandwich, would that make it alright to do it?"
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
minnesota_chris
|
well sure, Christians don't agree with each other. And being bad old human beings, they also disagree with God quite often. But their goal is to follow God.
It seems you're objecting to asshole religious leaders. I can't defend them, or proclaim them superior.
On a side tangent, I would heartily proclaim (have I been reading too much LOTR? Yea verily forsooth!) I would HEARTILY proclaim that there are no religious leaders. We Christians are all just blind, stupid sinners, trying to feel our way through this life of ours.
But isn't a movement made of its leaders? I think Christianity is not. Jesus hated the religious leaders of his time, perhaps for the same reason we hate Jerry Falwell, arrogance combined with a position as a religious teacher.
So how do I follow God? Well, for one thing, everything becomes a moral issue. Is it ok to fight in Iraq? To spend hours and hours on the Internet? To get fat? Yes, I debate these things on moral grounds in my head, making it noisy and schizophrenic in my head.
Well, show me the life of a committed secular moralist, someone who will die for their values. I'll listen and learn. I can only speak for my own, pathetic life.
What makes me "morally right"? Good question, and the best I can answer is that I've decided that my life doesn't belong to me, that God will lead me, and decide how I'm going to spend my time. It doesn't make me any less a sinner, any less deprave or selfish. But God, as Jesus, came to earth to die so that if I followed God, I would be with him when I die. And no, I don't really understand that, either.
And no, I don't expect you to believe all of this, because as I mentioned before, it's all a delusion until you see God.
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
I saw God when I was younger. Then I grew up. Sorry, that's too condescending. But really, though, how does your way of looking at faith (i.e. seeing God) deal with the fact that some people (like me) feel/see/experience God and then stop feeling/seeing/experiencing God? I mean, it's just innaccurate to say that I haven't met God yet, since we used to hang out all the time.
I don't think any moral system, religious or secular, is particularly good at shaping a person's behavior if that behavior isn't already in his best interest. We generally get rewards when we're moral (i.e., people like us) and punishments when we're immoral (i.e., we go to jail). If you look at the 10 commandments, the ones people follow are the ones that have more dire social and legal consequences than the ones they tend to ignore. So thou shalt not kill is easy to follow, but thou shalt not commit adultery is a little harder, and thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass is almost impossible.
A committed secular moralist willing to die for his beliefs? How about Socrates?
|
050115
|
| |
... |
|
|
dafremen
|
And what if it WEREN'T a question of morality?
What if what passes for "moral" behavior is simply part of a method whereby a certain state of consciousness could be achieved?
What if it has little to do with "right" and "wrong" and everything to do with the nature of the human psyche and how it is best enriched, developed and focused?
What if it's not a question of God, but one of self-realization? Not some pie in the sky philisophical self-realization, but a very real, very tangible change in perception and perspective that each individual human being is CAPABLE of experiencing, should they so choose? Something akin to a "heavenly" "blissful" "nirvanic" state?
What if "MORALITY" is simply part of a recipe for human evolution?
|
050116
|
| |
... |
|
|
stork daddy
|
one advantage secular or "nature" based morality has is that its proclamations and basic tenets can be subjected to some empirical testing. if your reasoning for banning gay marriage is that the nuclear family may dissolve, and this is based on the assumption that the nuclear family is most conducive to a happier world - it can be at least be based on anecdotal evidence or even perhaps some sort of social experimentation or observation.
however, if your claim is that it is bad because a god who cannot be directly observed until death thinks its bad - it seems you have to take it largely on faith.
|
050117
|
| |
... |
|
|
sameolme
|
If you "anchor" morality to absolute
rules, you've in fact handicap your ability to live a truely moral life.
By giving ego ground rules, you give yourself the context in which you can "feel" comfortably moral, without
self appraisal . The real moral work in my life is in grappling with the true, relativistic conflicts in life with my heart given the absolute authority.
|
050118
|
| |
... |
|
|
sameolme
|
I know my spelling is atrocious, but
I forgive myself.
|
050118
|
| |
... |
|
|
dafremen
|
That was beautiful.
|
050118
|
| |
... |
|
|
sameolme
|
Thanks!
|
050118
|
| |
... |
|
|
stork daddy
|
one potential criticism of nature based morality is that it is much more descriptive than normative. it says what most people do, and what you should do to be in the norm, but it does not say why you should desire to be in the norm.
claiming a moral compass is as normal a function of human existence as hunger and lust does very little to say why one should choose to remain moral, hungry, and lustful.
of course it could be that human happiness is the anchor to which we place our morality, at which point a consequentialist/contractualist morality becomes what we should do since it maximizes happiness for ourselves and others at the highest rate.
if you look at our country, and our laws, we clearly subscribe to a form of rule-based consequentialism and contractualism.
most of our laws strive to be maxims that two moral agents would agree to at the beginning of a social contract. and most of our rules are constructed so that their application leads to justice generally and on the whole. we could weigh the benefits of an action with each individual situation we seek to apply the rule in.
this is why many are against euthanasia. it upholds a rule that on the whole is just (don't murder) but that in these circumstances is not. of course, morality is all about making distinctions.
but to what do we strive in deciding what is moral? human happiness seems the most promising and immediate anchor.
it is immediately knowable, good in and of itself, and can provide feedback instantly as to whether or not our morals are pointed in the right direction. in this last sense it is superior to god.
|
050119
|
