Morality- The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
What does this mean? Who has the right to set those standards? To one culture an action can be completely abominable and to another it's a common activity. When the conquistadors landed in the Americas they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of the natives all in the name of God, and all within their morals. How can this be justified? What gave them the right to completely uproot the native's way of living. Yes, we look upon history and call the natives savage for the way they lived (human sacrifice, slavery, etc.) But what gives us the right to say they were wrong. To them, they were being moral by sacrificing people to their gods. This parallels the war in Iraq. Yes, Iraq had a tyrant that needed removing (based on our own moral standards), but America is forcing our culture on them and how is that morally justified when they believe their way of life is moral? What gives us the right?
What is morality?
Moderator: Moderators
What is morality?
Post #1"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population." ~ Albert Einstein
-
chelbelle89
- Student
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:59 pm
- Location: Georgia
Post #2
Ahhh, but are we really any different than the "savages"? Think about it: the fundamentalists of religions are the ones who still give out human sacrafices, for example look at 9/11. And, slave wage labor still continues today by American corporations that on the outside look ethical...
So my answer would be that we are all immoral to someone else's version or morality... To those in Iraq we Americans are reprehensilbly immoral: the women are not submissive, we are individualists, and not to mention we are a vastly Christian nation.
So then I guess that would lead to the assumption that true "morality" does not exist since there is no clear standard of it. Many people would argue that God is the standard of morality...but whose God? Since many religions believe that "their God" is the ultimate and only God, we do not even have a standard God, let alone a standard for morality!
So my answer would be that we are all immoral to someone else's version or morality... To those in Iraq we Americans are reprehensilbly immoral: the women are not submissive, we are individualists, and not to mention we are a vastly Christian nation.
So then I guess that would lead to the assumption that true "morality" does not exist since there is no clear standard of it. Many people would argue that God is the standard of morality...but whose God? Since many religions believe that "their God" is the ultimate and only God, we do not even have a standard God, let alone a standard for morality!
"Before God we are all equally wise- and equally foolish."
~Albert Einstein
~Albert Einstein
Post #3
Good point. And also, the interpretations of what God sees to be moral is vast.
"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population." ~ Albert Einstein
Post #4
I took a cultural anthropology class once. VERY enlightening on this issue.
Essentially, morality is defined by a culture. Human sacrifice may be barbaric to us, but to a primitive tribesman, it is normal, accepted, and even necessary. Similar, the way we eat beef may look barbaric to someone from India.
Essentially, morality is defined by a culture. Human sacrifice may be barbaric to us, but to a primitive tribesman, it is normal, accepted, and even necessary. Similar, the way we eat beef may look barbaric to someone from India.
-
Sir Rhetor
- Apprentice
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:57 pm
- Location: The Fourth Spacial Dimension
Post #5
I think I can clear this up for you guys, but I might also be wrong. I would define good as what is beneficial to the party deeming the act to be good. So the tribesmen deem sacrifices to be good because they think it will please the gods, and the tribesmen will be benefited. Evil is the opposite. It causes harm to the party deeming the act to be evil.
Another thing to note, though, is that by my definition, as seen by different parties, an act may be thought of as good and evil simultaneously. Take the sacrifice, for example. The tribe thinks they will be benefited by the sacrifice. They think the act is good, and will continue the practice because probably no one in the tribe is intelligent or brave enough to prove that human sacrifice has no effect upon the outcome of the weather, or the amount of crops harvested. The poor child, however, shouldn't care, really, what the weather is like, or even if the sun supernovas, etc, because they will die TODAY. So the child cares little about the society; they do not think they will be benefited by their death. So the child would see the act of sacrifice as evil. Thus it is simply a matter of perspective.
Another thing to note, though, is that by my definition, as seen by different parties, an act may be thought of as good and evil simultaneously. Take the sacrifice, for example. The tribe thinks they will be benefited by the sacrifice. They think the act is good, and will continue the practice because probably no one in the tribe is intelligent or brave enough to prove that human sacrifice has no effect upon the outcome of the weather, or the amount of crops harvested. The poor child, however, shouldn't care, really, what the weather is like, or even if the sun supernovas, etc, because they will die TODAY. So the child cares little about the society; they do not think they will be benefited by their death. So the child would see the act of sacrifice as evil. Thus it is simply a matter of perspective.
-
tickitytak
- Student
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:06 am
Post #6
morality is purely subjective. it is not consistent; it is not universal. morality stems from our natural instinct of survival. if something was beneficial to our survival, it was good. if something was not beneficial to our survival, it was bad. killing, stealing, and doing just about anything that could cause segregation would be considered bad (not beneficial to the group's survival).
what i would like to bring up is that holiness and sin are not related to morality in any sense. they are simply points of reference to God's will and that's all. if it is of God's will, it is holy. if it is against God's will, it is sin. the christian God states that killing people is a SIN, yet this same God wiped out 99% of the human population in the biblical flood (drowning innocent children as well). this act of killing is considered HOLY because it was God's will. if killing is evil, God has commited an evil act. obviously, this has nothing to do with morality. this is something people really need to understand.
christians claim that God's will is universal morality and that He can kill whoever He wants because they're His own creation. this makes absolutely no sense though. if i were to create a robot that people bonded with and grew to love, and then i killed this robot without their consideration, it would be a morally wrong. it doesn't matter who created it, people were attached to it and emotionally invested. i hurt those people and ended a life. that kind of behavior is inconsiderate and does not represent the character of a loving creator.
also, if there is universal morality:
1. does God's will abide by universal morality?
or
2. does universal morality abide by God's will?
if God's will abides by this universal morality, why would we need God? if universal morality abides by God, how is it universal? wouldn't it simply be God's subjective opinion?
what i would like to bring up is that holiness and sin are not related to morality in any sense. they are simply points of reference to God's will and that's all. if it is of God's will, it is holy. if it is against God's will, it is sin. the christian God states that killing people is a SIN, yet this same God wiped out 99% of the human population in the biblical flood (drowning innocent children as well). this act of killing is considered HOLY because it was God's will. if killing is evil, God has commited an evil act. obviously, this has nothing to do with morality. this is something people really need to understand.
christians claim that God's will is universal morality and that He can kill whoever He wants because they're His own creation. this makes absolutely no sense though. if i were to create a robot that people bonded with and grew to love, and then i killed this robot without their consideration, it would be a morally wrong. it doesn't matter who created it, people were attached to it and emotionally invested. i hurt those people and ended a life. that kind of behavior is inconsiderate and does not represent the character of a loving creator.
also, if there is universal morality:
1. does God's will abide by universal morality?
or
2. does universal morality abide by God's will?
if God's will abides by this universal morality, why would we need God? if universal morality abides by God, how is it universal? wouldn't it simply be God's subjective opinion?
-
Nilloc James
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1696
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:53 am
- Location: Canada
Post #7
Morallity is a human construct defined by a culture/soceity. Therefore it is debatable, changes and exists in a grey zone.
-
ManWithABibleAndAGun
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:40 am
Post #8
right and wrong conduct is determined by the laws of God. the conquistadors were not acting in a Christian way and thus were not justified. they were savages no matter what they thought, and i don't believe they thought it was right to sacrifice people, no matter what they might have said about it. they knew it was wrong. even if they think the invasion of iraq is immoral, and even if it truly is from their point of view, we are morally just from ours. what right do they have to exercise their morality when our morality says we must keep them from exercising theirs?
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Post #9
I challenge you to offer some means by which this statement can be verified to be true.ManWithABibleAndAGun wrote:right and wrong conduct is determined by the laws of God.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
tickitytak
- Student
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:06 am
Post #10
the conquistador's believed they were abiding by God's morality. the nazi's believed they were abiding by God's morality. certain terrorist groups believe they're abiding by their god's morality. christians supporting the "war" in iraq/afghanistan actually believe they're abiding by their god's morality.ManWithABibleAndAGun wrote:right and wrong conduct is determined by the laws of God. the conquistadors were not acting in a Christian way and thus were not justified. they were savages no matter what they thought, and i don't believe they thought it was right to sacrifice people, no matter what they might have said about it. they knew it was wrong. even if they think the invasion of iraq is immoral, and even if it truly is from their point of view, we are morally just from ours. what right do they have to exercise their morality when our morality says we must keep them from exercising theirs?
obviously there is no "godly morality" because there's literally no possible way to define which one is true. there is only subjective morality, and pretending it's objective doesn't make it any more true than anyone else's. it would be much more efficient to set aside these fabricated objective moralities and create a social morality, one that is best for everyone, decided by everyone, and isn't solely based on any religious superstition.
ManWithABibleAndAGun? i find your screen name absolutely ridiculous (unless it's a joke of some kind). do you think Jesus would ever use a gun, let alone carry one?
