Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 87
view profile
History
moralityPage 5 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Just because I said that is was likely most people with religious beliefs do not derive their morality solely from their religion was something you didn’t want to hear.

So your response was to call me dishonest.Not only once but twice.That is not very moralistic.

I also said it is likely people derive their morality from experience and common sense.What are you in disagreement with that?


what disagreement some have with this is...

because people who claim they get their morality (even a percentage) from religion may be common, but it doesn't make sense and it says that those who don't must be "not as moral" at the minimum for not including "god" in our determination of what is moral.

It's a lie that believers are following that god should determine what is moral (especially when god is a fictional character invented my the most immoral people in the world.).

The problem is these "moral religious ones" want to make laws that we all have to follow. Also their preaching is keeping people dumb by not letting people think, read, debate against their beliefs. The do this to the most vulnerable.

If it was the dark ages, I wouldn't be holding the followers accountable, but there is no excuse now for most to keep believing and passing on the lie that we need a god to "guide" us.

We are not animals that will run amok. We don't need someone telling us how to behave. We do not need them teaching our children that they shouldn't think for themselves and we don't need to pay for them either.

That is immoral.

morality
Posted: 4/12/2013 12:15:31 AM

So your response was to call me dishonest.Not only once but twice.That is not very moralistic.

And I'll call you dishonest for a third time - You are dishonest. And malign. Don't forget malign.
That is "moralistic". It's pretty "moralistic" to be honest, and to expose dishonesty.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 89
morality
Posted: 4/12/2013 10:24:44 PM


If you ever one day grasp the concept of “objectivity” it will be a better option than what you are grasping at the present.


Religious people should tell themselves that every day all they long until they can answer the question...



Did you get it?


Objectively and positively for themselves.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 90
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 6:39:57 AM
Food for thought: http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/science-seat-where-morals-come-from/
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 91
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 7:03:13 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by the infallible and all knowing thing.

---------------------------

Christian guy, if you need the infallible moral might of God explained to you, if you have no clue what it means to be all knowing, if it's beyond you to see how your God is allegedly omnipotent and omniscient, and all good... then where do you get the nerve of calling yourself Christian?

You should be ashamed of yourself and the Sunday School teachers at your church should take sticks and beat knowledge into you until you scream for mercy.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 11:59:16 AM
That'a a good addition to the thread, wooby.

Taking that, and an overview of the range of things that have been put in here, an amusing thing has occurred to me. That is, that there is a similarity between how humans have shown they behave concerning things like morality and religion, and ow they behave about suffering the "collector" bug.

I'm referring to the thing many of us do, where for fun, or for a sense of being at least mildly driven, we go about our lives collecting some specific things or ideas, just for the sake of collecting them. I've been plagued by that bug myself in several ways over the years, lately collecting just enough Wedgwood pottery and glassware, so that I can one day serve a nice tea to friends using it all.

The aspect of collecting that I see with regards to morality and religions, is that I have seen lots of people go about their lives, becoming excited and or comforted here and there, with this or that bit of moral or philosophical guidance, and then one day, they get the notion into their heads, that perhaps EVERYTHING about that philosophy or religion might be "right," and that if they only manage to collect all of it into a single place, that they will have that sense of satisfaction that the "silly thing" collector gets, upon completing their set of whatevers.

Combine that almost magical sense of completeness, with the force of moral and or spiritual authority that allows one to feel "right" all the time, and you have an excellent bio-psychological explanation of the phenomenon of the human religious experience. That sort of experience has never been limited to religions alone, which is why I do not myself support the anti-religious fervor of some who post here, even though I quite agree with the excesses and dangers that they cite as a part of their own opposition to religion.

Another aspect of human dynamics that plays directly into this, is that of the desire to "get things organized, and moved right along." I am convinced that upon themselves recognizing important connections, and valuable insights into how one can best progress through life, many people jump to the idea that rather than wait for everyone around them to organically discover or recognize the same things that they have done, that if they can just put it all down into a book and get everyone to read it....or put it out as a political platform, and get everyone to vote for it...or make it the core of a governing concept, and use force to administer it...that the entirety of our existences might be brought to the same sense of collecting completeness that they have done in themselves. Thereby religions, political movements, philosophical movements, and psychological trick "ways of being" (like EST) are invented.

And they are derived, as in that small article that wooby mentioned, from the natural little bits of social behavior that lots of creatures develop, in order to get along in groups. I would not myself say that studies such as the one mentioned, show that there is a natural, DNA driven urge among living creatures to empathize with each other, or to behave cooperatively, or to organize into interdependent units. Rather, such organization is the logical result of relatively equal entities interacting, and discovering that if they ONLY respond with all-or-nothing hostility to each other, that they will make less progress than if they allow for other possibilities. And since emulation and kinship is a natural result of how we all come into existence, it is logical that we would develop at least rudimentary ideas that could be called a cooperative philosophy...and with the addition of a magical component to help push others into joining, such organically evolved philosophies are turned into religions, or Political parties, or other such "collections" of thoughts.

As people like drinksthesun point out, those beliefs can easily go wrong, because the promoters forget in their collectors fanatical rush for completeness, that getting everyone to adhere by force, in and of itself destroys the very wisdom that is at the heart of the thoughts that so excited and energized them.

There's probably a great Wise Saying to be built there somewhere. Something along the lines, that Wisdom forced upon others, is Wisdom poisoned to death by it's own promoters.
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 93
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 7:14:23 PM
@Anyone whom it concerns

Hey everybody, in short, the best way I can say what’s up is this…
There’s quite a few of you that think I say ABC while I know it’s not ABC. It’s XYZ…. Yet, you insist its ABC. I know my beliefs and they are not what YOU decide they are. They’re my beliefs and I have been trying to communicate them to you but it’s not exactly going through. At least understand this… what you say is definitely being denied and not being accepted as my beliefs.

@ Spirifire

Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian background, I decided that having sex with girls just for fun and just breaking up with em after using them was NOT for me. Unfortunately, that’s the trend among young boys and teenagers. I used to hear them talk, I know. So, why did I, as an 11 year old boy decide it wasn’t for me? (looks up) God, that’s why. Today, I’m a virgin by choice and saving it until marriage.

And that’s the tip of the iceberg of what God did with my life and you look down on that which God has done. Your against someone's ideals who has ideals that aim at 100% moral conduct.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 94
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 9:17:55 PM


Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian background, I decided that having sex with girls just for fun and just breaking up with em after using them was NOT for me. Unfortunately, that’s the trend among young boys and teenagers. I used to hear them talk, I know. So, why did I, as an 11 year old boy decide it wasn’t for me? (looks up) God, that’s why. Today, I’m a virgin by choice and saving it until marriage.

And that’s the tip of the iceberg of what God did with my life and you look down on that which God has done. Your against someone's ideals who has ideals that aim at 100% moral conduct.


I think you are crediting God with your own moral growth. IMO you credit God far too much and yourself far too little...

You don't need a God to keep you on the straight & narrow; all you need is your own conscience.
morality
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:31:33 AM
^

The great cause of much psychological illness is the fear of knowledge of oneself – of one’s emotions, impulses, memories, capacities, potentialities, of one’s destiny.

- Abraham Maslow


Once a man has become self-conscious...he is morally obliged to act in no way that will deaden his preoccupation with his integrity. He is obliged to impregnate all his actions with some sense of their relevance to him, as a man and as a person.

- Jean-Paul Sartre
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 96
morality
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:01:06 PM
Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian background, I decided that having sex with girls just for fun and just breaking up with em after using them was NOT for me.

That's you.

This is me:

Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian / Jewish mix of background, I had no clue what sex was or even that it existed.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 97
morality
Posted: 4/16/2013 10:39:38 PM


In order to find ourselves, we must first become lost! :)


Extremely profound! (The whole post was)

If we never became lost, we would never seek ourselves and consequently, would spend our lives in a miserable state of inauthentic ignorance. It is for such people that I mourn; they are condemned to spend their lives in worthless pursuits, craving a happiness they will never know.
morality
Posted: 4/16/2013 10:55:15 PM
I don't know where I am, but I am not lost.

or is it

I am lost, but I know where I am.

?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 99
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/17/2013 2:18:01 PM

In order to find ourselves, we must first become lost!


I disagree. Rather, I find that commonly uttered phrase to be an EXTRAORDINARILY badly chosen set of words to use to try to say the positive thing that I think it was originally intended to say.

A vastly better way to say it, might be "before a person is likely to hear new knowledge, they must first stop listening to the loud chanting in their heads, telling them that they already know everything they need to." That does NOT mean "becoming lost," at all. Or perhaps in another application, go with "before you can figure out who you really are, and what you really want, you need to recognize when and how you are instead following notions dictated to you by other people."

The reason I most dislike that standard way that it's expressed, is that the old "in order to find ourselves, we must first become lost" thing gets used over and over by scalawags, scammers, and other deceivers, who want to use a vulnerable persons state of confusion against them, and push them into even LESS real thinking that the person really needs to do. It's also occasionally used as an excuse by that same sort of rip-off artist, to explain away the fact that you just caught them stealing from someone else. They say the old "I had to learn by making the mistake you saw me make," to get you to let them get away with it.

But I of course support the real intent of that phrase.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 100
morality
Posted: 4/18/2013 11:13:17 AM

You've lost me drinkthesunwithmyface!! :)


As long as he knows where he is, he'll probably be OK...

I myself find that it's only when I'm lost AND don't know where I am that there could be a problem. LMAO
 cesska
Joined: 11/7/2011
Msg: 101
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:28:37 PM
you can find yourself
write
then read what you wrote
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 102
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 9/26/2016 3:26:02 AM
The Walking Dead (the T.V. show)

I've come to feel that this is an excellent show. The writing, acting, and directing. Didn't see a bit of it till it was in it's 3rd or 4th season, because I thought it was "just another stupid zombie thing". When I did take a look at it, I didn't even know much of what was going on because I dropped in the middle of the 3rd or 4th season somewhere...yet I immediately saw that it was so good.

One of the things that I like about it is how it presents ethical/moral dilemmas, and the sociological dynamics and psychologies in it's situations. Any show can do this, but doing it in the post-apocalypse context is especially effective. It reveals and addresses what many apocalypse-aficionados think it would be like and how they'd behave, while showing that it all already applies in the present real-world.

I think that this show is a unique vehicle for discussing morality/ethics, and the different psychologies of people.
 Timeforlove65j
Joined: 12/23/2014
Msg: 103
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 12/20/2016 4:36:19 PM
In the last year I've been questioning morality and religion , partly because of the life I've lead and because of courses I've been taking in college. Due to the college training I'd almost think that morality is a form of social contract. In that we gave up our natural rights so as to be protected . Natural rights are life liberty and property. In that in the past we had a right to all we had found or accumulated and the right to protect ourselves and property from anyone who tried to take from us or do us harm in anyway we needed to. Social Contract is that we gave up these rights to someone ie government , policies, legislation or religion to make laws so that we can live a non violent life. If we did not do this then we would continue to live in a violent world.

Furthermore , how we socialize people and our children is determined by our culture we live in the social economic status we hold in this world and the resources we are able to obtain. For those that live in poverty thier morality is much different then one who lives with plenty. There is a slippery slope in making decisions about morality when well being is at stake. Those that make the laws and the rules are people who live in the upper status of society and therefore, do not realize how hard it is for some people to live or to function in a capitalized society. So when you judge someone for the choices they make are you fully aware of their circumstances and their history . or are you judging them through your own circumstances. That is not right.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 104
morality
Posted: 12/21/2016 12:31:48 PM
A system of ethics that is constructed along the rule 'majority rules', is the best bet for a good life. But first your family, inner circle, etc should be considered.

Everything else is some gibberish of someone trying to sound intelligent.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 105
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 12/22/2016 11:16:59 AM

So when you judge someone for the choices they make are you fully aware of their circumstances and their history . or are you judging them through your own circumstances. That is not right.

You make a good point on what people don't take into consideration -- where fair judgment should be imposed. However, there are many people who are elected to make laws (Congress) who fight for those with little and struggle more in life... and also, many many people who Do struggle in life aren't going to break laws on a big scale... so it doesn't automatically come with the territory, is my point. They're put in position to have a higher chance of running into greater temptation to violate certain laws. And certain cultures in certain groups of the poorer people will allow that to be amped up more than others.

I think it should be taken into consideration -- but it's by no means anything close to a semi-free pass, is my point. Zooming out and looking at it like a game of Sim City, you know that more crime is going to happen with more poorer people -- just as with a lack of necessary law enforcement operatives, more will happen too. Which is why when developing a State -- you want to set it up where there is true opportunity, without a Steep hill to climb to get to mediocre living status. Part of that is due to (unnecessary) sub-cultures that certain groups as opposed to others that heed wanting to go up any hill for that... and of course, part of that is too many in power not putting things in perspective and just wanting to keep the poorer folks in the corner, while their desire for short-term gains in companies & such outweigh the bigger picture of backlash if you let the poorer population grow too much.
 whosmeow
Joined: 10/19/2017
Msg: 106
morality
Posted: 11/7/2017 9:18:50 AM
Morality will always remain a personal journey.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 107
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 11/11/2017 2:49:08 PM

I think discussion can be developed by considering what the basis of 'morality' may be, and my view may concur with 'virtue ethics', which as with other ancient schools of thought, argued that there must be an absolute concept, using nouns which in modern English may be translated as "goodness", and which moreover a concept thsat appears to be related to knowledge - the 'good' is the 'true'.

In normal conversation about mundane things -- we tend to use morals & ethics interchangably. But the difference is is that something that's ethical is Universal, objective. Something that's moral may be ethical or unethical -- it's by what "standard" they go by. Eating meat on Fridays is immoral to a strict Catholic (or not to eat pork at all by some religions), but it's not unethical. It's only unethical to pretend/act you go by that standard crying out it's moral virtue, when you don't. Most of things ethical are common-sense with some life experience. And people naturally desire to be basically ethical by default, but strong emotions & things like survival or mating can get in the way.

In traditional Islamic societies by comparison it was possible for a man to have more than one wife. And in contemporary society many adults do not identify with any form of matrimonial institution, preferring some kind of unwritten agreement between man and woman. So where is the truth here;

Just because drummed-up Religion A, E, and G say to do [x] or that [y] is allowed, doesn't mean it's ethical. There's no confusion or creation of any "unknowns" or "gray area" here. It's not unethical to have more than one partner at the same time. Not many people are not game for that, or of some that are game, it becomes apparent that it's eroding things for them. The ethical guidelines come into not pushing for that on anyone... but if one gender + 3 others of another gender want to be with each other, or all sharing or whatever -- as long as it Honestly is something they desire, it's not unethical aka "wrong" to do so. It can Certainly be immoral to a certain religion's guidelines, and to another, OK. A certain marriage situation can be unethical, but to a certain religion it's not immoral and it's OK.

It's just the conceptual difference between morality & ethics. One's just following a rule-book drummed up by people on "how to be" -- most likely riddled with flaws due to it being outdated; sometimes Laughable. Ethics is just the objective way of looking at things to discern right & wrong, that doesn't have any extended "overriding" rule-book applied.

Suppose for example a woman discovered that she no longer loved her husband, then perhaps she should be entitled to live a life seperate from him. Of course he may for example still want to be with her, and there are such differences that need due consideration

Sure, and it's ethical, If you Officially promised & proclaimed you were going to be together forever -- that you're just not going to bolt once you lack feelings. But if lack of fundamental feelings is gone for too long, and that hurts one or both parties (ie the relationship) for so so long, it's ethical to part ways. But to still love but "lack loving enough", no -- unless both parties agree and want to, although that can violate whatever agreement they made (for however much weight that has).

There's plenty of gray areas out there... but throwing some religious morality into the equation doesn't really add any gray area. It's a separate concept, which, holds ethical weight if said thing they abide by isn't Unethical + they are still abiding by said moral religion/rulebook.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 108
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 1/3/2018 4:07:33 AM

A system of ethics that is constructed along the rule 'majority rules', is the best bet for a good life. But first your family, inner circle, etc should be considered.

Everything else is some gibberish of someone trying to sound intelligent.

If you think that majority-rules is the way to go for morality, watch season 7 of The Walking Dead. Simple majority-rule is a bad idea.
 weaselata
Joined: 7/3/2017
Msg: 109
morality
Posted: 1/3/2018 2:44:31 PM
^^^ I've never watched any Zombie shows...but obviously majority rules is not ethical to the extent it oppresses fundamental rights of the minority...terror by the majority is not a good thing in any manner.
 justinelle
Joined: 8/28/2017
Msg: 110
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 2/4/2018 12:48:39 PM
Morality and ethics is for ordinary people, those without power to ponder meaningful question of sheer irrelevance to those that have the money and power they naturally lack. As one can see the obsessive narcissists parade their nonsensical views swept from the droppings of second had idea they adopted to fill the emotional vacuum and give their pathetic lives some meaning to themselves.


How the lost procrastinate ...resurrecting personal suffering on the alter of the confessional..emptying trying to be a somebody when in time they are an irrelevance and have no real voice, hence the constant croaking to the deaf.

Wake up to your insignificant reality folks!
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 111
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 2/5/2018 2:42:44 PM

I accept there must be an objective truth, though I do not see how both morality and ethics are not related.

Many times they are, and in Some sense always are, if you officially abide by a certain set of morals. But they're Different. A moral can be Unethical. But most aren't. So assuming it's not unethical to follow a certain moral (wash yourself every Monday evening) -- it's unethical to officially abide by the Set of morals where that's included, along with preaching that you do follow them, BUT don't wash yourself every Monday evening. Basically, you're not practicing what you preach or claim to follow. Other than that concept -- morals are Believed to be universal ethical things, but in reality, they very well may not be... just based on religious/traditional stuff.

But I take your point which seems to refer to how moral behaviour may contradict normative values (I must confess too that sometimes I am something of a hypocrite, aspiring to what is virtuous while, as Baudelaire wrote, sinking into 'sinfulness'; "Hypocrite lecteur, - mon semblable, - mon frere!"; sometimes I am disgusted, often however I am able to forgive myself).

It's not just Normative values -- but clearly ethical ones. Like, I'm following a certain moral from my set of morals that says I Should be torturing someone every year who does not live in my village, who I Feel is not a great person. That's just not a non-normative value -- it's objectively unethical.

Then as you rightly point out some religious systems may consider values that may be unethical, but apart from any legal implications (in the widest sense of the term), on what grounds may anyone judge that a value X, Y, Z, etc., is unethical

There are certain "values", or shall I just say, basic rules -- where breaking them is universally/objectively Unethical. So why can I call my previous example Unethical? Well, just following a human-made rule doesn't make it ethical, so you can't justify one merely because "God says so" or "this is my belief". Okay, so why Is my previous example bad? Because you're torturing someone with no valid reason to. You're being destructive to someone who did nothing to you, and no grounds in which you're doing anything positive in doing so -- outside your own emotions. That is declared unethical. Ie Wrong. Some basic "rules" that come natural, and not just to humans. But for one's species to exist without unnecessary disruption/destruction.

One can make the case that their "moral" tells them to do so, and their belief is that God/nature wants them to do this otherwise clearly unethical thing. But that's laughable (unfortunately not laughable to enough people).

, and I would take issue with the premise that something is ethical if it is desirable

I agree -- something isn't ethical for you to do because you desire it. Or if you doing something to someone that you both find desirable. If both finding desirable, it's usually just neutral, but can be, I guess in some isolated situations actually the ethical or unethical thing to do.

You raise a good point I think about ethics being about discerning between "right & wrong" and not a "rule-book", and I agree, although at the same time there have to be some 'rules' or 'laws', however imperfect they be, and however they may differ between societies; that's just a hard fact of history.

Yeah, that's all it is. An objective-construct of the right & wrong thing to do -- which, sure, can get fuzzy when it comes to a variety of things. Or not. It's not a rule-book as far as "follow this; mine's not the question why, mine's just to do or die", but to Understand it. Which is natural. And not just a Human thing, either, when it comes to the basics of it. And yeah, when you start an interactive society, you do need more rules to follow, because there's more this-leads-to-that going on between other people, etc. For the sake of Order that ends up being beneficial to everyone better, in the end.

So if I live in a society, even if one of their rules isn't very good & needs to be changed (no parking after 5PM at This space, even though it's for no reason; was understandable 10 years ago but not now) -- I'm being unethical (objectively wrong) by parking there anyway. And I'll be fined as a result, to heed me repeatedly doing it.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality