Quote :

"Luckily, we have ingrained in all our pathetic and puny minds an super human ability called a "conscience" ... "

Doesn't seem "super human" to me at all, as most humans have it.

9/26/2006 11:05:14 PM

Quote :

"negative"

Really? I mean, if a man goes on a serial rampage and kills and rapes twenty three-year-old girls, you wouldn't kill him?

9/26/2006 11:08:44 PM

I think he was responding to the prompt.

9/26/2006 11:17:25 PM

Oh.

9/26/2006 11:26:19 PM

Quote :

"The Lounge discuss news, life, and other fun stuff! ... The Soap Box politics, social issues, financials. basically anything serious."

This should be in the soap box.


That said, in my opinion you'll get more extreme swings and more heated debate (about the original post) in the soap box. People hang out in there for this kind of stuff.

IN FACT, the search function might show you this topic has already been done:

"Atheist Morality superior to Christian Morality"
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=398209

9/26/2006 11:31:53 PM

I am athiest and I'm practically a tree-hugging hippy.

The leader of our country is god-fearing and look at where we are.

So, no.

9/26/2006 11:59:12 PM

^^ The guy practically stated that he didn't want the typical soap box poster going at the issue, so he posted it here?

What the fuck crawled up your twat? Calm down, sweetheart. Don't read the fucking thread if you're going to fly into a rage about its content.

9/27/2006 12:39:55 AM

Quote :

"...so the real question is: Why do humans have morals? Is it our natural process of survival of the fittest species? Or is because God created us that way? LoL, into the Soapbox you go!"

There's no difference, at least functionally.

9/27/2006 12:41:24 AM

Stiletto has it exactly what I was attempting to convey: Do we condemn entire populations as immoral simply because they do not accept our paradigm of god or morality--or religion, for that matter? I say definitely not. That position is wholly different than the moral relativism you suggest I am offering, ChknMcFaggot.

Concerning moral relativism as it applies within the boundaries of a given culture, I believe that there are some universal truths. But--for God's sake--one cannot reasonably expect a member of some population that is far removed from our own to accept the Weltanschauung you espouse. Are the Forest People of the Congo godless or immoral because they do not believe what you believe?

For centuries, your type of thinking has led to millions of forced conversions around the world--usually to Christianity--and the disappearance of numerous cultural traditions. Were Native Americans moral relativists, ChknMcFaggot? The answer is self-evident.

Concerning the post by xvang, perhaps he was referring to Freud's superego, rather than to a superhuman ability. If so, it certainly would apply to this discussion. Instead of being so quick to spasm into fits of criticism, ChknMcFaggot, perhaps you should first try to understand.

9/27/2006 6:25:56 AM

Quote :

"Do we condemn entire populations as immoral simply because they do not accept our paradigm of god or morality"

of course. if you cannot use morality to judge others, its not morality.

9/27/2006 6:30:53 AM

Quote :

"Concerning the post by xvang, perhaps he was referring to Freud's superego, rather than to a superhuman ability. If so, it certainly would apply to this discussion. Instead of being so quick to spasm into fits of criticism, ChknMcFaggot, perhaps you should first try to understand."

How else am I to interpret the term "super human"? I'm not going to put words into his mouth and suggest he was talking about the superego. After coming down as hard as he did on the "pathetic and puny" nature and abilities of humans, I came to a justified conclusion that he meant any sort of moral nature was superhuman (thus, endowed from some other source). Don't get ahead of yourself.

Anyway you've either thrown out a bunch of rhetorical questions, or strawmanned the hell out of me (and I'm not sure which). I understand what you're saying in the sense that we don't judge other cultures based on their socially defined moral codes, but how is that not moral relativism? Are you suggest that they are in some way immoral, yet we should make an allowance for that? Or that we should simply have an understanding of how they came to their conclusions while still holding that their beliefs are immoral? I'm not sure what your position is on that, you're not being remarkably clear.

Quote :

"Concerning moral relativism as it applies within the boundaries of a given culture, I believe that there are some universal truths. But--for God's sake--one cannot reasonably expect a member of some population that is far removed from our own to accept the Weltanschauung you espouse. Are the Forest People of the Congo godless or immoral because they do not believe what you believe?"

I'm not saying that one bit -- you seem to be characterizing me as a moral objectivist when I certainly am not. However, if you believe there are some universal truths, then what if the "forest people of the congo" violate those? Could you blame them then, or are they just not lined up with your world view?

Quote :

"For centuries, your type of thinking has led to millions of forced conversions around the world--usually to Christianity--and the disappearance of numerous cultural traditions. Were Native Americans moral relativists, ChknMcFaggot? The answer is self-evident."

My type of thinking? I'm a moral subjectivist. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusions you did about what I believe, but I suspect you didn't really read anything I said.

9/27/2006 11:45:28 AM

If morality does require god, then I’d have to go for an older religion than Christianity. I mean with all the borrowed stories from the ancient greek religion & zoroastrianism etc, I’d certainly want something older/more fundamental. The whole immaculate conception, crown of thorns, satan figure, great flood, a couple of holy survivors from the flood to repopulate, women causing the fall of man (Pandora), half god ascending to heaven, and countless other copies.

9/27/2006 12:01:15 PM

Religion is ethics with a plot.

Do ethics require the definition of "god?"

9/28/2006 12:07:29 PM

^ No.

^^^^ YOUR definition of morality?

9/28/2006 2:07:12 PM

Quote :

"You're right -- anyone can argue that their position is "right" based solely on the fact that they believe it to be -- this is moral subjectivism, the idea that we must construct our own values. Again, you confuse "objective morality" with "morality", and think it only comes in one brand. This is patently false. The consequence of people having to construct their own morals does not justify moral objectivism as the only stance."

Ok great. What you're saying is technically true, but does no good. So yes I can define my morals as "It is ok for me and only me to do whatever the hell I want." Then I am always being moral because I am never breaking my subjective morals. Whoop de do. If someone else says I am acting immorally by killing someone, I just say "Sorry doesn't violate my morals."

I understand the idea behing what you're saying ChknMcFaggot, trust me I do. I'm just saying, without accepting any constants how can you answer the original question? Its like saying solve x+y = z. Without anything being constant, you can construct infinately many "correct" answers.

So by your logic, no morality is subjective, therefore it requires nothing. No action. No inaction. Anything and everything is moral if you choose it to be. Ok, is that what me mean by morality?

9/28/2006 4:47:25 PM

Quote :

"Ok great. What you're saying is technically true, but does no good. So yes I can define my morals as "It is ok for me and only me to do whatever the hell I want." Then I am always being moral because I am never breaking my subjective morals. Whoop de do. If someone else says I am acting immorally by killing someone, I just say "Sorry doesn't violate my morals.""

Uh sure, that's right. That doesn't somehow suggest we shouldn't have a legal system, however. The fact of the matter here is that to the observer in this case, he has judged the other person as immoral. I think you'll notice this happens quite a lot.

Quote :

"I understand the idea behing what you're saying ChknMcFaggot, trust me I do. I'm just saying, without accepting any constants how can you answer the original question? Its like saying solve x+y = z. Without anything being constant, you can construct infinately many "correct" answers. "

This makes me uneasy about ethics too. There are many different correct ways to do ethics. There are many, many different equally reasonable viewpoints that aren't any more valid than the other. It drives me crazy too, it's also what Nietzsche talked about when he said we had an "open sea of choices" before us.

Quote :

"So by your logic, no morality is subjective, therefore it requires nothing. No action. No inaction. Anything and everything is moral if you choose it to be. Ok, is that what me mean by morality?"

I don't understand what you serve to gain by trying to refute my position before you try to understand it. There are bad extremes in both subjective and objective morality, demonstrating that one extreme is bad for a specific individual hardly serves as a counterexample to that mode of thought. However, action is required for any moral system -- seeing as how ethics is how we OUGHT to ACT.

9/28/2006 5:55:37 PM

isnt morality basically like knowing the difference between right and wrong?

i dont think knowing the difference between right and wrong requires god

it requires logic imo

9/28/2006 5:59:14 PM

^ That's actually extremely astute, and you're not in bad company as far as some moralists go (including objective moralists -- Kant in particular).

9/28/2006 6:02:28 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand what you serve to gain by trying to refute my position before you try to understand it."

I do understand it. The answer to "does morality require god" to someone who subscribes to moral subjectivism is no. The answer to "does morality require god" to someone who subscribes to moral absolutism is maybe if they gain their absolute morals from that source.

My only point is that if you have two people who subscribe to these opposing views (as we seem to) they must settle on what "morality" is first.

Something subjective requires nothing to be true (other than your opinion). If it is my opinion that chocolate is the best flavor ice cream, it is subjective. You can argue until you're red in the face, but who cares.

If you have an objective critieria to argue, then you can actually come to a conclusion. Like basing the best ice cream on global ice cream sales. If chocolate has sold more volume, or more dollars worth, etc, it is deemed "best".

If you want to argue this question in morally relativistic terms, please provide an end goal of "morality"... is it the common good? Personal welfare? Commonly accepted norms (such as don't kill, don't steal, etc.). You've made the discussion so vague with your premise (which is fine) that it puts us at an impase.

And don't act like no one is cabable of understanding you... its arrogant and counterproductive.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 11:50:06 AM

Well, how about we use a textbook definition of morality, like I mentioned earlier? It seems to me that synchrony7 is right, and that we should establish a basic working definition in order to lay the starting grounds for an actual discussion. Morality is... knowing the difference between right and wrong? As long as everyone accepts this as the premise, and a general definition of morality, we can stop talking in circles, and begin to make actual assertions. Fair enough?

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 12:38 PM. Reason : -]

9/29/2006 12:36:09 PM

Quote :

"^^^^ YOUR definition of morality?"

no, morality requires judgement. if cant use it to say what others aught to do, then its not morality by any definition.

9/29/2006 12:38:11 PM

Morality does not require god.
People do not require god.
The universe does not require god.
god, however, requires imagination.

As for me morality, humanity, ethics...

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=285762&page=43

9/29/2006 12:47:09 PM

^^^ Thanks Stimwalt. That's all I'm saying. I can debate on anything if you give me a concise premise to work with. I believe in God, but if you want me to debate this topic as if there were no God, fine I can do that.

You have put forth that:

Quote :

"Morality is... knowing the difference between right and wrong?"

Is something "wrong" because it hurts others? Or because it makes you feel guilty? Or because it is generally rejected by the populace as wrong? If you accept hurting others as the criteria, then any "wrong" thing could be good if the harm it does pales to the good it does. If it is guilt, then a sociopath is free from the constraints of morality. If it is the will of the populace then the major religions have the upper hand... and then we are back to God determining morality.

9/29/2006 2:05:33 PM

None of the ethical theories that I have studied have required a supreme being or beings. Metaethics is an exception.

9/29/2006 3:24:56 PM

morality is relative for each person

accepted morality is relative to each society

religion does not hold a monopoly on morality. in fact, you don't need religion what-so-ever in order to have a moral society.

9/29/2006 4:28:11 PM

yo i havent clicked this thread in a while

i'm pretty sure i dont need god to know whats right and wrong though

9/29/2006 5:25:12 PM