Morality was determined by morons..jmo

Out there between wrongdoing and right doing there is a field
I'll meet you there.

Rumi

Simple analogy: Right and wrong are the ocean, Morality is the boat. You use the boat to navigate the ocean.



Explained above...



No, your example offered a choice of rape or allowing someone to die. Huge difference. Everyone lies, it's ingrained into human nature. But rape and murder are violations of human dignity, our own and our victims. Rape and murder are never justified.



I already cleared this up, I hope.

So sometimes rape is the right thing to do? You can't have it both ways. Rape is always wrong and right and wrong are absolute or rape is sometimes right and right and wrong are relative.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you believe that.

Laws enforce moral behavior...are you saying that laws against murder were "determined by morons"? Is rape just a cool thing to do in your field between "wrongdoing and right"? I will bet that if you came home and all of your stuff was gone and all of your pets were dead, you would want someone prosecuted, right?

No need to be sorry about what I think...focus on your own thoughts.

Laws DO NOT enforce moral behavior, moral behavior is subjective..as is everything.

Those who write laws can't even recite them.

FYI..I have been a victim of crime...I have enough heart to not judge

others and to forgive..you should try it some time.

Very liberating

You are not making a valid point here so if you believe you are you must reevaluate.

In the matter of rape, I may believe it is wrong, you may believe it is wrong but in a society that does not believe it is wrong, it isn't.

All morality is, is the sum of a bunch of people's ideals of what is right and what is wrong. Bunches of peoples can be right and wrong all at the same time.

Right and wrong and morality are all subjective to who is doing the determining of the act. You could try to tell me there is book that determines right and wrong and I will tell you the book has no value. You are not right and neither am I.

Just as murder is not right but in self defense can be determined right by a group of peoples who may or may not be right.

Large groups of people determining what is right for a society and setting the laws from this determination are only as right as the imperfection of the humans involved.

I wasn't making a point, I was asking a question. Now I understand that you believe that a society or situation could existed in which rape would be the right thing to do. So rape is only wrong, because we agree that it is wrong? That means that pre-civil war, slavery was "right", correct? Those who fought against slavery were "wrong", correct? If we went back to slavery and the majority of the society thought that slavery was right, then it would be right, correct? Would you feel the same way if you were a slave? For that matter, would you feel the same way if you were a woman in a society where rape was legal? In Pakistan, gangs of men enforce the dress code by raping women who don't follow it. Do you think the women agree with your assessment that in their society, rape is the right thing to do?

So if you were in the room with two rapists, their morality should win out?

Insults aren't arguments. They don't push the discussion forward, but they do reveal character flaws. You should try to overcome the need to insult those who point out the inconsistencies of your morality.

I noticed that you say you forgave the criminal, but you didn't say if you prosecuted...

You have a thing about rapists..you keep bringing it up. There are other

criminals in the world...

I apologize if you feel as though you have been insulted. I'm simply

stating my opinions as are you, we just disagree. I don't feel a need to

insult anyone...good burn attempt though.

I choose not to post my personal experience...

You are still not proving your point here.

Society makes the morality code of it's community, whether you like that assessment or not it is the way it is.

In each society there are rules that some may feel are not good ones. Our society that prevents people who love each other from marrying because they happen to be the same sex. Wrong in my eyes. Seems whoever determines the morality of this society wins over me huh?

Murder is illegal unless in self defense or if the government does it. Right or wrong? Society determines this. In my eyes it is wrong to kill someone else by any human, government or not. Which would stop the death penalty and all wars. I do not win out in this morality which society has chosen.

So you can spin around and around on your stuck point but it doesn't change the facts of what I wrote here.

Afterthought here, rape, incest, slavery and whole slew of human ugliness were moral and right at one time in our history as humans. We as a society, that defines what is moral and what is not, have fought and made the morality code change to accomadate our changing views. Every society has to do this.

I assumed that we could all agree that rape is a horrific crime and completely indefensible...unfortunately, I was wrong.

You tried to change the subject, but when I said "insult" I didn't mean "disagreed with"



Stating that I don't forgive...I don't know what you base this on, but it's not true and therefore an insult to my character.



If you won't say if you had the criminal prosecuted or not, then I think I have my answer.

Societies make moral codes. Right and Wrong are a completely different thing. A society could consider rape or murder or slavery "right", but that doesn't make it so. To claim that society determines right and wrong would mean that all societies are equal. The Nazis were no better or worse than the British. I don't believe that, I think that there is clearly a difference between a society that values life and one that takes innocent life.

Do you believe in evolution? Societies have evolved over the centuries. We see an increase in freedoms and a decrease in human rights violations. You look back at civil war America and say "That's wrong". You also look at modern society and say "They should allow gay marriage". What you are really saying is that isn't how things ought to be. I believe society is progressing towards more freedom, because we have an underlying code of right and wrong that dictates how we feel we should be treated. You seem to believe that it just happens and don't worry about why. Why not wonder why?

Morality and right and wrong are the same thing and determined by humans in groups. Whoever has the power either by numbers or force is the determinor of morality and right and wrong.

What you are talking about is empathy, conscience and perspective. These are a personal precursor for our personal determination of right and wrong for ourselves. It is not a set of rules we inherit through evolution or some kind of god. These "feelings" are grown and cultivated in us from childhood. If you take a racist child and a child who has been taught that race is not a determination of bad and good. Each child will answer differently to different questions of right and wrong. They were taught to feel empathy or not, they were taught what is moral and what is not, etc...

And here we are back to the subjectiveness of morality and right and wrong since they are the same thing.

If you get a group of racist children in one society who grow into adulthood their morality will be exclusionary to certain other humans and this societal morality will be racially biased.

Unless one or more of this society "realize" that it is "wrong" to be that way, the right and moral in this society will be biased.

That's exactly what I see as his argument as well.



I've granted this premise. I too, agree that without a supreme being to call the shots, there can be no absolute right or wrong. All that can exist is the egalitarian subjective opinions of men. Who seldom agree!

And that last part is of paramount importance.

If the argument is as follows:

1. If God doesn't exist, then there can be no absolute right or wrong.,
2. It's clear that absolute morality does exist.
3. Therefore there must be a God.

If that's the argument then it falls apart at #2 because just the opposite is true. Very few humans will agree on what's moral and what's not moral.

So if we are going to accept this logical construct as being meaningful, then Creative is right when he says that following:



Exactly.

Given Spider's argument we must concluded that God must not exist then.

It's crystal clear that all humans do not agree on absolute morality. We only need one counter-example to show that #2 above is false. Gay rights is a perfect counter-example for this.

Many humans feel that same-gender loving relationships are immoral, and many humans feel that they are perfectly moral.

Therefore, according to Spider's line of reasoning, God must not exist.

Like Creative says: End of Debate.

Ok, if you insist on changing the focus, again, then I'll gladly approach it from the new focus of "the law".

Guilt or innocence are determined by law. That is, if one breaks the law, one is guilty and if one does not, one is innocent.

Now let's take, for instance, some of the laws regarding the behavior of women in public. In the U.S., it is perfectly "innocent" for a woman to wear a bikini in public. But in some middle eastern countries a woman who wore a bikini in public would be "guilty" of a very serious crime.

Right here in the U.S. there are things that are illegal in one state, but travel just one foot across a state line, and they become legal.

So trying to equate "the law" with any kind of absolute morals, is just plain ludicrous. Much less "a reasonable argument".

Truly.

Any argument that attempts to suggest that all humans will agree on what's 'absolutely' moral is truly ludicious.

I can't even believe that anyone who attempt to make such an argument to be quite frank about it.

Human's seldom agree on morality.

Just look at the Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and the myriad of protesting Protestants seldom agree on much of anything when it comes to morality.

So if anything Spider's arguments are actually bringing the idea of a God-gifted 'conscience' into extreme question.

Clearly all humans do not view morality in the same way, they all don't have the same 'conscience' and therefore they cannot possibly have all gotten their 'concience' from a single unified God who demands absolute morality.

If anything he's just proven that the whole Abrahamic religious system of a God who demands absolute morals is necessarily false.

His argument has backfired in the worse possible way.

No one was prosecuted...don't be to quick to think you have the answers.

Aside from that statement being tantamount to moral bigotry, let me point out that it is only logical and consistent if one first accepts the numerous premises that you have proposed (e.g. the god you speak of exists). And all of those premises relating to “God” are fundamentally based on faith alone. But faith itself is, by definition, not logical. So you seem to be claiming that a logical conclusion can be derived from a premise that is not logical. That doesn’t strike me as being “logically consistent”.

I'm sorry, but I am still confused. To me, the terms "absolute" and "non-relative" are completely synonymous. Can you provide definitions which clearly delineate the difference(s) between the two please?

Woah!

Am I understanding this correctly?

Eight pages in less than 38 hours?

What a great topic. This thread came out of nowhere and then through the roof.