Rise of Fascism

[secondeve]

What is morally right in one culture may not be in another..

This is completely absured man.

Morality is not relative.

Truth does not change with time or place.

Right and wrong do not change with time or place.

1+1 = 2 anywhere you go.

Muder is WRONG regardless of what man says.

stealing is WRONG regardless of what man says.

and so on.

Adultery is WRONG, as is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter who says otherwise.

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

consequences of moral relativity:

If morality were relative, then nobody would have any right to pass any laws whatsoever.

someone could break into your house, rob you, and rape your wife, and you would have no right to complain. After all their "morals" permit them to do that. To them, there is nothing wrong with stealing and rape, and because your "morals" say morality isn't the same for different people, then you have no moral right to do anything about it, after all, they are simply doing what they believe.

Moral relativity therefore leads to absolute anarchy in which there is no common law.

Moral law is an interesting problem. As I've explained in another thread recently, I believe humans have come by the concept of morality because we evolved big brains, which led to intelligence, which led to imagination and then to empathy, which, when combined in a creature who by instinct lives in both societal and familial groups, generated the idea of cultural norms and, over time, of morality. Some morals are more universal than others, like injunctions against murder or theft, because regardless of the individual beliefs which arise in a given society with regard to sexuality, women, or personal property (for example), nobody wants to be stolen from or murdered. Other morals are less universal, like injunctions against or acceptance of homosexuality, because different groups of people, way back in time, thought different things about it. But this is just a brief background on my position so people know where I'm coming from.

Who So Blind, your main problem with the athiestic position seems to be that, if morals are just human constructs, and no one law is better than another, people have no right to impose their code of beliefs on anyone else, which would, in the long term, lead to anarchy. As far as I can see it, there are three problems with position, and they are:

1. You assume that, because this option is abhorrent to you, it cannot be possible. Other than your personal dislike, you offer no reasons for why this can't be the case, only why it shouldn't.

2. You seem to assume that human beings tend naturally towards living in an anarchistic state, and would do so in the absence of outside inflences.

3. You seem to assume that a society is impossible in which human beings openly determine what is moral and decide, of their own volition, to abide by this. Without divine, absolute morality, you are saying, humans would not choose morality for themselves.

Let's expand on this last and most important point. As I've said above, I believe morality is the end result of the evolution in humans of intelligence, imagination and empathy, and an inbuilt tendency - similiar to that found in other animals - to live in social groups made up of multiple families. For me, this explains quite adequately why we have morals: partly because they are behaviourally learned from parents and society, but also because, as herd animals, we understand the need (even if we do not always share the desire) for order in a society (note: this does not mean we all want the same type of order).

Let's say this is true. It also follows, then, that we understand the need for laws, and why they should be obeyed. Primarily, then, the reason for a given law must be made obvious to us, or at least seem reasonable - ditto for the corresponding punishment. If a law makes no sense, it is common that many people will either resent it, disobey it, or openly defy it. Enter the concept of moral law. Morality implies that a certain kind of behaviour is, intrinsically, right, and that another kind (presumably the oposite) is wrong - not because it makes sense to us, but because either god or the universe just wants us to live in that way. Moral law can, at times, seem obvious to us - not killing, for example, or not stealing. Laws against wearing a certain type of clothing do not have obvious reasons. They require divine commandments for them to make sense. Some behaviours, like homosexuality, exist in a grey area: to some, it seems harmless, while others fear it because it seems unnatural, and others still embrace it openly.

So. Imagine for a minute that god doesn't exist, that all laws are human constructs - but constructs for a purpose - and that "moral" is a term applied to certain laws which make less sense (or for which the reason is debateable) without an injunction from a higher power (which, in this world, doesn't exist). Now imagine the same world, in which the veneer of morality is removed. Laws either make sense on their own, or they don't - and because we are social creatures by and large, these laws are accepted, because there are good reasons for them, or they are discarded, because there isn't. Some, the ones in the grey area, are debated - let us assume that, so long as they harm no other person, they are deemed acceptable.

What is so anarchistic about this world? There are good reasons why theft, murder, rape and genocide are bad things; they are ruled against. Charity still exists, because - as charitable athiests can attests to - religion is not a prerequisite for kindness to others. Social order is maintained on the basis that people know why the laws do and should exist. So - and I don't want an answer about godlessness, because this is (for you) a hypothetical world in which evolution and athiesm are true - what is so wrong, and so terrible, about this kind of society? How is it anarchistic, and how does it suffer from an absence of divinely-inspired laws?

Has anyone seen the movie "V for Vendetta."

The movies does a great job illustrating what can happen to a society that is run by religious zealots.

Religion enforced by government is always dangerous no matter what the religion is.

Agreed! I loved V for Vendetta. The best movie of 2006, in my opinion.

Edited September 4, 2006 by secondeve

[billie]

Hi Eve!

[secondeve]

Hi Eve!

Hi Billie

[secondeve]

we will reign with Christ for 1000 years here on earth.

And what happens to the rest of us at that point? Are we in hell, or are we all being ruled by Christians?

[Floatingaxe]

Up to that point of Christ ruling, the earth would have been almost annihilated, including the inhabitants. That millennial reign is a time of peace and rebuilding and replenishing.

[John Lennon]

What is morally right in one culture may not be in another..

This is completely absured man.

Morality is not relative.

Truth does not change with time or place.

Right and wrong do not change with time or place.

1+1 = 2 anywhere you go.

Muder is WRONG regardless of what man says.

stealing is WRONG regardless of what man says.

and so on.

Adultery is WRONG, as is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter who says otherwise.

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

consequences of moral relativity:

If morality were relative, then nobody would have any right to pass any laws whatsoever.

someone could break into your house, rob you, and rape your wife, and you would have no right to complain. After all their "morals" permit them to do that. To them, there is nothing wrong with stealing and rape, and because your "morals" say morality isn't the same for different people, then you have no moral right to do anything about it, after all, they are simply doing what they believe.

Moral relativity therefore leads to absolute anarchy in which there is no common law.

Moral law is an interesting problem. As I've explained in another thread recently, I believe humans have come by the concept of morality because we evolved big brains, which led to intelligence, which led to imagination and then to empathy, which, when combined in a creature who by instinct lives in both societal and familial groups, generated the idea of cultural norms and, over time, of morality. Some morals are more universal than others, like injunctions against murder or theft, because regardless of the individual beliefs which arise in a given society with regard to sexuality, women, or personal property (for example), nobody wants to be stolen from or murdered. Other morals are less universal, like injunctions against or acceptance of homosexuality, because different groups of people, way back in time, thought different things about it. But this is just a brief background on my position so people know where I'm coming from.

Who So Blind, your main problem with the athiestic position seems to be that, if morals are just human constructs, and no one law is better than another, people have no right to impose their code of beliefs on anyone else, which would, in the long term, lead to anarchy. As far as I can see it, there are three problems with position, and they are:

1. You assume that, because this option is abhorrent to you, it cannot be possible. Other than your personal dislike, you offer no reasons for why this can't be the case, only why it shouldn't.

2. You seem to assume that human beings tend naturally towards living in an anarchistic state, and would do so in the absence of outside inflences.

3. You seem to assume that a society is impossible in which human beings openly determine what is moral and decide, of their own volition, to abide by this. Without divine, absolute morality, you are saying, humans would not choose morality for themselves.

Let's expand on this last and most important point. As I've said above, I believe morality is the end result of the evolution in humans of intelligence, imagination and empathy, and an inbuilt tendency - similiar to that found in other animals - to live in social groups made up of multiple families. For me, this explains quite adequately why we have morals: partly because they are behaviourally learned from parents and society, but also because, as herd animals, we understand the need (even if we do not always share the desire) for order in a society (note: this does not mean we all want the same type of order).

Let's say this is true. It also follows, then, that we understand the need for laws, and why they should be obeyed. Primarily, then, the reason for a given law must be made obvious to us, or at least seem reasonable - ditto for the corresponding punishment. If a law makes no sense, it is common that many people will either resent it, disobey it, or openly defy it. Enter the concept of moral law. Morality implies that a certain kind of behaviour is, intrinsically, right, and that another kind (presumably the oposite) is wrong - not because it makes sense to us, but because either god or the universe just wants us to live in that way. Moral law can, at times, seem obvious to us - not killing, for example, or not stealing. Laws against wearing a certain type of clothing do not have obvious reasons. They require divine commandments for them to make sense. Some behaviours, like homosexuality, exist in a grey area: to some, it seems harmless, while others fear it because it seems unnatural, and others still embrace it openly.

So. Imagine for a minute that god doesn't exist, that all laws are human constructs - but constructs for a purpose - and that "moral" is a term applied to certain laws which make less sense (or for which the reason is debateable) without an injunction from a higher power (which, in this world, doesn't exist). Now imagine the same world, in which the veneer of morality is removed. Laws either make sense on their own, or they don't - and because we are social creatures by and large, these laws are accepted, because there are good reasons for them, or they are discarded, because there isn't. Some, the ones in the grey area, are debated - let us assume that, so long as they harm no other person, they are deemed acceptable.

What is so anarchistic about this world? There are good reasons why theft, murder, rape and genocide are bad things; they are ruled against. Charity still exists, because - as charitable athiests can attests to - religion is not a prerequisite for kindness to others. Social order is maintained on the basis that people know why the laws do and should exist. So - and I don't want an answer about godlessness, because this is (for you) a hypothetical world in which evolution and athiesm are true - what is so wrong, and so terrible, about this kind of society? How is it anarchistic, and how does it suffer from an absence of divinely-inspired laws?

Has anyone seen the movie "V for Vendetta."

The movies does a great job illustrating what can happen to a society that is run by religious zealots.

Religion enforced by government is always dangerous no matter what the religion is.

Agreed! I loved V for Vendetta. The best movie of 2006, in my opinion.

Religion should come down to individual choice and not be mandated by law..like prayer in the schools should never be required, but the option to pray open to all who care to do so. It's simple and it's fair.

[secondeve]

Religion should come down to individual choice and not be mandated by law..like prayer in the schools should never be required, but the option to pray open to all who care to do so. It's simple and it's fair.

I wasn't suggesting that religion should be banned. I was responding to Who So Blind's seeming claim that, without being founded on an absolute moral truth as provided by God, society would descend into anarchy, when clearly, that isn't the case.

Edited September 4, 2006 by secondeve

[John Lennon]

Up to that point of Christ ruling, the earth would have been almost annihilated, including the inhabitants. That millennial reign is a time of peace and rebuilding and replenishing.

Yeah well how about seeking a time of peace and replenishing in the here and now?!That is all humanity needs to do! What's with all the annihilation nonsense!!! With the terrible weapons we have, there will be nothing to rebuild Christian!!

Edited September 4, 2006 by John Lennon

[billie]

Yeah well how about seeking a time of peace and replenishing in the here and now! That is all humanity needs to do!

Oh, if only the world would do what you told it to. *sighs deeply*

[Floatingaxe]

Sure there will. Jesus will be King of Kings and we will have all knowledge at our disposal. This is biblical, this "annihilation nonsense"!