conan said:I think the appropiate question is "Do we have morals?" Is there a true universal basis for right and wrong? How do we explain the similarities between the moral codes of ancient cultures?
conan said:Logically for abstracts such as morals laws to truly exists, there must be a law giver.
conan said:There must be a standard or basis on which to judge right and wrong. However in a materialistic world view (time/chance/matter) there is absolutely no basis or justification for any moral code or laws whatsoever. A true materialist cannot say "Murder is wrong or rape is wrong."
conan said:Therefore, to admitt there is such a thing as right or wrong universally is to accept some idea or belief in God.
conan said:In order to create such persons God gave us volition, which enables us to make wrong choices in order to understand who God is. For example, it is the absence of light (darkness) that helps us define and understand what light is and what it does. Likewise, if God did not allow evil but only good, then there would be no basis for individual freedom and persons. In other words, there would be no basis for relationship if we were holy robots. It was by design that we were permitted to sin against God, which ultimately is what ALL immorality is.
conan said:While the basis of God's moral law resides in the conscience (Ro. 2:15), the Law (10 commandments) were not given so that we might keep them, but to show us that in and of ourselves, we cannot keep them and need a Savior. Man of course is continually trying to save himself. We make our own laws and have instituted judicial systems to enforce those laws which have proven to be ineffective and corrupt. The problem is, the same men who try to enforce their man-made laws, do so in the context of breaking God's law and they prove themselves corrupt. That is undeniable.
Pretender said:I recently found myself in an interesting discussion about morals and why we have them. So why do we?
Are morals to keep us inline? Are they to get us to an after life? Or do we just have morals made into laws so a select group can benefit from them and get rich?
Pretender said:Another point that was brought up is that if we lived like other creatures on this planet it would be survival of the fitest. What caused us to create the morals?
Pretender said:Was is the fear of dying? The belief that we were above the animals and have a soul?
Pretender said:From a religous perspective, I believe we have morals to follow a higher beings example. We follow the example because of the promise of an after life, which would fall in the category of fear of dying.
greetings Don-DonRicardo said:Yes, indeed, that is a very interesting question. But it's the same like asking "What is a car?". How do you define a genus/kind of an object? Where at microscopical level is the difference in a car and another object? And what is ressemblance? At what level, which exact limit does one object start to ressemble another? Though, you know what a "car" is, I assume.
How did you figure that?There has never been an exact definition of morality, neither a common agreement what to do in each situation.
One must? Is that an absolute standard? Would it be wrong to do otherwise?Morality is indeed quite ambigious. One must observe all sides and decrease "suffer" as much as possible.
Are you saying the claims you have made are false and you are ignorant?Ultimate claims are false and those who believe are ignorant.
Is that absolutely true?Absolute views do not allow increasement/improvement, while logic morality can be enhanced.
If my congressman proposed the legalization slavery and wife beating, how many sides should I view that from?Only a fool watches an issue from one side. Morality is to view it from all sides.
I am convinced you haven't spent near enough time meditating and processing that question.If God defines nature, he can create its laws, which means he can create a world with good and love only (without evil), because if he couldn't, he wouldn't be allmighty, would he?
conan said:greetings Don-
That was basically the question Plato was trying to answer when he presented the concept of "forms". The fact of the matter is that we do know what a car is and our identity of a car based on a limited, but certian criterion. So you seem to be arguing that "cars" don't exist, despite the use of them. Likewise, morality exist based on the criterion of someting being right or wrong, which cause requires a standard. So do you suppose the moral came before standard?
conan said:One must? Is that an absolute standard? Would it be wrong to do otherwise?
conan said:Are you saying the claims you have made are false and you are ignorant?
Is that absolutely true?
That is like saying "All statements are false". You are in a whirlwind of circular reasoning my friend.
If my congressman proposed the legalization slavery and wife beating, how many sides should I view that from?
I am convinced you haven't spent near enough time meditating and processing that question.
ravens24 said:-A moral (more of a warning actually) learned from the Bible is that homosexuality is evil in the eyes of God. That is if you believe the Bible and the story of Sodom & Gomorrah.
ravens24 said:"It's okay for life to be a giant orgy!
DonRicardo said:Morals come along with intelligence. Other animals don't have them. it's normal, because we are all egocentric.
I recently found myself in an interesting discussion about morals and why we have them. So why do we?
Are morals to keep us inline? Are they to get us to an after life? Or do we just have morals made into laws so a select group can benefit from them and get rich?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?