Author Topic: Is this moral?  (Read 423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Is this moral?
« on: November 21, 2011, 05:59:01 PM »
I was going to bring this up as a question to BS, but actually decided it was better served as a general question to the forum as I would like to see some answers from people with who will actually understand the implications of the question.

I sort of hinted at this in the thread where I was defining his character but I only mentioned this as an aside and never really formed it into a point. So here it is for the consumption of the forum.

There are two parts to this. One for BS, and one for Math.

Firstly, here is the Wiki definition of morality.

Quote
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4]

    * In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
    * In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.

Now some lines from BS.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. I trust that everything God has commanded or allowed was for the preservation and betterment of the human race over the entire course of time. He is the Creator, not just some politician in the sky trying to show off.

Therefore, if there does exist a supreme being that created all of us, you are going to tell Him how he Is to conduct Himself….whether His conduct makes sense to you or not? In other words, is it not possible that He possesses the ability to make decisions and carry out plans via a wisdom and understanding that you cannot comprehend. This is one of the things I find most startling. If you are willing to concede that there might just be an all powerful Creator (that created the heavens, earth, universe, plants, animals, and you and I), then it only goes to reason that He is in possession of a wisdom that far exceeds yours.

So the claim here is that BS assumes that god possesses some unique understanding or capacity to understand how certain things will turn out. As a result of this vast power god is justified in doing anything that he needs to do in order to ensure things go his way. As his creations, we are must follow his commands and live with what he does to us, whatever that may be.

Now let's assume for a moment that this position of BS's is actually how the real world works. This brings up several issues.

1.Can a human being under this scenario actually be said to be a "moral" person of any kind, since the idea of right or wrong is relegated solely to the choices of another?

2.Does the term "morality" actually have any real meaning at this point?

3.What are the possible implications regarding the nature of a being that would create this kind of system?

Now the Math parts.

Do any of you understand that, according to the Biblical narrative which we've assumed to be true for the sake of discussion, you sinned against God?  Do you thus understand that He owes you no mercy, only justice?  Do you understand that the just punishment for sinning against an infinite God is an infinite Hell?

I mean, you're talking about the fact that sinners are sent to Hell as a terrible state that God really ought do something about.  According to the Bible (which you've assumed true to show how mean He is) sinners get sent to Hell because they deserve it.  You ought be perfect, and yet are not.  You are mercifully offered chance after chance after chance after chance to turn, and will have none of it.  After the umpteenth time you spit in his face, (and look at all the threads on this very forum to see examples of just that) do you really think God still owes you His mercy?  How can "mercy" be something anyone owes you, anyway?

Wow.  Really?

Let me be very clear here: He is under no obligation to save you.  He is under NO obligation to show you mercy.  He WILL, if you but ask him, but your demanding it of Him like a petulant child will get you nowhere.  I mean, how could you even think He has some sort of obligation to you?  Remember, we're assuming the whole biblical narrative is true.  How in the world do you get from "I've sinned against an infinitely holy Creator" to "He really ought to save me because I know better than He does about what's best."  Have you even read the Bible?  I mean, that's the whole point of Romans 9: You're a sinner.  You've sinned.  You don't get to demand things of God.  You just don't.  Have you really truly and honestly examined your own life, that you could honestly think a perfect and holy God is required to capitulate to your dands?  Seriously?  The arrogance of such a claim is stunning...

If a being that is benevolent, good, and loving doesn't have to show mercy, then the words cease to have any meaning don't they?

I could be the most moral person in the world if I only had to do live up to them when I felt like it.

Math, this exactly when those things should come into play. It's when someone has sinned and done wrong that you should be the most loving and merciful. That's where morality really comes into play. It's easy to say "don't steal when" you're rich. It's when you're poor and starving that it becomes a true moral decision.

If god is loving then the sinners are the ones he should love the most. They should be welcomed, not rejected, because he loves and no one needs that love more. That's the true test of love and morality.


First let's state the assumptions we will be operating under.

1.God is a loving being.
2.God is Just being.
3.God is merciful.

So here we have Math stating that the torments of hell are a fitting punishment for god to inflict on humans. As well as that god is right to do this to people for not being perfect as we have been commanded.

I included my response to him up there because I felt it would help to illustrate the sorts of questions being considered and asked in this.

1. If morality is applied selectively, does it begin to lose it's meaning?

2. Do morals have any meaning if they are never tested?

3.In dealing with someone you love, is there ever a scenario when punishing them is more important than displaying your love for them?

Just some thoughts due to boredom, and curious to see the answers and discussions.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1751
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2011, 07:26:10 PM »
Not sure whether this is the right spot for this, but it occurred to me upon reading some of this that under these conditions mankind would have been screwed whether or not Adam and Eve had ever tasted the forbidden fruit.

We always hear that they were created perfect, and it was the fact of disobeying the one and only command god happened to mention which brought the curse of original sin upon the world, but if Adam and Eve had free will, surely over time they would have managed to commit other as-yet-unmentioned sins...

Did they ever have a squabble and say somehing to hurt the other? Did they ever envy the fancy plumage of the birds? In short, did they manage to continue in a state of "perfection" equal to God's? Because, technically, the moment one of them slipped out of that ideal, God would have no choice (being unable to be in the presence of sin and all that) but to destroy them over something they had not even been warned about.

Salvation through Jesus was still a long way off,  yet sin was still both undefined and quite possible. How could these beings hope to spend any sort of time, let alone the eternity we are led to believe they would have had in the garden had they not disobeyed god, without effectively damning themselves and the majority of the human race to come?

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2011, 08:30:41 PM »
I was going to bring this up as a question to BS, but actually decided it was better served as a general question to the forum as I would like to see some answers from people with who will actually understand the implications of the question.

I sort of hinted at this in the thread where I was defining his character but I only mentioned this as an aside and never really formed it into a point. So here it is for the consumption of the forum.

There are two parts to this. One for BS, and one for Math.

Firstly, here is the Wiki definition of morality.

Quote
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4]

    * In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
    * In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.

Now some lines from BS.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. I trust that everything God has commanded or allowed was for the preservation and betterment of the human race over the entire course of time. He is the Creator, not just some politician in the sky trying to show off.

Therefore, if there does exist a supreme being that created all of us, you are going to tell Him how he Is to conduct Himself….whether His conduct makes sense to you or not? In other words, is it not possible that He possesses the ability to make decisions and carry out plans via a wisdom and understanding that you cannot comprehend. This is one of the things I find most startling. If you are willing to concede that there might just be an all powerful Creator (that created the heavens, earth, universe, plants, animals, and you and I), then it only goes to reason that He is in possession of a wisdom that far exceeds yours.

So the claim here is that BS assumes that god possesses some unique understanding or capacity to understand how certain things will turn out. As a result of this vast power god is justified in doing anything that he needs to do in order to ensure things go his way. As his creations, we are must follow his commands and live with what he does to us, whatever that may be.

Now let's assume for a moment that this position of BS's is actually how the real world works. This brings up several issues.

1.Can a human being under this scenario actually be said to be a "moral" person of any kind, since the idea of right or wrong is relegated solely to the choices of another?

2.Does the term "morality" actually have any real meaning at this point?

3.What are the possible implications regarding the nature of a being that would create this kind of system?

Now the Math parts.

Do any of you understand that, according to the Biblical narrative which we've assumed to be true for the sake of discussion, you sinned against God?  Do you thus understand that He owes you no mercy, only justice?  Do you understand that the just punishment for sinning against an infinite God is an infinite Hell?

I mean, you're talking about the fact that sinners are sent to Hell as a terrible state that God really ought do something about.  According to the Bible (which you've assumed true to show how mean He is) sinners get sent to Hell because they deserve it.  You ought be perfect, and yet are not.  You are mercifully offered chance after chance after chance after chance to turn, and will have none of it.  After the umpteenth time you spit in his face, (and look at all the threads on this very forum to see examples of just that) do you really think God still owes you His mercy?  How can "mercy" be something anyone owes you, anyway?

Wow.  Really?

Let me be very clear here: He is under no obligation to save you.  He is under NO obligation to show you mercy.  He WILL, if you but ask him, but your demanding it of Him like a petulant child will get you nowhere.  I mean, how could you even think He has some sort of obligation to you?  Remember, we're assuming the whole biblical narrative is true.  How in the world do you get from "I've sinned against an infinitely holy Creator" to "He really ought to save me because I know better than He does about what's best."  Have you even read the Bible?  I mean, that's the whole point of Romans 9: You're a sinner.  You've sinned.  You don't get to demand things of God.  You just don't.  Have you really truly and honestly examined your own life, that you could honestly think a perfect and holy God is required to capitulate to your dands?  Seriously?  The arrogance of such a claim is stunning...

If a being that is benevolent, good, and loving doesn't have to show mercy, then the words cease to have any meaning don't they?

I could be the most moral person in the world if I only had to do live up to them when I felt like it.

Math, this exactly when those things should come into play. It's when someone has sinned and done wrong that you should be the most loving and merciful. That's where morality really comes into play. It's easy to say "don't steal when" you're rich. It's when you're poor and starving that it becomes a true moral decision.

If god is loving then the sinners are the ones he should love the most. They should be welcomed, not rejected, because he loves and no one needs that love more. That's the true test of love and morality.


First let's state the assumptions we will be operating under.

1.God is a loving being.
2.God is Just being.
3.God is merciful.

So here we have Math stating that the torments of hell are a fitting punishment for god to inflict on humans. As well as that god is right to do this to people for not being perfect as we have been commanded.

I included my response to him up there because I felt it would help to illustrate the sorts of questions being considered and asked in this.

1. If morality is applied selectively, does it begin to lose it's meaning?

2. Do morals have any meaning if they are never tested?

3.In dealing with someone you love, is there ever a scenario when punishing them is more important than displaying your love for them?

Just some thoughts due to boredom, and curious to see the answers and discussions.

The word moral shows up in the Bible maybe one time in the NIV, zero in the King James.  It is heavily influenced by Culture.  Morality is largely defined by the culture.  What we allow and the laws we pass and enforce define or morals.  I think today morals are applied selectively.  Some people are able to get away with things others wouldn't be able to because of there status, wealth, race, etc.

I don't think morals have meaning, they are a societal rule.  They may be based on something with meaning, but in themselves they have none.  I would say in America murder is not moral, yet we can kill a fetus for whatever reason.  Is their meaning in that?   

Punishing someone is showing love toward them.  A wise man loves rebuke.  Where non-believers get hung up with this is they see going to hell as punishment.  Hell is not punishment.  Punishment is getting a spanking, you have a choice to change your behavior after you serve your jail sentence, spanking, whatever.  Hell is the place people go to that will have nothing to do with God.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2011, 08:53:44 PM »

The word moral shows up in the Bible maybe one time in the NIV, zero in the King James.  It is heavily influenced by Culture.  Morality is largely defined by the culture.  What we allow and the laws we pass and enforce define or morals.  I think today morals are applied selectively.  Some people are able to get away with things others wouldn't be able to because of there status, wealth, race, etc.

I don't think morals have meaning, they are a societal rule.  They may be based on something with meaning, but in themselves they have none.  I would say in America murder is not moral, yet we can kill a fetus for whatever reason.  Is their meaning in that?   

Punishing someone is showing love toward them.  A wise man loves rebuke.  Where non-believers get hung up with this is they see going to hell as punishment.  Hell is not punishment.  Punishment is getting a spanking, you have a choice to change your behavior after you serve your jail sentence, spanking, whatever.  Hell is the place people go to that will have nothing to do with God.

Ignorant, utterly stupid, and almost entirely irrelevant to anything that was said.

Congratulations! It's a theist Tri-Fecta!



« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 08:56:05 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2011, 09:06:07 PM »

The word moral shows up in the Bible maybe one time in the NIV, zero in the King James.  It is heavily influenced by Culture.  Morality is largely defined by the culture.  What we allow and the laws we pass and enforce define or morals.  I think today morals are applied selectively.  Some people are able to get away with things others wouldn't be able to because of there status, wealth, race, etc.

I don't think morals have meaning, they are a societal rule.  They may be based on something with meaning, but in themselves they have none.  I would say in America murder is not moral, yet we can kill a fetus for whatever reason.  Is their meaning in that?   

Punishing someone is showing love toward them.  A wise man loves rebuke.  Where non-believers get hung up with this is they see going to hell as punishment.  Hell is not punishment.  Punishment is getting a spanking, you have a choice to change your behavior after you serve your jail sentence, spanking, whatever.  Hell is the place people go to that will have nothing to do with God.

Pointless, utterly stupid, and almost entirely irrelevant to anything that was said.

Congratulations! It's a theist Tri-Fecta!





I answered your 3 questions and this is your response?  You said "Just some thoughts due to boredom, and curious to see the answers and discussions."  And this is your response?  It's difficult to argue with someone with such wrong presuppositions, but, I'll keep trying.  I know I'll get blasted for preaching but I can't help but demonstrate that you and most on this site prove the Bible being correct:
Proverbs 9:7
 Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults;
   whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you;
   rebuke the wise and they will love you.
9 Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
   teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.......
12 If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
   if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.

 
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2011, 09:10:19 PM »
Poor persecuted Christian.  &)

Jtp, how is hell not punishment? And how will it have nothing to do with God, since he supposedly created it to begin with?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2011, 09:18:23 PM »

I answered your 3 questions and this is your response?  You said "Just some thoughts due to boredom, and curious to see the answers and discussions."  And this is your response?  It's difficult to argue with someone with such wrong presuppositions, but, I'll keep trying.  I know I'll get blasted for preaching but I can't help but demonstrate that you and most on this site prove the Bible being correct:
Proverbs 9:7
 Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults;
   whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you;
   rebuke the wise and they will love you.
9 Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
   teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.......
12 If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
   if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.

The First question

1. If morality is applied selectively, does it begin to lose it's meaning?

This
The word moral shows up in the Bible maybe one time in the NIV, zero in the King James.  It is heavily influenced by Culture.  Morality is largely defined by the culture.  What we allow and the laws we pass and enforce define or morals.  I think today morals are applied selectively.  Some people are able to get away with things others wouldn't be able to because of there status, wealth, race, etc.

Does nothing to answer it.

The Second Question
2. Do morals have any meaning if they are never tested?

This
I don't think morals have meaning, they are a societal rule.  They may be based on something with meaning, but in themselves they have none.  I would say in America murder is not moral, yet we can kill a fetus for whatever reason.  Is their meaning in that?   

Does nothing to address it.

The Third Question
3.In dealing with someone you love, is there ever a scenario when punishing them is more important than displaying your love for them?

This
Punishing someone is showing love toward them.  A wise man loves rebuke.  Where non-believers get hung up with this is they see going to hell as punishment.  Hell is not punishment.  Punishment is getting a spanking, you have a choice to change your behavior after you serve your jail sentence, spanking, whatever.  Hell is the place people go to that will have nothing to do with God.

Skips the point of it.

Jtp, if you're going to insist on being a moron, could you at least try to be an interesting moron. Whatever I would say about BibleStudent at the very least he doesn't bore. You can't even manage being amusingly stupid.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +127/-2
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2011, 09:30:30 PM »
The word moral shows up in the Bible maybe one time in the NIV, zero in the King James.  It is heavily influenced by Culture.  Morality is largely defined by the culture.  What we allow and the laws we pass and enforce define or morals.  I think today morals are applied selectively.  Some people are able to get away with things others wouldn't be able to because of there status, wealth, race, etc.

Okay, so from what I gather above you think morality is subjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Knowing that, how is morality applied to your god? Do you consider your god to be moral? And do you think your god has been allowed to get away with things because of his status?

I don't think morals have meaning, they are a societal rule.  They may be based on something with meaning, but in themselves they have none.

You don't think morals have meaning? That's an odd thing I wouldn't have expected a Christian to type. This has serious implications, but we'll tackle that in a bit.

Punishing someone is showing love toward them.

That is, of course, not always the case. Punishment is inflicting reparation for a wrong. Anyone can punish another without feeling love for them.

A wise man loves rebuke.

So does a sick, deranged psychopath.

Where non-believers get hung up with this is they see going to hell as punishment.  Hell is not punishment.  Punishment is getting a spanking, you have a choice to change your behavior after you serve your jail sentence, spanking, whatever.  Hell is the place people go to that will have nothing to do with God.

Surely after being on this forum for this long you understand why we find the idea of sending a human to hell for nonbelief is evil, do you not? A god that infinitely tortures his finite creation ONLY because that creation didn't stroke his ego by believing it exists is, without a doubt, the most heinous, trivial, and conceited evils imaginable.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2011, 01:15:22 AM »
Quote
Punishing someone is showing love toward them.

You into S&M?

Quote
A wise man loves rebuke.  Where non-believers get hung up with this is they see going to hell as punishment.  Hell is not punishment.

Hell, a place where your immortal soul is supposedly in agony for eternity for choosing the wrong god, is NOT intended as a punishment? Gee, I never knew!

Quote
Hell is the place people go to that will have nothing to do with God.

Then, I will gladly go lulz.
The Second C

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2011, 10:15:54 AM »
 Good OP  :)

MIC and BS and jtp56 are classic examples of individuals who are afraid of what their moral integrity would be like without the god idea working in their minds. I know, I've been there.

They look judgmentally and arrogantly at the world around them and think that human evil and natural evil are things that exist because of humanity's lack of divine obedience to and direction taken from, an entity that is morally perfect. Although they cannot provide evidence for this morally perfect entity, they claim it exists based on the mistaken belief that since they cannot create morality themselves and would be morally pathetic failures without outside influence, it must then come from somewhere other than human nature.

This is where the idea takes on corruption however and becomes an immoral idea. To insist that morality and right and wrong actions are wholly dependent on the individuals acceptance or rejection of a baseless divine and unnatural idea, is to also insist that our existence is mere puppetry. We're not our own. It doesn't matter that the puppet was knowingly created with a flaw, the puppet must at least try to overcome this irreparable flaw and pay lip service to the impossible to please morally supreme creator, or it is discarded into the fire.

Further corruption in the idea is then made evident by the claim that this morally supreme being, and aside from the fact of an earlier massive failure to remedy things by killing all but 8 on the planet, decides to provide a scapegoat to make up for its creation error and this decision includes the immoral act of shedding the innocent blood of one to absolve the guilt of another and it is the only way to satisfy this entity who can commit any action that will suit its needs. The puppet master must be pleased at all costs, and there is not one of its actions that accomplishes this that can be considered immoral by any and all standards.

Morality doesn't exist for gods. They do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. Gods are amoral.

That of course is a disturbing and disgusting idea. The facts show us otherwise however as there is zero evidence for the actual reality this type of entity, and so the person who believes and promotes it to be true is not only harming their deepest integrity and showing themselves to be nothing but willing credulous puppet primates to an idea, but showing themselves also to be arrogantly and stubbornly denying reality. 

« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 10:18:18 AM by gonegolfing »
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2011, 11:10:33 AM »
in that we can see in the bible the supposed god contradicting the laws it gave, this would also support that it is either amoral or simply insane.  is it "moral" for this god to punish those who haven't done a crime it?  Well, the bible says it is okay and says it isn't.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1751
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is this moral?
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2011, 11:57:43 AM »
I have tried to imagine how morality might have looked in its most raw and primitive form and I have substantial difficulty piecing together a positive progression.

1.   If ‘tribal’ survival was enhanced by morality, the why do we find that it is often the case members of a specific group will often disagree with other members of the same group?
2.   The inclination to care for others would place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. There may be an argument pertaining to ‘relatives’ but outside of that, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn.
3.   An ‘ought’  implies forethought that cannot be explained when you factor in the trait of ‘selfishness.’ I ‘ought’ not be selfish because it is beneficial for the group which is beneficial for me. But, if it is beneficial for me, then I am being selfish.


There are a number of studies out there showing what appears to be empathy and altruistic behavior in the animal world. I don't have time at the moment to go looking through them, but if you google it you should get some examples.

Wouldn't such be an example of "morality in its raw and primitive form"?