27
   

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

 
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 04:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
How about killing innocents?

Take that up with Islam.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 07:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

There are complex moral questions about using violence/sin to discipline violence/sin, but harm is objective. A spanking does a certain amount of harm, as does the behavior that incurred the spanking.
Your example is laughable at best. Spanking? How about killing innocents? http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq7yg82
Quote:
One argument supporting the case that dropping the nuclear bomb was the right thing to do, is that the immediate deaths that it caused are outweighed by lives potentially saved in the long run by the quick end of the war. An argument against using the bomb is that the deliberate killing of civilians on this scale violates the principles of just war.
From Khanacademy.org:
Quote:
Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

Truman’s decision was framed by his belief that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would shorten the war and thereby save the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of American soldiers as well as untold numbers of Japanese soldiers and citizens.
However, in the years following the war—and to this day—the United States’ use of nuclear bombs against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has had both proponents and detractors. Many questions remain about the necessity of using the bomb and its moral implications: Would the United States have acted so quickly to use nuclear weapons against Europeans? Was racism against the Japanese an element in the decision? Might the United States have exploded a nuclear bomb on an uninhabited island to demonstrate the bomb’s terrible power instead of destroying two cities? Might the United States have been able to gain Japan’s unconditional surrender by other means?
But there was no question that the development and use of the atomic bomb changed the nature of world warfare forever. Though the bombings of Japan remain the only wartime use of nuclear weapons, since 1945 the threat of nuclear war has loomed over international conflicts, promising a level of "prompt and utter destruction" never before seen in the world.
. Racism is a good possibility during that time in our country's history. The government put us Japanese Americans into concentration camps, but not German and Italian Americans. It was a time when the white majority and the media were racists. I was in the US Air Force from 1955 to 1959, and worked with nuclear weapons. I never saw another Asian in my specialty during the four years I was in the Air Force stationed at Travis AFB, Ben Guerir AFB, and Walker AFB in New Mexico (where the Enola Gay and the atomic bombing of Japan was planned). I had no objection working with nuclear weapons, because it was my responsibility in the military. We maintained, handled, and loaded them onto B47's, B36's and B52's. Today, the top military brass declared they will not follow any illegal order from Donald Trump to use nuclear weapons for the first time in our country's history. I support their decision, because enough psychiatrists have declared Donald Trump "mentally unstable." Ethics and morals are more important than following any illegal order from the president. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/mattiss-resignation-isnt-a-crisis-yet-but-it-probably-will-be-syria-afghanistan/


What is your point posting all this? Isn't it obvious that there's lots of violence/harm/sin in the examples you are posting?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 08:12 pm
@dpmartin,
Quote:
besides in the US the term "tyrant" is relative to the voter's view which has nothing to do with reality.
. But, that is their reality. Two people providing their opinion on the same issue can come up with completely different interpretations based on their subjective understanding of morals.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 08:14 pm
@livinglava,
"Sin" is a religious concept.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 06:27 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

"Sin" is a religious concept.

Religion is just life-philosophy. It was the only general approach to philosophy and life for most of human history before secular culture started trying to marginalize it.

'Sin' is just a general word to refer to deviation from God's will. What is God's will? Goodness. So 'sin' is basically just another word for 'badness,' which isn't actually a word at all, so that makes 'sin' a very good word to use.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 12:47 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Religion is just life-philosophy.
No. Science is life's philosophy. It seeks to find truth and facts about life. Religion is a cult that believes in some invisible god "out there" that nobody can prove exists. Men have created thousands of gods, and most are based on mythology. Logic 101. What is the meaning of life? Everybody has their own concept of what that means. Some feel life to be futile, and commit suicide. Others live to be over 100 years old. I'm now 83 years old, and have traveled to 88 countries; probably more than 90% of people now living. I wish my mental and physical health were good enough to continue traveling, but my wife now restricts my travels. I know that my memory is no longer dependable, so I feel her decision is the correct one. We still travel in the US and Canada, so I'll just have to accept the fact that there are limitations as we grow old. I hope, I've learned a thing or two about morals from my travels. I'm not the best human, but not the worst, and that's fine with me.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 09:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Religion is just life-philosophy.
No. Science is life's philosophy. It seeks to find truth and facts about life. Religion is a cult that believes in some invisible god "out there" that nobody can prove exists.

You don't understand religion any more than a climate denialist understands science. Probably it's for the same reasons, i.e. you don't want to accept the consequences of understanding it for your moral compass.

Quote:
Men have created thousands of gods, and most are based on mythology. Logic 101.

Describing power in terms of 'gods' is just a personification of natural forces. The ocean, lightning, stars, the desert, etc. all exercise power over us, so we can personify that power in terms of agency.

Debating whether natural forces have agency or not is a pointless side-track that prevents you from thinking further about how nature works and interacts with human lives.

It is also ridiculous to pit science and religion against each other in competition, because they are just two different discourses and sets of language to use in thinking about and understanding observations and experiences. Thinking in terms of one doesn't preclude you from thinking in terms of the other or vice versa.

Quote:
What is the meaning of life? Everybody has their own concept of what that means. Some feel life to be futile, and commit suicide. Others live to be over 100 years old. I'm now 83 years old, and have traveled to 88 countries; probably more than 90% of people now living. I wish my mental and physical health were good enough to continue traveling, but my wife now restricts my travels. I know that my memory is no longer dependable, so I feel her decision is the correct one. We still travel in the US and Canada, so I'll just have to accept the fact that there are limitations as we grow old. I hope, I've learned a thing or two about morals from my travels. I'm not the best human, but not the worst, and that's fine with me.

Ok, so you have a self-narrative. Why does it cause you to fight against religion? Many people are not at peace with religion because they don't understand it and don't want to understand it. Often they seek some sort of social validation in their rejection of it. I can't validate rejecting religion, because I have rejected it in the past and I've found more benefit in studying it to understand it than in fighting against it. All I can do for others is to try to share the insights I have gained from it, but often I incur negativity as a result, as I have from you here.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 09:55 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
You don't understand religion any more than a climate denialist understands science.
I understand religion just fine. There are thousands of religions with as many gods around the world. Religion is based on faith, because none of its adherents can provide proof of their god. They have an emotional attachment to their religion whether its christianity, buddhism, islam, hinduism, and many others based on culture. As a matter of fact, christianity is based on greek/egyptian mythology, and it's a late comer as religions are concerned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology I'm not "fighting" against religion. That would be very foolish, because the majority of humans on this planet believes in one religion or many. I have no control over people's need to believe in any god(s); it's a fact of life. All my siblings are christians. I just state my opinion why I'm an atheist.
Your analogy of a climate denialist provided my good laugh for today. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 10:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here are some facts. Your god appeared long after Homo sapiens evolved from the primate family of animals. http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution The age of this planet is more than 4.5 billion years old, not 7 thousand years as determined from the Bible. https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html. My 'god' is science, not some book written 2000 years ago that has many errors, omissions, and contradictions. All my siblings are christians, and they believe they will be risen from the dead to live in heaven forever. I have no such need. My life on this planet has been very rewarding in almost every way.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 05:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I understand religion just fine. There are thousands of religions with as many gods around the world. Religion is based on faith, because none of its adherents can provide proof of their god.

What you're saying is like saying that the story of the boy who cried wolf is not true because there's no proof that there was actually a real boy who lied about a wolf and then later the townpeople didn't believe him when there really was a wolf.

What makes the story of the boy who cried wolf true is the validity of the story's meaning, not whether or not it is based on factual historical occurrences.

When you say there is a god of the ocean or a god of the volcano, that is just a way of describing what the ocean or volcano is doing in terms of human-like agency. There's no issue of whether the ocean or volcano actually has sentient agency like a human because the purpose of religion is for humans to relate to the gods/God, not vice versa. If we were gods/God, it would be different.

Quote:
They have an emotional attachment to their religion whether its christianity, buddhism, islam, hinduism, and many others based on culture. As a matter of fact, christianity is based on greek/egyptian mythology, and it's a late comer as religions are concerned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

So what? Scientists have emotional attachment to science. Historians have emotional attachment to history. Sailors have emotional attachment to sailing. Cooks have emotional attachments to cooking and food.

Emotional attachment is an important issue in its own right, but it doesn't invalidate anything about religion that there are people who are emotionally attached to it. If anything, religion is a cultural tool for rising above emotional attachment gradually, but you have to start somewhere with it.

Quote:
I'm not "fighting" against religion. That would be very foolish, because the majority of humans on this planet believes in one religion or many. I have no control over people's need to believe in any god(s); it's a fact of life. All my siblings are christians. I just state my opinion why I'm an atheist.
Your analogy of a climate denialist provided my good laugh for today. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

You, like many atheists, seem to be emotionally attached to rejecting religion. Do you think that emotional attachment is less than the attachment that clings to it?

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 10:54 am
@livinglava,
In your world, Santa Claus is also a true person; but not in mine. I'm not attached to my conclusion based on emotion; it's based on science. You cannot test that your god exists. There have been studies at Stanford and Yale that proved prayers do not work. In some instances where the ill person believes in prayer, they seemed to have improved, but the conclusion was that the mind's positive aspects were helpful. Third party prayers do not work.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 11:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
When a belief is based on emotion and faith and not on evidence, it has to be questioned. I believe Homo sapiens evolved from primates. That's the conclusion of anthropologists who have studied the subject. They have evidence. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1296. Also, http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution. If anyone of religion can prove them wrong, I am open to listening. Proof that prayers do not work: https://www.quora.com/Has-science-proven-that-prayer-does-not-work I'm alone in my family of christians as an atheist, so I understand religion very well; I grew up in a christian household. I have always believed that religion is an accident of birth. The children follow the religion of their parents, culture and race. Men have created many religions, and this is the result today.
Quote:
According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect.
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Also, What are the 12 major religions of the world?
There are twelve classical world religions—those religions most often included in history of world religion surveys and studied in world religions classes: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 05:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

In your world, Santa Claus is also a true person; but not in mine. I'm not attached to my conclusion based on emotion; it's based on science. You cannot test that your god exists. There have been studies at Stanford and Yale that proved prayers do not work. In some instances where the ill person believes in prayer, they seemed to have improved, but the conclusion was that the mind's positive aspects were helpful. Third party prayers do not work.

You're like a kid who figured out that Santa Clause isn't what they expected and now you refuse to believe in Christmas anymore.

The little boy who cried wolf may never have existed, but the story is still valid. Some historian could discover evidence of some shepherd boy whose life resembled the story and claim to have discovered the source of the story, but would that matter? Would it change anything about the message, purpose, and function of the story?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 05:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

When a belief is based on emotion and faith and not on evidence, it has to be questioned. I believe Homo sapiens evolved from primates. That's the conclusion of anthropologists who have studied the subject.

So what? Maybe God created humans from earlier primates, then? How would that nullify anything about religion?


The point of prayer is to connect spiritually with God within. Prayer works when you make the connection. It's not about material outcomes. God has God's plan and we are part of it. We connect with Him through Holy Spirit within. God's love never ceases, even when it seems like it from our narrow perspective of the moment. Read the poem, Footprints.

Quote:
The children follow the religion of their parents, culture and race.

You can't generalize. Every individual has a different path. The superficialities you are talking about are ultimately meaningless. What's more important is the actual spiritual path you traverse in progressing toward your destination.

You are currently passing through atheism in your spiritual journey. Maybe you're life will end with atheism, and maybe you will experience some more enlightenment, bliss, etc. or not. Either way, whatever you experience spiritually comes through your relationship with God. If you understand the concept of a creation with a creator, there is no other way to describe spirituality. You can deny it, but it means what it means whether you want to acknowledge the meaning or not.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 06:31 pm
@livinglava,
Maybe? LOL. Give science and anthropologists some credit. They attempt to provide conclusions on available evidence. As determined by the Bible, earth is only 7,000 years old. Most things on this planet evolved based on environment. This world went through a couple of ice ages. The Earth has been alternating between long ice ages and shorter interglacial periods for around 2.6 million years. For the last million years or so these have been happening roughly every 100,000 years - around 90,000 years of ice age followed by a roughly 10,000 year interglacial warm period.
What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured ...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-15/what-is-an-ice-age.../7185002. Homo sapiens are short-lived on this planet. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia and the fossils of Herto sometimes classified as Homo sapiens idaltu.

Species: H. sapiens
Suborder: Haplorhini
Homo sapiens - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
It's difficult for christians to accept what are based on facts. the Bible is only 2000 years old, and during that period in human history, there was no way to determine by scientific methods the evolution of Homo sapiens or the age of this planet. Trying to rationalize science against a book written two thousand years ago is a losing proposition. Did you know that scientific research also found that prayers do not work? That's hard to accept for those of religion, but those are facts founded on study after study, research after research, at Stanford and Yale University. Don't feel offended; all my siblings are christians. I just learned in my early teens that the Bible had too many errors, omissions, and contradictions for it to be any word of any god. Many of the stories in the Bible are taken from Greek and Egyptian mythology. https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/greek-mythology. Here's an excellent article on prayer. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/27/should-atheists-pray/prayer-is-useless-and-has-a-downside. Based on available evidence, I do not know if there is a creator, but I rely on science for most of my beliefs about life on earth. I do believe in evolution, because there are evidence to prove it.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 02:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Maybe? LOL. Give science and anthropologists some credit. They attempt to provide conclusions on available evidence. As determined by the Bible, earth is only 7,000 years old.

What does giving anyone credit have to do with anything. There a different ways of approaching information, of which science and anthropology have made contributions. Unfortunately, neither is going to help you understand religion in all the ways it is experienced by different believers, so you have to go to the deepest depths of anthropology to become a participate-observer of religion and spirituality, that is if you want to actually understand it.

Quote:
Most things on this planet evolved based on environment. This world went through a couple of ice ages. The Earth has been alternating between long ice ages and shorter interglacial periods for around 2.6 million years. For the last million years or so these have been happening roughly every 100,000 years - around 90,000 years of ice age followed by a roughly 10,000 year interglacial warm period.
What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured ...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-15/what-is-an-ice-age.../7185002.

These are models of (pre)history that you can tentatively accept in order to make sense of the observations they are derived from, but believing science has nothing to do with disbelieving religion. Whatever turns out to be true about the history of the universe, that is the story of God's creation. It is that simple.

Quote:
Homo sapiens are short-lived on this planet. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia and the fossils of Herto sometimes classified as Homo sapiens idaltu.

Species: H. sapiens
Suborder: Haplorhini
Homo sapiens - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Maybe, and maybe there were other species of primates more similar to ancient humans that went extinct as well, but what does any of that have to do with religion? It is a false assumption that religion and evolutionary theory conflict. It is a false conflict that has been created by humans to convince religious people that they have to abandon religion in order to study science.

Quote:
It's difficult for christians to accept what are based on facts.

If so, it would only be because they've been tempted into believing that science voids their faith, which is a false belief.

Quote:
the Bible is only 2000 years old, and during that period in human history, there was no way to determine by scientific methods the evolution of Homo sapiens or the age of this planet. Trying to rationalize science against a book written two thousand years ago is a losing proposition.

They're not in conflict, so you don't have to rationalize one against the other. It's a false opposition created to trick people into rejecting either one or the other and thus moving backward in their progress toward fuller enlightenment.

Quote:
Did you know that scientific research also found that prayers do not work?

Prayer is a spiritual practice, like meditation. It works. You don't understand the relationship between God, Holy Spirit, the material universe, and human spirituality. We are part of the creation, not separate from it. We have some influence over patterns of occurrence, but there is more going on beyond just our own thoughts, actions, and prayers to influence occurrences. Still, prayer can fail in one way and work in another. You could pray for someone who got in a accident and they might still die, but your prayers could still help achieve some peace for them, even if that peace is only within you.

Quote:
That's hard to accept for those of religion, but those are facts founded on study after study, research after research, at Stanford and Yale University. Don't feel offended; all my siblings are christians. I just learned in my early teens that the Bible had too many errors, omissions, and contradictions for it to be any word of any god. Many of the stories in the Bible are taken from Greek and Egyptian mythology. https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/greek-mythology. Here's an excellent article on prayer. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/27/should-atheists-pray/prayer-is-useless-and-has-a-downside. Based on available evidence, I do not know if there is a creator, but I rely on science for most of my beliefs about life on earth. I do believe in evolution, because there are evidence to prove it.

You're not reading the Bible right. What you have to do is reread it from the perspective that the writers were expressing something that was very deeply true to them in a way that they thought they could best convey it to other readers. You have to do you best to tune into the frame of mind they were trying to reach by writing their insights in the way that they did.

Here is a quote from the beginning of Herbert Spencer's (1867) First Principles on "Religion and Science:"
Quote:
We too often forget that not only is there “a soul of goodness in things evil,” but very generally also, a soul of truth in things erroneous. While many admit the abstract probability that a falsity has usually a nucleus of reality, few bear this abstract probability in mind, when passing judgment on the opinions of others. A belief that is finally proved to be grossly at variance with fact, is cast aside with indignation or contempt; and in the heat of antagonism scarcely any one inquires what there was in this belief which commended it to men’s minds. Yet there must have been something. And there is reason to suspect that this something was its correspondence with certain of their experiences: an extremely limited or vague correspondence perhaps; but still, a correspondence. Even the absurdest report may in nearly every instance be traced to an actual occurrence; and had there been no such actual occurrence, this preposterous misrepresentation of it would never have existed. Though the distorted or magnified image transmitted to us through the refracting medium of rumour, is utterly unlike the reality; yet in the absence of the reality there would have been no distorted or magnified image. And thus it is with human beliefs in general. Entirely wrong as they may appear, the implication is that they germinated out of actual experiences—originally contained, and perhaps still contain, some small amount of verity.


[4]




cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:34 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
What does giving anyone credit have to do with anything.
That's how we educate ourselves about life in general. Reading is a good source of information and learning. Philosophy has always been of interest to me, and it was my minor in college. I rarely rely on one source for information on anything, and generally do not base my trust on poll results. That's one reason I'm an atheist within an environment where the majority believes in one religion or another.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:46 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
...but believing science has nothing to do with disbelieving religion.
That's true to some degree, because there are scientists who are also religious. However, I find fault with that conclusion. Religion is based on faith and faith only. Science is based on evidence. Nobody can produce any evidence of any god. The Bible itself is full of errors, omissions, and contradictions. 10 commandments: "thou shalt not kill." the Bible and violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence Also, https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html. I saw too many contradictions in the teachings for it to be anything close to any word of any god. Besides that, religion is an accident of birth. A person's religion usually follows the religion of their country, culture, and parent. A christian is no more devoted to his/her religion than any other religion on this planet. My only fascination with religion is the architecture built in its name. https://hiconsumption.com/2014/09/the-23-most-amazing-temples-in-the-world/ I have visited most of these temples.
dpmartin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 May, 2019 08:00 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
besides in the US the term "tyrant" is relative to the voter's view which has nothing to do with reality.
. But, that is their reality. Two people providing their opinion on the same issue can come up with completely different interpretations based on their subjective understanding of morals.


what is true is reality, and what is believed to be true does not have to be reality. two morons can convince each other over and over that what they think is true.

media if trusted by public can convince the trusting public that anything they say is true, especially if its what the majority of the public wants to be true.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 May, 2019 11:01 am
@dpmartin,
Who are those two morons?
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 06:27:50