When civilization began developing, so too did ways to govern the civilization. Militaries, governments, businesses, and of course…organized religions sprang up to have systems of control on the populace.
Often, if not always, rules and regulations came into play in order to keep order. The ancient Ten Commandments serve as an example, as does the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

But aside from these rules or edicts, other systems of governance developed that weren’t necessarily laws, we like to call it morality. This system of ethics ushers in feelings of guilt, love, pride, and other various feelings in the human spirit, as well as brings them punishment, even pain, at these social policies.

It is a system of control, but what exactly is it, in more detail, to you?

Some say, morality cannot be defined by individual choice, others say it is all very subjective. Some claim that it is inherent in all humans, although that is refuted by appearance of savage children of the wild who are no more than animals, or those with mental disabilities who have skewed views of this “morality”, or cannot control their own actions or comprehend these systems. Some claim it is only existent in religion, while some claim it is defined by its positive or negative effect on other humans, not merely what faith you ascribe to.
It is all very complex, yet very simple…as strange as that sounds.

So in an effort to give food for thought, I would like to read your take on morality-

What exactly is this system of ethics to you? To you, is it individual or decided by proxy of leaders, or by the masses? What is right to you, what is wrong to you?
Just a few suggestions as questions to begin, so sound off fellow armchair philosophers…share your thoughts.

Very nice post Evak. I see that instead of responding to my posts like you said you would, you decided to go make your own. I feel so unloved...

Do you remember my last thread on cause and effect? Well, morality is cause and effect as applied to the world of human behavior and experience, whereas science is cause and effect as applied to the physical world. It can be very useful, morality, but ultimately, you will want to find your own way through life, instead of letting morality dictate your actions. We are what gives power to morality, not the other way around. You might say, "Killing a person is immoral, what's wrong with letting morality dictate to you that?" And I would say nothing, unless you have such an extreme life that you must kill in order to survive. In that case, the morality hinders you. The reason Christian morality condones war is due to its warlike background. Civilizations just could not survive in that day without a steady diet of war. Which is why the papacy made an exclusion to the Jewish, "Thou shalt not kill," maxim for holy wars.

That is why the holy war survives to this day, in the guise of the American war against radical Islam, as well as the Jewish battle for their homeland. Is it right? Is it moral? Depends on who you ask. I don't believe in right or wrong, but I can make judgements on what would be good for the rest of mankind. Right now, that judgement means the pulling out of American troops from Iraq, and the withdrawal of Isreal from Palestinian land. In my eyes, war is wrong, and, as the aggressors and the ones with the power, we have the responsibility to aid others, not act selfishly.

But on the other hand, on the individual level, selfishness is a good thing. The person who acts perfectly selfishly allows me to act perfectly selfishly as well, without imposing his morality on me. Liberty is selfishness. Sometimes that selfishness means taking another's life, liberty, or property. I suppose you could call me an anarchist. But you won't see me out there campaigning against the government, because paradoxically, I don't want people to shoot me out of that same selfishness, since the rule of law often stops people from doing so. I am sure Loki would have shot me dead plenty of times after all the times I've bruised his ego.

What does morality mean? I really don't know. But I have a pretty good idea.

Morality to me is my inner voice that tells me what is right and wrong. Of course this voice has been influenced by my upbringing, society and a number of other factors. I suppose its just a word to describe the inante feelings of good and bad in a person.

O and this..

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I don't believe in right or wrong,




contradicts this..

Originally posted by Napsterbater
. In my eyes, war is wrong,

Originally posted by Napsterbater

Loki would have shot me dead plenty of times after all the times I've bruised his ego.


Nah i wouldnt. Id have killed your dogs, something tells me that would probably hurt you alot more.

Morality is a word used to refer the process of making value judgements about what is and what ought to be. Within a culture it is often based on broad agreements about what is and what ought to be. Personally my own judgements tend to be based on avoiding or minimising harm (loss of life, physical and psychological pain etc) as well as creating and and maximising comfort and pleasure.

I think the origin of morality lies in emotional responses such as disgust. Hence morality often involves judgements not just about murder and rape etc but also food and sexual practice etc.

The concept of absolute morality is absurd (as morality is to do with values). Ironically those who argue for the existence of absolute morality are merely expressing their own value judgement that it ought to exist.

Morality, to me personally, is the attitude that is required at the time.
I have survived an environment of dog eat dog, and an environment of help one another. I prefer the setting of least effort, yet can tolerate either.
I believe that true versatility of morals is the key to long term survival.
The assuming of the morals that are expected by another or others appears to be a form of submission for a particular goal or goals.
Where does it (morals) come from? I say simply from human self-preservation.

You will learn Loki, that philosophy, particularly the philosophy of morality and ethics, is rarely black and white. Contradictions are bound to occur. When dealing with the murky waters of human emotion, rarely do things ever square up.

And you do realize that by killing my dogs (I don't have dogs anymore, so the matter is moot) and not me, you open yourself up to my reprisals? Those who kill defenseless animals deserve no quarter, no respite.

There are many words that have a deeper meaning then what one word should have, they show more then one emotion.
Love for example, involves Happiness and joy, regret or sadness, anticipation, excitement and so much more.
Morality to me is one of those words.
I think morality stems from compassion.
The dictionary says the following.

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

What I like the best out of the 4 is #2

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

I think it's safe to say Christ founded the Christian religion. With out his compassion there would be no morality to speak of in the Christian sociaty.
With out compassion we as people wouldn't be able to understand what virtuous conduct is. With out compassion we wouldn't have a compass to guide us in the direction of right and wrong. Morality after all is the definition of a persons character, in how they see, in themselves what is right and wrong.

Since morality is based on opinion whether deeply ingrained or newly acquired, I cannot value it because it seems to be pushed upon us by outside influences.
Morality is in our government and religions and does not help one bit in the cessation of human and animal suffering.
From what I have seen morality only creates a sense of pride, a smugness. An excuse to continue a way of life that is celebrated for it's superiority.

Well if you want to stop human and or animal suffering you have to stand some where. If you dont want it to stop then you just watch. So you can say that by doing something, whatever it is you are doing is your moral standard personally.

Then morality isn't doing the right thing anymore. It becomes both right or wrong; a place of action; my attitude created by a circumstance.
For me, I don't want anyone including Wiccans, Christians, and Arm-Chair Philosophers telling me what is right or moral for me.

Each individual has a complicated structure of beliefs that at moments make sense and at other times contradict each other.
Why else would we have so many freaking religions and sub-religions?

Jesus stood for compassion and love but not so much for others. All along he meant it for yourself. To love yourself more than anyone. That's how he got to the state of God.

Originally posted by Saven
Then morality isn't doing the right thing anymore. It becomes both right or wrong; a place of action; my attitude created by a circumstance.
For me, I don't want anyone including Wiccans, Christians, and Arm-Chair Philosophers telling me what is right or moral for me.

Each individual has a complicated structure of beliefs that at moments make sense and at other times contradict each other.
Why else would we have so many freaking religions and sub-religions?

Jesus stood for compassion and love but not so much for others. All along he meant it for yourself. To love yourself more than anyone. That's how he got to the state of God.

Pardon?

Basically, you gotta get your shit together before you can do any good in this world. Love yourself and then you can love others.

it is fascinating that napster mentions a christian and jewish holy war yet seems to ignore the only one who actually use the words holy war, that being the muslims

Well, we don't consider Radical Islam 'moral' now do we? This is a discussion of morality, isn't it?

And they use the word 'jihad' which, contrary to popular belief, does not mean holy war, though it can be used in that respect.

Originally posted by Travh20
it is fascinating that napster mentions a christian and jewish holy war yet seems to ignore the only one who actually use the words holy war, that being the muslims
It is fascinating that you've managed to ignore the Crusades, Israel-Palestine, the Reconquista, and the French Wars of Religion all in one fell swoop.

I think morality stems from the basic equation for altruism which is present in all animals. Basically, it states that if the potential for progression and expansion of the species outweighs the sacrifice, then the sacrifice is made.

An analogy, even if perhaps you all do not agree is that say you were in a fire and could easily save one person, but the other would be doomed. Your choices are an old man, say 80 years old, or a young child, say 4 years old. Most would probably save the child, and this is because of the fact that the child holds more potential for the propegation of the human race than the old man.

Morality and moral codes developed out of this basic concept. It is perhaps for this reason that the Robin Hood notion of theft is noble, while the idea of a rich person stealing from a poor person is ignoble. In the former, the sacrifice is small while the potential is great, versus relatively small gain causing a relatively catastrophic result.

But that's just my 3 cents.

But that's just my 3 cents.

For all that, I'd say its worth four. :)

You should all try this interesting test, while talking about morality: Ethical Philosophy Selector (http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/)

Originally posted by Evil Homer


An analogy, even if perhaps you all do not agree is that say you were in a fire and could easily save one person, but the other would be doomed. Your choices are an old man, say 80 years old, or a young child, say 4 years old. Most would probably save the child, and this is because of the fact that the child holds more potential for the propegation of the human race than the old man.

In most traditional cultures, the life of old people is more valued than the life of kids.
In a society where 50% of kids die before their 2d year, but where only 5% of people reach the age of 60, the old man's life is much more valuable.

Add the fact that in oral tradition culture most of a society's memories, history and tradition are kept by elder people.

I am not saying that one culture is better than the other, but that in spite of your example, the idea of a universal "natural" morality is not so obvious.

Another thought about that issue : while many basis of moralitu are cultural, depending on our society, religion, etc…, it seems that there are neurobilogical factors that affect our personal behaviour relatively to morality. Some people who suffer from brain damage, following an accident, have been found unable of feeling emotions and /or behaving accordingly to moral codes, even while keeping the intellectual knowledge of these moral codes.

Astra,

Granted, the old man would be a valued cultural figure in the community, but if famine struck, I can all but guarentee that it would be the children who would get the most food. When it comes to survival, the tie goes to the people who can keep the species moving.

Interesting site, Dio Seijuro. Here's how I came out.

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. Aristotle (84%) Click here for info
3. St. Augustine (84%) Click here for info
4. Plato (76%) Click here for info
5. Ayn Rand (66%) Click here for info
6. Cynics (65%) Click here for info
7. Spinoza (63%) Click here for info
8. Ockham (62%) Click here for info
9. Jeremy Bentham (57%) Click here for info
10. Nietzsche (55%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (53%) Click here for info
12. Stoics (51%) Click here for info
13. David Hume (49%) Click here for info
14. John Stuart Mill (45%) Click here for info
15. Jean-Paul Sartre (41%) Click here for info
16. Nel Noddings (35%) Click here for info
17. Thomas Hobbes (35%) Click here for info
18. Kant (30%) Click here for info
19. Prescriptivism (14%) Click here for info


The results surprised me a bit. I have always thought of myself as more in tune with William of Ockham.

Originally posted by Frogger
Interesting site, Dio Seijuro. Here's how I came out.

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. Aristotle (84%) Click here for info
3. St. Augustine (84%) Click here for info
4. Plato (76%) Click here for info
5. Ayn Rand (66%) Click here for info
6. Cynics (65%) Click here for info
7. Spinoza (63%) Click here for info
8. Ockham (62%) Click here for info
9. Jeremy Bentham (57%) Click here for info
10. Nietzsche (55%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (53%) Click here for info
12. Stoics (51%) Click here for info
13. David Hume (49%) Click here for info
14. John Stuart Mill (45%) Click here for info
15. Jean-Paul Sartre (41%) Click here for info
16. Nel Noddings (35%) Click here for info
17. Thomas Hobbes (35%) Click here for info
18. Kant (30%) Click here for info
19. Prescriptivism (14%) Click here for info


The results surprised me a bit. I have always thought of myself as more in tune with William of Ockham.
1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Ayn Rand (89%) Click here for info
3. Nietzsche (88%) Click here for info
4. David Hume (86%) Click here for info
5. Kant (74%) Click here for info
6. Stoics (73%) Click here for info
7. Thomas Hobbes (68%) Click here for info
8. Spinoza (58%) Click here for info
9. Prescriptivism (52%) Click here for info
10. John Stuart Mill (51%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (47%) Click here for info
12. Cynics (46%) Click here for info
13. Jeremy Bentham (40%) Click here for info
14. Aristotle (35%) Click here for info
15. St. Augustine (32%) Click here for info
16. Ockham (30%) Click here for info
17. Aquinas (28%) Click here for info
18. Nel Noddings (22%) Click here for info
19. Plato (17%) Click here for info

We seem to be almost polar opposites.

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%) Click here for info
2. John Stuart Mill (92%) Click here for info
3. Kant (79%) Click here for info
4. Epicureans (75%) Click here for info
5. Spinoza (71%) Click here for info
6. Jean-Paul Sartre (69%) Click here for info
7. Aquinas (68%) Click here for info
8. Ayn Rand (63%) Click here for info
9. Cynics (58%) Click here for info
10. Aristotle (57%) Click here for info
11. Stoics (52%) Click here for info
12. Thomas Hobbes (50%) Click here for info
13. St. Augustine (48%) Click here for info
14. Nietzsche (44%) Click here for info
15. David Hume (38%) Click here for info
16. Prescriptivism (34%) Click here for info
17. Plato (31%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (30%) Click here for info
19. Nel Noddings (29%) Click here for info


I seem to be rather balanced. I guess that's just from inexperiance though.

Epicureans 100%
Kant 99
Jean-Paul Sartre 96
John Stuart 86
Spinoza 76
Nietzsche 76
David Hume 73
Aquinas 68
Aristotle 67
Stoics 63
Prescriptivism 62
Thomas Hobbes 60
Ayn Rand 57
Ockham 43
Plato 40
Nel Noddings 28
Cynics 20
St Augustine 17

<<Jesus stood for compassion and love but not so much for others. All along he meant it for yourself. To love yourself more than anyone. That's how he got to the state of God.>>

There is many sides to the bible, love is only a small part of it. The rest is all about evil, murder & intollerance.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Originally posted by Taji
<<Jesus stood for compassion and love but not so much for others. All along he meant it for yourself. To love yourself more than anyone. That's how he got to the state of God.>>

There is many sides to the bible, love is only a small part of it. The rest is all about evil, murder & intollerance.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Yes and that's why demons tremble at His presence and why Lucifer wants to occupy His space. He (Lucifer) wants to be the only one to cause his demons to tremble.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
Yes and that's why demons tremble at His presence and why Lucifer wants to occupy His space. He (Lucifer) wants to be the only one to cause his demons to tremble.

I think it works both ways. They both seem to have ego problems and want to be the only one. If they were both as powerful as everyone think they are, you would not think it would be that much of a problem.

Originally posted by Taji
I think it works both ways. They both seem to have ego problems and want to be the only one. If they were both as powerful as everyone think they are, you would not think it would be that much of a problem.

I don't think so Taji. Lucifer was an angel (angels were created by the Lord I think). I don't think Lucifer is powerful - he just has a penchant for evil and a silver tongue.

Originally posted by Evakian
When civilization began developing, so too did ways to govern the civilization. Militaries, governments, businesses, and of course…organized religions sprang up to have systems of control on the populace.
Often, if not always, rules and regulations came into play in order to keep order. The ancient Ten Commandments serve as an example, as does the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

But aside from these rules or edicts, other systems of governance developed that weren’t necessarily laws, we like to call it morality. This system of ethics ushers in feelings of guilt, love, pride, and other various feelings in the human spirit, as well as brings them punishment, even pain, at these social policies.

It is a system of control, but what exactly is it, in more detail, to you?

Some say, morality cannot be defined by individual choice, others say it is all very subjective. Some claim that it is inherent in all humans, although that is refuted by appearance of savage children of the wild who are no more than animals, or those with mental disabilities who have skewed views of this “morality”, or cannot control their own actions or comprehend these systems. Some claim it is only existent in religion, while some claim it is defined by its positive or negative effect on other humans, not merely what faith you ascribe to.
It is all very complex, yet very simple…as strange as that sounds.

So in an effort to give food for thought, I would like to read your take on morality-

What exactly is this system of ethics to you? To you, is it individual or decided by proxy of leaders, or by the masses? What is right to you, what is wrong to you?
Just a few suggestions as questions to begin, so sound off fellow armchair philosophers…share your thoughts.

I don't think being ethical or having the integrity to live an ethical life is what brings on guilt/conviction that something is wrong. I think we have guilt feelings when we do something that is not good for survival. I just wish that credit card companies would realize that raising interest rates is not good for some folks survival. I'm not positive but I think there's a plot to make poor folks homeless or maybe they just want us to lose some weight.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
I don't think so Taji. Lucifer was an angel (angels were created by the Lord I think). I don't think Lucifer is powerful - he just has a penchant for evil and a silver tongue.

If Lucifer is not powerful, why has god not been able to stop him.

Originally posted by Taji
If Lucifer is not powerful, why has god not been able to stop him.

We have free will Taji - to choose to live like the devil or to live for God. HE's just waiting for everyone to get in before HE closes the door. HE's already won a victory over Lucifer - HE's just waiting for us to win it. The devil only has the power over us if we give it to him. And I think you can see that many have done that.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
We have free will Taji - to choose to live like the devil or to live for God. HE's just waiting for everyone to get in before HE closes the door. HE's already won a victory over Lucifer - HE's just waiting for us to win it. The devil only has the power over us if we give it to him. And I think you can see that many have done that.

God was the one who created evil in the fist place & uses it the same as Lucifer does. So how do you see there is any difference between the two?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there. Psalms 139:8

Behold, this evil is of the Lord." 2 Kings 6:28-29, 33

I told ya, Taji - we have the will to choose either one. God created Lucifer - it wasn't until Lucifer got an attitude that he got tossed to earth. Yes God created evil but He doesn't use it - He didn't want us to have the knowledge of evil - that's why He told Adam not to eat of that tree.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
I told ya, Taji - we have the will to choose either one. God created Lucifer - it wasn't until Lucifer got an attitude that he got tossed to earth. Yes God created evil but He doesn't use it - He didn't want us to have the knowledge of evil - that's why He told Adam not to eat of that tree.

You are totally wrong. God does use evil and has repented such in the bible.

If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you. Jeremiah 43:10


Behold, this evil is of the Lord." 2 Kings 6:28-29, 33

Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,…..2 Samuael 13:11

OK Taji. HE repented of the flood too - said HE wouldn't do that again. He let's the evil happen though just as HE let it happen to Job. HE doesn't use it
because as you said HE repented of it.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
OK Taji. HE repented of the flood too - said HE wouldn't do that again. He let's the evil happen though just as HE let it happen to Job. HE doesn't use it
because as you said HE repented of it.

There are hundred of passages in the bible where evil was done in the name of god and where he commanded it. To say otherwise is rediculous. YOu obviously do not know the god in the bible at all.

I do not consider radical or main stream christianity to be "moral" either.



Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well, we don't consider Radical Islam 'moral' now do we? This is a discussion of morality, isn't it?

And they use the word 'jihad' which, contrary to popular belief, does no
t mean holy war, though it can be used in that respect.

I do not consider radical or main stream christianity to be "moral" either.

I cut the whole train of thought out from under the feet. Morality is a useless, irrelevant idea.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Morality is a useless, irrelevant idea.

So we should stop viewing murder and rape as wrong, and stop viewing telling the truth or giving to the poor right?

So we should stop viewing murder and rape as wrong, and stop viewing telling the truth or giving to the poor right?

No, we should quit telling ourselves that it is because of morality we do this.

So, Why, they do we do it?


Originally posted by Napsterbater
No, we should quit telling ourselves that it is because of morality we do this.

<<So we should stop viewing murder and rape as wrong, and stop viewing telling the truth or giving to the poor right?>>

Originally posted by Taji
So, Why, they do we do it?
I would venture to say that it's because society tells us to.

I think it's actually more about survival. I know i posted this before about the equation for altruism, but think about it: By killing one of your tribe, not only do you expend energy by doing this, but you also weaken the tribe, because you have now one less hunter/gatherer/fisherman whatever.

And to lying: a key part of survival is cooperation. It's very difficult to survive on your own, and a lot easier when you have some help. However, for cooperation to be achieved, all parties must trust each other, and everyone needs to be on the same page. If lying reduced your chances of catching food that day, why would you do it?

Basic survival and living on the edge of death tend to promote "positive" behavior. Conversely, abundance and decadence tend to promote "negative" behavior.

I have a habit of taking in abandon animals and offering aid to abused and neglected animals as well. I do not do it because society tells me to, but because I love them and have compassion for them. I frequently do it in spite of a great deal of pressure to do otherwise.



Originally posted by BorgHunter
I would venture to say that it's because society tells us to.

So, Why, they do we do it?

Biology. We react strongly to these things because nature has conditioned us with millions of years of programmed response.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No, we should quit telling ourselves that it is because of morality we do this.

Where did you come across the explanation that morality is what makes us do such things?

Not so much the part of our psyche that is responsible for the action, but what governs our sense to keep us from doing something damaging, in favor of something beneficial, or to halt any damaging aspects from coming. A matter of survival to see that murder is "wrong", while caring for your sickly would be "right." I don't see this train of thinking as an "irrelevant, useless idea." Why do you?

Right on Homer !:)

I do not have that so called conditioned response to aid and help people. I only have it with animals.


Originally posted by Napsterbater
Biology. We react strongly to these things because nature has conditioned us with millions of years of programmed response.

Where did you come across the explanation that morality is what makes us do such things?

I didn't. I said that we tell ourselves that it is because of morality that we do them. Morality is an idea, a philosophy. Our in-born natures cause us to do them. Morality is what the priests go on and on about.

To kill is wrong. To steal is wrong. Those are moral judgements. The whole idea of right and wrong is a moral one. When morality gets in the way of biology, our psyches backlash. That is why we have pedophile priests.

Even if morality doesn't get too far in the way of biology, we still suffer. Sex before marriage is wrong. Many sexually frustrated marriages come from this idea.

I don't see this train of thinking as an "irrelevant, useless idea." Why do you?

Because it leads to guilty consciences. If one has killed, one's brain will be forever racked by guilt even if it was an accident. Even if one had only a minor connection to the event. There is no need to toss morality onto that emotional stew. The idea does not prevent murders. If one is capable of committing murder, no amount of preaching at him will stop him if he gets it in his head that it is necessary. Murder is a desperate act.

Ditto for all the other things that are dictated by morals. There is no need to set forth actions and say, "This is wrong." If it harms people, tell them it harms people, and let them decide. If it is against the law, tell them that. But there are no right actions and no wrong actions.

Even worse than the idea that some actions are wrong, is the idea that certain actions are 'good'. It leads people to pursue those actions over other, more 'selfish' ones. People are never happy pursuing other's ideas of happiness. They can only be happy pursuing their own.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I didn't. I said that we tell ourselves that it is because of morality that we do them. Morality is an idea, a philosophy. Our in-born natures cause us to do them. Morality is what the priests go on and on about.

To kill is wrong. To steal is wrong. Those are moral judgements. The whole idea of right and wrong is a moral one. When morality gets in the way of biology, our psyches backlash. That is why we have pedophile priests.

Even if morality doesn't get too far in the way of biology, we still suffer. Sex before marriage is wrong. Many sexually frustrated marriages come from this idea.



Because it leads to guilty consciences. If one has killed, one's brain will be forever racked by guilt even if it was an accident. Even if one had only a minor connection to the event. There is no need to toss morality onto that emotional stew. The idea does not prevent murders. If one is capable of committing murder, no amount of preaching at him will stop him if he gets it in his head that it is necessary. Murder is a desperate act.

Ditto for all the other things that are dictated by morals. There is no need to set forth actions and say, "This is wrong." If it harms people, tell them it harms people, and let them decide. If it is against the law, tell them that. But there are no right actions and no wrong actions.

Even worse than the idea that some actions are wrong, is the idea that certain actions are 'good'. It leads people to pursue those actions over other, more 'selfish' ones. People are never happy pursuing other's ideas of happiness. They can only be happy pursuing their own.

I don't think so Napster! There are actions that are not good for survival and there are actions that are good for survival. Promoting survival is the highest
level a being can reach - whether it's the survival of good or evil determines the morality of the being doing the promoting.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!:p

I don't think so Napster!

I do! :)

There are actions that are not good for survival and there are actions that are good for survival.

Hmmm. Sex before marriage is very good for the survival of the human race. Yet it is morally wrong.

Promoting survival is the highest level a being can reach

If survival is the highest goal you shoot for, then you should probably get an imagination.

whether it's the survival of good or evil determines the morality of the being doing the promoting.

Where are you getting this good and evil from?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I do! :)



Hmmm. Sex before marriage is very good for the survival of the human race. Yet it is morally wrong.



If survival is the highest goal you shoot for, then you should probably get an imagination.



Where are you getting this good and evil from?

Promoting survival is good - not promoting survival is evil. Obviously you don't understand certain words. It's not sex that's bad - it's the lack of committment & loyalty to the survival of a marriage that's bad.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
Promoting survival is good - not promoting survival is evil.

Survival of what? The species?


It's not sex that's bad - it's the lack of committment & loyalty to the survival of a marriage that's bad.

Marriage is a man-made idea, and some marriages aren't "good'. Should the survival of a bad marriage be promoted?

George Burns once said "It's not pre-marital sex if you have no intention of getting married". How does having sex before marriage negatively affect someone's marriage?

It's not sex that's bad - it's the lack of committment & loyalty to the survival of a marriage that's bad.

So you are saying that it is possible to keep commitment and loyalty to the survival of a marriage and still have sex, even before marriage, even with women other than your spouse? I know this to be true, I just want to see what you have to say about it. Also remember that premarital sex is probably the biggest causes of marriage, when the lady gets pregnant. Many of these marriages turn out to be deep and committed ones, that last a long time.

Also keep in mind that premarital sex is one of the great big no-nos of religious morality. If you are denying this, then you are denying in spirit that morality comes from religion, and making an argument for a morality that doesn't involve God, Jesus, or the Christian religion.

Should people be committed to the survival of an abusive marriage? Seems to me that you consider divorce a moral wrong. Do people ever have valid reasons for divorce? Can you still profess a belief in morality when you can justify committing all sorts of moral wrongs? Because if you can, then of what use is morality if it is so weak it can be broken with the proper justification?

Morals are absolutes. Even your rather weak definition of morality can be quickly turned around and made into a freakish thing. That is the nature of absolute thinking. One cannot say that morality can depend on this, that, or the other. Otherwise, as you see above, it loses its meaning. Morality cannot be relative and still be morality.

oh poo poo Nap!! You're putting words in my mouth. An abusive spouse is not thinking of survival of the marriage and contrary to popular belief living together before marriage leads to a lot of problems in a lot of marriages,
and there is a passage in the new testament that talks about keeping your virgin when she's no longer a virgin. The book of Hosea tells of the problems of folks who have sex before marriage even though it's main message is to Israel.

An abusive spouse is not thinking of survival of the marriage and contrary to popular belief living together before marriage leads to a lot of problems in a lot of marriages,

Of course an abusive spouse isn't thinking of marriage survival. But should the abusee? That is what I'm getting at. And who said anything about living together? I'm talking about sex. The question was whether having sex before marriage is morally wrong or not, considering that oftentimes, through unwanted pregnancies, marriages do spring up between couples who would have otherwise been unmarried, contributing to both survival of the human race and of marriage.

I think you just want to argue Nap. Maybe you shoulda been a lawyer.

I think you just don't like my questions. Maybe you should be a priest.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
oh poo poo Nap!!

Your debating skills are exceptional.

An abusive spouse is not thinking of survival of the marriage and contrary to popular belief living together before marriage leads to a lot of problems in a lot of marriages,

So it might hurt the marriage down the road, depending on the couple, if they live together beforehand. Very well, how does this contribute to it being morally wrong?

and there is a passage in the new testament that talks about keeping your virgin when she's no longer a virgin. The book of Hosea tells of the problems of folks who have sex before marriage even though it's main message is to Israel.

The book of Hosea is in the Old Testament to clarify, and you're rambling--this fails to prove that living together before marriage is morally incorrect. Care to continue?

I think you just want to argue Nap. Maybe you shoulda been a lawyer.

Of course we want to argue and discuss things, this is a debate forum. And if you wish to abandon the thread, so be it, but keep in mind you are ending on a note of dodging questions and failing to offer rebuttal.

I'm answering but you're not reading, evakian and even worse you're attacking the poster. Maybe you should read the reference I gave before you attack me or try to debate. You must be a republican.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I think you just don't like my questions. Maybe you should be a priest.


And maybe you should read the reference. It's not a debate if one of the participants don't know what the bible says is morally correct.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
I'm answering but you're not reading

Incorrect, I am reading, and if you call something that dodges rebuttal like this-I think you just want to argue Nap. Maybe you shoulda been a lawyer.-an "answer".

even worse you're attacking the poster.

Not only do you shoot down the rest of my posts outside the one that made fun of an oddball comment, you seem to lack understanding that someone would make light of a comment like "oh, poo poo Nap!"

Maybe you should read the reference I gave before you attack me or try to debate. You must be a republican.

Incorrect,
I referred to the Book of Hosea after you brought it up, and the second sentence there is wrong.

I'm answering but you're not reading, evakian and even worse you're attacking the poster.

What do you call this?

I think you just want to argue Nap. Maybe you shoulda been a lawyer.

or this?

You must be a republican.

As for this:

And maybe you should read the reference. It's not a debate if one of the participants don't know what the bible says is morally correct.

I'd rather not. We aren't discussing the Bible. I want to know, in your own words, what you think morality is. Your words should be able to stand on their own, without some book to back you up. You should be able to make your case without pointing to someone else and saying, "Here, he will explain everything."

Originally posted by newdsagent3
It's not a debate if one of the participants don't [sic] know what the bible says is morally correct.
By whose standards? There is no objective morality, unless you're Ayn Rand...and she was an atheist. The reason we're even having a debate here is because of the ambiguity of morality. It's pretty goddamn obvious that morality is subjective, because everyone seems to have a different definition of it. How can you claim opinion has one objective truth? It doesn't parse.

I think we need a summary list of the arguments so far so that we might get back on track.

From what I gather, the 3 main suspects are:
Religion
Society
Biology

Any others?