Just curious.

Goddamn confusing ass poll. Why are there two replies for "No?"







*takes off SMW hat*

/predictable customary poll options whining...

Where's "No, religious people are immoral"?

*puts hat back on*

Amen to what Nappy said. Is this a loaded poll, or what?

Sounds like a better topic for discussion... or is your mind already made up and you want to see how many people agree with you?

??????

*puts hat back on*

Amen to what Nappy said. Is this a loaded poll, or what?
Beg pardon? It's a perfectly valid question. And you certainly can discuss it, I'm just curious as to the statistics. If you don't like it, don't participate.

I'm not sure what to say. I don't like the options. I would say no, but I'm not sure whether morality is subjective or not. Actually, I'd say that some components of morality are objective and some are subjective. Therefore I cannot choose any of the answers...

I'm not sure what to say. I don't like the options. I would say no, but I'm not sure whether morality is subjective or not. Actually, I'd say that some components of morality are objective and some are subjective. Therefore I cannot choose any of the answers...
Then you choose that morality is subjective. Jesus Christ, is this poll that difficult for you people?

Then you choose that morality is subjective. Jesus Christ, is this poll that difficult for you people?
It's not completely subjective though! Some people might say that murder is not immoral, but I think all sane people know that it IS. Murder is wrong. Harming children is wrong. These are objective morals.

It's not completely subjective though! Some people might say that murder is not immoral, but I think all sane people know that it IS. Murder is wrong. Harming children is wrong. These are objective morals.
Yes, but the option that "morality is objective" means that there is a complete, objective morality. "Morality is subjective" means that while some components may be objective, there are some that are subjective and so, taken as the whole, morality is subjective.

[QUOTE=Napsterbater]Goddamn confusing ass poll. Why are there two replies for "No?"


I guess the discussion need be dumbed down to accomodate some.
Are a Doctor or hospital needed for birth of a newborn.?
No,absolutely not.Sometimes even a Hospital can be wrong-sided.
Legend has it that Lon Chaney was informed he was gonna lose the
newborn child he fathered.Bothered in no small way,he decided to take
matters into his own hands.Rushing outside to a nearby ice-covered lake,
he broke the ice,and jump started the breathing of his almost
"black & dead " son.Namely one ... Lon Chaney Jr.or The Wolf man.

Need I digress further.

There, I've explicitly spelled out the implication I figured everyone would understand by context. Are we happy now?

Yes, but the option that "morality is objective" means that there is a complete, objective morality. "Morality is subjective" means that while some components may be objective, there are some that are subjective and so, taken as the whole, morality is subjective.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but fine, I'll say it's subjective.

There, I've explicitly spelled out the implication I figured everyone would understand by context. Are we happy now?
Well, gee, I'm sorry... I guess we're just not as intelligent as you. I apologize for making you dumb yourself down so I could understand. :rolleyes:

Well, gee, I'm sorry... I guess we're just not as intelligent as you. I apologize for making you dumb yourself down so I could understand. :rolleyes:
Pardon me for being ticked for finding out that a thread I created for discussion of a very interesting topic, morality, is instead full of people who want to bitch at me about the poll.

Yes, but the option that "morality is objective" means that there is a complete, objective morality. "Morality is subjective" means that while some components may be objective, there are some that are subjective and so, taken as the whole, morality is subjective.

I guess this explains yer entire POV.
Morality can NEVER be Subjective.
Subjective morality would mean,that since OJ was a Huge
ICON of Popularity and Sports Fame,he Deserves some slack and
might even be afforded a killing or two,in lieu of such mass popularity.
Or that Since a Priest is a religious person,any molesting he does
can willingly be assumed under cloak of denominational scrutiny,
instead the court of public opinion and The Law.
What else can I help explain to's ya.?

Pardon me for being ticked for finding out that a thread I created for discussion of a very interesting topic, morality, is instead full of people who want to bitch at me about the poll.
Fine. I apologize for that too then. I wasn't aware that you'd get angry at me for being confused by the fucking poll answer options. I guess I'll just sit down and shut up when I'm confused instead of trying to get things clarified. Great idea.

I guess this explains yer entire POV.
Morality can NEVER be Subjective.
Subjective morality would mean,that since OJ was a Huge
ICON of Popularity and Sports Fame,he Deserves some slack and
might even be afforded a killing or two,in lieu of such mass popularity.
Or that Since a Priest is a religious person,any molesting he does
can willingly be assumed under cloak of denominational scrutiny,
instead the court of public opinion and The Law.
What else can I help explain to's ya.?
Borg voted that morality is objective, in case you didn't notice.

I guess this explains yer entire POV.
Morality can NEVER be Subjective.
Subjective morality would mean,that since OJ was a Huge
ICON of Popularity and Sports Fame,he Deserves some slack and
might even be afforded a killing or two,in lieu of such mass popularity.
Or that Since a Priest is a religious person,any molesting he does
can willingly be assumed under cloak of denominational scrutiny,
instead the court of public opinion and The Law.
What else can I help explain to's ya.?
Check again. I'm a moral objectivist. I was explaining the poll options, not my opinions.

As it happens, I think that morality is really very simple (in theory, never in practice): Infringing on someone else's rights is immoral. Of course it's never so elegant in real life--there are certainly moral gray areas--but that standard must be met for something to be immoral.

As it happens, I think that morality is really very simple (in theory, never in practice): Infringing on someone else's rights is immoral. Of course it's never so elegant in real life--there are certainly moral gray areas--but that standard must be met for something to be immoral.
That's a good point. Perhaps I should change my vote... I think I voted too quickly.

Check again. I'm a moral objectivist. I was explaining the poll options, not my opinions.

As it happens, I think that morality is really very simple (in theory, never in practice): Infringing on someone else's rights is immoral. Of course it's never so elegant in real life--there are certainly moral gray areas--but that standard must be met for something to be immoral.

No,no,no...NO.! You ended by writing " Morality is Subjective ".
Well,Bless yer little Mod Heart.Yer learning.
Ever heard the term ... Moral Relativism ?
That Dear Neophyte,is what yer engaging in.

Science and Morals {1886}

" The foundation of morality is to have done,once and
for all,with lying. "
-- Thomas Huxley

Check again. I'm a moral objectivist. I was explaining the poll options, not my opinions.

As it happens, I think that morality is really very simple (in theory, never in practice): Infringing on someone else's rights is immoral. Of course it's never so elegant in real life--there are certainly moral gray areas--but that standard must be met for something to be immoral.

You obviously haven't a clue in Hell to what yer writing.
Morality IS and will ALWAYS be THE biggest Bugaboo upon
Mankind,throughout any and all Millennia.
Morality is basically what Humans were put on earth to Prove.
Ignoramus.

You obviously haven't a clue in Hell to what yer writing.
Morality IS and will ALWAYS be THE biggest Bugaboo upon
Mankind,throughout any and all Millennia.
Morality is basically what Humans were put on earth to Prove.
Ignoramus.
::boggles:: What?

As it happens, I think that morality is really very simple (in theory, never in practice): Infringing on someone else's rights is immoral. Of course it's never so elegant in real life--there are certainly moral gray areas--but that standard must be met for something to be immoral.I think morality is more subjective than objective because morals are constructed by us rather than embedded in the universe.

Of course objectivists retort with claims such as "murder is always immoral". I agree, but that's merely a tautology given that murder means for all intents and purposes wrongful killing. You might equally say "immorailty is always immoral", which gets us nowhere. The problem is that agreeing on whether a killing was murder is up for dispute (due to issues of self-defense/abortion etc).

Neither is that to say subjective morality is arbitrary morality. Indeed I think morality and laws should be empirically grounded and reasoned through. We have objective measures, such as harm, suffering and death, which can guide us.

Morality is a subject which I remain genuinely open on however, and have never really given it substantial research and reflection. Any articulate person well versed in philosophy could own me in a debate whether they are arguing for either the objective or subjective perspective.

::boggles:: What?Aren't you glad you started this thread, Borg? :)

Morality is basically what Humans were put on earth to Prove.
Ignoramus.

Put on Earth?

Are you saying that morality exists outside of human consciousness?

I think morality is more subjective than objective because morals are constructed by us rather than embedded in the universe.
True, but I think true morality lies with the one statement I said, and all conclusions must stem from that statement. That makes it objective, at least to me, unless you can come up with a hypothetical that is "immoral" that I would call immoral that doesn't jive with that statement.

That makes it objective, at least to me, unless you can come up with a hypothetical that is "immoral" that I would call immoral that doesn't jive with that statement.Well I suppose I could try and play pedant. So I'll throw this out:

Torturing a chimpanzee for kicks would be immoral.

Put on Earth?

Are you saying that morality exists outside of human consciousness?

Neither You,nor I,but probably Carl Sagan Might have,what
extends beyond Earth into Infinity.
Since we are Mortals,On Earth,I have a few definate suppositions
concerning are stay here,and what it means {entails}.
Obviously You,feel for the moment Types,haven't given as much a
thought about anything more important than the current price of beer
& condoms.

Well I suppose I could try and play pedant. So I'll throw this out:

Torturing a chimpanzee for kicks would be immoral.
Alright, alright, I amend the statement to be "any living being's" rights. And animals, while possessing few rights, do have the right not to be tortured by humans.

Alright, alright, I amend the statement to be "any living being's" rights. And animals, while possessing few rights, do have the right not to be tortured by humans.Okay. Continuing the theme of playing pedant rather than being in particular disagreement with the sentiments of your statement...

Eating meat is immoral as it impinges on living beings' right to life.

True, but I think true morality lies with the one statement I said, and all conclusions must stem from that statement. That makes it objective, at least to me, unless you can come up with a hypothetical that is "immoral" that I would call immoral that doesn't jive with that statement.

Lying is immoral yet it's hard to see how you're infringing on someone else's rights by doing so. :)

I think morality is more subjective than objective because morals are constructed by us rather than embedded in the universe.

Of course objectivists retort with claims such as "murder is always immoral". I agree, but that's merely a tautology given that murder means for all intents and purposes wrongful killing. You might equally say "immorailty is always immoral", which gets us nowhere. The problem is that agreeing on whether a killing was murder is up for dispute (due to issues of self-defense/abortion etc).

Neither is that to say subjective morality is arbitrary morality. Indeed I think morality and laws should be empirically grounded and reasoned through. We have objective measures, such as harm, suffering and death, which can guide us.

Morality is a subject which I remain genuinely open on however, and have never really given it substantial research and reflection. Any articulate person well versed in philosophy could own me in a debate whether they are arguing for either the objective or subjective perspective.

You peevish little numbskull.Morality is not written,perceived or
accomplished,with any One Race,color,or origin in mind.It is The Universal
law that abides ALL Mankind.For it's Good.Get it... GooD !



The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet {1909}

" An attack on morals may turn out to be the salvation of the race. "
-- George Bernard Shaw

I disagree.After all what does a Dramatist now about such things.

Neither You,nor I,but probably Carl Sagan Might have,what
extends beyond Earth into Infinity.
Since we are Mortals,On Earth,I have a few definate suppositions
concerning are stay here,and what it means {entails}.

Can you be a bit more coherent please?


Obviously You,feel for the moment Types,haven't given as much a
thought about anything more important than the current price of beer
& condoms.

BTW, you should always avoid any conjecture about how other people think or feel...you're really awful at it. ;)

You peevish little numbskull.Morality is not written,perceived or
accomplished,with any One Race,color,or origin in mind.It is The Universal
law that abides ALL Mankind.For it's Good.Get it... GooD !Er, I assume you posted that in jest.

Er, I assume you posted that in jest.

I'm sure not. :)

Lying is immoral yet it's hard to see how you're infringing on someone else's rights by doing so. :)
Depends on context. Lying is not always immoral, and I don't think it is unless giving someone false information harms them in some way.

Well I suppose I could try and play pedant. So I'll throw this out:

Torturing a chimpanzee for kicks would be immoral.


NO........... Dweezil brains.Torturing a Chimp for any reason,is
Immoral.Even to find a cure for Cancer.But that is the dilemna
that Mankind must ultimately face.Whether War or Famine or
a sinking ship.
Where's it written ... Life is Easy.?
I'll tell ya.On virtually any Skateboard,T-shirt,Tattoo or
Napkin that this GenXer bunch daily touches.
They're THE most slovenly simple-minded of Mankind,that the
planet has ever produced.If a Planet were so inclined.

Depends on context. Lying is not always immoral, and I don't think it is unless giving someone false information harms them in some way.

Well, at least we've found a gray area. :)

When President Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", and it turned out not to be a truthful statement, some people felt harmed and others did not...was his lie immoral?

Beg pardon? It's a perfectly valid question. And you certainly can discuss it, I'm just curious as to the statistics. If you don't like it, don't participate.

It's a perfectly valid question, it's just not a valid POLL. If I say YES, you've got me also saying nonreligious people are IMMORAL and I don't believe that anymore than I believe all religious people are MORAL.

Poll issue aside, your question is still rhetorical. Fact is, every major society in the world has evolved from some sort of religious belief for thousands of years... therefore the morality of the world is a direct reflection of that historic evolution. So the question, as stated, is unanswerable.

The standards of morality change all the time and while it might appear to an oldtimer like me that things have gotten worse since I was a kid, I'm sure it seemed the same way to my grandparents and their grandparents, too. Believe it or not, you'll probably feel the same way in your lifetime. People used to marry for life and leave their doors unlocked and use guns primarily for killing dinner for their families. Yep, times have changed.

Maybe a better question might be IS THE LACK OF RELIGION RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DECLINING MORALITY?

Hmmmmmmm, could be! What do you think?

:)
SMW

Well, at least we've found a gray area. :)

When President Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", and it turned out not to be a truthful statement, some people felt harmed and others did not...was his lie immoral?

Yes,by all means.Because if a President could say casually and
with deference,lies about such a simple to prove thing,then what
does that speak about his ability to confront truly world shaking
events,that aren't personally tied to his schlong.

Maybe a better question might be IS THE LACK OF RELIGION RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DECLINING MORALITY?

Hmmmmmmm, could be! What do you think?

:)
SMW

It might be a better question, but IMO the question is founded on two false premises. Firstly, you state there is a "lack of religion" when in fact there are more Christians, and other religious people, alive today then in any time in history. Secondly, you assert that morality is in decline, when in fact, as you also stated, this is mostly a matter of a person's perceptions changing through their lifetime.

People used to marry for life and leave their doors unlocked and use guns primarily for killing dinner for their families.On the other hand racism, homophobia and sexism have arguably declined, or at least become less institutionalised.

I'm not saying there has been an overall decline or improvement, but that somethings have improved and others declined.

Maybe a better question might be IS THE LACK OF RELIGION RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DECLINING MORALITY?Again, I don't think it can be easily called either way. Christians have a higher divorce rate than the non-religious, and the non-religious constitute a disproportionately small percentage of the prison population. On the other hand loss of religion correlates with weaker community ties (not making any causal claim on that).

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]It's a perfectly valid question, it's just not a valid POLL. If I say YES, you've got me also saying nonreligious people are IMMORAL and I don't believe that anymore than I believe all religious people are MORAL.

Poll issue aside, your question is still rhetorical. Fact is, every major society in the world has evolved from some sort of religious belief for thousands of years... therefore the morality of the world is a direct reflection of that historic evolution. So the question, as stated, is unanswerable.

The standards of morality change all the time and while it might appear to an oldtimer like me that things have gotten worse since I was a kid, I'm sure it seemed the same way to my grandparents and their grandparents, too. Believe it or not, you'll probably feel the same way in your lifetime. People used to marry for life and leave their doors unlocked and use guns primarily for killing dinner for their families. Yep, times have changed.

Maybe a better question might be IS THE LACK OF RELIGION RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DECLINING MORALITY?

Hmmmmmmm, could be! What do you think?

*********************************************

Why should I bother.To think,that is.No one else hears does.
Unless it's about personal stuff.Like what color the pink hearts
on their skivvies get,when they lie.
A blushing deep red,or faded pink,that progresses to Deep Purple,
Like the band.

Well, at least we've found a gray area. :)

When President Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", and it turned out not to be a truthful statement, some people felt harmed and others did not...was his lie immoral?

LOL... the least of Clinton's moral infractions was lying. Or maybe having intimate relations with a woman other than one's wife is not immoral and that's simply an outdated biblical belief?

Of course, if one doesn't believe in the Bible, the Ten Commandments are pretty much a moot point anyway, right? So who's to say what's moral and what isn't?

;)
SMW

When President Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", and it turned out not to be a truthful statement, some people felt harmed and others did not...was his lie immoral?
No. It was nobody's business but his own if he did or not, and he was under no obligation to respond.

Well, at least we've found a gray area. :)

When President Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", and it turned out not to be a truthful statement, some people felt harmed and others did not...was his lie immoral?

If Hillary "comes out" as having a homosexual liason with her assistant (not that I blame her) is it "not sex" also? Just wondering.

Of course, if one doesn't believe in the Bible, the Ten Commandments are pretty much a moot point anyway, right? So who's to say what's moral and what isn't?Asking "who" is only relevant to those who subscribe to an authoritarian view of morality.

On the other hand racism, homophobia and sexism have arguably declined, or at least become less institutionalised.

I'm not saying there has been an overall decline or improvement, but that somethings have improved and others declined.

Again, I don't think it can be easily called either way. Christians have a higher divorce rate than the non-religious, and the non-religious constitute a disproportionately small percentage of the prison population. On the other hand loss of religion correlates with weaker community ties (not making any causal claim on that).

Agreed, Blob. Many of the so-called improvements are actually more like reverting back to moral standards of the past rather than becoming more enlightened. For example, history shows that homosexuality in some ancient societies was considered acceptable and even encouraged as a way for men to rid themselves of excess semen. Of course they also thought nothing of adult men using male children as their outlets. Same way with sexism. Some ancient civilizations revered women above men and many ancient societies were ruled by women.

Unfortunately, we know there are still many societies today where homosexuals are stoned to death and women are considered possessions.

The world may be changing, but it's not changing fast.

:)
SMW

It might be a better question, but IMO the question is founded on two false premises. Firstly, you state there is a "lack of religion" when in fact there are more Christians, and other religious people, alive today then in any time in history. Secondly, you assert that morality is in decline, when in fact, as you also stated, this is mostly a matter of a person's perceptions changing through their lifetime.

Yer totally stewed and full of shit thar Bubs.
No time in History has the Agnostic/Atheist tendency been so
prevalent.Fewer Kids today are being nurtured in the construct
of Godliness.In point of fact,we have entered into the Age of
Secularism.Where Religion isn't only being questioned,but
vehemently denied and thrust aside.
Yore just ill-informed at best.
Or Purposedly in league with the Secular Progressives whose mission
IS the sheer purging Of Religion,everywhere.
The better to Bugger about.

I'll go with what smartmouth said for the most part.
Look at how societies were pulled together by religion. China, Japan, Rome..
The fall of Rome actually started when people got greedy and put aside moral obligation.
Look at present day Congo where all they're really doing is killing each other for, whatever.

I'm not saying that there aren't or wouldn't be morally correct people without religion. I think there would be people who are morally correct, just not to many of them. I think that it takes something, religion or not, just something.
To organize people enough to come to grips with what is moral.
Enough so that we can build empires and so on. I'd say the easiest way to do that is through religion.

During my time on this planet I've seen the U.S. go through it's phases of morality. I can say, its changed a few times in some places about some subjects. Quite often. It's always been changed by big numbers. Never really by one person or a few people and it's always been through the use of something stable and easy to comprehend.

Now we're at odds, because it appears that we have two such sources.
At least it seems we are at odds.
Science and religion. Everyone uses both, at least to some extent, even if it's to show how their side is better.

So while everyone is morally active. They're only morally active so much so as to what they believe. Which gives the appearance to one side or the other that neither one is being morally correct.

I'm sure later, I'll wish I had said that a different way. I'm not sure I made myself to clear.

Asking "who" is only relevant to those who subscribe to an authoritarian view of morality.

Interesting. So if society's views on morality don't come from an authoritarian source, where do they come from? Do you believe we're born knowing right from wrong?

I think morality is completely subjective, but it's near universal in humans. Kind of like the "opinions are like assholes," popular wisdom.

No. It was nobody's business but his own if he did or not, and he was under no obligation to respond.

Now it's time for me to beg your pardon, Borg!

What the president does in the office paid for by my tax dollars is indeed my business. Only if he'd been smart enough not to get caught would it not be any of my concern.

I think morality is completely subjective, but it's near universal in humans. Kind of like the "opinions are like assholes," popular wisdom.

Agreed.

Interesting. So if society's views on morality don't come from an authoritarian source, where do they come from? Do you believe we're born knowing right from wrong?Just so you know where I'm coming from here, I think morality is an incredibly complex subject. I don't claim any answers and am less sure about the views I do hold than I am on many other topics.

It seems to me there are two basic options: a top down approach, and a bottom up approach. I lean towards the latter on the basis that moral views vary so much across times and places - if morality is absolute and handed down from above, why all the disagreement amongst reasonable, good-natured people.

However both positions suffer problems. The authoritarive view still involves making the subjective decision that what is right is what is dictated from above, and is distorted by the self-interest of seeking reward or avoiding punishment. Likewise, the subjective view leads to the question of how do we live a good life, and there is no final source to go to when disagreements arise.

To answer your specific question, I doubt we are born with morality. We are born, however, with a sense of what it is to suffer and what is to feel comfort, and we recognise this is so for others too. I speculate this provides us with an inter-subjective base for constructing a moral sense.

w/o religion some ppl would do anything they wanted (Even kill i think)

Most people are the animals that they are and need some control...

Heh they cant even navigate properly if a traffic light goes out!! (I have seen it)

Sad but true!!!!!

I think morality is completely subjective, but it's near universal in humans. Kind of like the "opinions are like assholes," popular wisdom.

Whats with all the really quickie,SHORT Reply's.?
Are you in some kinda hurry ta dude somethin else.?
That translates in a lack of true passion for the subject matter.

I guess the discussion need be dumbed down to accomodate some.
That Dear Neophyte,is what yer engaging in.
You obviously haven't a clue in Hell to what yer writing ... Ignoramus.
Obviously You,feel for the moment Types,haven't given as much a
thought about anything more important than the current price of beer
& condoms.
You peevish little numbskull.
NO........... Dweezil brains.
Yer totally stewed and full of shit thar Bubs.And that's only in this thread.

It might be a better question, but IMO the question is founded on two false premises. Firstly, you state there is a "lack of religion" when in fact there are more Christians, and other religious people, alive today then in any time in history. Secondly, you assert that morality is in decline, when in fact, as you also stated, this is mostly a matter of a person's perceptions changing through their lifetime.

I don't think the first issue is a false premise at all, Vile. While it's true there are more religious people alive today, nonbelievers have become much stronger in their anti-religion activities. Like the crusade to remove prayers from public schools, take In God We Trust off our currency, etc. Madeline Murray O'Hare was at the forefront of the recent strengthening of the U.S. anti-religion movement. And the internet has given atheists a widespread medium to spread their own 'good' news where no such gathering place existed in the past. They're a more vocal minority now than ever before in history.

Secondly, 'declining morality' may indeed be merely perception... but then again, aren't all moral issues a matter of perception? Or is it just those issues forbidden by civil laws that are "real?" Does a rising crime rate indicate a declining morality or is it just a result of criminals denying society's right to tell them what to do?

Does a rising crime rate indicate a declining morality or is it just a result of criminals denying society's right to tell them what to do?
It could be argued that a rising crime rate could be due to bad laws, as well. Putting people in jail for smoking pot, for instance (not to turn this into another drug thread or anything).

And that's only in this thread.

It's called Passion.
I don't suffer Fools...lightly.
Not even...meself.
So there.

Whats with all the really quickie,SHORT Reply's.?
Are you in some kinda hurry ta dude somethin else.?
That translates in a lack of true passion for the subject matter.
I simply don't have a huge amount of passion for this sort of thing. Seems to me to be the kind of stuff you ruminate over when you're sixty and unhappily married and bored off your ass, yet don't have the balls to get yourself a mistress. Why worry about the petty details of what society thinks is right or wrong?

But then again, a lot of thought went into the phrasing of my response. A few pithy sentences, carefully constructed and well thought out, can be more telling than a five-hundred word thesis. That's the sort of writing I'm aspiring to right now.

Agreed.

I think most Serial Killers would ascribe that notion,as well.
On account,it was only in their mind that another was offed
or tormented.
Yeah.....Right.

It's called Passion.
I don't suffer Fools...lightly.
Not even...meself.
So there.
Just being Foolsworth seems to be suffering enough.

Just so you know where I'm coming from here, I think morality is an incredibly complex subject. I don't claim any answers and am less sure about the views I do hold than I am on many other topics.

It seems to me there are two basic options: a top down approach, and a bottom up approach. I lean towards the latter on the basis that moral views vary so much across times and places - if morality is absolute and handed down from above, why all the disagreement amongst reasonable, good-natured people.

However both positions suffer problems. The authoritarive view still involves making the subjective decision that what is right is what is dictated from above, and is distorted by the self-interest of seeking reward or avoiding punishment. Likewise, the subjective view leads to the question of how do we live a good life, and there is no final source to go to when disagreements arise.

To answer your specific question, I doubt we are born with morality. We are born, however, with a sense of what it is to suffer and what is to feel comfort, and we recognise this is so for others too. I speculate this provides us with an inter-subjective base for constructing a moral sense.

A very complex subject indeed, Blob.

But it's still my premise that without the influence of religion thru the ages, there's no question the world we live in today would be drastically different. It's that unknowable 'better' or 'worse' answer that makes the issue so complex.

I simply don't have a huge amount of passion for this sort of thing. Seems to me to be the kind of stuff you ruminate over when you're sixty and unhappily married and bored off your ass, yet don't have the balls to get yourself a mistress. Why worry about the petty details of what society thinks is right or wrong?

But then again, a lot of thought went into the phrasing of my response. A few pithy sentences, carefully constructed and well thought out, can be more telling than a five-hundred word thesis. That's the sort of writing I'm aspiring to right now.

WHAT IF ? The entire basis for yer existence on Earth,dealt
exclusively over yer concept and treatment of morality On Earth.?
I guess an F+ woodn't bee such a bad grade...eh ?

It's called Passion.
I don't suffer Fools...lightly.
Not even...meself.
So there.I don't have a problem with your insults except that they grow tiresome.

It does bother me, though, that you insult people constantly while I get warned for calling cranston36 an idiot (which he undoubtedly is).

:end threadjack:

But it's still my premise that without the influence of religion thru the ages, there's no question the world we live in today would be drastically different. It's that unknowable 'better' or 'worse' answer that makes the issue so complex.We must stop agreeing like this! ;)

Religion has and does have a powerful influence on the world. And I, for one, think a lot of it has been positive.

I don't have a problem with your insults except that they grow tiresome.

It does bother me, though, that you insult people constantly while I get warned for calling cranston36 an idiot (which he undoubtedly is).

:end threadjack:

When did I call someone an " Idiot " ?
You really need to tone it down some...Pops !

When did I call someone an " Idiot " ?
You really need to tone it down some...Pops !LOL -- you made sense for once. :)

WHAT IF ? The entire basis for yer existence on Earth,dealt
exclusively over yer concept and treatment of morality On Earth.?
I guess an F+ woodn't bee such a bad grade...eh ?
The attachment of socially acceptable behavior to morality is a very seductive one to make, but it falls down quite hard when you realize that the right thing to do isn't always all that acceptable.

I simply don't have a huge amount of passion for this sort of thing. Seems to me to be the kind of stuff you ruminate over when you're sixty and unhappily married and bored off your ass, yet don't have the balls to get yourself a mistress. Why worry about the petty details of what society thinks is right or wrong?

But then again, a lot of thought went into the phrasing of my response. A few pithy sentences, carefully constructed and well thought out, can be more telling than a five-hundred word thesis. That's the sort of writing I'm aspiring to right now.

As usual, Nappy, your well thought-out disrespect for your elders makes you appear immature and unworthy of joining any serious discussion. Why don't you go play a video game or start another thread pouring out your current emotional state of mind... something that's more suited to your juvenile behavior -- and leave pondering life's meaning to people who are mature enough to participate.

And, unlike you, I'm not talking about age.

SMW

I went with "No".

Morality exists without religion.

Religion is just one tool for understanding morality.

LOL -- you made sense for once. :)

Yer not about to ask me if my dance card is filled,are ya.?

Did poor widdle SMW get passed up again for sex by that cute neighbor boy who cuts the grass? Old age is a hard pill to swallow, isn't it? Always gotta whine about "respecting your elders," or some other such nonsense. Quite amusing, actually, to see someone's insecurities manifest themselves so nakedly.

I went with "No".

Morality exists without religion.

Religion is just one tool for understanding morality.

Yeah...yeah...yeah.
Unlike You whose " tool " IS.
Well,why depress the debate,so early.
The Nite is Young,and yer " tool " IS.
Well,why even go there.

Yeah...yeah...yeah.


Well, that nicely summs up your contribution to every discussion.

The attachment of socially acceptable behavior to morality is a very seductive one to make, but it falls down quite hard when you realize that the right thing to do isn't always all that acceptable.

The " right thing to do " can change on a dime.
Morality should never be viewed in those populist terms.
Morality is rigid,unassailable.
It might be " the right thing to do " when in Rome,but Rome
had to fall First.
Dig Daddio.

Fool,

Don't hurt yourself trying to avoid comprehension.

It's gettin Soooooooooooo hard.
So hard to suffer BOTH Fools,and yer linguini-spined Logic.
I'd ruther just eat Cake.

The attachment of socially acceptable behavior to morality is a very seductive one to make, but it falls down quite hard when you realize that the right thing to do isn't always all that acceptable.

"morality" is a construct of the society and changes from society to society.
For example, suicide is not considered "moral" in some societies but it is in others.

Did poor widdle SMW get passed up again for sex by that cute neighbor boy who cuts the grass? Old age is a hard pill to swallow, isn't it? Always gotta whine about "respecting your elders," or some other such nonsense. Quite amusing, actually, to see someone's insecurities manifest themselves so nakedly.

The topic is morality, Nappy, not age. But I'll give you this much... you've successfully threadjacked this discussion. It'll be interesting to see how much leeway the mods give you, seeing as how special you think you are.

And BTW, what's a virile young man like you doing hanging around on message boards on Saturday nite anyway? I'd be willing to bet Foolie gets more action than you... I know I do.



SMW

Well, that nicely summs up your contribution to every discussion.

I realize yer penchant for ad nauseam discussion on the merits
of whether Bush or Cheney or Both,have special Executive
Men's Room keys for the White House.

The topic is morality, Nappy, not age. But I'll give you this much... you've successfully threadjacked this discussion. It'll be interesting to see how much leeway the mods give you, seeing as how special you think you are.
Yeah, yeah, save the dramatics.

And BTW, what's a virile young man like you doing hanging around on message boards on Saturday nite anyway? I'd be willing to bet Foolie gets more action than you do.

SMW
Had my action for the night, but thanks for the offer.

I realize ...

If only you did Fool... If only you did... :rolleyes:

"morality" is a construct of the society and changes from society to society.
For example, suicide is not considered "moral" in some societies but it is in others.
The idea of morality is a universal code of behavior. Even within societies morality is a hotly debated subject. It's just more pronounced between cultures.

The idea of morality is a universal code of behavior. Even within societies morality is a hotly debated subject. It's just more pronounced between cultures.

That is true, because some people in every society believe that ONLY their ideas of morality could possibly be correct.

Morality is no more dependant upon religion than society is.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]The topic is morality, Nappy, not age. But I'll give you this much... you've successfully threadjacked this discussion. It'll be interesting to see how much leeway the mods give you, seeing as how special you think you are.

And BTW, what's a virile young man like you doing hanging around on message boards on Saturday nite anyway? I'd be willing to bet Foolie gets more action than you... I know I do



*********************************

What did ya have to GOad and ask him dat fer.?
That's all we need.
To hear him break a recent promise about posting lengthy Treatise
on subject matter.
But now,that the subject matter has turned to his Virile status,the
Allforums servers may need to seek immediate funds and do
an emergency all niter,just to keep up with The Napsters,not TOO
lengthy Treatise on his Manhood,and all-encompassing accouterments.

That is true, because some people in every society believe that ONLY their ideas of morality could possibly be correct.
Yeah... that's kind of the idea.

I think it's reprehensible for a person to leave a restaurant without tipping the waiter less than fifteen percent, regardless of the level of service. I don't think this rule is arguable. I have my reasons for thinking so, but the point is, I believe only the above could possibly be correct. Only my idea of morality can possibly be correct, to use your phrasing.

That's how morality works.

Edit. I should amend this to be exclusive to American restaurants.

I think it's reprehensible for a person to leave a restaurant without tipping the waiter less than fifteen percent, regardless of the level of service.

Do you mean "without tipping the waiter at least fifteen percent"?

Do you mean "without tipping the waiter at least fifteen percent"?
Yah.

Yah.

Ok, for a second when I first read it I thought you were saying you were against tipping.

I didn't think that could be right.

Sorry for the mix-up.

I just received the book "The Science of Good and Evil", looking forward to reading it after I'm done with "The Selfish Gene" :)

Pardon me for being ticked for finding out that a thread I created for discussion of a very interesting topic, morality, is instead full of people who want to bitch at me about the poll.
then you shouldn't have skewed the wording into 3 simplistic answers that give you the answers you wanted. it's not that easy.:rolleyes:

my morality is objective to me, but to you it might seem subjective...or just wrong.

No. It was nobody's business but his own if he did or not, and he was under no obligation to respond.Then he should have plead the 5th, no?

Then he should have plead the 5th, no?

Yes,it's gettin rather rigid around hears.
I'm seriously thinkin of changin my lawyer.I may need 2,in fact.
One for My Guilt and one for sheer Innocence.

A question for the Christians whilst we're talking morality.

With Christianity the immoral and moral are black and white: it's the same grotesque never-ending punishment for telling a lie through to commiting genocide. And in either case if you say you are sincerely sorry and won't do it again then you are let off.

Would Christians like to see earthly law and order, or parental advice, based on this premise? One dreadful punishment for all crimes great and small, and the chance to apologise and promise not to do it again no matter what you did.

A question for the Christians whilst we're talking morality.

With Christianity the immoral and moral are black and white: it's the same grotesque never-ending punishment for telling a lie through to commiting genocide. And in either case if you say you are sincerely sorry and won't do it again then you are let off.

Would Christians like to see earthly law and order, or parental advice, based on this premise? One dreadful punishment for all crimes great and small, and the chance to apologise and promise not to do it again no matter what you did.

Thats the thing, it's not that way.

Every single atheist I have talked to, including friends I've had for more then 15 years. I use to think that way.

Sad thing is, I dont think I could explain it any other way.

It's not about punishment, it's about love. I know that sounds psychotic but to go any deeper would simply sink us into a hole we would be talking about for a while.

Thats the thing, it's not that way.

Every single atheist I have talked to, including friends I've had for more then 15 years. I use to think that way.

Sad thing is, I dont think I could explain it any other way.

It's not about punishment, it's about love. I know that sounds psychotic but to go any deeper would simply sink us into a hole we would be talking about for a while. "sounds psychotic"=something I can agree with you on.

"sounds psychotic"=something I can agree with you on.

Yes but you havent experienced it. If you have never been there, as it were.
Then how can you say for sure?