What is the Source of Morality?

[DeletedUser]

I'm not disagreeing, but I have a question. Does that mean people with no religion have no source, since there are no beliefs?

I said before that I believe in multiple sources, so no to your question in general

I think this religious influence is slowly disappearing, legalization of same sex marriage in a few western countries is a example of this. However the founding principles of society are still based in religion. (Not completely, but significantly)

I certainly agree. Religious influence is being fought down by those who in fact claim it's all about morals BUT, for example, in the US, I haven't followed it completely, but people want churches to allow same sex couples to be married there even if the church doesn't want to allow them. Now, you could say, it's their life, let them be married there. BUT to counter, it's those of the churches lives, why force them to let the same sex couple be married there against their religious beliefs. People are taking away the rights of those whose beliefs effect their so-called 'rights'. (I had a little trouble wording that but it should make sense)

 

[DeletedUser]

If you do end up reading this Jono, please explain the bolded bit. I'd love a good explanation of that, since I think it's a completely absurd claim. It's not decaying, it's becoming unstable. People are leaving the churches and mosques, and some of the remainder are becoming so extreme that they bomb places for their beliefs.

I don't mean to come on so strongly, but this is something that really rustles my jimmies.

Perhaps same sex marriage should be another topic too if it isn't one already. Kim Kardashian can have a marriage for a few months and then ditch the fella and that's legal, but Neil Patrick Harris has an honest relationship with another bloke for 8 years and that's NOT legal? Come on...

Please give me an example of someone part of a church blowing people up? I can understand the mosque bit, don't know where you get the church bit from though. I think we will see more and more bombings, and other extreme activity, after all, it is predicted in the bible. The world is devolving, not evolving. Another debate topic though
I stand by my claim, the legalization is a reflection of less and less truly religious people in positions of power. (meaning western countries)

I don't support divorce either FYI, if Kim Kardashian marries someone, i believe marriage should be binding till death unless either partner commits adultery.

To further support his I'm religious and I support same sex marriage.

I don't care about the sex, just the circumstances that marriage or divorce is conducted in.

This is quite off topic (would love another thread about this Phusty ) I suggest you read Leviticus 20:13 then, or Romans 1:27, or any number of other verses, assuming you are christian. And yes i also have many religious friends who support same sex marriage, and it comes from a belief that God is an equal God. This is very very faulty thinking IMHO.

 

[DeletedUser]

To further support his I'm religious and I support same sex marriage.

I don't care about the sex, just the circumstances that marriage or divorce is conducted in.

Okies, my misunderstanding.

 

[DeletedUser]

Please give me an example of someone part of a church blowing people up? I can understand the mosque bit, don't know where you get the church bit from though. I think we will see more and more bombings, and other extreme activity, after all, it is predicted in the bible. The world is devolving, not evolving. Another debate topic though
I stand by my claim, the legalization is a reflection of less and less truly religious people in positions of power. (meaning western countries)

I don't support divorce either FYI, if Kim Kardashian marries someone, i believe marriage should be binding till death unless either partner commits adultery.

I agree,...almost 100% I was taught, growing up, that couples shouldn't be divorced but, involving personal childhood, which I won't go into here, I find myself doubting that teaching.

Apart from that you took the words right out of my mouth

 

[DeletedUser]

PAnd yes i also have many religious friends who support same sex marriage, and it comes from a belief that God is an equal God. This is very very faulty thinking IMHO.

Quick off-topic question here Jono;
If you don't believe in the part of the bible where it states that God hates gays, then why do you believe the rest of it? Do you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like?

 

[DeletedUser]

Quick off-topic question here Jono;
If you don't believe in the part of the bible where it states that God hates gays, then why do you believe the rest of it? Do you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like?

Umm..No where in the bible does it say "God hates gays."

Just thought I'd point that out there..& please don't take this off-topic, I'll go get Pushty!

 

[DeletedUser]

This isn't a religious debate - religion is only a factor. No massive tangents, please. I can accept the occasional aside, but anything that derails the thread on to anything separate to the opening post isn't wanted. Thankies.

 

[DeletedUser]

Quick off-topic question here Jono;
If you don't believe in the part of the bible where it states that God hates gays, then why do you believe the rest of it? Do you pick and choose what you like and what you don't like?

Umm i never said i didn't believe in part of it?? :heh: And no, you cannot pick and choose. Still love you though Kanga <3

 

[DeletedUser]

If there is no God who has given an absolute morality of right and wrong, then there can be no right and wrong, it is all relative. Hitler was not wrong in gassing Jews not more than Mother Teresa was in helping the dying on the streets of Calcutta India. Sure one can argue that Mother Teresa was trying to help the human Species and that is what made it right, but then so you could Argue that so was Hitler in trying to create a Master race, taking a leaf out of Neitzsche's book, and trying to make the Übermensch or Overman. From his perspective he was right in trying to create a master race, and if there is no absolute sense of morality, then he was right from his perspective. All you can really say to him is that from my perspective you are wrong but from your perspective you are right. So neither of us is wrong, and neither of us is right. Therefore no person can ever go up to another and say "you should not have....." or "you ought not to have....." because that is appealing to a higher morality, an absolute morality. That is one of the reasons I believe in God. That each person has a sense of what is absolutely right and wrong. It may be different, but it is mostly the same all the world round. But if you are a moral relativist, you can never condemn a person for doing what you consider to be evil, because you are being inconsistent, since in your world view you believe morality is subjective and relative. The only way there can actually be a right and wrong, is if there is a God who has given mankind an absolute standard to live by.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, if God and religion were the only source of morality, then we should all have the same morals. We don't. Hence I believe there are other sources.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shadis, you raise a very valid point. If there is one God who Gave men Morals then why do many people have different morals.

The reason I believe that Morality is different the world over is because of sin. Corruption of the Conscience. But everyone still has a conscience. It may be different, but it still exists. C. S. Lewis, said "Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it." That is what I believe is the conscience. It ties people in to absolutes, and that sense, though degraded, is what i believe came from God. That belief in an absolute morality. The source is Not religion, nor society, but a mind which precedes the human mind.

Shadis, when you say to someone who has done what you believe to be wrong "You ought not to have....." or "You should not have...." You appeal to an absolute sense of morality, a standard outside the both of you, which you use as a measure of right and wrong. Consider your experience.

Let us assume that there are many sources of morality. If there are many sources of morality, then if one source says it is ok to steal money from people, and the other says one ought to feed people, you have no basis to say which is better. You are forced to say something like this to the person who does what you consider to be wrong...

"Well from my perspective that is wrong, but that is only my subjective opinion. From your perspective it is right. So neither I nor you are wrong or right. It is all relative."

That is why I cannot believe in Moral relativism. In my experience, people live not as though their moral bias is one option among many, but that one thing or another is absolutely unjust or just. And that for me points to a mind outside the human mind, giving an absolute morality.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm inclined to agree, due to the fact that your point suggests another source...

 

[DeletedUser]

Shadis, you raise a very valid point. If there is one God who Gave men Morals then why do many people have different morals.

The reason I believe that Morality is different the world over is because of sin. Corruption of the Conscience. But everyone still has a conscience. It may be different, but it still exists. C. S. Lewis, said "Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it." That is what I believe is the conscience. It ties people in to absolutes, and that sense, though degraded, is what i believe came from God. That belief in an absolute morality. The source is Not religion, nor society, but a mind which precedes the human mind.

Shadis, when you say to someone who has done what you believe to be wrong "You ought not to have....." or "You should not have...." You appeal to an absolute sense of morality, a standard outside the both of you, which you use as a measure of right and wrong. Consider your experience.

Let us assume that there are many sources of morality. If there are many sources of morality, then if one source says it is ok to steal money from people, and the other says one ought to feed people, you have no basis to say which is better. You are forced to say something like this to the person who does what you consider to be wrong...

"Well from my perspective that is wrong, but that is only my subjective opinion. From your perspective it is right. So neither I nor you are wrong or right. It is all relative."

That is why I cannot believe in Moral relativism. In my experience, people live not as though their moral bias is one option among many, but that one thing or another is absolutely unjust or just. And that for me points to a mind outside the human mind, giving an absolute morality.

I totally agree, this is spot on. Great post

 

[DeletedUser]

Interesting. Shadis what do you believe is this other source i refer to?

You believe that Morality is culturally relative, and that is where i strongly disagree with you. Sure cultures do believe different things are right and wrong. On that point we agree. But I disagree with you when you say that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong.

What i meant, was that God put in the heart of man a set of absolutes, now this has degraded over time so that it has become corrupted, but still the fact that people believe in a set of right and wrong is evidence for God. He set down what the right thing to do was but this was corrupted when man rejected God. There may not be many, but there are a few absolutes.

Everywhere in the world it is wrong to murder innocent children, or molest them. Everyone considers that to be absolutely wrong. That cannot be absolute unless there is a God who has put it in man that it is wrong, otherwise it is just relative, and personally or culturally subjective.

Another example is Old people, and disabled people. Why take care of them? If morality is what benefits society, it would make more sense to let them die rather than keep them alive, since they are not really helping society but are rather are a drain on limited resources. If people believe that it is absolutely wrong to not take care of the elderly and the disabled, then there must be a mind outside the human mind who defines right and wrong.

Now I am not saying that to not believe in God means you have to murder people, or Kill disabled and elderly people. I believe that is Wrong. Every atheist or moral relativist I know is a very moral person, as I am sure you are. So please do not misunderstand me in what I am saying. I Respect every person's right to believe what they believe. All i am saying is that you have a real intellectual problem when it comes to defining right and wrong, and the source of right and wrong.

The only way Things can be absolutely right or wrong, is if there is a God who created us with a conscience, and defined right and wrong. Not Culture, but a Supreme being.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, interesting topic, most interesting indeed!

Here's what I think some factors that influence morality:

1. Religion
2. Culture
3. Society
4. Government
5. Education

 

[DeletedUser]

Interesting. Shadis what do you believe is this other source i refer to?

You believe that Morality is culturally relative, and that is where i strongly disagree with you. Sure cultures do believe different things are right and wrong. On that point we agree. But I disagree with you when you say that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong.

What i meant, was that God put in the heart of man a set of absolutes, now this has degraded over time so that it has become corrupted, but still the fact that people believe in a set of right and wrong is evidence for God. He set down what the right thing to do was but this was corrupted when man rejected God. There may not be many, but there are a few absolutes.

Everywhere in the world it is wrong to murder innocent children, or molest them. Everyone considers that to be absolutely wrong. That cannot be absolute unless there is a God who has put it in man that it is wrong, otherwise it is just relative, and personally or culturally subjective.

Another example is Old people, and disabled people. Why take care of them? If morality is what benefits society, it would make more sense to let them die rather than keep them alive, since they are not really helping society but are rather are a drain on limited resources. If people believe that it is absolutely wrong to not take care of the elderly and the disabled, then there must be a mind outside the human mind who defines right and wrong.

Now I am not saying that to not believe in God means you have to murder people, or Kill disabled and elderly people. I believe that is Wrong. Every atheist or moral relativist I know is a very moral person, as I am sure you are. So please do not misunderstand me in what I am saying. I Respect every person's right to believe what they believe. All i am saying is that you have a real intellectual problem when it comes to defining right and wrong, and the source of right and wrong.

The only way Things can be absolutely right or wrong, is if there is a God who created us with a conscience, and defined right and wrong. Not Culture, but a Supreme being.

On the contrary, I have many Christian friends. One (well more but I'll just say 'one') lives in America. One lives in Africa. Now both are Christian, yet each have many differences in what they do in their daily lives. That's due to culture.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shadis, we do not disagree that some things are relative to culture. We do not disagree there. but you believe that all morality is relative to culture, there i disagree, because one cannot live that way.

If you Christian friends are true followers of Jesus Christ, then they believe in a few Moral absolutes, and the Moral teachings of Jesus Christ which gives them that absolute standard of Morality.

Shadis, I assume that you live in America, now whether you believe it is right or not, guns are legal. That is cultural to America.

In NZ where I live it is illegal to own any firearm without a license. That is cultural to NZ.

Now both your morality and mine will be influenced by that cultural influence. The Bible does not say anything about owning guns.

Now what I mean by absolute morality, is a law above all human laws.

Take for example the Nuremberg Trials where Nazi soldiers were being tried for gassing Jews and other War Prisoners in the Concentration camps. The Nazi Lawyers were brilliant, and brought the trials to a halt by saying that according to the laws of Nazi Germany the soldiers were doing the right thing. Only when the allies argued that a higher law existed could they continue to prosecute.

That is what i mean by absolute morality. A law above human law from a mind outside the human mind.

If there is no such law, culture defines morality, and the Nazi's were not wrong in gassing Jews. But if there really is a higher law, then it was possible to declare the Nazi Soldiers Guilty.

i Will Say Again

The only way Things can be absolutely right or wrong, is if there is a God who created us with a conscience, and defined right and wrong. Not Culture, but a Supreme being.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, on the contrary, I did not state that it all revolves around culture. If that was the case I would only believe in one source of morality. Let me again point out my definition of morality. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Now those principles can be set by both culture and religion. Sure, religion and culture can be very close in some places but they are still separate. In your NZ (not exactly sure if it's New Zealand or what) you say that to own a firearm is illegal, meaning in your culture it's a wrong. But as you stated the bible says nothing about guns, hence it more or less can be considered right. Hence two different sources of morality.

As for your absolute morality argument, there is a difference in the definition of that and plain ol morality. Again, look at the definition of 'morality' above. It says nothing about it being a law above human law, etc. The debate isn't about absolute morality. Therefore I will not acknowledge your argument.