Moral Guidance

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

George Bush - an avowed Christian - started two wars during his term in office. The examples of Christian (and other religious) leaders and nations starting and engaging in wars are beyond number.

Wasn't the person who authorised dropping nuclear bombs on humans also a Christian?

Goal posts getting shifted. There's a surprise.

Yeah, many leaders who claim to be Christian did bad things. They should know better, I agree.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Goal posts getting shifted. There's a surprise.

The goalposts are that without organised religion, we would act in immoral ways, right? I'm giving concrete examples of those following organised religion starting wars and committing atrocities.

hinault wrote: »

Yeah, many leaders who claim to be Christian did bad things. They should know better, I agree.

Ah yes, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy...

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

The goalposts are that without organised religion, we would act in immoral ways, right? I'm giving concrete examples of those following organised religion starting wars and committing atrocities.

Ah yes, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy...

It's not a fallacy though.

Those people should know better. I said earlier that they should know better.
They did what they did fully aware that what they were doing was morally wrong.

The replacement of one morality by another "morality" by man in the 20th century reaped what it sowed.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

It's not a fallacy though.

Those people should know better. I said earlier that they should know better.
They did what they did fully aware that what they were doing was morally wrong.

The replacement of one morality by another "morality" by man in the 20th century reaped what it sowed.

Which 'one' morality was replaced by which one other in the 20th century?

And can the notion organised religion as the sole moral force for good be given any credibility when self-proclaimed practicing Christians start wars and so forth?

sbsquarepants

We're born with a conscience - that's really all the morality you need.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Which 'one' morality was replaced by which one other in the 20th century?

And can the notion organised religion as the sole moral force for good be given any credibility when self-proclaimed practicing Christians start wars and so forth?

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We're born with a conscience - that's really all the morality you need.

We need a conscience which is informed though;)

Gumbi

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

Of course any such disaster was going to be bigger in the 20th century! We were far more advanced and the population of the world was after exploding since the 1800s...

Gumbi

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

Of course any such disaster was going to be bigger in the 20th century! We were far more advanced and the population of the world was after exploding since the 1800s...

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

Well that's one way to avoid the questions. I'll address yours when you address mine.

And - seeing as you were complaining about moving goalposts - the discussion is about organised religion, not specifically Christianity.

hinault

Gumbi wrote: »

Of course any such disaster was going to be bigger in the 20th century! We were far more advanced and the population of the world was after exploding since the 1800s...

Even relative to the contemporaneous population size, the 20th century death toll is far higher compared to any other previous century.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

I'll address yours when you address mine.

Have it your way.

Your goal post shifting earlier and now avoiding answering questions on this thread, renders our exchanges on this thread finished.

I won't be replying to you further throughout this thread.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Have it your way.

Your goal post shifting earlier and now avoiding answering questions on this thread, renders our exchanges on this thread finished.

I won't be replying to you further throughout this thread.

Pathetic.

Is it just my experience, or do other people often find Holy Joes to be the most unpleasant people in practice? It doesn't say much about their morality in my opinion if they treat the people they encounter in their lives in such a shoddy way.

sbsquarepants

hinault wrote: »

We need a conscience which is informed though;)

I'm not so sure you can actually inform your conscience. You can learn off a list of things that society deem permissible or otherwise but it doesn't effect your conscience per se. You either just feel guilty about something or you don't.
In society rules and laws evolve to match the conscience of the majority generally speaking - but there are always those who feel and act differently. Morality is a personal thing. Laws are a homogenised and standardised form of group morality, but they aren't morality in and off themselves. Your "immoral behaviour" could well be my "good weekend" (probably is actually:D)

RecordStraight

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Your "immoral behaviour" could well be my "good weekend" (probably is actually:D)

On the other hand, moral things according to organised religion - stoning adulterers, burning people at the stake and so forth - might offend the conscience of someone like you who does not have the benefit of an informed conscience...

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not so sure you can actually inform your conscience. You can learn off a list of things that society deem permissible or otherwise but it doesn't effect your conscience per se. You either just feel guilty about something or you don't.
In society rules and laws evolve to match the conscience of the majority generally speaking - but there are always those who feel and act differently. Morality is a personal thing. Laws are a homogenised and standardised form of group morality, but they aren't morality in and off themselves. Your "immoral behaviour" could well be my "good weekend" (probably is actually:D)

A friend of mine served as a peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia.

His phrase is that the civil law and the moral law are the thin veneer which keeps us from acting like animals.

In his view even animals wouldn't lower themselves to do what many humans did to one another in that region.
That is how precarious and finely balanced human behaviour is.

Without adherence to civil law and adherence to moral law, decay sooner or later becomes the norm.

The more objective the moral law is the better.
And another important point is that the civil law must try to reflect as closely as possible that objective moral law.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

A friend of mine served as a peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia.

His phrase is that the civil law and the moral law are the thin veneer which keeps us from acting like animals.

In his view even animals wouldn't lower themselves to do what many humans did to one another in that region.
That is how precarious and finely balanced human behaviour is.

Without adherence to civil law and adherence to moral law, decay sooner or later becomes the norm.

Of course, there is no evidence for this from anthropology. Interestingly, Yugoslavia was a country dominated by organised religions - Christianity and Islam.

Safehands

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We're born with a conscience - that's really all the morality you need.

I think that generally most religions teach that obeying the laws and not harming anyone is the way their followers should behave. There seems to be an attitude among a lot of younger people, that having Christian beliefs, not necessarily Catholic or Protestant, just Christian leanings, has a sort of stigma attached to it. There appears to be a growing belief that if it feels good, then it is ok.
Of course parents are the primary educaters. However, I know quite a few parents who's conscience is very elastic. So if that conscience is all you need then I think we may be in trouble, as a society.
I think that organised religions have really let their followers down, with their own very questionable moral examples. Their behaviour has been anything but exemplary.
Morality includes avoiding petty misdemeanours. A lack of morals can lead from minor infractions to the examples outlined by others on this thread.

sbsquarepants

Safehands wrote: »

. There appears to be a growing belief that if it feels good, then it is ok. .

I'd add one caveat -if it feels good AND it doesn't harm others - then yes it is ok. Why wouldn't it be?

Safehands wrote: »

. Of course parents are the primary educaters. However, I know quite a few parents who's conscience is very elastic. So if that conscience is all you need then I think we may be in trouble, as a society..

Conscience should be elastic. Context is everything.
Is it ok to box a stranger in the face - of course it's not.
What if that's a stranger you woke up to find standing over you in your bed?
Seems a lot less to feel guilty about in that case, doesn't it.

Safehands wrote: »

. I think that organised religions have really let their followers down, with their own very questionable moral examples. Their behaviour has been anything but exemplary. .

You've hit the nail on the head - if you're seeking moral guidance, maybe a billionaire paedophile ring is not the best place to look!

Safehands wrote: »

. Morality includes avoiding petty misdemeanours. A lack of morals can lead from minor infractions to the examples outlined by others on this thread.

It's who defines those petty misdemeanours that is the problem. If they're being forced upon you as is the case in a lot of places (used to be the case here but we thankfully wised up) - that's a much bigger crime than the petty misdemeanour was to begin with. Morality must be personal to be in any way valid. Otherwise it's just another arbitrary rule.

silverharp

Safehands wrote: »

I think that generally most religions teach that obeying the laws and not harming anyone is the way their followers should behave. There seems to be an attitude among a lot of younger people, that having Christian beliefs, not necessarily Catholic or Protestant, just Christian leanings, has a sort of stigma attached to it. There appears to be a growing belief that if it feels good, then it is ok.
Of course parents are the primary educaters. However, I know quite a few parents who's conscience is very elastic. So if that conscience is all you need then I think we may be in trouble, as a society.
I think that organised religions have really let their followers down, with their own very questionable moral examples. Their behaviour has been anything but exemplary.
Morality includes avoiding petty misdemeanours. A lack of morals can lead from minor infractions to the examples outlined by others on this thread.

The problem is that a society in transition might have issues for some people initially raised with the fear of the cosmic policeman and then having a gap in their ethics when they realise there isn't one.
I have no issues raising my kids in an atheistic setting. They don't have to make choices based on fear of upsetting a deity but based on values that with help them get on in society or simply engaging common sense based on risk etc. Future time frames versus present.

Michael OBrien

Safehands wrote: »

With the departure of organised religions from our society, where do our young people go for moral guidance?

Well I see that the thread has proven popular but has veered off into pointing the finger already with body count red herrings. That has been done to death.

Lets actually look at morality and what purpose does it serve, how it is constructed and why it is the way it is.

From my viewpoint morality is extremely complex, a tug-of-war between individual needs and wants, and the recognition that we live in a society and thus need to compromise to reap the benefits of that situation.

Partly it stems from recognising that other beings exist, and share common traits with us. Our evolved sense of empathy derives from our ability to read other people's intentions, which is based on shared identity patterns.

Morality evolves to match the needs of the society that it develops in, as the role of the individual is not fixed, indeed cannot be fixed, because the pressures, externally and internally, in any culture is not static.

Religious morality masks this trait by offering meaning to morality that is usually external to the host of that morality (society). Those that offer this alleged eternality of meaning are the same people that benefit from those rules (e.g. priests).

Now that people are beginning to leave behind belief in what they were told previously came from an external source to humanity, how do we educate them in developing a responsible internal morality instead?

After centuries of having morality redefined as a form of moral mandate from an external source, this can be a jarring experience as all the terms need to be redefined to address internal pressures.

I think a course in ethics would possibly be a wonderful way of getting young people to actually take a fresh look at terms like "right", "wrong", "choice", "conscience", "purpose", etc.
By learning what motivates us to make choices, and acknowledging our own varied nature and limited scope of knowledge, a basis for a type of objective morality, still sourced from within our society, could be developed.

A key part is realising that absolutes in morality is a blinkered way of approaching such dilemmas, considering how little we still know about ourselves or the universe at large.

What do you think?
(While I recognise this is a Christianity forum, I hope that we can discuss morality from all perspectives, so my viewpoint is secular in focus, as I am no longer a christian.)

Safehands

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I think a course in ethics would possibly be a wonderful way of getting young people to actually take a fresh look at terms like "right", "wrong", "choice", "conscience", "purpose", etc.
By learning what motivates us to make choices, and acknowledging our own varied nature and limited scope of knowledge, a basis for a type of objective morality, still sourced from within our society, could be developed.

A key part is realising that absolutes in morality is a blinkered way of approaching such dilemmas, considering how little we still know about ourselves or the universe at large.

What do you think?
(While I recognise this is a Christianity forum, I hope that we can discuss morality from all perspectives, so my viewpoint is secular in focus, as I am no longer a christian.)

An excellent reply Michael. It will take a bit of time to digest and comment on the content.

Andrewf20

hinault wrote: »

Thus far the 20th century has been the bloodiest in human history.

More people were killed in human conflict in that century than every before.

The secularists attribute the unprecedented death toll down to more mechanised means of killing and injuring people. That is a factor. But what is the main factor behind the higher death toll was the intent to put various atheist / man made principles at the fore of respective societies.

Nazi Germany.
The Soviet Union.
Communist China.
Kampuchea.

The argument may be made that the population of the world was smaller during the 12th century for example, compared to the population of the world in the 20th century.

But the death toll of the population in the 20th century relative to the population in the 20th century, is far higher than the comparable 12th century population figures.

Id say technology & its prevelency is also a factor. The means to kill in larger volumes would have been easier in the 20th century.

PopePalpatine

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Id say technology & its prevelency is also a factor. The means to kill in larger volumes would have been easier in the 20th century.

Good point. I was listening to a series of history podcasts on WWI over the past few weeks, and the narrator made a point of comparing the scale of casualties between those in WWI and in wars throughout the 19th century.

The French lost 280,000 men to injury and death (along with about 470,000 men being captured) while the Germans lost just under 120,000 in the Franco-Prussian War, over 9 months.

In the final "Hundred Days Offensive" in WWI, casualties are estimated at between 1.4 million to 1.85 million. The invention of the machine gun between the Franco-Prussian and First World Wars was probably the biggest factor in making WWI as bloody as it was.

RecordStraight

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good point. I was listening to a series of history podcasts on WWI over the past few weeks, and the narrator made a point of comparing the scale of casualties between those in WWI and in wars throughout the 19th century.

Dan Carlin?

Listen to his podcasts on the Mongols - about 20 hours, but very interesting. They put the Nazis and company to shame in terms of industrial-scale slaughter.

hinault

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Id say technology & its prevelency is also a factor. The means to kill in larger volumes would have been easier in the 20th century.

Yeah both factors were mentioned earlier during the thread. Improved military mechanisation just allows man to inflict more damage than he could do so before.

The motivation to obliterate our fellow man has remained constant throughout time however.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

The motivation to obliterate our fellow man has remained constant throughout time however.

Speak for yourself. Usually it appears to be ideologies such as organised religion that are the primary motive for inflicting suffering on our fellows.

Benny_Cake

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good point. I was listening to a series of history podcasts on WWI over the past few weeks, and the narrator made a point of comparing the scale of casualties between those in WWI and in wars throughout the 19th century.

The French lost 280,000 men to injury and death (along with about 470,000 men being captured) while the Germans lost just under 120,000 in the Franco-Prussian War, over 9 months.

In the final "Hundred Days Offensive" in WWI, casualties are estimated at between 1.4 million to 1.85 million. The invention of the machine gun between the Franco-Prussian and First World Wars was probably the biggest factor in making WWI as bloody as it was.

It's often forgotten here in Europe, but the US civil war was an exceptionally nasty war in that it was fought in a very modern way (new weaponry, armies moved and supplied by trains), but before the birth of truly modern medicine. I think I read that at the time pus was viewed as a sign that a wound was healing! Soldiers died of injuries which were routinely treatable a few short decades later.

People were fighting wars before religion was ever organised. Our tendancy towards war and the glamour it still holds is a flaw in our make-up.

StealthRolex

Benny_Cake wrote: »

People were fighting wars before religion was ever organised. Our tendancy towards war and the glamour it still holds is a flaw in our make-up.

You would have thought evolution would have fixed that by now. Unless evolution figures there is some merit to it of course.
Survival of the fittest or survival of who has the better army?

Peregrinus

RecordStraight wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Usually it appears to be ideologies such as organised religion that are the primary motive for inflicting suffering on our fellows.

Actually, it's usually the lust for power, wealth or resources. Ideologies may be invoked to justify acting on that desire, but they rarely drive it.

And this, I think, is the reason why hopes that modernity and enlightenment would reduce conflict have been frustrated. Modernity does nothing to reduce material wants, so expectations that it will reduce conflict are vain. Whereas modernity has done a good deal to increase the savagery, and the destructive nature, of conflict.