Moral Guidance

RecordStraight wrote: »

The sad thing is there is a proper discussion to be had here.

Completely agree, and I think I have mad some points for discussion, but for some reason the OP of this has yet to respond to them.

ScumLord

Gintonious wrote: »

Where exactly do you think Europeans got their ideas from slavery from?

Ownership of people (no matter what period of time) is flat out wrong, and immoral. There is a reason why most modern societies don't use it anymore, it is evil. The reasons you listed above don't justify or lessen the impact that it was ownership of people, making them objects. You can't honestly think that just because it was back in the good ol days that it was PC.

Saying that it might have been different back then is just putting lipstick on a pig for the argument.

I'm not trying to justify slavery or say it's right. What I'm saying is that the majority of people back then would have had a completely different viewpoint on slavery. Slavery was everywhere and carried out by everyone. A slave may have had slaves themselves before becoming slaves. They must have rationalized that process to themselves, they would hardly think slaves were good until they became one themselves.

People would have seen slavery as a vital part of any civilized society, they wouldn't be able to build as they did without them. Again, I'm not justifying slavery I'm just pointing out that people back then would have had a very different point of view about slaves. Probably even slaves themselves, it was a different culture with different needs. There was no alternative for building like we have today with machinery. It's probably likely if the industrial age didn't happen there'd be a few people on this thread with slaves.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not trying to justify slavery or say it's right. What I'm saying is that the majority of people back then would have had a completely different viewpoint on slavery.

It's interesting that the prevailing social attitude to slavery coincided with God's view on it in the Bible, isn't it? I wonder how that might have happened...

silverharp wrote: »

Im not sure what you are trying to say there. Im saying they knew what they were doing was considered wrong and immoral and illegal, they decided to do what they did in secret as it was the only way to get away with it from their perspective. im sure if polled 99.9% of people would agree that what they did was wrong.

I would very much doubt that Rose and Fred considered what they did to be wrong or immoral.

They probably did realise that what they were doing was illegal and it was the fear of being caught, rather than the acknowledgement of the immorality of what they were doing.

silverharp wrote: »

if Greece was anything to go by it normally started with the elite making a set of rules "from the gods" which suited themselves, these systems would then be codified. Draco (of -nion) fame codified Greek law which did apply to everyone.
Im sure just like the 10 commandments they were unusually cruel when it came to things like adultery, was it ever right that someone should be stoned to death as a punishment? obviously God did at some stage or the jews thought god did at some stage or whatever the modern excuse for the practice was

Think about the Greeks that you cited. The laws that they enacted did not apply to everyone. The laws that they applied were selective in their application. Senators for example were exempt from certain provisions of the laws which the Greeks drafted and codified. Those man made Greek laws were relative.

The 10 commandments apply to everyone without exception.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not trying to justify slavery or say it's right. What I'm saying is that the majority of people back then would have had a completely different viewpoint on slavery. Slavery was everywhere and carried out by everyone. A slave may have had slaves themselves before becoming slaves. They must have rationalized that process to themselves, they would hardly think slaves were good until they became one themselves.

People would have seen slavery as a vital part of any civilized society, they wouldn't be able to build as they did without them. Again, I'm not justifying slavery I'm just pointing out that people back then would have had a very different point of view about slaves. Probably even slaves themselves, it was a different culture with different needs. There was no alternative for building like we have today with machinery. It's probably likely if the industrial age didn't happen there'd be a few people on this thread with slaves.

Im sorry but what you are saying or "not trying to justify" is simple garbage.

It makes zero difference or have any bearing on the fact that even if, as you say, slavery was simply some sort of banality back then, doesn't make it even remotely right at all. What it does show is how backwards that part of the world was back then, and also how modern society has progressed in leaps and bounds, although for some it is still perfectly fine to adhere to, mainly because it says so in a holy book.

You assumption as well is quite laughable, that some people in this thread would have slaves, although I can take a wild guess which ones that would be.

People can rationalize until the cows come home that slavery might have/could have been different in that part of the world back then, it doesn't even slightly make it right, at all, in anyway. It is still an immoral practise and awful thing to do to a fellow man.

hinault wrote: »

The 10 commandments apply to everyone without exception.

So this line of argument requires us to ignore the entire rest of the bible, right? :rolleyes:

By the way, why is genocide OK when killing is wrong?

How about Deuteronomy:

20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

So killing is wrong, and it applies to everyone. Except when it doesn't.

"Thou shalt not kill" and directly after this, Moses commands his supporters to kill their friends for their profanity...that's odd.

Gintonious wrote: »

"Thou shalt not kill" and directly after this, Moses commands his supporters to kill their friends for their profanity...that's odd.

Yeah...but...eh...it applies to everybody...

(also the genocide and stuff needs to be ignored)

RecordStraight wrote: »

Yeah...but...eh...it applies to everybody...

(also the genocide and stuff needs to be ignored)

Oh right gotcha!

But we still have to believe everything in the bible, right? Cause thats where morality comes from...

Gintonious wrote: »

Oh right gotcha!

But we still have to believe everything in the bible, right? Cause thats where morality comes from...

To be fair, not just the Bible - from organised religion. Tree worship, sun worship, ancestor worship - once it's organised, then it's a fount of morality that can't be found anywhere else.

RecordStraight wrote: »

To be fair, not just the Bible - from organised religion. Tree worship, sun worship, ancestor worship - once it's organised, then it's a fount of morality that can't be found anywhere else.

Ah right.

I just referenced the bible cause we are in the Christianity forum.

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

I would very much doubt that Rose and Fred considered what they did to be wrong or immoral.

They probably did realise that what they were doing was illegal and it was the fear of being caught, rather than the acknowledgement of the immorality of what they were doing.

Ive no idea what was going on in their heads , there are rules, people break them. jewish/christian rules didnt make people more law abiding

hinault wrote: »

Think about the Greeks that you cited. The laws that they enacted did not apply to everyone. The laws that they applied were selective in their application. Senators for example were exempt from certain provisions of the laws which the Greeks drafted and codified. Those man made Greek laws were relative.

The 10 commandments apply to everyone without exception.

and? why should I care either way? a secular legal system and general ethics in a modern European country is far more civilised compared to anything in Jewish/Christian history. You might as well ask me to endorse something coming out of Afghanistan not to mention you are asking me to endorse a system that didnt have "Do not own slaves" as one of its prime edicts, so I dismiss it as backward and not relevant for today.

Harika wrote: »

Fact is there is no universally right moral value system, every moral value will be true in the eye of the beholder, but may be completely incongruent to that of the next contestant. Broken down to the most basic constructs, morality is simply the system by which living beings treat one another. Moral beings hold a sense of empathy and consideration toward others, thus forming more successful and steadfast societies with vigorous rates of reproduction and growth.
As we see even the moral values of the bible are not there for all time and not universal, the only way to achieve this is to set the moral values in stone and never touch them again, without ever discussing or even changing them again. I think the constitutions are doing a far better job here than the 10 commandments ever did as they were not created to favor specific groups of people, besides that they were widely ignored by even god himself.

Actually what is listed in the 10 Commandments is the codification of laws previously given by God to others in the time before Moses.

For example the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day as given to Moses and told in the book of Exodus, Genesis records that God blessed and sanctified the 7th day.

So the laws to which the Commandments codified they existed before long before Moses received the codified version.

silverharp wrote: »

Ive no idea what was going on in their heads , there are rules, people break them. jewish/christian rules didnt make people more law abiding

If you have no idea what was going on in their heads why did you say earlier that they knew what they did was immoral and wrong and illegal?

They certainly knew what they were doing was illegal.

I don't accept that they acknowledged that what they did was immoral or wrong.

silverharp wrote: »

and? why should I care either way? a secular legal system and general ethics in a modern European country is far more civilised compared to anything in Jewish/Christian history.

The question remains on what basis does society justify it's morality.

hinault wrote: »

So the laws to which the Commandments codified they existed before long before Moses received the codified version.

Odd then that genocide was permitted.

hinault wrote: »

The question remains on what basis does society justify it's morality.

On what basis did the morality of the OT get binned for the morality of the NT? Didn't you say that morals should be timeless and unchanging, or words to that effect?

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

If you have no idea what was going on in their heads why did you say earlier that they knew what they did was immoral and wrong and illegal?

They certainly knew what they were doing was illegal.

I don't accept that they acknowledged that what they did was immoral or wrong.

You can know something is wrong and still do something, ill assume in their case they created some reasoning to justify their actions, that they didnt feel guilty about what they did and did get pleasure out of it , so they chose to ignore every taboo in society by being predators of innocent people. I dont really see what your point is, they did something that any society would condemn

hinault wrote: »

The question remains on what basis does society justify it's morality.

does it? Ive said it before but I will say it again , because society judges everyone and its in our personal interest to carry this on , plus we have a legal system and keeps law and order by protecting people and enforcing property rights to incentivise compliance again which is in our interests. Its why Switzerland is seen to be a more civilized place to live or do business than say Somalia

silverharp wrote: »

You can know something is wrong and still do something

That is the very definition of immorality.

silverharp wrote: »

they did something that any society would condemn

Of course society condemns what they did. Because what they did do was wrong and wicked and immoral.

My question is on what basis has society judged that what they did was wrong?

silverharp wrote: »

does it? Ive said it before but I will say it again , because society judges everyone and its in our personal interest to carry this on , plus we have a legal system and keeps law and order by protecting people and enforcing property rights to incentivise compliance again which is in our interests. Its why Switzerland is seen to be a more civilized place to live or do business than say Somalia

I accept everything that you say here.

I don't accept that moral guidance origin comes from society because society is incapable of creating absolute moral truth.

Yes, societies like Switzerland have the appearance of being a ethical and morally good basis, if you consider banking without questions as being morally good and if you consider euthanasia services to be morally good

hinault wrote: »

That is the very definition of immorality.

Of course society condemns what they did. Because what they did do was wrong and wicked and immoral.

My question is on what basis has society judged that what they did was wrong?

I accept everything that you say here.

I don't accept that moral guidance origin comes from society because society is incapable of creating absolute moral truth.

Yes, societies like Switzerland have the appearance of being a ethical and morally good basis, if you consider banking without questions as being morally good and if you consider euthanasia services to be morally good

Exactly how do you come to that conclusion?

Harika

hinault wrote: »

I don't accept that moral guidance origin comes from society because society is incapable of creating absolute moral truth.

And the moral guidance of a superior being that kills several times humans and then suddenly decides that it is not okay to kill should be trusted?

Harika

hinault wrote: »

Actually what is listed in the 10 Commandments is the codification of laws previously given by God to others in the time before Moses.

Where is the killing part previous recorded?

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

That is the very definition of immorality.

Of course society condemns what they did. Because what they did do was wrong and wicked and immoral.

My question is on what basis has society judged that what they did was wrong?

I accept everything that you say here.

I don't accept that moral guidance origin comes from society because society is incapable of creating absolute moral truth.

Yes, societies like Switzerland have the appearance of being a ethical and morally good basis, if you consider banking without questions as being morally good and if you consider euthanasia services to be morally good

"absolute moral truth" what does that mean and why is it important? there are truths that as civilised people we can all agree on and know. Unlike the God of the Bible we know that murdering civilians is wrong and that killing a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is wrong too. It took God some time to come to these basic conclusions when he ought to have known better

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

The question remains on what basis does society justify it's morality.

One way is by applying the Veil of Ignorance to a position.

Essentially, 'do to others as you'd have them do to you'.

Nobody wishes to be murdered, assaulted or raped. So everyone agrees these things are bad.

Commerce and trade can't survive if theft is legal, consensus is arrived at to ban theft.

And on, and on, ad nauseum.

If this doesn't work for you, then I'd have to ask why does God making the law work? It's just another type of moral authority. Do you agree with God because it fits your morality, or do just accept it with because God issued your commandments/morals?

smacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Mental health services.

The law.

Their family, peer group, and the media.

www.Boards.ie

Not necessarily in that order

Not a bad list and gave me a grin, but you left out education. Certainly in educate together national schools morality and ethics form part of the curriculum. See http://www.educatetogether.ie/about/learn-together I think the same time slot in Christian religious schools is dedicated to religion, which would include Christian morality. For my money, what is being taught in Educate Together is for more pertinent to modern society.

Safehands

RecordStraight wrote: »

It's very important for Hinault's argument that he ignores pre- and non-religious societies that have worked absolutely fine since the dawn of time. Rather a glaring thing to ignore, but there you go.

I think it is very easy to say that societies have worked fine since the dawn of time, but that simply is not true. I don't think I need to go into detail but society in the middle ages and later did not 'work fine'.

Safehands wrote: »

I think it is very easy to say that societies have worked fine since the dawn of time, but that simply is not true. I don't think I need to go into detail but society in the middle ages and later did not 'work fine'.

That would be a society 'guided' by the 'timeless morality' of the Catholic Church in Europe though.

Safehands

RecordStraight wrote: »

That would be a society 'guided' by the 'timeless morality' of the Catholic Church in Europe though.

I don't want to be a defender of the Catholic church, but to blame them solely for a lack of morality in the middle ages is ridiculous. There was so much more wrong with society then.