nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Moral Guidance

Safehands

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Michael OBrien

hinault wrote: »

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

Societies are not monocultural, but they do recognise that to survive and compete against other rival societies, there are certain factors that provide benefits. This is time dependant of course.
Co-operation is a key factor in successful societies, and trust is required for people to co-operate willingly. Even in harsh societies, trust is vital so that people can understand how to function within those expectations.
When trust is lost, revolutions and rebellions are common, as people no longer feel any structure or security to their lives and typically panic.

Theft undermines trust within a society. Theft outside that society is a different matter and often encouraged because it weakens rivals. Therefore it is not absolute moral prohibition but conditional and environmental. Yet it cannot be called relative as all societies have it and require it.

Commerce cannot exist if theft is condoned. Trade benefits both a society and peaceful negotiations with rival states, often making them allies. Some resources are unobtainable otherwise, unless conflict is initiated and that is not always feasible or desirable.

Therefore it is in the best interest of a society to recognise the negative impact of theft in many circumstances.

In modern societies capitalism also seeks to reinforce material gain, however without prohibition of theft, motivations for marketing, selling, trading or manufacturing would diminish as people would simply steal a limited amount of the resources rather than seek to multiple them so all can obtain them equally.

The veil of ignorance mentioned in another post is also an excellent way of working out moral issues and theft is no exception.

Also it is recognised that the act of theft often includes violence and destruction, both harmful to society and discouraged, at least internally.
This means that other crimes like rape and murder also are linked to theft and are even more obviously harmful for their own reasons.

Over time societies that ignored these failed to proper while those that had such rules (e.g. codes of hammurabi) prospered and evolved into greater civilisations. Many great civilisations have fallen due to the failures to enforce such morality, resulting in acts of betrayal, rebellion and widespread corruption. The Roman Empire suffered greatly from this, especially after it adopted Christianity. Although christainity was only part of the errors that caused its downfall.

marienbad

Morality has always been relative , always has been and always will. Even in societies governed by a religious ethos this is the case .

And morality ethics and laws in secular republics today is light years ahead of any religious ethos . Adherence to those laws may be less so .but that has always been the case .

smacl

I think all primaries also have SPHE on the curriculum, and secondaries have CSPE which both have a strong moral dimension. To be honest, I think the bulk of moral education comes from parents and rightly so, and where people denigrate society, religion, media, etc.. for perceived declining moral standards, I'd tend to point the finger closer to home. I say perceived, because modern media provides much more visibility of societies woes than was ever the case in the past, but that does not imply the volume has increased. We also uncover unacceptable behaviour from recent history, e.g. the Magdelen Laundries, which would suggest to me that there was much more wrong with our society at those times than there is now, and we tend to look at the past through rose tinted glasses.

smacl

marienbad wrote: »

Morality has always been relative , always has been and always will. Even in societies governed by a religious ethos this is the case .

And morality ethics and laws in secular republics today is light years ahead of any religious ethos . Adherence to those laws may be less so .but that has always been the case .

Agreed, which to me suggests that codifying it in fixed absolute terms, such as commandments, is the wrong way to go. Morality evolves as society changes, and it is necessary to revise our position on that basis. Something like the recent same sex marriage referendum is a good example of this.

ScumLord

Gintonious wrote: »

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,

What part of the world, slavery was normalised in every single society and civilization up until just a few hundred years ago. It wasn't the reserve of some people back then, it was what everybody did.

To confuse matters more you have the customs of some native American tribes that take prisoners of war and make them replacements for lost family members. They're not free to come and go as they please (at first) but they have the status of the tribe member their replacing which can sometimes be quite a lofty position for an outsider to get dropped into.

Your judging ancient people by your own modern standards, you don't seem to appreciate how difficult life would have been back then.

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.

It's not, do you really believe your morals are above and beyond your environment and circumstances? If you were born into a society that condoned slavery you'd be taking part in it just like everybody else.

silverharp

ScumLord wrote: »

What part of the world, slavery was normalised in every single society and civilization up until just a few hundred years ago. It wasn't the reserve of some people back then, it was what everybody did.

To confuse matters more you have the customs of some native American tribes that take prisoners of war and make them replacements for lost family members. They're not free to come and go as they please (at first) but they have the status of the tribe member their replacing which can sometimes be quite a lofty position for an outsider to get dropped into.

Your judging ancient people by your own modern standards, you don't seem to appreciate how difficult life would have been back then.

It's not, do you really believe your morals are above and beyond your environment and circumstances? If you were born into a society that condoned slavery you'd be taking part in it just like everybody else.

Ive no problem with that argument , what christians have to explain is why their deity didnt outlaw it from the start.

Frank Bullitt

What part of the world, slavery was normalised in every single society and civilization up until just a few hundred years ago. It wasn't the reserve of some people back then, it was what everybody did.

To confuse matters more you have the customs of some native American tribes that take prisoners of war and make them replacements for lost family members. They're not free to come and go as they please (at first) but they have the status of the tribe member their replacing which can sometimes be quite a lofty position for an outsider to get dropped into.

Your judging ancient people by your own modern standards, you don't seem to appreciate how difficult life would have been back then.

This is exactly my point. People are trying to justify getting some from of moral guidance from a book that contains hideous crimes against a fellow man. How can anyone possibly try and say, that if it weren't fro Holy book X, or Y, that we wouldn't know right from wrong.

It's not, do you really believe your morals are above and beyond your environment and circumstances? If you were born into a society that condoned slavery you'd be taking part in it just like everybody else.

If my aunt had wheels she'd be a wagon, you can't try and compare someone living today to a society in the past. Its learning from mistakes that have gotten society to where it is now, dropping practises like slavery mentioned in the bible, because people can see very clearly that it is wrong.

If these books offer anything at all, its to show a society how to not live.

ScumLord

Gintonious wrote: »

If these books offer anything at all, its to show a society how to not live.

We're on the same side of the argument, I'm just pointing out that people back then that kept slaves weren't necessarily scumbags, or horrible people. It was just normal for people to have slaves back then. There were probably people that didn't like slavery but had little to no choice but to go along with it. If slavery stopped in ancient times it's likely they wouldn't have been able to support complex society. As soon as it wasn't necessary it was dropped.

I think the bible is an extremely important historical book, the stories are an incredible insight into ancient people. The stories go further back than even the religions that claim ownership of them realise. But it's certainly not a book of ideals that modern people should aspire to, it's a best guess by people with very little information to work on.

It has some pretty inspiring qualities, I'm not going to completely discount it just because I don't like religion. But it's obviously a sign of the times. Just because those people did horrible things by our standards doesn't completely dismiss everything in it. It's another interesting viewpoint of human society.

smacl

ScumLord wrote: »

It has some pretty inspiring qualities, I'm not going to completely discount it just because I don't like religion. But it's obviously a sign of the times.

It was also more relevant to the period it came from. 'Go forth and multiply' for example makes good sense in a society with high mortality rates, low life expectancy, and a society that needs more people to progress. In today's world, with soaring world population, longer life expectancy, large scale automation and various resource crises, exponentially increasing population size is the last thing humanity and the planet needs. For all the talk of death toll done in wars, they have been the the only culls to a rapidly burgeoning population. So the modern pragmatic version of 'Go forth an multiply' would probably say 'stay put, and stop breeding like rabbits'. Again showing the link between sensible moral values and context.

hinault

silverharp wrote: »

"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

The OT records that God gave man several direct warnings that if man did not reform his ways, retribution would follow.

You make the common mistake claiming "God killed civilians" but forget to mention that these civilians had all been given fair warning that they would be killed if they did not reform their ways.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

The OT records that God gave man several direct warnings that if man did not reform his ways, retribution would follow.

You make the common mistake claiming "God killed civilians" but forget to mention that these civilians had all been given fair warning that they would be killed if they did not reform their ways.

That makes it all ok.

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

The OT records that God gave man several direct warnings that if man did not reform his ways, retribution would follow.

You make the common mistake claiming "God killed civilians" but forget to mention that these civilians had all been given fair warning that they would be killed if they did not reform their ways.

And that would be a war crime today , you see we have a better morality than God .

RecordStraight

galljga1 wrote: »

That makes it all ok.

Indeed.

And it still doesn't explain why the 'superior' morality of the Bible permits slavery, killing, genocide and so forth.

And why Hinault's 'unchanging and timeless' morality suddenly changed in the New Testament...

hinault

silverharp wrote: »

And that would be a war crime today , you see we have a better morality than God .

No crime was committed.

Man was warned that if he didn't reform, he would perish.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

No crime was committed.

Man was warned that if he didn't reform, he would perish.

But what about the 'absolute truth'? Killing isn't immoral?

hinault

SW wrote: »

But what about the 'absolute truth'? Killing isn't immoral?

God's word is the absolute truth in that context.

Is killing in self defence "immoral"? Of course it isn't and killing in self defence doesn't violate the commandment "thou shall not kill"

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

God's word is the absolute truth in that context.

Is killing in self defence "immoral"? Of course it isn't and killing in self defence doesn't violate the commandment "thou shall not kill"

So it's ok for God to kill in self-defence.

Glad we cleared that up.

And the genocide and slavery?

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

No crime was committed.

Man was warned that if he didn't reform, he would perish.

If one gov gave that ultimatum to another country and followed up with nukes it would be a war crime. A god that makes war on children and and other innocents is immoral. Its Einzastgruppen stuff

hinault

silverharp wrote: »

If one gov gave that ultimatum to another country and followed up with nukes it would be a war crime. A god that makes war on children and and other innocents is immoral. Its Einzastgruppen stuff

You need to read the OT more closely.

God issued warnings that if man did not reform there would be retribution.
God continued to warn man several more times.

When man refused to heed these warnings and before retribution came, God warned the innocent to vacate the location where retribution was to take place.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

You need to read the OT more closely.

God issued warnings that if man did not reform there would be retribution.
God continued to warn man several more times.

When man refused to heed these warnings and before retribution came, God warned the innocent to vacate the location where retribution was to take place.

Right, but close reading of the OT suggests that slavery and genocide were permitted. Humanist morality thinks these things are abhorrent. It seems to me that organised religion lags behind society in terms of its moral teachings.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

No crime was committed.

Man was warned that if he didn't reform, he would perish.

Daesh warned their subjects if they didn't reform, they'd perish. The Kim dynasty warned their subjects if they didn't reform, they'd perish. Stalin warned his subjects if they didn't reform, they'd perish.

See how screwed up that is?

hinault

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Daesh warned their subjects if they didn't reform, they'd perish. The Kim dynasty warned their subjects if they didn't reform, they'd perish. Stalin warned his subjects if they didn't reform, they'd perish.

See how screwed up that is?

Many innocent people perished under Stalin etc.

God doesn't kill the innocent.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

God doesn't kill the innocent.

What was this guy guilty of? Trying to protect the Ark?

The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

God's word is the absolute truth in that context.

Is killing in self defence "immoral"? Of course it isn't and killing in self defence doesn't violate the commandment "thou shall not kill"

The commandment says, 'thou shall not kill'.

God kills, but it's not immoral. The commandment isn't an absolute truth then as it's contingent on who does the killing.

Killing in self defence may or may not be immoral depending on the person responding to the question.

You exercised a value judgement on the commandment and deemed self-defence not to be immoral. A pacifist would disagree.

Clearly not an absolute truth so.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

God doesn't kill the innocent.

Neither did the likes of Daesh, the Kim dynasty, Stalin etc. according to their loyal believers.

hinault

SW wrote: »

The commandment says, 'thou shall not kill'.

God kills, but it's not immoral. The commandment isn't an absolute truth then as it's contingent on who does the killing.

Killing in self defence may or may not be immoral depending on the person responding to the question.

You exercised a value judgement on the commandment and deemed self-defence not to be immoral. A pacifist would disagree.

Clearly not an absolute truth so.

Killing in self defence is justified.

A pacifist is entitled to disagree.

The God who created you allows you to disagree with whatever you wish.

Saying that there is no absolute truth is another absolute statement.

"How dare you judge me" is someone judging another!

hinault

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Neither did the likes of Daesh, the Kim dynasty, Stalin etc. according to their loyal believers.

So why did God warn those who are innocent to vacate a location before retribution?

Did Stalin spare the innocent by warning them that they should leave before he delivered retribution?
Did Stalin even warn that retribution would happen?
The NKVD were not known as the "secret police" for nothing.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Killing in self defence is justified.

In your interpretation of the commandment.

The God who created you allows you to disagree with whatever you wish.

Saying that there is no absolute truth is another absolute statement.

I didn't say there is no absolute truth. I stated that saying 'thou shall not kill' is an absolute truth and the listing exceptions kind of negates the label 'absolute truth'.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

God's word is the absolute truth in that context.

He's the absolute truth that makes mistakes, contradicts himself and doesn't show much understanding or foresight for the intentions of the creatures he created.

hinault wrote: »

The God who created you allows you to disagree with whatever you wish.

But if you don't agree with him he might kill you or send you for eternal torture.

Safehands

ScumLord wrote: »

He's the absolute truth that makes mistakes, contradicts himself and doesn't show much understanding or foresight for the intentions of the creatures he created. But if you don't agree with him he might kill you or send you for eternal torture

Morality is not confined to killing or being really nasty. Morality involves a way of living.
In my opinion, some of the role models adored by our children, live quite immoral existences. Money is their God. How much money can one person spend? Young girls buy magazines which portray "stars" living unbelievably lavish lifestyles, looking like stick insects, which our young people try to emanate. I don't know about you guys, but I think that there are moral issues associated with this type of hype which sends a dreadful message to our kids.
We see football stars being "sold" and earning telephone numbers of pounds or euros. How is that possible? By exploiting young kids, selling football kits, manufactured for coppers in the Far East and sold to our kids for a king's ransome. Who is speaking out about this? Nobody, because it is totally accepted in our modern society. Who is providing the money for these outrageously priced shirts? Parents and guardians, who are supposed to be the ones providing the moral guidelines, that's who! They are in the exploitation loop also.