Welcome to Gaia! ::

stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Rsnbl Faith
Kiumaru
Rsnbl Faith
1) Creation gives authority because they gave you life. By your very existence, you owe God your all because He gave you your all. As for your second question, it doesn't. God gave us free-will, but if we don't do things properly that means we pay the price.

2) No I am subscribing to the "I'm able to fulfill my promises and uphold what I have" argument. Many strong people are in the wrong, and many strong people are in the right.

3) Again, you don't. You have free-will, I've never denied that.


1) Why do I owe God? It is not as if I made some sort of contract with God in his creation of me. If I created an entity for whatever reason, does that mean that this creation would owe it to me to kill themselves if I really wished for it? Since they owe everything to me, does that mean that I would have the ability to impress upon it morality which can be self-nihilating?

2) What promises?

3) I'm not talking about a "have to" in the coercive sense but rather in the moral sense. If we are to establish morality, morality establishes "shoulds" and "oughts" where these things "have to" be done lest one wants to be immoral. But why is the morality established by God the morality that we must follow?


1) Yes, it would. Unless the thing that made you were to say otherwise.

2) Hm...I guess I did word that poorly didn't I? I ought to say I am not subscribing to "might makes right" rather "might keeps what one has by right"

3) For the same reason a computer that breaks down and performance decreases is a bad computer, or a dull knife is a bad knife. It is not fit to accomplish what it must. It is why oughts and shoulds exist to begin with.


1.) Creation does not imply ownership. Bill Gates created Windows. Bill Gates does not own the copy of windows i acquired from him any more than he owns the mouse I am using to surf the web at this very instant. Bob Kane created Catwoman. Long before that horrid movie came out people were drawing Catwoman in ads, comic books, and other such media and fan work without Bob Kane's permission. My parents created me. They birthed me. Their control over my life has been limited to the degree of care and compassion they gave me growing up. They have no true control over my life aside from resource management besides what i can acquire on my own. I myself control an aspect of their lives through my superior knowledge of technology and management. Creation never implies control by virtue of itself.

3.)I do not believe you are answering the question with this one. "For the same reason that a computer that breaks down and performance increases is a bad computer, etc." is not an argument for morality originating with God. It is an argument that morality has a definite efficiency and premise that is constructed within the populace, not that God put it there. If you were trying to assert that morality should by it's definition have a set of efficient and beneficial qualities, then that is acceptable, but there is nothing in your statement that supports that you need a deity to determine morality.
How can equality exist when there is someone of higher value to make the rules?
Rsnbl Faith's avatar

Fashionable Genius

5,700 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
heathrin16
Rsnbl Faith
heathrin16
Rsnbl Faith
heathrin16
So what I'm getting from you is that Atheist's shouldn't have morals? I don't know if that is what your implying but if so than that is very offensive to me sir to assume that just because we don't believe in a deity that we can't define what we ourselves as people for how we feel personally on issue's should decide what is right or wrong.

I decide my ethics based on my experiences and my personal pains good sir, yes my parents did influence but they didn't control my up-bringing. My mother is catholic but is open minded she doesn't believe in all that she was taught and defines her own sense of her religion rather then what her mother or father have taught her. My father is an agnostic like I am but he never told me 'there is no God' or anything of the like but to simply follow my own heart and what I myself as a person think is right. Thus they let me grow and develop my own morals, they didn't tell me it was wrong to pick on another but simply asked how that makes me feel as a person. I didn't like to hurt others so I didn't, thus that was how I knew it was wrong to hurt others because it made me feel bad.

Morals are defined by the person be however they came up with them, by guidance or through pure personal experiences and preferences of self. You keep saying that we believe that "each person is equal" and well your right I do believe that. Each person is equal to the other...because each person is a human, each person has skin, each person has hair, has eyes and organs so yes they are equal because they are human. You see what I did their? Literally everyone person is the same simply because they are all human that is the number one similarity we have from the other. But also because we are human each one is different and thus will have different thoughts, different feelings and different ways at looking at life and that in itself is a similarity.

Am I saying each person thus thinks the same? No...many will develop similar feelings though based on how they choose to see right from wrong and thus influence their society in small or huge ways. Others will come to agree with them while others naturally disagree as well.

Call it a contradictory or whatever but do I believe people should be treated humanely yes I do, but will I also deny that when one has done something that I as a person do not agree with should be punished then yes I will. Is that suppose to mean I'm not an Atheist...no it simply means that I am a human being like anyone else.

Each person has different morals, so they will be looked on differently but people themselves are equal because simply we are all different and are all human. That is what makes us truly the same.


Which is my point, many murderers love murdering, and many rapists love raping. Though would you be so inclined as to call those good merely because it is a joy to them? By the very teachings you uphold the actions of the rapist and the murderer are good moral people. Though then, would you say that it is wrong and betray your very stance? What then says its wrong, did not your own feelings guide you to what is right like their own?

I would also be very inclined to reread what I said, I did not say that those who don't believe in God can't live moral and good lives, just that they have no actual reason to define why their morals are any higher than someone else's. You might say one ought to be good (against rape and murder) to benefit society, but why ought I to benefit society because its good? That is only circular reasoning, and as stated in my last post, that is nothing more than fallacious reasoning.


Sir I don't get you, I don't get what your trying to accomplish in saying that our morals are flawed. You say why should we think our morals are better then others? Don't you think your way of thinking is better then someone else's? After all you are pointing out what you believe are flaws to us so you too come across as one who feels their way of life is better then another's.

I could be over-examining this, and perhaps I'm being naive but hell I'm still trying to figure out what to do in life and about the world and politics let alone trying to crack the depths of the mind of humanity.

Trying to understand the human is like solving a puzzle with a billion pieces, it seem's possible but one you think you've finished the puzzle you find there are a whole mess of pieces missing before you can complete it.

The way I think is based on how I feel and the people in my life, just the same as anyone else in the world be it they are religious are not. Are you telling me the way I think is wrong then sir? Cause if so...aren't you being exactly as those you accuse? Would you rather I condone murder and rape rather then have the best interest for society and further more children and my own generation? Would that make more sense to you? I don't mean to pick at you, honestly I don't, but help me understand you sir. Help me understand how you think and feel so that maybe we can understand each other.


I'm merely arguing that without God there is no way to base an absolute morality. But I also believe that there is an absolute morality. I do not agree with murder, nor do I agree with rape. I disagree with both on the fact that there is a basis for morality within the concept of Gods existence.

My first set of arguments, as I argued with the other two is that we do have an absolute morality, then I moved onto explaining how this would be impossible without God, using the absolute morality as a basis for my belief in the existence of God. (One of many I warn you, but an important one.)

I hope this helps you understand me better.


I see...I do understand and by all means I respect your opinion but at the same time I disagree. However I have already told my side of how I've come to my own way of thinking, and I know that any further argument isn't going to deter you which I have no intention of doing so. You are a follower of God of which I will respect that is your choice, in return I hope to seek respect on your part that what I define is my own not based on religion since well in truth I did't grow up with it. My parents did grow up with it yes, but for them they actually turned away from what they were taught. Both of their parents were pretty extreme actually, my mom's dad was a lunatic and my dad's family were prejudice. Neither agreed with their teachings so let us decide.

They didn't encourage religion for my mom is still catholic, but didn't turn us away from religion for my dad is agnostic and gay. Both of them even through hard times get along. In the end my sister and I made our own choices.

In the end for me it comes down to where I think that in the end there are two types of people in this matter. Those who need religion and those who don't. I just don't need religion or religious followings to define good morality and what I consider are good ethics. So far I've turned out to be a pretty good person so I think it works.

In the end for these kinds one can only say the following "let's agree to disagree".

I respect you voicing your opinion, but in the end that's all I see it as and no amount of what you say can make me see otherwise. Just the same as no matter what I can never make you not believe in God, which I don't intend to do. Anything we say to each other will fall on deaf ears and result in really nothing in the end.

So let's just agree to disagree, nothing else other to do then that. Well we could always flame each other saying how the other is stupid or some kind of nonsense but I'd rather not get a headache at this hour. biggrin


I grew up in religion, but that did not keep me in it, what kept me in it was reading both atheists works and Christian works. Like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins, Fredrick Nietzsche. Though I tend to agree with G.K. Chestertons line in Orthodoxy when he speaks about how he was when he was an atheist reading atheist works, he would say at the end of them "Thou almost persuades me to be a Christian."

And I agree, I know often times these things hardly lead anywhere, I mostly entered this argument to help a friend of mine.
Rsnbl Faith's avatar

Fashionable Genius

5,700 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
stealthmongoose
Rsnbl Faith
Kiumaru
Rsnbl Faith
1) Creation gives authority because they gave you life. By your very existence, you owe God your all because He gave you your all. As for your second question, it doesn't. God gave us free-will, but if we don't do things properly that means we pay the price.

2) No I am subscribing to the "I'm able to fulfill my promises and uphold what I have" argument. Many strong people are in the wrong, and many strong people are in the right.

3) Again, you don't. You have free-will, I've never denied that.


1) Why do I owe God? It is not as if I made some sort of contract with God in his creation of me. If I created an entity for whatever reason, does that mean that this creation would owe it to me to kill themselves if I really wished for it? Since they owe everything to me, does that mean that I would have the ability to impress upon it morality which can be self-nihilating?

2) What promises?

3) I'm not talking about a "have to" in the coercive sense but rather in the moral sense. If we are to establish morality, morality establishes "shoulds" and "oughts" where these things "have to" be done lest one wants to be immoral. But why is the morality established by God the morality that we must follow?


1) Yes, it would. Unless the thing that made you were to say otherwise.

2) Hm...I guess I did word that poorly didn't I? I ought to say I am not subscribing to "might makes right" rather "might keeps what one has by right"

3) For the same reason a computer that breaks down and performance decreases is a bad computer, or a dull knife is a bad knife. It is not fit to accomplish what it must. It is why oughts and shoulds exist to begin with.


1.) Creation does not imply ownership. Bill Gates created Windows. Bill Gates does not own the copy of windows i acquired from him any more than he owns the mouse I am using to surf the web at this very instant. Bob Kane created Catwoman. Long before that horrid movie came out people were drawing Catwoman in ads, comic books, and other such media and fan work without Bob Kane's permission. My parents created me. They birthed me. Their control over my life has been limited to the degree of care and compassion they gave me growing up. They have no true control over my life aside from resource management besides what i can acquire on my own. I myself control an aspect of their lives through my superior knowledge of technology and management. Creation never implies control by virtue of itself.

3.)I do not believe you are answering the question with this one. "For the same reason that a computer that breaks down and performance increases is a bad computer, etc." is not an argument for morality originating with God. It is an argument that morality has a definite efficiency and premise that is constructed within the populace, not that God put it there. If you were trying to assert that morality should by it's definition have a set of efficient and beneficial qualities, then that is acceptable, but there is nothing in your statement that supports that you need a deity to determine morality.


My argument is actually that He holds to the authority He gained through creation by His might. Aka He does not let his rule slip from His fingers, the examples you gave are of those who allowed what they made to be used by others. As for Bill Gates, he actually holds the rights to the product and anyone else who pirates or falsifies it can get in trouble by the law. It doesn't really do anything. (but you must combine all 3, for 2 defends 3, 3 defends 2, and 1 defends 3 kind of thing. Pillars which hold up the entire argument.)

As for 3, this one is merely there to explain that things live by a certain purpose as given by the one who made them. It wasn't meant to say that God put it there.

As for me this argument is slightly boring me and is probably going to end up being tedious. (though I believe it already is) I have defended my position and I shall leave it as such. Reply if you wish, but I bid my adieu . (Though I will let all who responded to me know that I have not ignored you)
Rsnbl Faith
stealthmongoose
Rsnbl Faith
Kiumaru
Rsnbl Faith
1) Creation gives authority because they gave you life. By your very existence, you owe God your all because He gave you your all. As for your second question, it doesn't. God gave us free-will, but if we don't do things properly that means we pay the price.

2) No I am subscribing to the "I'm able to fulfill my promises and uphold what I have" argument. Many strong people are in the wrong, and many strong people are in the right.

3) Again, you don't. You have free-will, I've never denied that.


1) Why do I owe God? It is not as if I made some sort of contract with God in his creation of me. If I created an entity for whatever reason, does that mean that this creation would owe it to me to kill themselves if I really wished for it? Since they owe everything to me, does that mean that I would have the ability to impress upon it morality which can be self-nihilating?

2) What promises?

3) I'm not talking about a "have to" in the coercive sense but rather in the moral sense. If we are to establish morality, morality establishes "shoulds" and "oughts" where these things "have to" be done lest one wants to be immoral. But why is the morality established by God the morality that we must follow?


1) Yes, it would. Unless the thing that made you were to say otherwise.

2) Hm...I guess I did word that poorly didn't I? I ought to say I am not subscribing to "might makes right" rather "might keeps what one has by right"

3) For the same reason a computer that breaks down and performance decreases is a bad computer, or a dull knife is a bad knife. It is not fit to accomplish what it must. It is why oughts and shoulds exist to begin with.


1.) Creation does not imply ownership. Bill Gates created Windows. Bill Gates does not own the copy of windows i acquired from him any more than he owns the mouse I am using to surf the web at this very instant. Bob Kane created Catwoman. Long before that horrid movie came out people were drawing Catwoman in ads, comic books, and other such media and fan work without Bob Kane's permission. My parents created me. They birthed me. Their control over my life has been limited to the degree of care and compassion they gave me growing up. They have no true control over my life aside from resource management besides what i can acquire on my own. I myself control an aspect of their lives through my superior knowledge of technology and management. Creation never implies control by virtue of itself.

3.)I do not believe you are answering the question with this one. "For the same reason that a computer that breaks down and performance increases is a bad computer, etc." is not an argument for morality originating with God. It is an argument that morality has a definite efficiency and premise that is constructed within the populace, not that God put it there. If you were trying to assert that morality should by it's definition have a set of efficient and beneficial qualities, then that is acceptable, but there is nothing in your statement that supports that you need a deity to determine morality.


My argument is actually that He holds to the authority He gained through creation by His might. Aka He does not let his rule slip from His fingers, the examples you gave are of those who allowed what they made to be used by others. As for Bill Gates, he actually holds the rights to the product and anyone else who pirates or falsifies it can get in trouble by the law. It doesn't really do anything. (but you must combine all 3, for 2 defends 3, 3 defends 2, and 1 defends 3 kind of thing. Pillars which hold up the entire argument.)

As for 3, this one is merely there to explain that things live by a certain purpose as given by the one who made them. It wasn't meant to say that God put it there.

As for me this argument is slightly boring me and is probably going to end up being tedious. (though I believe it already is) I have defended my position and I shall leave it as such. Reply if you wish, but I bid my adieu . (Though I will let all who responded to me know that I have not ignored you)


i.e. You are arguing that God is right is self-evident and so it is true that people ought to do what God commands.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Rsnbl Faith
stealthmongoose
Rsnbl Faith
Kiumaru
Rsnbl Faith
1) Creation gives authority because they gave you life. By your very existence, you owe God your all because He gave you your all. As for your second question, it doesn't. God gave us free-will, but if we don't do things properly that means we pay the price.

2) No I am subscribing to the "I'm able to fulfill my promises and uphold what I have" argument. Many strong people are in the wrong, and many strong people are in the right.

3) Again, you don't. You have free-will, I've never denied that.


1) Why do I owe God? It is not as if I made some sort of contract with God in his creation of me. If I created an entity for whatever reason, does that mean that this creation would owe it to me to kill themselves if I really wished for it? Since they owe everything to me, does that mean that I would have the ability to impress upon it morality which can be self-nihilating?

2) What promises?

3) I'm not talking about a "have to" in the coercive sense but rather in the moral sense. If we are to establish morality, morality establishes "shoulds" and "oughts" where these things "have to" be done lest one wants to be immoral. But why is the morality established by God the morality that we must follow?


1) Yes, it would. Unless the thing that made you were to say otherwise.

2) Hm...I guess I did word that poorly didn't I? I ought to say I am not subscribing to "might makes right" rather "might keeps what one has by right"

3) For the same reason a computer that breaks down and performance decreases is a bad computer, or a dull knife is a bad knife. It is not fit to accomplish what it must. It is why oughts and shoulds exist to begin with.


1.) Creation does not imply ownership. Bill Gates created Windows. Bill Gates does not own the copy of windows i acquired from him any more than he owns the mouse I am using to surf the web at this very instant. Bob Kane created Catwoman. Long before that horrid movie came out people were drawing Catwoman in ads, comic books, and other such media and fan work without Bob Kane's permission. My parents created me. They birthed me. Their control over my life has been limited to the degree of care and compassion they gave me growing up. They have no true control over my life aside from resource management besides what i can acquire on my own. I myself control an aspect of their lives through my superior knowledge of technology and management. Creation never implies control by virtue of itself.

3.)I do not believe you are answering the question with this one. "For the same reason that a computer that breaks down and performance increases is a bad computer, etc." is not an argument for morality originating with God. It is an argument that morality has a definite efficiency and premise that is constructed within the populace, not that God put it there. If you were trying to assert that morality should by it's definition have a set of efficient and beneficial qualities, then that is acceptable, but there is nothing in your statement that supports that you need a deity to determine morality.


My argument is actually that He holds to the authority He gained through creation by His might. Aka He does not let his rule slip from His fingers, the examples you gave are of those who allowed what they made to be used by others. As for Bill Gates, he actually holds the rights to the product and anyone else who pirates or falsifies it can get in trouble by the law. It doesn't really do anything. (but you must combine all 3, for 2 defends 3, 3 defends 2, and 1 defends 3 kind of thing. Pillars which hold up the entire argument.)

As for 3, this one is merely there to explain that things live by a certain purpose as given by the one who made them. It wasn't meant to say that God put it there.

As for me this argument is slightly boring me and is probably going to end up being tedious. (though I believe it already is) I have defended my position and I shall leave it as such. Reply if you wish, but I bid my adieu . (Though I will let all who responded to me know that I have not ignored you)



1. I assert that your argument regarding his control over his own universe is one that can be quite well disproven if not for the safety net of 'free will'. Application of free will to me effectively eliminates any control that said deity would have on said follower, especially if said follower has already broken the programming placed upon them for their perception of the world. That being said, the assertion of force to maintain grasp over one's creation usually implies a lack of control that needs to be rectified. I.E. Bill Gates would not need to have a law against piracy if piracy was not a threat to his product's profits.

This in itself to me shows a weakness on the part of the creator theory of control, at least when we're referencing Bill Gates' programming or the continuity of scripture in relevance to reality. Pirates do assert more than just a limited form of control over the product that they pirate, some going to the extent of completely customizing and refitting the operating system to do what they wish, sometimes to a greater form of efficiency than the original creator (Bill Gates) Intended.

This may seem irrelevant, but as a comparison it's very sound. If you assert that the creator (Let's call him God for now and assert that he exists for this experiment at least) has control over their creation, one must be willing to provide proof that the control is actually there. Thus, as far as i know, there is no situation i or anyone else has experienced where control over the creation is left in it's entirety to the part of the creator, even in the most fictional anecdotes it would be like saying that instead of creating DRM to fix issues with Bill Gates' Flawed operating system; "Bill Gates, the most holy of programmers hath decreed that no man shall use the most perfect of operating systems to defile the work of the most perfect of creators" And then proceed to pretend that bugs with Bill Gates' operating system don't exist. Beyond that also paint Bill Gates like a God even though he's not. Even if we went to that extreme it wouldn't change the fact that Bill Gates is no God and his creation is far from perfect, or within his control.

People customize their OS'es and mankind has run off with the planet. Not to say that nature is losing, but i don't think it's really thanks to divine intervention that we can assert any form of morality in the usage force, suffice it to say that we've learned a lot from causing wars, living through disease, starvation, etc. But to attribute this knowledge on life or morality in general to a divine being, i think you'd be forgetting to give credit where it is due.

3.) An assertion of purpose coinciding with creation? Have you ever used a chair to stand up and get something from a high shelf? That simple example aside, are you stating that the purpose of every being in existence is attributed to their creator? I doubt that very much. I, for example, use this computer to pirate music, as do you and almost everyone else within the united states. This goes directly against the purpose of the computer, which is to acquire and process legitimate information according to the DRM software that oh so dilligently monitors this sort of activity. Am i using this computer outside of it's creator's purpose? Probably. Could he stop me? If he wanted to waste the resources to do so. Would there be any need to? Probably not. Is there some natural or divine law preventing me from repurposing this computer to do whatever I wish within the boundaries of computing? Nothing that can't be changed if i put the effort into doing so.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Though you are leaving (which i'm sorry to hear about), i just wanted to post this last response to your argument. I don't doubt that you have the urge to not address these points, i can even sort of empathize with why it would seem tedious to you...i still believe others could learn from the post though.

Where does god fit into all of this again?
Vanilla Psychosis
So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?


Uh, the General Will.
Wow, who dug up this old thread?

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation.

It strikes me that people who believe that morality stems from authority (that something is moral if and because the guy in charge says so) are immoral people, and the last ones whose opinions on the matter should be taken seriously.
IronySandwich
Wow, who dug up this old thread?

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation.

It strikes me that people who believe that morality stems from authority (that something is moral if and because the guy in charge says so) are immoral people, and the last ones whose opinions on the matter should be taken seriously.



And you've observed all people in this world that claim morality stems from authority as being immoral, yes?

Nice blanket statement.
zeffers
IronySandwich
Wow, who dug up this old thread?

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation.

It strikes me that people who believe that morality stems from authority (that something is moral if and because the guy in charge says so) are immoral people, and the last ones whose opinions on the matter should be taken seriously.

And you've observed all people in this world that claim morality stems from authority as being immoral, yes?

Nice blanket statement.

Behavior isn't really the point. Morality is an internal thing. Someone who does good only out of fear of punishment or desire for reward from someone or something more powerful than them isn't being moral, at best they're being practical. Someone who does good merely because it is good is inherently a more moral person.
IronySandwich
zeffers
IronySandwich
Wow, who dug up this old thread?

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation.

It strikes me that people who believe that morality stems from authority (that something is moral if and because the guy in charge says so) are immoral people, and the last ones whose opinions on the matter should be taken seriously.

And you've observed all people in this world that claim morality stems from authority as being immoral, yes?

Nice blanket statement.

Behavior isn't really the point. Morality is an internal thing. Someone who does good only out of fear of punishment or desire for reward from someone or something more powerful than them isn't being moral, at best they're being practical. Someone who does good merely because it is good is inherently a more moral person.


As a question and not an avoidance to your statement, would someone who obeys the laws to avoid being punished be immoral then? Would someone that goes to work because of the benefit of money be immoral, as such is a reward and form of compensation for their time?

Would someone that owns a business with the benefit of making money, profits and having security be immoral then? All are rewards and motivate people, so would everyone be immoral then?
zeffers
IronySandwich
zeffers
IronySandwich
Wow, who dug up this old thread?

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation.

It strikes me that people who believe that morality stems from authority (that something is moral if and because the guy in charge says so) are immoral people, and the last ones whose opinions on the matter should be taken seriously.

And you've observed all people in this world that claim morality stems from authority as being immoral, yes?

Nice blanket statement.

Behavior isn't really the point. Morality is an internal thing. Someone who does good only out of fear of punishment or desire for reward from someone or something more powerful than them isn't being moral, at best they're being practical. Someone who does good merely because it is good is inherently a more moral person.


As a question and not an avoidance to your statement, would someone who obeys the laws to avoid being punished be immoral then? Would someone that goes to work because of the benefit of money be immoral, as such is a reward and form of compensation for their time?

Would someone that owns a business with the benefit of making money, profits and having security be immoral then? All are rewards and motivate people, so would everyone be immoral then?

Not immoral, merely amoral (look up the definition of that word before you object), at least in terms of those actions.

I suppose your right that I didn't really get into where the true immorality of that belief comes in. To put it simply, the immorality comes from abandoning one's duty to take responsibility for one's own moral choices.

Make no mistake, those people don't really get their morality from God (or whatever they claim to), the vast difference in moral codes between those supposedly receiving it from the same source is proof enough of that. Rather they like to claim it comes from some higher source so that they never have to take the time to actually sit down and consider what their moral code is, why it is, and if it's really the right one to follow. In other words, it's an excuse to not think.
Rsnbl Faith
Kiumaru
Rsnbl Faith
1) Creation gives authority because they gave you life. By your very existence, you owe God your all because He gave you your all. As for your second question, it doesn't. God gave us free-will, but if we don't do things properly that means we pay the price.

2) No I am subscribing to the "I'm able to fulfill my promises and uphold what I have" argument. Many strong people are in the wrong, and many strong people are in the right.

3) Again, you don't. You have free-will, I've never denied that.


1) Why do I owe God? It is not as if I made some sort of contract with God in his creation of me. If I created an entity for whatever reason, does that mean that this creation would owe it to me to kill themselves if I really wished for it? Since they owe everything to me, does that mean that I would have the ability to impress upon it morality which can be self-nihilating?

2) What promises?

3) I'm not talking about a "have to" in the coercive sense but rather in the moral sense. If we are to establish morality, morality establishes "shoulds" and "oughts" where these things "have to" be done lest one wants to be immoral. But why is the morality established by God the morality that we must follow?


1) Yes, it would. Unless the thing that made you were to say otherwise.

2) Hm...I guess I did word that poorly didn't I? I ought to say I am not subscribing to "might makes right" rather "might keeps what one has by right"

3) For the same reason a computer that breaks down and performance decreases is a bad computer, or a dull knife is a bad knife. It is not fit to accomplish what it must. It is why oughts and shoulds exist to begin with.


1) Why?

2) Why does he have that right?

3) But that doesn't mean that the knife has to follow my own wishes or wants just because I might create it. The "power" that I exercise over said knife (if we imagine this knife to be sentient) might be tyrannical.
IronySandwich
zeffers
IronySandwich
Wow, who dug up this old thread?

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation.

It strikes me that people who believe that morality stems from authority (that something is moral if and because the guy in charge says so) are immoral people, and the last ones whose opinions on the matter should be taken seriously.

And you've observed all people in this world that claim morality stems from authority as being immoral, yes?

Nice blanket statement.

Behavior isn't really the point. Morality is an internal thing. Someone who does good only out of fear of punishment or desire for reward from someone or something more powerful than them isn't being moral, at best they're being practical. Someone who does good merely because it is good is inherently a more moral person.


Depends on how you define morality. One could just as easily make morality into a simple set of things which one should not do what they are forbidden to do.
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Tested Practitioner 250
Fermionic
How can equality exist when there is someone of higher value to make the rules?

Power and value are only calculated by one's influence upon others, aren't they?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games