|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:15 pm
CalledTheRaven CH1YO PrometheanSet CH1YO The poll results shock me, why in the would would anyone want policy makers to legislate in an amoral fashion? Just because people want laws that exist independently of *one* religion doesn't mean we want "amoral legislation". Making decisions without consulting one's moral compass is amoral. And why do we need a religion to determine our moral compass? Morals are a cultural concern not a religious one. One can be moral and have no religion. By the way, just to make sure, as many people don't know the difference between immoral and amoral, I would like to make certain of your usage before I discuss the post further. When you say amoral do you mean Quote: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral or do you mean the opposite of moral? This is just for my own clarification, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I've just come accross problems with this before and I want to make sure we're arguing about the same thing. We don't- that was never anything close to the argument. The religious however are obliged to have their moral basis in their religion- as is the nature of their group membership. You do have the definition of amoral correct and, indeed, in many places it is not ill. It is in a way the antithesis of morality but it is not a negative term- rather one that happens denotes a practice totally unsuitable for policy making but in other walks something most desirable and apt.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:33 pm
i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values,
that they are aware of those values,
and base their actions upon them.
i would hate to be led by people who had no values.
so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others?
that seems discriminatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:46 pm
CH1YO CalledTheRaven CH1YO PrometheanSet CH1YO The poll results shock me, why in the would would anyone want policy makers to legislate in an amoral fashion? Just because people want laws that exist independently of *one* religion doesn't mean we want "amoral legislation". Making decisions without consulting one's moral compass is amoral. And why do we need a religion to determine our moral compass? Morals are a cultural concern not a religious one. One can be moral and have no religion. By the way, just to make sure, as many people don't know the difference between immoral and amoral, I would like to make certain of your usage before I discuss the post further. When you say amoral do you mean Quote: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral or do you mean the opposite of moral? This is just for my own clarification, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I've just come accross problems with this before and I want to make sure we're arguing about the same thing. We don't- that was never anything close to the argument. The religious however are obliged to have their moral basis in their religion- as is the nature of their group membership. You do have the definition of amoral correct and, indeed, in many places it is not ill. It is in a way the antithesis of morality but it is not a negative term- rather one that happens denotes a practice totally unsuitable for policy making but in other walks something most desirable and apt. "Amoral Legislation" would not include Socialized medicine, in the ethical context of viewing life (once indisputably established) as a positive right, where the people are obliged to aid in it's protection. We give welfare and food stamps, different states play with gun laws with the intent of protecting lives, and some states find a way to give healthcare to the most impoverished people in their jurisdiction. Some states still have a ban on suicide, because life is "so sacred". Meanwhile, everyone's access to healthcare that is necessary for life isn't protected in the same way? Please note the distinction between positive and negative rights - a positive right, like life (once indisputably established); and a negative right, like the right to own a car. A negative right does not imply that we hand that car to you, but rather that we protect your obtain and keep it (though not necessarily protect your privilege to drive it on state roads). That's about ethics. If you want to dispute that this has something at all to do with morality, independent of religion, I suggest you consult a philosophy book or a dictionary. You seem to have misinterpreted those "shocking" poll results. As a result of lobbyists affecting our legislation (so thoroughly that I don't believe I'm even represented anymore IMO) we *do* have immoral legislation, in the sense that you're talking about, CHIYO. However, the question wasn't about "morality". It was about religion. Morality can exist independent of religion - as an absurdist example, I doubt that any of our guild atheists are mass murderers. Or you could just look at how classical ethics is a philosophical study more one of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:19 pm
PrometheanSet CH1YO CalledTheRaven CH1YO PrometheanSet Just because people want laws that exist independently of *one* religion doesn't mean we want "amoral legislation". Making decisions without consulting one's moral compass is amoral. And why do we need a religion to determine our moral compass? Morals are a cultural concern not a religious one. One can be moral and have no religion. By the way, just to make sure, as many people don't know the difference between immoral and amoral, I would like to make certain of your usage before I discuss the post further. When you say amoral do you mean Quote: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral or do you mean the opposite of moral? This is just for my own clarification, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I've just come accross problems with this before and I want to make sure we're arguing about the same thing. We don't- that was never anything close to the argument. The religious however are obliged to have their moral basis in their religion- as is the nature of their group membership. You do have the definition of amoral correct and, indeed, in many places it is not ill. It is in a way the antithesis of morality but it is not a negative term- rather one that happens denotes a practice totally unsuitable for policy making but in other walks something most desirable and apt. "Amoral Legislation" would not include Socialized medicine, in the ethical context of viewing life (once indisputably established) as a positive right, where the people are obliged to aid in it's protection. We give welfare and food stamps, different states play with gun laws with the intent of protecting lives, and some states find a way to give healthcare to the most impoverished people in their jurisdiction. Some states still have a ban on suicide, because life is "so sacred". Meanwhile, everyone's access to healthcare that is necessary for life isn't protected in the same way? Please note the distinction between positive and negative rights - a positive right, like life (once indisputably established); and a negative right, like the right to own a car. A negative right does not imply that we hand that car to you, but rather that we protect your obtain and keep it (though not necessarily protect your privilege to drive it on state roads). That's about ethics. If you want to dispute that this has something at all to do with morality, independent of religion, I suggest you consult a philosophy book or a dictionary. You seem to have misinterpreted those "shocking" poll results. As a result of lobbyists affecting our legislation (so thoroughly that I don't believe I'm even represented anymore IMO) we *do* have immoral legislation, in the sense that you're talking about, CHIYO. However, the question wasn't about "morality". It was about religion. Morality can exist independent of religion - as an absurdist example, I doubt that any of our guild atheists are mass murderers. Or you could just look at how classical ethics is a philosophical study more one of religion. It is wholly moral- it is the product of an ethical tradition. Because of states rights why isn't there a universal system? Yes. I do not see the relevance of this statement. You miss the point entirely- one can be ethical without religion but one cannot be moral stripped of one's ethics. I haven't addressed immoral legislation at all. Again you miss the point. We can't simply assume the religious to be stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:22 pm
chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. Just because someone is a secular humanist doesn't mean they don't have values. Morals do not always come from a divine source. Nor do they have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:46 pm
chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. 'Cause I would so love for someone else's values to be forced on me, despite what religion/non-religion they have. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:53 pm
Shiori Miko chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. 'Cause I would so love for someone else's values to be forced on me, despite what religion/non-religion they have. rolleyes values get forced upon you all the time. You have to obey the laws of your country, don't you? And didn't your parents teach you right and wrong, even if you didn't like it at the time? Unless you wanna become a hermit, you have to deal with having at least some values forced upon you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:54 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Shiori Miko chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. 'Cause I would so love for someone else's values to be forced on me, despite what religion/non-religion they have. rolleyes values get forced upon you all the time. You have to obey the laws of your country, don't you? And didn't your parents teach you right and wrong, even if you didn't like it at the time? Unless you wanna become a hermit, you have to deal with having at least some values forced upon you. Except laws and values are two separate things. Values are subjective. Laws are objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:00 pm
xLady Tsukiyox chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. Just because someone is a secular humanist doesn't mean they don't have values. Morals do not always come from a divine source. Nor do they have to. Knowing God personally changes people. If they really know Him, they'll devote their energies to seeking Him, and helping people. My rule for life it is based off my religion and it goes: 1)God first 2)Everyone else second 3)Myself third
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:05 pm
xLady Tsukiyox xxEternallyBluexx Shiori Miko chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. 'Cause I would so love for someone else's values to be forced on me, despite what religion/non-religion they have. rolleyes values get forced upon you all the time. You have to obey the laws of your country, don't you? And didn't your parents teach you right and wrong, even if you didn't like it at the time? Unless you wanna become a hermit, you have to deal with having at least some values forced upon you. Except laws and values are two separate things. Values are subjective. Laws are objective. But one could argue that laws are based off values. And there's still the matter of your parents teaching you their values. You can't really escape it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:10 pm
xxEternallyBluexx xLady Tsukiyox xxEternallyBluexx Shiori Miko chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. 'Cause I would so love for someone else's values to be forced on me, despite what religion/non-religion they have. rolleyes values get forced upon you all the time. You have to obey the laws of your country, don't you? And didn't your parents teach you right and wrong, even if you didn't like it at the time? Unless you wanna become a hermit, you have to deal with having at least some values forced upon you. Except laws and values are two separate things. Values are subjective. Laws are objective. But one could argue that laws are based off values. And there's still the matter of your parents teaching you their values. You can't really escape it. Still. Values are subjective and they differ for everyone and their different in every culture and religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:10 pm
xxEternallyBluexx xLady Tsukiyox chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. Just because someone is a secular humanist doesn't mean they don't have values. Morals do not always come from a divine source. Nor do they have to. Knowing God personally changes people. If they really know Him, they'll devote their energies to seeking Him, and helping people. My rule for life it is based off my religion and it goes: 1)God first 2)Everyone else second 3)Myself third Really? It really hasn't changed my life over. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:41 pm
xLady Tsukiyox xxEternallyBluexx xLady Tsukiyox xxEternallyBluexx Shiori Miko chessiejo i hope my leaders have some deeply felt and thought-through values, that they are aware of those values, and base their actions upon them. i would hate to be led by people who had no values. so then the secular humanists would demand that only rationalist materialist values be used, and throw out all others? that seems discriminatory. 'Cause I would so love for someone else's values to be forced on me, despite what religion/non-religion they have. rolleyes values get forced upon you all the time. You have to obey the laws of your country, don't you? And didn't your parents teach you right and wrong, even if you didn't like it at the time? Unless you wanna become a hermit, you have to deal with having at least some values forced upon you. Except laws and values are two separate things. Values are subjective. Laws are objective. But one could argue that laws are based off values. And there's still the matter of your parents teaching you their values. You can't really escape it. Still. Values are subjective and they differ for everyone and their different in every culture and religion. My point is more that you can't escape values being forced on you, not (at least for this point) that one set is better then another. Well, did you consider yourself a good person beforehand? Do you recognize you need Jesus to save you? Are you fully devoted to Him, doing everything you can to please Him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:42 pm
xxEternallyBluexx xLady Tsukiyox xxEternallyBluexx xLady Tsukiyox xxEternallyBluexx values get forced upon you all the time. You have to obey the laws of your country, don't you? And didn't your parents teach you right and wrong, even if you didn't like it at the time? Unless you wanna become a hermit, you have to deal with having at least some values forced upon you. Except laws and values are two separate things. Values are subjective. Laws are objective. But one could argue that laws are based off values. And there's still the matter of your parents teaching you their values. You can't really escape it. Still. Values are subjective and they differ for everyone and their different in every culture and religion. My point is more that you can't escape values being forced on you, not (at least for this point) that one set is better then another. Well, did you consider yourself a good person beforehand? Do you recognize you need Jesus to save you? Are you fully devoted to Him, doing everything you can to please Him?
Sometimes it is unavoidable, but there are problems (in America at least) that are heavily based in Christian beliefs, such as keeping bans on same sex marriage and debating whether intelligent design should be taught with evolution, that should be kept as objective as possible.
And since I abandoned my religion I've put more thought towards morals and ethics because I've had to decide for myself what's right and what's wrong.
I can honestly say that I'm a better person without religion because I have to take responsibility for my own thoughts and actions.
Not to say that people who do get their values from religion are any less moral, but a person doesn't need religion to do good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:24 am
I don't really think we can judge what is right/wrong. Values are something within us, we have the basic intuition of good/bad, and I believe we are common with that. But what we actually consider good/bad is something personal. We might be taught what to do in certain circumstances, but we still have that basic intuition. We can never tell what is the better choice and there's no ethical theory that would explain it all. Certain ethical systems might be coherent inside, something can be good/bad in a certain system, but not objectively.
So is there anything like Good and Evil? Can we find any way to make people all around the world satisfied? I don't think so. No matter if it's God as solution, if it's utilitarian, if it's whatever.
So I think we should try and follow the instinct. And try to avoid putting it into words as much as we can. Putting things that can't be spoken into words is something leading to conflicts.
In other words: law is only to make order, not to make people act good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
