|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 pm
Morality.
Morals, values, belief systems, religions, spirituality, philosophies, whatever you want to call it. Apparently, the fervant belief in "values" is what influenced George W. Bush to rack in so many votes yesterday night. (To connect this event with the abortion debate, it appears as if so many people feel so strongly about abortion that their position influenced them to vote for Bush.)
One way that Pro-Life presents its position is it takes the moral high-ground. It claims that their side is the side with the morals, and the "other" side (Pro-Choice!) is akin to the "anti-morals". This assumes that morality is in absolutes; that there is only one set of morals. This also disregards morals taken from other religious orientations, historical contexts, and so on.
(Of course, once one can convince someone that the other side is anti-moralistic, that other side is portrayed as demonic. Once dehumanized, it is far easier to defend their own side. )
Here I am today to challenge the idea that there is only one set of morals. This commentary is probably not going to affect anyone at pro-choice (who are likely to be open-minded about the existance of other values that differ from their own), but rather, may be useful to bring up these ideas to the pro-life crowd.
Christianity isn't the only set of morals, nor is it the best! Pro-Life is not the only set of values, nor is it the best! Now when I say a belief system is not "the best", I do not mean to say that there is a "better" one. They are all different, that's all.
(Yes, I must include Christianity in this discussion as it influences the pro-life position).
+ Consider the great non-western civilizations of the world. Now how the heck could a group of humans get together, build fabulous artitecture, produce an adequate ideology, develop a rich culture without Christian morality/beliefs? The existance of a civilization implies that there was enough stability amongst a group of people to generate and perpetuate one. Seeing successful cultures flourish, especially in comparison to the dark, backwards middle ages (when Christianity was at it's height of application, infact) surely challenges the thought that "Good ol' Christian morals" are the best there is out there.
+ Consider America. I hear of many people stating that our founding fathers were Christians. This is simply not true. They were secular in beliefs. The constitution is a secular document. Now does Christianity have an impact on America? Of course. The puritans did have an influence (both for better and for worse). Also, the plundering/massacering/pushing off of the Native Americans is part of the application of Christianity. The Christian idea of intolerance of differing belief systems and cultures was conducive to either sending missionaries to convert and assimilate the Native Americans, or, just plainly enacting out intolerance. Nonetheless, Christianity is the majority religious belief in America to this day. And don't forget that although I have listed some disfunctions of the application of Christianity, there were also some positive functions Christianity served. I'm sure many Christians are well aware of the positive functions.
+ Riding on the idea that intolerance is ingrained in Christianity, the conservative elements of Christianity has always been opposed to change to further people's rights. They opposed America being birthed into a new nation, they opposed the abolition of slavery, they opposed the poor man and the black man from voting, they opposed de-segregation, they opposed women's rights, and currently, they oppose Gay rights. Does any christian still believe that slavery is right, or that America should belong back to Britain? Do they still believe that women shouldn't vote?
+ The next facet of this issue deals with the 10 commandments. The Christians feel that the 10 commandments should be imposed on society, and that all belief systems agree with this peculiar set of rules. First off, the ten commandments are not the most efficient set of rules/values. Some of the values are, dare I say, archaic. Is requiring people not to make any graven image for a god neccessary to co-exist peacefully with each other in 21st century America? you are kidding me! Secondly, instead of just assuming that your values fit with other people's, why not ask them yourself? Ask a Hindu if the 10 commandments are exactly compatible with their belief systems. Ask a Buddist the same.
+ Striding along with my last point, all people have different values. They arn't better, they are just different. The closest cultural/value universal that the social sciences have cited is the incest taboo. Incest is forbidden, or frowned upon in a lot of societies. Other than that, morals, values, and belief systems do differ. One can still be open-minded to understand and respect other people's beliefs, even if you do not personally agree with them.
+ If the religions of the world were so similar to each other, then WHY is there a need for the other religions anyway? Why not just all be a part of the "universalist" religion? Christians would be hopping mad if they were grouped spiritually with Muslims and Jews, even though those two belief systems share more similarities with each other + Christianity than any other religion!
+ One last point: On the abortion debate, it is very possible for one to be universally pro-choice (meaning that she can't tell other women what to do with their lives), but be personally pro-life (she believes in preserving the potential human for her). This is exercising her own moral convictions while recognizing that she has no power over other people. Why is this not noble to the pro-lifer's minds? Pro-choice CAN be compatible with one's own values.
You guys, feel free to add, comment, critique, or whatever to my thread. Whoa, I took a long time writing this out.
I have one more thing to ask for the pro-choicers out there reading this. This may help the pro-lifers understand that different people have values that are similar and noble. I will ask that if you can't post anything else in this thread, list some of the things you value. This does not have to pertain to just your feelings about the abortion debate. It can mean values/basic beliefs in general. smile I will post some of my values later.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:26 pm
oh god GOD my butt is asleep gonk
@_@;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:38 pm
interesting point, however i doubt your eloquent post will change or even effect most devout christians. You are basically begging the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:40 am
Xanaphia00 interesting point, however i doubt your eloquent post will change or even effect most devout christians. You are basically begging the question. I see what you mean. And I'm afraid that if I post this out in public, the christians will jump on the side-issues dealing with their own religion, rather than the main point that there is no such thing as an "anti morals", or that everyone else is "anti-values" except Christianity (which I know that not all christians believe this, btw). I also didn't do a good job jumping into non-christian value systems. At least not yet. But if we can open *some* Christians (who are pro-life) to believing that there isn't "anti-morals", and that there are no "moral absolutes", then we could open their minds to evaluating the validity of pro-choice too. Since pro-choice isn't "against morals", it's just different morals wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:47 am
Grip of Death Does any christian still believe . . . that America should belong back to Britain? Yes smile lol...we want our empire back!! *sigh* or at least the people in my uni do...everyone else in Britain seems to think we should close our boarders and hide away as if the world did not exist...morons... Grip of Death Why not just all be a part of the "universalist" religion? you mean Catholicism? The original meaning of cathul is universal ((note the relation to the name of the dead god Cathuhlu...strange...)) my values? I could be here all day...give me time to think...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:34 pm
Thanks for the replies and the reads, folks! I will now be posting a series of pm conversations that "I.Am" initiated with me. I asked for his permission to post our conversation in this thread. He is basically ok with it, but was weary that I was probably going to defame him. Because of his pro-life position, his worries of not being able to post here to defend himself are justified. My interest in posting the convo here is to generate interest in the topic. Feel free to input your own ideas about either of our comments. smile Here, the idea of "no moral absolutes" is going to be challenged~ I.Am In a post in the Pro-'Choice' guild, you said that there are no absolute morals. I would like to hear, then, if you believe that all countries should be in a state of anarchy, and, if not, why not. A "No Absolute Morals" theory would state that: A) Murder is not wrong, just different. B) Rape is not wrong just different Etc. You can't say, "Well, those are different," or "those are exceptions" Because if there are exceptions, it goes against what you already said, that there are no absolute morals. Quote: sure, I would love to chat with ya. I am flattered that you took the time to read my posts. Before I go on to answer your concerns, I'd like to ask some questions from you as well. 1) Are you Christian? If so, please also include what type of Christian (ex. evangelical, fundamental, liberal, among the protestant groups, catholic, jehovah's witnesses, mormons, etc etc etc. ) 2) What would be your agenda for challenging the assertation that morals are not absolute? Why is it important to believe that morals are absolute? 3) Are you alright with me posting our chat in the same thread at Pro-Choice guild? Thank you. Also, before I go on to the meat of the issue, I would like to inform you that I believe there is a difference between other absolutes about the universe (which may exist... I am open to that belief, as humans know less than 1% about the universe.) However, there is a difference between laws discovered in Science and Mathematics, and absolute morals. I had to make mention of this because I have seen that Christians like to group both of these together and thus label anyone who does not believe in "absolute morals" also doesn't believe in ANY abolutes in the universe whatsoever. I think you'll find this website interesting. It talks about morality. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abs_mora.htm The site claims that what is moral by one religion, country, or time period can be seen as neutral- or even repulsive in another. They have an interesting webpage on biblical morality vs. today's morality. wink Basically, morals seem "absolute" to us humans because we all agree upon it amongst ourselves. (Unlike the idea that Christians have that morality is supposedly "dictated" down from biblegod.) We agree mutually that murder is "bad". We agree mutually that rape is "bad". It seems in my observations that humans agree to and abide by rules that protect the self. (Perhaps this implies the selfish nature of morality?) wink The threat of being murdered or raped leads us to agreeing that both are deplorable acts. These morals did not come down on a stairwell from Heaven. They do not cry out from Nature itself. They come from humans. And humans can and do change beliefs. Also, humans are inherently social. Since our strengths in the animal world are not brute force like other animals, but remains in our brain power, our opposable thumbs, and our ability to group together. Morality serves a function to the human race on an evolutionary scale- having morality helps the human species survive. But if morals were truly "absolute", then why arn't the animals living by it? animals murder...lots. animals engage in gay sex (but there's a difference between domination sex and gay, consensual, pleasureable sex. But i mention gay sex because many people still think it's "wrong" or "unnatural".). Animals eat/kill their babies. Animals commit suicide. Animals don't care about standing up for weaker beings. What about the plants? Plants are living; so shouldn't they also live up to so-called "absolute morals"? But if nobody else but humans should live up to "absolute morals", then why should it just be them? The closest to "absolute morality" that can be observed from a social science standpoint is the idea of "cultural universals". A cultural universal are "common features that aid in human survival". there are more than 70 universals which range from family patterns, food taboos, religious rituals, adornment and decorative arts, ethics, folklore, food habits, healing techniques, and more. However, the specifics of each of these univerals differ immensely amongst culture to culture. You wouldn't think that eating pork is "wrong", but muslims and jews would have a serious problem with that, for example. I won't even go into much detail about morality spanning time. In the ancient days, slavery was endorsed. Is slavery still ok? Would you agree with and follow the Pharoah's claim to being a divine entity? I would say that...perhaps humanity's sense of morality evolved, based on comparison to ancient standards of morality. wink Npw, directly to your question. I have to remark that your question reflects a state of mind who thinks only in "black and white". This is a common paradigm amongst especially the conservative christians. If I supposedly don't believe in "moral absolutes", not only do I not supposedly believe in any absolutes whatsoever, but I also support anarchy. If I don't support anarchy, this is supposed to mean that I support moral absolutes all along? Might I add that just because I don't believe moral absolutes exist, does not automatically connect to endorsing a particular religion, political authority or party, cohesive principal, etc. Let's not delve into slippery slopes here. also, you have to take into consideration of what, exactly, is anarchy. There is more to anarchy than the feared Christian definition of "oh noes, it's a completely lawless system where everybody is out of control and murdering/plundering in the streets!!!111one" http://www.uhc-collective.org.uk/knowledge/toolbox/misc/j7/whatisanarchy.htmThis website presents anarchy as something much less hostile. Infact, after reading that link, you might turn around and use anarchy as a poster boy for morality. But... it's not absolute morality. It's not very compatible with much of the current systems of society we have out there. It's... just different. wink It could actually work if the people in the group mutually agree to abide by it. *Shrugs* ok, to end this, I'll throw in my black and white response to your black and white questions. 1) Do I believe all countries should be in a state of anarchy? I do not endorse a particular system, nor wish to impose it on anyone. 2) Why not? To imply formatting the whole world to one system of values implies the support of "absolute morals" anyway. I do not believe that absolute morals exists. Therefore, I do not want to impose one system of beliefs to the whole world. 3) To the ditrabe that "murder is just different" and "rape is just different" (not inherently wrong), it's partially true, but not wholy. Infact, Murder is acceptable under some circumstances (punishing a criminal who commited a serious offense, killing an animal for it's food/other uses. And Rape will occur in the natural world...but where's the lightening bolts from god to stop it? Where's the call in the wind that howls when something sorriful happens because of a violation of so-called "absolute morals"? Morals are agreed upon by the rest of the group of people. But they differ amongst other groups of people. Agreeing mutually that killing and raping each other is "wrong" will aid in the survival of our group. There is no dictate from the universe saying that murdering and raping is wrong, you see? Well, take care. Cheers, ~Ariel He then replied back with two pm's. Here they are. I.Am Before I answer your questions, I must first state that if any of these are used against me in any way shape or form in the Pro-'Choice' guild, I will first be extremely disapointed, and then I will report you for acting against the ToS. ToS 1. upload, post, email, graphically portray, or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racist or otherwise objectionable. 1. I am Roman Catholic. 2. I have no 'agenda' I only wish to find out how you can possibly say that there are no absolute morals, as a system of none would allow any number of horrible actst that are currently illegal. In fact, "No Absolute Morals" would have to say that nothing can be illegal. 3. Fine with me, as long as it doesn't go against the ToS. Please, do not group that as "Christians" but "People". I'm certain that not everyone with that viewpoint is a Christian. Your continuing reference between the Bible/Judeo-Christianity and anything-bad (I've seen male-supremacy, slavery, and "Women Are Whores" pop up in your topics in connection) insults me. How can you say such things about a broad religion that covers more then half the people in the United States? If more then half were really Christian, and really held all those views you claim we do... Why aren't women "Walking around with their heads covered and no shoes"? However, that page doesn't talk about morality. It talks about religion with the label of morality. From my ethics text book: Social and Personal Ethics by William H. Shaw, p 7 Any religion provides it's believers with a world view, part of which involves certain moral instructions, values, and commitments... ...[From a Religious standpoint,] One's purpose in life is found in serving and loving God... ...Religion involves not only a formal system of worship, but also prescriptions for social relationships. One example is the mandate, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Termed the "Golden Rule," this injunction represents one of humankind's highest moral ideals and can be found in essence in all the great religions of the world: [List of verse from holy books of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam] ... Many people believe that morality must be based on religion, either in the sense that without religion people would have no incentive to be moral or in the sense that only religion can provide moral guidance. Others contend that morality is based on the commands on God. None of these claims is convincing.
First, although a desire to avoid hell and to go to heaven may prompt some of us to act morally, this is not the only reason or even the most common reason people behave morally. Often we act morally out of habit or simply because that is the kind of person we are. It would just not occur to most of us to swipe an elderly woman's purse. And if the idea did occur to us, we wouldn't do it because such an act simply doesn't fit with our personal standards or with our concept of ourselves... Furthermore, atheists generally live lives as moral and upright as those of believers...
...Although some theologians have advocated the divine command theory-that if something is wrong, the only reason is that God said so. Many theologians and certainly most philosophers would reject this view. They would contend that if God commands human beings not to do something, like rape, it is because God sees that rape is wrong but it is not God's forbidding that makes it wrong. God's telling you not to do it and it's being wrong are independant.The nature of morality, overall, is to get us to get along. And wouldn't all of us agreeing to it turn it into absolute morality? Continuing with that, say I don't agree that murder is immoral. Can I then murder you? I didn't agree to many of the laws our government has in place. Can I then break them? I didn't sign the Geneva convention, I don't believe that war can be immoral. Can I then go out, gather an army, and take over Cuba? On the flip side, wouldn't you, if you were visiting some tribe in Africa, try to stop a man from raping a woman? Even if it's legal and 'moral' there? Yes, that's what morality is there for. So? And just because nature doesn't make the morals, and they aren't followed by other animals, doesn't keep them from being absolute. Perhaps that's what makes us humans, and better then the animals. Not to mention that, just because something's natural doesn't mean it's right. But I don't want to derail this argument for another... Just makes the posts longer. I.Am Accidentally sent that last one before I was done. sweatdrop So here's part 2: Quote: However, the specifics of each of these univerals differ immensely amongst culture to culture. You wouldn't think that eating pork is "wrong", but muslims and jews would have a serious problem with that, for example. This is an example of a religious preference, not a moral one. It's not immoral for non-Jews to eat meat, and they realize that. It is a God-given command to not eat meat. It's not immoral, just illegal, and wrong in the way of, "I'm commiting sacrilege by eating this." Not to mention that eating pork is more of an etiquette/"Eww that's icky" thing turned religious; You don't eat pork because pigs are seen to be unclean. I never said that because something was once right it always will be right. Can you say that slavery -wasn't- moral, or was immoral? Not under "no absolute morality." And Pharoah's deal with being a god has nothing to do with morality, so I don't know why you bring it up. I do not have a "black & white" viewpoint on life. In fact, people that do piss me off, when it's one extreme or the other. But that is not to say there are not certain things that are inherantly right nor certain things that are inherantly wrong. Most things are grey area. Certain things, I.E killing of other humans, rape, abortion(for me), etc -are wrong.- There are a few instances in which homicide would be permitted, such as in cases of physical danger. However, most of the time murder is very very obviously black. That seems to say that the people should govern themselves, essentially. However, "No absolute morality" says that you can't tell me what I'm doing is wrong. So, in reality, that is not a no absolute morality system, because it's really what is accepted by most to be wrong becomes the morality, and since most will say that murder is wrong no matter where you go, that becomes an absolute morality. So people have to agree to it? Why? Isn't that forcing your morality on them, that they have to agree to it for things to work out? 1&2. I applaud, good answer. Playing devil's advocate, I would have said the same thing. 3nodding 3. Capital punishment is more of a self defense of the community then murder, and self defense does not count. And again, natural does not mean right. Not to mention that murder and rape being immoral -does not- help the survival of the group. In fact, rape can further the survival by creating more children. Murder can weed out the weak. That's why they both happen naturally. Thanks, you too. Icy P.S. BTW, I like the signature quote. You know I made the banner that that is obviously a reply to? And I'm tempted to put "I find women who care for children, born and unborn, attractive." in my signature now. No offense intended, it's just sort of something that popped into my head reading it. 3nodding I have just came home from school and was able to read his replies. I have not made up a response yet. I'll go ahead and post this now though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:37 pm
I will first post my response here, and then send a pm to I.Am as to not clutter our mailboxes with more than one pm.
"To I.Am:
I understand your weariness about the possibility for me to defame you. I have already posted all of what we said to each other so far; I hope you find it completely unadultered.
Now, on to the response,
1) Roman Catholics are for pro-life. This is no surprise.
2) You say you have no agenda, but I'm willing to wager that you are. If somehow, you can get me to fumble on my beliefs morality does not have absolutes, then there is the belief that there is only one set of morals for everyone. Then pro-choice must be inherently wrong, somewhere in the equation. Then in a very subtle direction do christians point out and prostelyze their religion. The belief in absolute morality is an idea that christians support.
3) I hear ya. *read above*
On my feelings about The Judeo-Christian belief system (please keep in mind these views are not all shared by the pro-choice guild, please do not associate my views with theirs): I do not hate the people who follow that belief system, as some people may misconstue. I firmly believe that people are essentially the same (in worth, dignity, etc) across time, culture, religions, and what have you. However, I am firmly repulsed by the belief system itself. The bible reflects the beliefs of ancient man, which are ingrained with intolerance, racism, sexism, inequalities, and so forth. I believe that the bible contributes more to the sorrows of humanity. The bible cripples humanity. What saddens me is not that people have faith and apply that faith to do good things in their lives. It is those who take the bible so seriously as to apply fear, hate, control, repression, oppression, and other devices of human suffering and inequalities because these people sincerely believe that a Supreme Being would endorse such measures! ("oh, those couldn't "possibly" be "genuine" christians, couldn't they!") I won't even go into that argument. Christians make excuses, loopholes, discounting, and even resort to intellectual dishonesty to make their case. I'm sorry we will never acheive common ground in our views about the bible.
...Yes, I know of the positive contributions the bible has given. I know of the functions it has on the individual level. I know that it is a good source of ancient literature, as well as that it was the most influential book- one of them in the whole world. I know Christians are WELL aware of that fact, which is why I do not bother mentioning these things. Even though I personally feel that the bible is not a sacred work, I stress the importance for people to be educated about it as it has and does continue to influence people.
I know that just about 3/4's of all of the USA consider themselves to be Christian (courtesty of PBS.org). I's say that's a nice, healthy majority of the country, isn't it? wink ...But all across the world, fundamentalism is a sad but growing trend that spans across many religions. Yes, Christianity is one of them. It is also the christians from the conservative branches (ranging from fundamentalism, to Catholicism, to JW's and so forth) that are the most outspoken. If this trend does continue, then it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to say that one day, women REALLY will be walking around with "heads covered and no shoes". Gains in women's rights have been largely superficial- and definitely recent. Women are still not seen as equal (but then again, the minorities and gays also struggle deeply with this problem still). As a woman, I am particularly disturbed by the ingrained misogyny presented in the Bible. I see the growing trend of fundamentalism to pose a threat to my own (and all of humanity's) personal freedom and happiness.
The very fact that abortion is being debated attests to how gains in women's rights are only shallow.
(now before I go on to write more, I must post this now because I have to leave and come back later. I have other things to do. I will try to address them very soon though. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:56 pm
morality is false
and only exists in the human mind
once the mind becomes free of the ego's restraints
then that person will realise that morals need not apply to them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:37 pm
I think the universal religion she is talking about is Universal Unitarism. It's awesome to read it's description and the best way I know is to type in relgion selectors to yahoo and take selectsmarts religion selector quiz.
Any way, morality.... what to say about morality... well I can't think... it's 1 in the morning here so I'm gonna do my best reasoning as to why abortion is more moral to nonabortion (is that even a word?) Prohibition never works. Before RvW women would either stick hangers in themselves, go to an alley, or go to Mexico and get abortions done. No matter what you do it will happen, so is it more moral to let one possible life die or both a possible and an actual life die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:57 pm
As I write this, I must first profusely apologise that this response wasn't as speedy as I would have liked. it takes a lot of time and energy to write. Especially when the first responses have a lot of points. It's time consuming not just to write itself, but also to look up sources (links, college textbooks, and the like). I also have college, and time increasingly gets more precious. Now, unto the meat of the issues~ Thanks for citing your source. I looked up your book at amazon "Social and Personal Ethics" and it looks like an actual college textbook. Your cited information sounds nice in the universal, warm-and-fuzzy sense (seeing that you quoted from page 7, I was able to surmise that the information would pertain to the broad ideas/introductory information pertaining to ethics). But one major thing that is left out of the passage (and no doubt, isn't actualy pertinent to the issue of "Ethics" itself) is that the idea of the "Golden Rule" was BORROWED from other religions!! Confucious AND Buddha espoused the "Golden Rule" idea BEFORE CHRISTIANITY WAS EVEN INVENTED! What does this mean? It just means that people share and copy-cat ideas. The "golden rule" idea didn't magically evolve within all groups of people without interactions. (For the Christians, that religion borrowed the idea from Buddhism!) Now HAD the "golden rule" idea been inherent within each group of people, then maaaaayyybeee you might have a case of "absolute morality". alright, i don't disagree with what you say is the "nature" of morality- I don't disagree that it "is to get us to get along". That is a reasonable statement. HOWEVER not "everyone" agrees with a set of morals! not even "everyone" agrees with ONE moral! You will always have someone disputing one kind of value. While most people may believe that murdering is generally wrong, you'll have people that don't think it's wrong. and again, murdering is ok, and even favored in some circumstances. Ir murdering is supposedly wrong, then it should be wrong on all aspects of the issue if it was an "absolute"! Remember not to eat, since you killed life for nourishment. Oh, but they (animals and plants) couldn't possibly be worth as much as a human. Who says humans are worth more than an animal? God? oh boy, back to theology... There is no scientific way (at least, that I don't know of) where we can analyze each value or moral and figure out whether it is truly "right", or whatever. If there was a scientific way of analzying morals objectively, maybe we'd get closer to the objective, rather than the subjective nature of morality/ethics/whatever. And with your point about wanting to murder me, taking over a country, or raping a woman, you have made a rather obvious finding. It was an idea that I stated earlier about the function of morals in an evolution theory perspective. that if people don't get along, then the group will not function. a dysfunctional group can still "run" (or else, we wouldn't have dysfunctional families), but it wouldn't be neccessarily "fun". I highly disagree with your statement about "just because nature doesn't make the morals,... doesn't keep them from being absolute". (Then how can we objectively figure out "absoluteness"?) and Especially with this comment "Perhaps that's what makes us humans, and better then the animals." Who SAYS that humans are "better" than animals??? God? (oh gracious, back to theology!) Say you were a lone person, or a small tribe in the middle of nowhere, circa 2000 years ago. If you couldn't surmise what the hell was "right" from "wrong" (because nothing out in nature hinted at it), then how can you devise a system of values that would line up with the rest of the people (not just benefitting your group)? If your system of beliefs doesn't line up with the rest of humanity (by the way, it's NOT going to), then it kinda does challenge the idea of "absolute morality", doesn't it? I'd like to throw in that I'm not saying there "must" be moral relativism applied, I'm saying that it is applied - all throughout human history and as we speak now. ON TO PART TWO OF THE RESPONSE: (hehe, sorry for the caps, i'm getting increasingly lazy to use the tags tomake the post fancy) wink Oh dear, a discourse on semantics. How cute. A favorite Pro-Life tactic. (Don't you just love how they get off track off of the main ideas?) Well, let me pleasently surprise you with dictionary.com's definitions on "morality"! http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morals Please, do read all of them. Following that point, I could argue that following one's religious beliefs DOES deal with morality, but my major point wasn't my example (which was just thrown to clarify the concept), but it relied on the idea of cultural universals. Please pick up a sociology college textbook, it will enlighten you about cultural universals (It appears that I failed to do so). Here, this is the sociology textbook I personally use. "The Essentials of Sociology" By Lindsay and Beach. Here, I'll even throw in the nifty amazon.com link! amazon link here!Now, on your next point: "I never said that because something was once right it always will be right." Actually, the fact that "once-alright" things are now staunchly wrong would be supportive of the case of moral relativism. If Moral Absolutes were really true, then slavery would always be "ok". However, we believe it's a wrong practice NOW. but what if an alien civilization takes over and enslaves us? What about the economic slavery that huge corperations put a whopping percentage of people? History can be erased, and slavery could be put into practice again. No, it's not "right" to either of us- but hey, the fat cats who have the power in the country certaintly wouldn't mind free or excessively cheap labor, as they wallow in their enormous profits... *shrugs* Oh, and honey, I'm NOT forcing my version of morality on anyone when i'm saying that essentially, people will have to agree together on some issues for the group to function. that's not ME dictacting how people should act, that is how people WILL act. If they don't mutually act together, then the group will break off, or just be dysfunctional. Sure, if there was 10 people on an island, and all were men except for 1 woman... and they decided to gang-rape her. Nothing in Nature would cry out that this is wrong. But since the men were going to act in their self-interest, the woman would be apt to act in her self-interest. She could kill/maim the men with weapons, she could commit suicide, or swim offshore, or .. if she got pregnant afterwards, she could abort the clump of cells to prevent the passing on of dubious genetic material wink Or, she could gather up a man or two that could protect her interests, and those men would have the privilege of breeding/enjoying company with her. Since humans are social creatures, it just happens to be in our best interests to mutually work together. I guess this idea, and the idea of cultural univerals are the closest thing to "absolute morality" possible. (I guess this is also as close as we can agree to each other about "absolutes"). But as humans change, "morals", "values", and what have you also change. On the other hand, many religious-minded folk will have you know that this "absolute morality" comes *only* from God (and this god figure supposedly "never changes"), which is why gay butt-secx is a big "no no", and buying beer on sundays will send you straight to the hell fire (no, that one isn't found in the bible, lol, but based on a verse about honoring the sabbath; christian pop-culture takes over and deems what is right/wrong in that situation). PS: about my signature quote - You didn't like my sig quote (but thanks for the attempt at being cordial about it). You felt defensive about it and decided to make an awkward rebuttal quote mirroring it. (the difference between my sig quote was that I ripped it from an actual post that I had made in jest). - You wern't "tempted" to make a rebuttal sig, you DID made it... and put it in your sig. I saw it. wink - It wasn't as offensive inasmuch as it was a humourously defensive gesture (perhaps, arising out of insecurities?). Now that I am done with my response, I'd like to bring out some new concerns of my own. - I regret to say I won't be able to spend as much time doing many more responses. Like I said earlier, college is eating my time up. - For the pro-lifers who read my posts, I am flattered. I bet every one of you would like to crucify me now wink But I'd like to let you all know that when I write at the pro-choice guild, I am directing my writing to the pro-choice group. This is why you will rarely see me cite sources continuously and the like. Although I fling ideas arising from my social science textbooks, I know that I am already in a group who won't contest every little bit of factual information. - And I must say, I am a bit disapointed by the immense outlash that has been happening behind my back. I do not visit the pro-life guild much, and I have never had reason to stumble to I.Am's journal until he had the initiative to pm me. Here are the links in question~ http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=11868&start=420and I.Am's public journal~ http://www.gaiaonline.com/journal/?u=217101They merit making a topic of it's own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
