Morality

[Anonymouse]

Damn it, I hate coming into one of these threads late. So many issues to address, but one thing caught my attentionm, and I'll start with that. This talk of weather believers believe for selfish reasons. I'm not asking this next question to make a point, or as a piece of my argument, but just out of mere curiosity.

If the various gods didn't offer something to you in the afterlife (be it eternity in heaven, reincarnation into something better, etc) in return for following the morals they have respectively set fourth, do you really think as many people would be interested in following the moral obligations?

You do not follow moral obligations because you are granted eternity or whatever, you follow them because they are right, they follow from the premise of objective morality, that some things are right and some things are wrong. You are misconstruing the concept of the hereafter with selfishness. The concept designates man's soul as everlasting, a spiritual being that lives beyond material existence.

[loseyourname]

We are talking about ideas not details. The basement is darker than my room. I am happier than Sam. You two apparently misconstrue everything. Situational relativity has no bearing on the idea itself. I already clarified this, but you, in the haze of things, apparently didn't read well enough.

You said that man lives in a world of opposites, which is not true in the examples you gave. We don't live in a world of things that are either big or small. We live in a world of things that are either bigger or smaller than one another. These are not details. The "idea" of big and the "idea" of dark do not exist as absolute concepts. They are relative concepts. If you contend otherwise, then again, what is the cut-off point at which an object becomes either big or dark?

While I know you love and won't give up any chance you get at trying to oppose me, this particular instance is pointless. No one said it was not up for debate, pay attention. What I did say was that he misunderstood the whole brunt of my thread on where I placed the emphasis.

Okay. You state that one of the points of this thread was to show that morality is divine in origin. Dusken comes in and says that it is a byproduct of natural selection. You then say that is irrelevant because you say it is divine in origin. Am I missing something here? What is it?

[Anonymouse]

You said that man lives in a world of opposites, which is not true in the examples you gave. We don't live in a world of things that are either big or small. We live in a world of things that are either bigger or smaller than one another. These are not details. The "idea" of big and the "idea" of dark do not exist as absolute concepts. They are relative concepts. If you contend otherwise, then again, what is the cut-off point at which an object becomes either big or dark?

You are apparently back to your old form, tryin to nitpick some non-issue to have a simple reason to disagree, not because it is logical, but because it comes from me. However, back to the point. We are not talking about little details here loser, we are talking about concepts, that unfortunately, you aren't probably familiar with, since the world is consisted of ideas and ideas revolve around opposites, the idea of dark opposes light, regardless of what is darker or lighter. Positive negative. Hot and cold. Life and death. Male and female, etc. This isn't about cut off points. Unfortunately, you didn't think your response through all the way for in your hurry of trying to have something to argue with, you apparently ignored that I already explained this to the dusken.

Okay. You state that one of the points of this thread was to show that morality is divine in origin. Dusken comes in and says that it is a byproduct of natural selection. You then say that is irrelevant because you say it is divine in origin. Am I missing something here? What is it?

Yes you are, for I said that was but a small part of the whole point of the thread, for I did make mention that it mattered not, since the emphasis was more on objectivity of morality, and obviously I will argue for a divine origin. I see you have not changed much since our last meetings in the evolution thread, when in a hurry you would pick anything, no matter how much of a non-issue, so long as it opposed.

[loseyourname]

You are apparently back to your old form, tryin to nitpick some non-issue to have a simple reason to disagree, not because it is logical, but because it comes from me. However, back to the point. We are not talking about little details here loser, we are talking about concepts, that unfortunately, you aren't probably familiar with, since the world is consisted of ideas and ideas revolve around opposites, the idea of dark opposes light, regardless of what is darker or lighter. Positive negative. Hot and cold. Life and death. Male and female, etc. This isn't about cut off points. Unfortunately, you didn't think your response through all the way for in your hurry of trying to have something to argue with, you apparently ignored that I already explained this to the dusken.

This is not a non-issue. The whole issue is whether or not we exist in a world composed entirely of dichotomies. You contend that we do, and I contend that we don't. Life and death is a dichotomy. Male and female is a dichotomy. Dark and light is not. Big and small is not. They are not opposing concepts. I am dark relative to my mother and light relative to my father. I am big relative to my little sisters and small relative to Shaquille O'Neal. Do you not see this? An object can be both light and dark, both big and small. These are not opposing concepts.

Yes you are, for I said that was but a small part of the whole point of the thread, for I did make mention that it mattered not, since the emphasis was more on objectivity of morality, and obviously I will argue for a divine origin. I see you have not changed much since our last meetings in the evolution thread, when in a hurry you would pick anything, no matter how much of a non-issue, so long as it opposed.

Are you contending that I've never once agreed with you? Is your memory really that bad?

[Anonymouse]

This is not a non-issue. The whole issue is whether or not we exist in a world composed entirely of dichotomies. You contend that we do, and I contend that we don't. Life and death is a dichotomy. Male and female is a dichotomy. Dark and light is not. Big and small is not. They are not opposing concepts. I am dark relative to my mother and light relative to my father. I am big relative to my little sisters and small relative to Shaquille O'Neal. Do you not see this? An object can be both light and dark, both big and small. These are not opposing concepts.

We do exist in a dichotomy. Example. If I am in my room, it is full of light. I go in the basement, it is dark. Now that is a dichotomy and what I said is based on situational relevance. If I go to another person basement perhaps it is darker than mine because somehow light managed to penetrated through cracks and such, and the other persons basement is darker. That is the only time where your relativism matters. As far as the idea, it remains unyielding and unscathed.

Are you contending that I've never once agreed with you? Is your memory really that bad?

Nope I never said that.

[Crimson Glow]

You do not follow moral obligations because you are granted eternity or whatever, you follow them because they are right, they follow from the premise of objective morality, that some things are right and some things are wrong. You are misconstruing the concept of the hereafter with selfishness. The concept designates man's soul as everlasting, a spiritual being that lives beyond material existence.

But...most of what you consider moral revolves around humans fighting their nature (i.e. not having sex with everything in sight, because it is morally wrong/a sin). People have to fight this, because there is eternal punishment if you give in to your natural tendancies. What I'm asking is, regardless of objectively moral or not, would people fight these urges/sins if there were no promise of a reward for doing so?

[loseyourname]

Are you speaking specifically to Christian ethics, because everybody lives their life according to some set of ethics, regardless of whether or not they believe in an afterlife.

[loseyourname]

We do exist in a dichotomy. Example. If I am in my room, it is full of light. I go in the basement, it is dark. Now that is a dichotomy and what I said is based on situational relevance. If I go to another person basement perhaps it is darker than mine because somehow light managed to penetrated through cracks and such, and the other persons basement is darker. That is the only time where your relativism matters. As far as the idea, it remains unyielding and unscathed.

Do you honestly not see that this depends on defining dark as the complete absence of light? This is not the way the term is commonly used. Even in a dark room, there is always some amount of light. I'm sure you can see that many concepts are only relative concepts. A small sample:

Large - Small

Short - Tall

Sharp - Dull

Fat - Thin

etc.

I'm not trying to say dichotomies don't exist. But not all concepts exist as dichotomies. Many concepts are only relative. We don't live in a world composed entirely of opposing ideas.

[axel]

As a matter of fact, I have never met anybody like that

You should agree that most of the judgements you claim to be derived from Reason (with a capital R) are merely personal conclusions you arrived to using your own logic based on a few personal observations ("I have never met..."...), that is partial/biased and flawed input. Even admitting the fact your logic is flawless, its working on empirical data doesn't allow for deriving definite conclusions or absolute judgments for you may at best work out an approximate representation of reality in your mind.

That said, the subjective nature of the human mind doesn't imply the non-existence of objective truths. Actually, claiming the contrary would be attempting to state an absolute truth (that which negates the existence of absolute truth). Quite a paradox.

Also, someone can be spiritual and not believe in the Judeo-Christian god

There may be zillion ways to spiritual illusion, but there is only one truth.
For the christian, the outlook is quite clear "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Mat 12:30).
The modern dilemna has best been expressed by F.M. Dostoyevsky in the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor.
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/dostgi.html. Probably the most important lines in the literature of the last few centuries.

[Anonymouse]

But...most of what you consider moral revolves around humans fighting their nature (i.e. not having sex with everything in sight, because it is morally wrong/a sin). People have to fight this, because there is eternal punishment if you give in to your natural tendancies. What I'm asking is, regardless of objectively moral or not, would people fight these urges/sins if there were no promise of a reward for doing so?

What you're asking is sort of silly for me because why would people know what is moral if there were no morality or no God to give it? People would be no different than hunter gatherers engaging in primitive ways and instinctive behaviors. Well, welcome to the wonderful world of moral truths, which are not easy. Even St. Augustine had a hard time admitting that it was hard not to be with the comforts of a mistress. Do you think morality is some icing on the cake that people recite out of bed every morning and if they say "I am a moral man" then that makes them moral? Morality is hard. I think what moral relativists and subjectivists say when they say that everyone is basically "good" as long as you're not Hitler or Bush or Manson, is that what they refer to is being sanctimonious. That is quite different from being moral. Being moral is being hard on yourself, while the opposite is being easy on yourself and hard on others. Anyone who has succumbed to temptation and felt ashamed after knows just how hard morality is. Now you can see why it is far easier to be a moral relativist or a non-objectivist than to try to be a moral person. And if not wanting to be in hell and wanting to be in heaven is deemed selfish, I do not know what to say to that. It's not like there is no way for anyone to not be a moral person. Anyone can if they wish to be. The way you are thinking about this is with logic, not with spirit. It's not like God is out to predestine anyone to go to hell. We are enlightened with the intellect and strength and the will so that we can do good and turn away from evil. A person can choose to do evil, to commit the mortal sin, and thereby to turn away from a moral life. If a person does not repent or have any remorse and persists in this state, then that person’s rejection of God will continue for eternity. In a sense, people put themselves in hell. One could say the same thing about them, it is out of selfish reasons why people choose to be bad because they care only about themselves, and their self-aggrandizement and not respecting or loving their neighbor because it takes a really selfish person to do that which is immoral and sinful, then you are not so much looking out for your family, your friends, your loved ones, but only yourself. Such statements usually prove everything and they prove nothing.