• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Euthyphro dilemma anyone?

Well, yes it does have something to do with it, but the question is, are morals something which are decreed by god, or do we believe things are moral, and then assign them to god? Morality is subjective, in that if you take away our emotions and our ability to judge, there is no right or wrong, and if we are alone without anyone with which to interact or effect, morality has no meaning. The reason that we think things are right or wrong, is because we feel uncomfortable with certain actions, regardless of how much they are natural.

Well that's quite a word salad, but I have no idea after reading it what your justification for believing that morality is tied to god or religion, which I am assuming based on "yes, it does..."
 
Well that's quite a word salad, but I have no idea after reading it what your justification for believing that morality is tied to god or religion, which I am assuming based on "yes, it does..."

It's tied to God and/or religion, because of our history of practicing religion. There is reason-based morality as well, but humans were practicing religion long before anything resembling reason-based ethics was known. I am not saying that morals come from god itself. I'm saying that the history of mankind is that we collectively have believed that to be the case, and that those ideas are based on societal values. Would you say that human sacrifice was moral? Would you accuse those who practiced it as having been immoral? If so, why? If not, why not?
 
It's tied to God and/or religion, because of our history of practicing religion. There is reason-based morality as well, but humans were practicing religion long before anything resembling reason-based ethics was known. I am not saying that morals come from god itself. I'm saying that the history of mankind is that we collectively have believed that to be the case, and that those ideas are based on societal values. Would you say that human sacrifice was moral? Would you accuse those who practiced it as having been immoral? If so, why? If not, why not?

You can have that opinion, that morality began as a religion based thing, but I doubt you or anyone can prove it. We simply don't have that kind of historical data of the beginnings of societies.

Societal values can and often exist without the fear or input or recognition of religion or god. Instead, likely scenario is that some felt that their morals were more moral than others and created a religion to scare people into obedience.
 
Well...I mean, this is just a re-hash of same old alleged "theological" arguments - which is actually just a rant.
Flying spittle and all!

And it's clearly based on ignorance of the Bible. Since it's based on ignorance, no need to defend my God.

The basis of your argument is effective defense enough. No need to lift a finger, or an eyebrow on my part.
:lol:


<Spittle? oh boy, ebola! ducking for cover and hastily making my exit> :2wave:

It's funny how the Christians here are unwilling to jump into the debate. One or two line replies, claiming you're not interested, claiming you don't need to defend your god.

For the record, my argument has nothing to do with the existence of god, rather that objective morality is a meaningless idea.

If you want any more, you're going to have to jump in and take a swim. If you want to dip your toes in that's cool too. Your call.
 
No, I think religion is meant to be a tool to help share the idea of morality with others. As well as the joy it can bring.

Ok, but the question in this thread is, where do moral come from?

If god, see the OP.
 
You can have that opinion, that morality began as a religion based thing, but I doubt you or anyone can prove it. We simply don't have that kind of historical data of the beginnings of societies.

Societal values can and often exist without the fear or input or recognition of religion or god. Instead, likely scenario is that some felt that their morals were more moral than others and created a religion to scare people into obedience.


Well, frankly, you can't prove that morals are actually morals, except in that we collectively accept them as such. You may make things illegal as a matter of law, thus discourage people from committing crime, but for many people, the only thing that keeps them from doing whatever the hell they want to do, is fear of an afterlife. I doubt that religion originally had anything to do with making people obedient, and was more of a personal practice. Men (collective, not male) have used religion to keep people living in fear. I doubt that God cares either way.
 
It's tied to God and/or religion, because of our history of practicing religion. There is reason-based morality as well, but humans were practicing religion long before anything resembling reason-based ethics was known. I am not saying that morals come from god itself. I'm saying that the history of mankind is that we collectively have believed that to be the case, and that those ideas are based on societal values. Would you say that human sacrifice was moral? Would you accuse those who practiced it as having been immoral? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'd argue that ALL morals are reason based, even those attributed to god.

Was human sacrifice immoral?

Yes.

Did people understand that it was immoral.

Obviously not.

There is, imo, something called moral wisdom/ intelligence. Clearly when our specie was sacrificing anything, animal or humans and didn't realize it was wrong, then we didn't possess much in the way of moral intelligence/ wisdom because our understanding of so many of the sciences was limited (physics, behavior, cosmology, geology ect.).
 
I'd argue that ALL morals are reason based, even those attributed to god.

Was human sacrifice immoral?

Yes.

Did people understand that it was immoral.

Obviously not.

There is, imo, something called moral wisdom/ intelligence. Clearly when our specie was sacrificing anything, animal or humans and didn't realize it was wrong, then we didn't possess much in the way of moral intelligence/ wisdom because our understanding of so many of the sciences was limited (physics, behavior, cosmology, geology ect.).

Imo, moral practices exist and are valid within their own societies and times. In the time that human sacrifice was practiced, it was moral to those who practiced it. We don't understand it, and I pass no judgement on it. In our society, it would not be.
 
I'd argue that ALL morals are reason based, even those attributed to god.

Was human sacrifice immoral?

Yes.

Did people understand that it was immoral.

Obviously not.

There is, imo, something called moral wisdom/ intelligence. Clearly when our specie was sacrificing anything, animal or humans and didn't realize it was wrong, then we didn't possess much in the way of moral intelligence/ wisdom because our understanding of so many of the sciences was limited (physics, behavior, cosmology, geology ect.).

What the ancients did is wrong to us, but what about some of the things we consider moral or okay today that will be viewed as immoral or wrong by a society 500 years, a thousand or two thousand years from now.
 
Well, frankly, you can't prove that morals are actually morals, except in that we collectively accept them as such.

Welllll....kinda. Imean definitions are simply a collection of words that we arbitrary decide to have a certain meaning, but once you have reached a definition that everyone agrees on, you can in fact attempt to prove what is moral and immoral.

You may make things illegal as a matter of law, thus discourage people from committing crime, but for many people, the only thing that keeps them from doing whatever the hell they want to do, is fear of an afterlife.

I think a lot of people think that is the case, but if it was shown tomorrow that god did not exist as a matter of fact, people wouldn't suddenly not know the difference between right or wrong. You make it sound as if there are millions of Christians sitting at home wishing to rape, steal, murder and commit adultery. Frankly I give them a lot more credit than you.

I doubt that religion originally had anything to do with making people obedient, and was more of a personal practice. Men (collective, not male) have used religion to keep people living in fear. I doubt that God cares either way.

Without giving it much thought, I suspect that religion was simply a way to explain things that could not be known which helped reduce the fear people must have felt about the things they didn't understand. If you could believe that "god" would protect you if only you did the right things gave people the illusion that their actions could affect a certain amount of control in a world that frankly doesn't care about humans.
 
Well, frankly, you can't prove that morals are actually morals, except in that we collectively accept them as such. You may make things illegal as a matter of law, thus discourage people from committing crime, but for many people, the only thing that keeps them from doing whatever the hell they want to do, is fear of an afterlife. I doubt that religion originally had anything to do with making people obedient, and was more of a personal practice. Men (collective, not male) have used religion to keep people living in fear. I doubt that God cares either way.

So we agree, morals have nothing to do with god or religion since people who don't believe in an afterlife are usually just as moral as anyone else. Collectively society decides, not religion. Religion however is constantly adapting in order to fit into the current morality in order to not lose their precious tithes.
 
What the ancients did is wrong to us, but what about some of the things we consider moral or okay today that will be viewed as immoral or wrong by a society 500 years, a thousand or two thousand years from now.

The word moral and immoral are definitions. There meaning doesn't change with time, it's our understanding, our moral wisdom and intelligence that changes.

People sacrificed other people because they believed their actions would actualize some beneficial outcome. I hope you'd agree that it would have been just as effective flipping a coin and saving a life/ lives.

Now having said that, when passing judgement on the moral actions of our ancestors I'm willing to concede that they weren't as morally wise and intelligent and thus my feeling is that it is somewhat understandable given what they knew, but if morality is about making "good" choices and one defines a good choice as having a good outcome, then I think I can say that sacrifice was immoral unless someone can prove that without the sacrifices that were committed that greater suffering would have resulted.
 
We


I think a lot of people think that is the case, but if it was shown tomorrow that god did not exist as a matter of fact, people wouldn't suddenly not know the difference between right or wrong. You make it sound as if there are millions of Christians sitting at home wishing to rape, steal, murder and commit adultery. Frankly I give them a lot more credit than you.



.

It isn't that I give them no credit. It's that I understand the nature of humans, and the psychological changes a person goes through once they give up their religion. I don't think people would suddenly be raping and murdering in massive numbers. I think they would have to totally revamp the way they think, and they would necessarily rethink all that they have been taught to think. Since they have already been conditioned to act according to certain standards, that isn't likely to change much.
 
Imo, moral practices exist and are valid within their own societies and times. In the time that human sacrifice was practiced, it was moral to those who practiced it. We don't understand it, and I pass no judgement on it. In our society, it would not be.

I think I know what you are trying to say and I agree with you on some level. For example. Today we don't make children work. Why? because we don't need to. We agree that making children do work, especially hard labor is immoral...But why??

To your point, there may have been times when not making children work would have resulted in greater suffering than it prevented. Again, if the word moral has any meaning whatsoever we have to look at things in the context in which they happened.

So the question is, would the lack of human sacrifice cause more suffering than it created? Now I'm open to a revision on my opinion, but until someone can convince me otherwise I would say no.

What about making children work? Would allowing children to wait till they are 16ish in the ancient past have caused more suffering than it created? Again, I'm willing to revise this answer as well, but I'm inclined this time to say yes.

Clearly at any given moment if there is some personal or social benefit we wish to actualize when making a moral decision clearly there is an objective answer based on the values of those that are effected by the moral decision.

That is to say,

IF, i want to raise a happy healthy productive children

Then, I should not torture them.

There is no such thing as objective morality, just objective moral decisions when considering certain values.
 
It isn't that I give them no credit. It's that I understand the nature of humans, and the psychological changes a person goes through once they give up their religion. I don't think people would suddenly be raping and murdering in massive numbers. I think they would have to totally revamp the way they think, and they would necessarily rethink all that they have been taught to think. Since they have already been conditioned to act according to certain standards, that isn't likely to change much.

This falls right in line with what I've been saying. This is moral wisdom and religion retards it.
 
It isn't that I give them no credit. It's that I understand the nature of humans, and the psychological changes a person goes through once they give up their religion. I don't think people would suddenly be raping and murdering in massive numbers. I think they would have to totally revamp the way they think, and they would necessarily rethink all that they have been taught to think. Since they have already been conditioned to act according to certain standards, that isn't likely to change much.
Apparently not if you think people without religion or before religion are or were mostly wanting to behave in non-socially-acceptable manners. It just isn't true. People don't do what they do because god or religion told them to, it's because it's what provides the most successful outcomes when one is amongst others. Religion took/takes advantage of that and tries to claim them, morals, as their own, but they aren't. I have no doubt that every society throughout history with or without gods, learned to co-habitate to some degree. But honestly if you look at much of the religious history of any religion, those that created it, run it, profit from it are rarely very moral, used to be raping and pillaging and burning at the stake and false accusations, wife and child beating, even genocide have been promoted at some time in most religions, there's nothing moral about these, never has been.
 
So the question is, would the lack of human sacrifice cause more suffering than it created? Now I'm open to a revision on my opinion, but until someone can convince me otherwise I would say no.

What about making children work? Would allowing children to wait till they are 16ish in the ancient past have caused more suffering than it created? Again, I'm willing to revise this answer as well, but I'm inclined this time to say yes.

There is no such thing as objective morality, just objective moral decisions when considering certain values.

Then there are the questions such as this:
In the world today, we consider it the moral thing to do, when we feed and clothe people, and insure that they have certain necessities at hand, in order that they may live. If we excessively utilize rsources to the point that it is eventually unsustainable to do this, is it moral to artificially support the value of a human life? This is just a rhetorical question, as some of my own moral thoughts arise from the nature of humans, and nature itself, and it can get to be quite a dicey subject.
 
What the ancients did is wrong to us, but what about some of the things we consider moral or okay today that will be viewed as immoral or wrong by a society 500 years, a thousand or two thousand years from now.

I hope that we will be remembered that we started out with a Constitution and Bill of Rights for the average person to feel secure in his life, since we also were a nation of laws. Over time, that has changed somewhat, but maybe Nature and evolution have a say in how cultures change. When we look at Egypt and Rome, they ruled the known world in their time, but they didn't last. We may not either, but we were sure a grand experiment in how things could be. It seems that history does indeed repeat! :shock:
 
This falls right in line with what I've been saying. This is moral wisdom and religion retards it.

I don't necessarily think that religion retards it in the big picture. I think that with the current evolutionary level of humans, religion is often a necessity. If we all had the reasoning ability of Socrates, Aristotle, or other philosophers, I would tend to agree with you. If the mass of humanity didn't need religion, it would not exist. We create what we need, and we innovate to meet our needs, and it continuously gets revised, as we discard what no longer works, and take up something new.
 
Then there are the questions such as this:
In the world today, we consider it the moral thing to do, when we feed and clothe people, and insure that they have certain necessities at hand, in order that they may live. If we excessively utilize rsources to the point that it is eventually unsustainable to do this, is it moral to artificially support the value of a human life? This is just a rhetorical question, as some of my own moral thoughts arise from the nature of humans, and nature itself, and it can get to be quite a dicey subject.

I know it's rhetorical and betrays your Libertarian lean, I think the answer is only of you can indeed show that it is, in fact, unsustainable, that there is no new technology that could change the game in the future, but I suspect that cold fusion is that game changer and my be possible in my childrens lifetimes.

Having said that, I think there are to many unknowns so if you are in fact correct will the future judge our actions to have been immoral? I think those that are capable of higher orders of moral intelligence will understand that when faced with actualizing human suffering now or later with the very real potential that later could possibly be avoided, then our actions are in fact consistent with our values.
 
I know it's rhetorical and betrays your Libertarian lean, I think the answer is only of you can indeed show that it is, in fact, unsustainable, that there is no new technology that could change the game in the future, but I suspect that cold fusion is that game changer and my be possible in my childrens lifetimes.

.

What it actually betrays is the foundation of my religious and philosophical views. To me, "God" isn't warm and fuzzy. It's the cold hard truth. For reference, see my sig. ;)
 
I don't necessarily think that religion retards it in the big picture. I think that with the current evolutionary level of humans, religion is often a necessity. If we all had the reasoning ability of Socrates, Aristotle, or other philosophers, I would tend to agree with you. If the mass of humanity didn't need religion, it would not exist. We create what we need, and we innovate to meet our needs, and it continuously gets revised, as we discard what no longer works, and take up something new.

The idea that morals come from an objective source, like the Christian god, does in fact retard our potential moral progress.

The reason is because we fail to understand the necessity of morality and how it affects society.

But again, I'm waiting for someone to step up and defend Moral Realisim.....
 
What it actually betrays is the foundation of my religious and philosophical views. To me, "God" isn't warm and fuzzy. It's the cold hard truth. For reference, see my sig. ;)

Fair enough :mrgreen:
 
IF, i want to raise a happy healthy productive children

Then, I should not torture them.

Actually, that does NOT follow. Instead it must be:

1) If children ought to be happy healthy and productive,

2) Then I ought not torture them

(And there's also a hidden, implied premise 1.5: If I torture children, they will not be happy, healthy, productive).

That may seem like a subtle distinction, but it's not. Wanting or valuing healthy happy productive children isn't sufficient. Believing that children ought to be healthy and happy isn't enough. In order to derive the conclusion you're attempting to derive, it must actually be true that children ought to be healthy happy.

2 can only be objectively true IF 1 is objectively true. Objective ought-statements can only be derived from "pre-existing" objective ought-statements. If there are no such "pre-existing" objective ought-statements, then there are no objective ought-statements period. Put differently, there must be some objective values.
 
The word moral and immoral are definitions. There meaning doesn't change with time, it's our understanding, our moral wisdom and intelligence that changes.

People sacrificed other people because they believed their actions would actualize some beneficial outcome. I hope you'd agree that it would have been just as effective flipping a coin and saving a life/ lives.

Now having said that, when passing judgement on the moral actions of our ancestors I'm willing to concede that they weren't as morally wise and intelligent and thus my feeling is that it is somewhat understandable given what they knew, but if morality is about making "good" choices and one defines a good choice as having a good outcome, then I think I can say that sacrifice was immoral unless someone can prove that without the sacrifices that were committed that greater suffering would have resulted.

I agree that a coin flip if they had coins would have accomplished just as much. But not in their minds or way of thinking. I suppose those living in the present will always judge those who lived in the past as to their morals based on right and wrong of today. Or what is moral today and not yesterday. I do like your definition about good choices resulting in good outcomes. It does seem pretty much cut and dried. But can a good outcome today be a bad outcome tomorrow and thus what we consider moral today may not be tomorrow?

I have been one to always take or look at things in the context of their time. Not in the context of today. Human sacrifice is and was wrong, I agree. But if we had lived back then, we would be thinking differently and thus context comes into play. I am with you, to me it is the context that leads to one's understanding as to why they did this or didn't do that.

So perhaps the next question is, do we of today condemn them of yesterday for doing what society as a whole thought was moral for the times they lived in? I don't. I may not agree with it, but I have 20-20 hindsight, whereas they of yesterday did not.
 
Back
Top Bottom