Freedom is

[NeverL0ved]

How is true freedom based on following a group of other peoples beliefs?

Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll agree with you. Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll disagree with you. So it really comes down to numbers, and soon enough one moral system can be overthrown for another one. It's not about actually knowing right or wrong, it's about getting as many people to believe as you do.

 

[NeverL0ved]

 

[Occams Barber]

How is true freedom based on following a group of other peoples beliefs?

I'm not sure where freedom fits in to this but I agree that at any given time a proportion of a population will not necessarily agree on the specifics of right/wrong behaviour.

Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll agree with you. Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll disagree with you.

Broadly speaking we tend to agree on right/wrong. If we didn't we wouldn't hold together as a society. That doesn't mean we will ALL agree on ALL behaviours at ALL times. I am interested in the concept of 'universals' - behaviours which have consistently been right (or wrong) across societies and time. I'm not sure they exist except in some very vague sense related to survival.

So it really comes down to numbers, and soon enough one moral system can be overthrown for another one.

Moral systems are rarely overthrown. The process is usually one of gradual change based on new knowledge and changing culture. Major replacement of a moral system usually requires the use of coercive force.

It's not about actually knowing right or wrong, it's about getting as many people to believe as you do.

I'm not sure that there is absolute right or wrong. I suspect that right and wrong are simply those things we, more or less, agree on within a society.

OB

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I'm not sure where freedom fits in to this but I agree that at any given time a proportion of a population will not necessarily agree on the specifics of right/wrong behaviour.


Broadly speaking we tend to agree on right/wrong. If we didn't we wouldn't hold together as a society. That doesn't mean we will ALL agree on ALL behaviours at ALL times. I am interested in the concept of 'universals' - behaviours which have consistently been right (or wrong) across societies and time. I'm not sure they exist except in some very vague sense related to survival.

Moral systems are rarely overthrown. The process is usually one of gradual change based on new knowledge and changing culture. Major replacement of a moral system usually requires the use of coercive force.

I'm not sure that there is absolute right or wrong. I suspect that right and wrong are simply those things we, more or less, agree on within a society.

OB

Do right and wrong exist? Who determines them? - Adam4d.com

 

[Carl Emerson]

Freedom has little to do with what folks think it is a function of living as we were created to function in relation to the Creator who knows best for us..

 

[Occams Barber]

Do right and wrong exist? Who determines them? - Adam4d.com

I'm afraid your little website comes across as simplistic.

The basic question (on the website) is:

• Is child sexual abuse always morally wrong even though there are predators who don't think so?

My answer is 'Yes' but remember that my answer is based on my values which are derived from the values of the society I grew up in. Even the fact that there are predators who don't think so, says that there are some people who think it is not morally wrong. We can (and will) disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that they have different values.

Let's rephrase the question:

• Has there ever been a society where child sexual abuse has been morally acceptable?

The answer is probably 'Yes". I suspect that at points in the not- to-distant past, and in other societies, child sexual abuse has been at least acceptable. Think about age of consent.

Recognising this fact doesn't mean that I agree. It means that morality has changed over time and within societies.

Let me give you another couple of questions:

• Is it OK to kill women and children in warfare?
• Is it OK to punish children for the sins of their fathers?
• Is it OK to enslave other humans?

I'll leave you to figure out the consequences of a "yes' or "no" answer.

OB

Edited to add the slavery question.
​

​

 

[Occams Barber]

Freedom has little to do with what folks think it is a function of living as we were created to function in relation to the Creator who knows best for us..

I have no idea what you just said.

A little punctuation may help but... maybe not.
OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sorry missed punctuation.

Freedom has little to do with what folks think, it is more about living as we were created to function in relation to the Creator who knows what is best for us..

 

[Occams Barber]

Sorry missed punctuation.

Freedom has little to do with what folks think, it is more about living as we were created to function in relation to the Creator who knows what is best for us..

Thanks for the punctuation (your first comma should be a full stop/period).

The second sentence still makes no sense. Perhaps I need to be a Christian and pretend that I fully understand whatever you're trying to say. Phrases like "in relation to" says nothing useful.

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

Given that what I refer to is outside your experience, your response is honest. Frankly I find it hard to understand how anyone can observe the wonder of the creation and fail to appreciate there is an awesome entity behind it. Random chance doesn't figure.

 

[Occams Barber]

Given that what I refer to is outside your experience, your response is honest. Frankly I find it hard to understand how anyone can observe the wonder of the creation and fail to appreciate there is an awesome entity behind it. Random chance doesn't figure.

Fortunately the English language is well within my range of experience.

What I observe is not a creation, lacks any indication of an awesome entity and is not a product of random chance.

It's physics Carl. Impressive - but still physics.
OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

No sense of beauty?

 

[Occams Barber]

No sense of beauty?

We all have some sense of what we find beautiful Carl. This doesn't mean that there is a God. If I'm going to be pedestrian about this it's basically conditioning but understanding why we are what we are doesn't minimise the beauty of things Carl. It's like seeing the intricate machinery within the clock instead of focussing on the clock face. There's a joy to really understanding things instead of just leaving it to the whim of some vague supernatural entity. "God" is a totally unsatisfying explanation for the awesome complexity of the universe.
OB

 

[public hermit]

How is true freedom based on following a group of other peoples beliefs?

Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll agree with you. Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll disagree with you. So it really comes down to numbers, and soon enough one moral system can be overthrown for another one. It's not about actually knowing right or wrong, it's about getting as many people to believe as you do.

It's hard to imagine what it would be to determine for one's self what is right and wrong without any influence from others. We do not form beliefs in a "vacuum" free of influence. If true freedom is the ability to determine these things for one's self without reference to the beliefs of others, then it hardly seems possible, does it? Is that the point you're making, true freedom is not possible?

 

[durangodawood]

How is true freedom based on following a group of other peoples beliefs?

Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll agree with you. Whatever you may believe is right or wrong, there will always be a group out there who'll disagree with you. So it really comes down to numbers, and soon enough one moral system can be overthrown for another one. It's not about actually knowing right or wrong, it's about getting as many people to believe as you do.

I dont think moral systems can just be arbitrarily overthrown and replaced by something very different. The attempt may be made.... but typically it doesnt last, and the enduring morals that were overthrown just come back.

 

[pleinmont]

As long as I think I am doing the right thing by my standards, I couldn't care less what others think.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We all have some sense of what we find beautiful Carl. This doesn't mean that there is a God. If I'm going to be pedestrian about this it's basically conditioning but understanding why we are what we are doesn't minimise the beauty of things Carl. It's like seeing the intricate machinery within the clock instead of focussing on the clock face. There's a joy to really understanding things instead of just leaving it to the whim of some vague supernatural entity. "God" is a totally unsatisfying explanation for the awesome complexity of the universe.
OB

That depends on your concept of God...

 

[Occams Barber]

That depends on your concept of God...

Take your pick. There are thousands of gods to choose from.

OB