Morals

[elman]

You mean like in Psalms 137:9:

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"

Or maybe you mean II Kings 2 23-4 instead ( although these were older children. You know, Elsiha and the bears?

"And he turned back, and looked on them; and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them."

I suppose you will find some way to make these stories morally acceptable.

Norm

No you are wrong again. I don't find those stories to be morally acceptable.

 

[fromdownunder]

No you are wrong again. I don't find those stories to be morally acceptable.

Well, it's nice that you think that one of God's prophets lacks morality, and that the author of Psalms 137 is in the same boat.

Thanks for confirming that.

Norm

 

[Marz Blak]

To paraphrase something I read somewhere, ethics are the herd instinct in sentient beings. That's where we all start, I think, and being sentient beings, we modify our ethics through the integration of our experiences and ponderings about them into them as well.

 

[SedjmNeter]

P.E.A.C.E and Blessings...

I can not think of a better way to describe my basis for morals than the way Shekhem Ur Shekhem Ra Un Nefer Amen has put it in his work, "Tree of Life Meditation System."

-

Morality can not be understood as popularly presented, 'the principles of right or wrong conduct.' What is right and what is wrong can only be established, once again, through a holistic approach that places in perspective the relationships between all things.

SHEM HETEP

Begin All Acts And Thinking By Using El Kuluwm, The ALL

 

[elman]

Well, it's nice that you think that one of God's prophets lacks morality, and that the author of Psalms 137 is in the same boat.

Thanks for confirming that.

Norm

I think all of God's prophets and all of the children of God of all times and all human beings have made mistakes in theology as well as mistakes in teaching others about the will of God-except Jesus.

 

[elman]

To paraphrase something I read somewhere, ethics are the herd instinct in sentient beings. That's where we all start, I think, and being sentient beings, we modify our ethics through the integration of our experiences and ponderings about them into them as well.

Perhaps some ethics, but some ethics, not to murder for example have not been modified over the last four thousand years of recorded history. It has remained basically bad behavior.

 

[Marz Blak]

Perhaps some ethics, but some ethics, not to murder for example have not been modified over the last four thousand years of recorded history. It has remained basically bad behavior.

It seems to me you're leading up to an assertion you've made in prior discussions we've had, to the effect that the fact that certain ethical norms have existed among humans for so long can be best explained by assuming that they were somehow imbued into us by God, or something.

The last time we had a discussion in which this arose, I countered that sociobiological approaches do a much better job of explaining the existence and the particulars of human ethics.

I pointed out, for example, that in looking at the animal world, it seems much more likely that evolving 'ethical' instincts is just a consequence of the development of social animals: there are no social animals that don't have widely inculcated inhibitions against killing each other and other ways of sorting things out short of intraspecies or intragroup killing--things that look *a lot* like what we think of as ethics.

The fact behaviors and instincts exist in social animals that look much like what we call ethics in humans, the more apparently similar to human ethics the more intelligent and socially evolved the animals happen to be, argues strongly that ethics are merely, as I said, the herd instinct in people.

I pointed out, also, the fact that human ethical norms have varied so greatly over time and geography that one sees little basis upon which to claim any substantive universality in them. E.g., to take your current example, 'murder' is defined as 'intentional, *illegal* homicide,' but legal systems have varied so much over time and space that it's hard to make this *mean* anything remotely 'universal': in our time and country, my intentionally stabbing you with a knife might be murder, while the state's killing me for doing so would not be; while in 19th century America a white man could kill a slave and it not be considered murder; and in 15th century Russia a nobleman could split open a serf to warm his hands and not commit murder.

So even supposed 'ethical universals' like the prohibition against murder can always thus be traced back to the widely varying *intersubjective* social norms of their times and places.

So far as I am concerned, I have completely refuted your notion of objective inherent ethics imbued by God, or something. A sociobiological mechanism fits the data we have much better, and in any event ethics are nowhere near as universal as objectivists would have us believe, and this being the case, the ethics we live by always look a lot more like something arrived at by intersubjective consensus than something given to us by devine fiat or something.

You are of course free to continue to believe what you wish, but unless you have anything to add to your prior unsupported assertions I think that our continuing a dialog on this subject is probably a waste of time for both of us.

 

[elman]

It seems to me you're leading up to an assertion you've made in prior discussions we've had, to the effect that the fact that certain ethical norms have existed among humans for so long can be best explained by assuming that they were somehow imbued into us by God, or something.

The last time we had a discussion in which this arose, I countered that sociobiological approaches do a much better job of explaining the existence and the particulars of human ethics.

I pointed out, for example, that in looking at the animal world, it seems much more likely that evolving 'ethical' instincts is just a consequence of the development of social animals: there are no social animals that don't have widely inculcated inhibitions against killing each other and other ways of sorting things out short of intraspecies or intragroup killing--things that look *a lot* like what we think of as ethics.

The fact behaviors and instincts exist in social animals that look much like what we call ethics in humans, the more apparently similar to human ethics the more intelligent and socially evolved the animals happen to be, argues strongly that ethics are merely, as I said, the herd instinct in people.

I pointed out, also, the fact that human ethical norms have varied so greatly over time and geography that one sees little basis upon which to claim any substantive universality in them. E.g., to take your current example, 'murder' is defined as 'intentional, *illegal* homicide,' but legal systems have varied so much over time and space that it's hard to make this *mean* anything remotely 'universal': in our time and country, my intentionally stabbing you with a knife might be murder, while the state's killing me for doing so would not be; while in 19th century America a white man could kill a slave and it not be considered murder; and in 15th century Russia a nobleman could split open a serf to warm his hands and not commit murder.

So even supposed 'ethical universals' like the prohibition against murder can always thus be traced back to the widely varying *intersubjective* social norms of their times and places.

So far as I am concerned, I have completely refuted your notion of objective inherent ethics imbued by God, or something. A sociobiological mechanism fits the data we have much better, and in any event ethics are nowhere near as universal as objectivists would have us believe, and this being the case, the ethics we live by always look a lot more like something arrived at by intersubjective consensus than something given to us by devine fiat or something.

You are of course free to continue to believe what you wish, but unless you have anything to add to your prior unsupported assertions I think that our continuing a dialog on this subject is probably a waste of time for both of us.

The statment that all of our ethics have evolved to the point where we find anything ethicaly wrong is as unsupported as any assertion I might make about there being some ethics that have been the same throughout recorded history. The issue was never wheather the laws of men have always been the same or wheather they have been equally applied to king and serf. The issure was wheather murder was wrong before there was a law to say it was wrong and when it was wrong or was murder alright until we passed a law against it? It seems neither logical or reasonable to believe the passage of a law had to come first. The laws as imperfect as they have been through out recorded history have been in response to the general understanding that we should not be killing each other for the fun of it. This undestanding transcends time and culture and the genises of it is unknown to both of us and cannot be supported to be otherwise.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The issue of ethics, good and bad, is an issue of purpose.

Science can discover how to accomplish a goal or purpose once chosen. But sceince can not discover for what highest purpose everything you do SHOULD be done (or not done).

Socio-biology only explains the cause, not the purpose. Causes can be altered and rearranged, but how does one decide where to aim them?

This is the concern called "ethics"

 

[Marz Blak]

The issue of ethics, good and bad, is an issue of purpose.

Science can discover how to accomplish a goal or purpose once chosen. But sceince can not discover for what highest purpose everything you do SHOULD be done (or not done).

True. This is why ethics, or more precisely in this instance, meta-ethics, is a branch of philosophy, not of science.

Socio-biology only explains the cause, not the purpose. Causes can be altered and rearranged, but how does one decide where to aim them?

This is the concern called "ethics"

Granted: sociobiological theories about the evolution of ethics in people are descriptive, not prescriptive, certainly. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

Granted: sociobiological theories about the evolution of ethics in people are descriptive, not prescriptive, certainly....

Its great that you realize that it is "prescriptive" (and I think that is an excellent way to word it) but people ALWAYS degrade or glorify a statement as it travels through "the sea". And thus a great many people in the position to affect such things, accept that DNA is to be modified so as to accomplish what they have chosen to be "the higher purpose" and thus actually betraying the actual purpose which they have not yet identified.

Jesus spoke of this degrading and/or glorifying effect in his parable concerning "casting your bread into the sea" and having it return to you swollen (meaning blown up out of proportion to what you had really said)[/FONT]

 

[trase]

As a Christian I generally try to keep the 6 commandments that Jesus gave us. Plus a few of my own. Many who are not Christian will do this unrealising because they were brought up in a Christian background.
What, if anything, do you base your morals on?

This is not a question I'm trying to catch you out with, just curious.

7. MORALS, VIRTUE, AND PERSONALITY


Intelligence alone cannot explain the moral nature. Morality, virtue, is indigenous to human personality. Moral intuition, the realization of duty, is a component of human mind endowment and is associated with the other inalienables of human nature: scientific curiosity and spiritual insight. Man's mentality Page 193
far transcends that of his animal cousins, but it is his moral and religious natures that especially distinguish him from the animal world.

The selective response of an animal is limited to the motor level of behavior. The supposed insight of the higher animals is on a motor level and usually appears only after the experience of motor trial and error. Man is able to exercise scientific, moral, and spiritual insight prior to all exploration or experimentation.
Only a personality can know what it is doing before it does it; only personalities possess insight in advance of experience. A personality can look before it leaps and can therefore learn from looking as well as from leaping. A nonpersonal animal ordinarily learns only by leaping.
As a result of experience an animal becomes able to examine the different ways of attaining a goal and to select an approach based on accumulated experience. But a personality can also examine the goal itself and pass judgment on its worth-whileness, its value. Intelligence alone can discriminate as to the best means of attaining indiscriminate ends, but a moral being possesses an insight which enables him to discriminate between ends as well as between means. And a moral being in choosing virtue is nonetheless intelligent. He knows what he is doing, why he is doing it, where he is going, and how he will get there.
When man fails to discriminate the ends of his mortal striving, he finds himself functioning on the animal level of existence. He has failed to avail himself of the superior advantages of that material acumen, moral discrimination, and spiritual insight which are an integral part of his cosmic-mind endowment as a personal being.
Virtue is righteousness--conformity with the cosmos. To name virtues is not to define them, but to live them is to know them. Virtue is not mere knowledge nor yet wisdom but rather the reality of progressive experience in the attainment of ascending levels of cosmic achievement. In the day-by-day life of mortal man, virtue is realized by the consistent choosing of good rather than evil, and such choosing ability is evidence of the possession of a moral nature.
Man's choosing between good and evil is influenced, not only by the keenness of his moral nature, but also by such influences as ignorance, immaturity, and delusion. A sense of proportion is also concerned in the exercise of virtue because evil may be perpetrated when the lesser is chosen in the place of the greater as a result of distortion or deception. The art of relative estimation or comparative measurement enters into the practice of the virtues of the moral realm.
Man's moral nature would be impotent without the art of measurement, the discrimination embodied in his ability to scrutinize meanings. Likewise would moral choosing be futile without that cosmic insight which yields the consciousness of spiritual values. From the standpoint of intelligence, man ascends to the level of a moral being because he is endowed with personality.
Morality can never be advanced by law or by force. It is a personal and freewill matter and must be disseminated by the contagion of the contact of morally fragrant persons with those who are less morally responsive, but who are also in some measure desirous of doing the Father's will.
Moral acts are those human performances which are characterized by the highest intelligence, directed by selective discrimination in the choice of superior ends as well as in the selection of moral means to attain these ends. Such conduct is virtuous. Supreme virtue, then, is wholeheartedly to choose to do the will of the Father in heaven.

Page 194

(from The Urantia Book )


All morality comes from God. All conscious beings receive a "spirit of God" which then indwells our EVOLUTIONARY minds. It is through this spirit of God that all of us (christians and non-christians) learn morals. As your carnal, evolutionary mind listens to the urging of the spirit of God, one becomes more and more "christlike".

Please note that many christians, despite their proffessed belief in Jesus, are not very Christlike, while many a person who doesn't even belive in Jesus, are very much like him.

Because all of us posses the spirit of God, we can easily spot "moral corruption", irrigardless person's claim that they believe and follow Jesus and their implied righteousness. If we don't live by Jesus' true gospel of : " Brotherhood of all and the Fatherhood of God" , and everything that that implies, we can be morally corrupt regardless of what "religion" you belong to.

 

[Brimshack]

As a Christian I generally try to keep the 6 commandments that Jesus gave us. Plus a few of my own. Many who are not Christian will do this unrealising because they were brought up in a Christian background.
What, if anything, do you base your morals on?

This is not a question I'm trying to catch you out with, just curious.

The question seems a bit vague to me. It seems that "based on" can be construed in a variety of ways:

...influenced by: Christianity, New Age, Existentialism, a variety of public figures and characters (both fictional and real, and some fictionalized real people) from George Washington to Ozzy Ozbourne, I suppose. Positive role models and negative ones as well, including lots of people who managed to be both at one time or another.

...derived from: This seems to suggest that my morals exist as a body that is derived from some other body of knowldge. I don't think it works like that. Any particular moral scruple is derived from some other postulate. But the latter oculd be questioned as well, and perhaps it can be derived from another one, and so on. ...turtles all the way down, so to speak. I don't believe there is a foundation of either knowledg or ethics.

BTW: We could also distinguish 'derived from" in terms of whether the linkage is already thought out or derivable at this time. There is no reason to suppose that all one's ethical inferences have been established in advance. Much ethical reasoning is ad hoc, which would make it pretty much the same as any other aspect of human thought.

Which brings us back to the question of whether or not ethical principles (notions, ideas, what-have-you_ really exist as a distinctive body of human thought). Why are morals really different from any other part of human thought. Are they really so different from the recipe for baking a cake?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]Morality comes from your perspective of "good". A "moral" refers to a rule that never changes and leads to that "good".

If you accept that ALL things change, then you must accept that there are no real morals.

If you believe that good and bad are arbitrary, then they can change at any time, and thus there could be no morals.

Those who believe in morals are those who believe in an unchanging concept of good. They might disagree on which concept is correct, but they accept one.

Accepting no morals inspires chaos that in turn inspires the need for order that in turn inspires a concept of good that in turn restores the concept of morals (but perhaps a different set).

The cycle will continue until the concept of good is so clear that it can no longer be disputed to any significant affect.[/FONT]

 

[Brimshack]

Your assertion that morals never change is itself arbitrary.

Your desire to take a stand on assertions like "Morals are arbitrary." is also pointless. Look at the construction: "Morals are arbitrary." That's too vague to merit a stance or even a serious evaluation. What is supposed to be arbitrary about them? Arbitrary in one sense. It is entirely possible that a judgement - about anything - can be arbitrary in one sense and quite rational in another.

E.g.: Time and space coordinates. It is noon here in Arizona as a write this. That judgement involves a very rigid set of criteria. Were I to say it is 5am, I would be wrong. And yet, what makes the judgement possible is an arbitrary decision to treat a certain spot in the UK as ground 0; it involves another arbitrary judgement about what units to use. Once those decisions are made, however, the consequences are absolute and logically follow from the assumptions. To portray them as arbitrary or whimsical would be inaccurate, Judgements about time involve both rigor and arbitrary conventions in combination.

There is btw an arbitrary element to everything that any human has ever said insofar as every judgement is communicated through langauge. Each and every language involves a number of arbitrary conventions, and these affect the possibilities of expression in that language. To ignore this arbitrary element of meaning is to ignore an essential part of communication. And that is pure hubris.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Your assertion that morals never change is itself arbitrary.

Your desire to take a stand on assertions like "Morals are arbitrary." is also pointless. Look at the construction: "Morals are arbitrary." That's too vague to merit a stance or even a serious evaluation. What is supposed to be arbitrary about them? Arbitrary in one sense. It is entirely possible that a judgement - about anything - can be arbitrary in one sense and quite rational in another.

E.g.: Time and space coordinates. It is noon here in Arizona as a write this. That judgement involves a very rigid set of criteria. Were I to say it is 5am, I would be wrong. And yet, what makes the judgement possible is an arbitrary decision to treat a certain spot in the UK as ground 0; it involves another arbitrary judgement about what units to use. Once those decisions are made, however, the consequences are absolute and logically follow from the assumptions. To portray them as arbitrary or whimsical would be inaccurate, Judgements about time involve both rigor and arbitrary conventions in combination.

There is btw an arbitrary element to everything that any human has ever said insofar as every judgement is communicated through langauge. Each and every language involves a number of arbitrary conventions, and these affect the possibilities of expression in that language. To ignore this arbitrary element of meaning is to ignore an essential part of communication. And that is pure hubris.

Geeees, will anyone ever learn the very point and purpose of defining words?

A moral BY DEFINITON of the word, means a rule that doesn't change.

YES, you can trick people into redefining the word to mean something else if you so desire. The CONCEPT doesn't change, merely the appropriateness of the words that apply to it.

..get a grip

 

[Brimshack]

Actually, I do know a bit about the purpose of defining words; I see no evidence that you yourself have looked into the matter. Have you read the introductions and methodological sections contained in any dictionaries? Do you know how lexicographers go about it? Do you know what the professionals are trying to accomplish when they define words?

Did you even look up the definition you just provided, or did you just assume that characteristic was central to THE definition of a word. Are you under the illusion that you yourself can decide what words mean by fiat? that you can just decide once and for all, and the rest of us must follow your lead?

Please put some actual effort into the matter before you lecture others on what they have or have not understood.

 

[rebel_conservative]

'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"

These come from the seven laws that G-d gave to Noah:

1. Avodah zarah - Do not worship false gods
2. Shefichat damim - Do not murder
3. Gezel - Do not steal
4. Gilui arayot - Do not be sexually immoral
5. Birkat Hashem - Do not blaspheme
6. Ever min ha-chai - Do not be cruel to animals
7. Dinim - Set up a system of law

these are binding upon all gentiles and remain binding today, with the primacy of the two most important rules - love G-d with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.

 

[Received]

Morals are based essentially on one thing: our past. We may have the freedom to think through which values our morals stem from, but ultimately the starting point is what affects the greatest where we are today.

 

[RatzingerRocks]

As a Christian I generally try to keep the 6 commandments that Jesus gave us. Plus a few of my own. Many who are not Christian will do this unrealising because they were brought up in a Christian background.
What, if anything, do you base your morals on?

This is not a question I'm trying to catch you out with, just curious.

Immanual Kants Second Catagorical Imperative...and the Bible