- May 28, 2015
- 15,873
- 7,590
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Yep, social groups and society.....clear as a muddied lake.....uhhh I mean un-muddied lake.....
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yep, social groups and society.....clear as a muddied lake.....uhhh I mean un-muddied lake.....Lucky for you, I was "as clear as an unmuddied lake,sir."
No, because you don;'t understand......Lol because it doesn't contradict what he posted.
So, what about your social groups and your statement that morals are derived from them? Are you backtracking now?Blame for what?
We both agree murder is wrong. We both agree we prefer to live with others who feel this way also. We both agree that there should be consequences for those who murder. In fact we feel so strongly about this, we've actually made this to be unlawful to murder. Furthermore, we have decided to guarantee these rights and protections, so as not to be arbitrarily applied.
Agree so far?
Yes, social groups / societies / humans / in groups, collectively decide what is moral. Savvy?So, what about your social groups and your statement that morals are derived from them? Are you backtracking now?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/origin-of-gods-morality.7941571/#post-69503024
Ahhh, so we are moving the goal posts now.....social groups to societies, to humans to in groups(not sure what that means).Yes, social groups / societies / humans / in groups, collectively decide what is moral. Savvy?
No, because you don;'t understand......
Well said!Actually I do...
From what I gather, Hitch is proposing that morality originated from the evolutionary development of social groups (something that anthropologists have proposed). Specifically, members adopted the morals of the group they identified with...which were largely based upon survival of the group. These morals came into existence in parallel with the group's existence.
So obviously, this idea is more about how morality came into being...not necessarily how it's developed today. However, let's apply this idea to your example...
These hoodlums probably identified with their gang as their primary social group....and any other groups they identified with were secondary (or further) to this primary group. The morals of this group are based around survival of the group...and as a criminal group, things like theft, murder, etc are part of that morality.
As I said, this conflicts with the morals of the larger group they are a part of (whether they recognize it or not) citizens of the United States. The morals of that group are so vehemently opposed to murder....we've created laws against it. When this gang violated those laws, they created a conflict, a schism between the two groups they belong to and it's being resolved (in court).
I understand that a lot of this might be over your head, so just ask yourself...how many here on C.F. probably consider themselves christians first and U.S. citizens second? How many would consider their christian morals over their national morals? How many would (for example) deny a homosexual couple a marriage license or make abortions illegal if they could?
That is the social group which he talks about.These hoodlums probably identified with their gang as their primary social group....and any other groups they identified with were secondary (or further) to this primary group. The morals of this group are based around survival of the group...and as a criminal group, things like theft, murder, etc are part of that morality.
And who is to say which is in the right? What if, as may happen, they go free? Is not their social group vindicated? Remember, the initial comment was not about society, just social groups......As I said, this conflicts with the morals of the larger group they are a part of (whether they recognize it or not) citizens of the United States. The morals of that group are so vehemently opposed to murder....we've created laws against it. When this gang violated those laws, they created a conflict, a schism between the two groups they belong to and it's being resolved (in court).
I've attempted to explain what social anthropologists mean when they use the term social groups. They also use terms like in groups and out groups, which I see, you're also unfamiliar with. Also, that you mistook my attempts to explain to you the academic context of these terms as "backtracking," is the perfect blend of ignorance and arrogance I've come to expect from you.Ahhh, so we are moving the goal posts now.....social groups to societies, to humans to in groups(not sure what that means).
But your initial statement was "social groups". I gave you an example of a current social group (Short North Posse) and you immediately began to backtrack. So, for the record, please state what your position is in regard to your initial statement (post #7).
And the name calling is what I have come to expect of you......Also, that you mistook my attempts to explain to you the academic context of these terms as "backtracking," is the perfect blend of ignorance and arrogance I've come to expect from you.
That is the social group which he talks about.
And who is to say which is in the right? What if, as may happen, they go free? Is not their social group vindicated? Remember, the initial comment was not about society, just social groups......
I don't recall seeing an "answer".....please point to it.....It's my understanding that this conversation wasn't about "who is in the right". It's about where morality comes from. That is the question that Hitch answered...isn't it?
I don't recall seeing an "answer".....please point to it.....
You said social groups, even Ana quotes you on that...so are you saying that social groups equate to society?I'll try to be as clear as I can; As a society, we collectively make our own morals.
You said social groups, even Ana quotes you on that...so are you saying that social groups equate to society?
Actually society is a collection of social groups. If it were A social group all others would be excluded and we would all believe/behave the same.Society is a social group.
No, SA's do not use these terms interchangeably at least not if they know what they are talking about. See #99 above.I'm saying that social anthropologists sometimes use these terms interchangeably. Why are you stuck on this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?