What if ....... ?

[TillICollapse]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate what you are suggesting ... I do wonder though whether everyone would be able to apply this uniform logic during their lives?

No I don't think everyone.

 

[brinny]

Imagine that every human being on Earth is an Atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Bhuddist or whatever ....... but every human is of one particular persuasion and it's moral code/ ideology/etc?.

Will killing/murder ever be eradicated?

Will serious crimes cease to occur?

Will minor crimes be committed?

Will there be peace on Earth?

This is not about what one does and/or does not consider to be the right or wrong moral belief system ... but more about what does that particular morality prove in practical terms to every single human being ( ok babies don't count .... yet!) on the planet?

Who sets the standard of morality? For instance killing is considered by many to be ok, morally...for instance abortion is a respectable and consequently ok killing, morally, by many. Then there was the holocaust, where it was the respectable and morally ok thing to do to, to kill millions, and then slavery.....well there ya' have it being respectable and decent and morally ok to kill without much thought, an entire race of people. There were no consequences, because all of above were/are not deemed to be quite human and therefore not afforded the rights of a "human being".

Who sets these standards and decides who is worthy of basic human rights and who isn't?

 

[quatona]

Yes good point. What if it was a specific moral code that every single human subscribes to? That is, there is a single exclusive moral code that everyone subscribes to? Say we are all Xoidians ... following a single unique moral code that has been established for every human being and to which every one ascribes to?

Ascribing to a moral code is not the same as acting upon it.

 

[Colter]

Imagine that every human being on Earth is an Atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Bhuddist or whatever ....... but every human is of one particular persuasion and it's moral code/ ideology/etc?.

Will killing/murder ever be eradicated?

Will serious crimes cease to occur?

Will minor crimes be committed?

Will there be peace on Earth?

This is not about what one does and/or does not consider to be the right or wrong moral belief system ... but more about what does that particular morality prove in practical terms to every single human being ( ok babies don't count .... yet!) on the planet?

No doubt that by this time in our evolution the earth would be a far different planet, much more racially homogenous, spiritually and scientifically advanced were it not for the Lucifer rebellion. But imperfection and the potential for sin would still be present.

 

[Soul2Soul]

Excuse me, but I didn't confine my answer to religion.

You asked us to "Imagine that every human being on Earth is an Atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Bhuddist or whatever.....but every human is of one particular persuasion and it's moral code/ ideology...."

The answer, then, is that men are flawed and so will continue to do bad things, religion or no religion, whichever religion it is, philosophy or no philosophy, consensus or no consensus, or any thing like this.

My apologies for that. Thank you for letting me know.

 

[Soul2Soul]

Who sets the standard of morality? For instance killing is considered by many to be ok, morally...for instance abortion is a respectable and consequently ok killing, morally, by many. Then there was the holocaust, where it was the respectable and morally ok thing to do to, to kill millions, and then slavery.....well there ya' have it being respectable and decent and morally ok to kill without much thought, an entire race of people. There were no consequences, because all of above were/are not deemed to be quite human and therefore not afforded the rights of a "human being".

Who sets these standards and decides who is worthy of basic human rights and who isn't?

Good question. I too would not know who would set those standards. The thread is about not who sets those standards rather about what happens once they have been set? If that makes sense?

 

[Soul2Soul]

Ascribing to a moral code is not the same as acting upon it.

Yes I agree. I also think that even if there was a "universal" morality, every individual would still have their own interpretations of some of it's values.

I'm kind of trying to understand more what the objective/s is/are of discussing and debating morality?

 

[Soul2Soul]

No doubt that by this time in our evolution the earth would be a far different planet, much more racially homogenous, spiritually and scientifically advanced were it not for the Lucifer rebellion. But imperfection and the potential for sin would still be present.

Yes I see what you are suggesting and it sounds feasible. Thanks for sharing.

 

[quatona]

Yes I agree. I also think that even if there was a "universal" morality, every individual would still have their own interpretations of some of it's values.

I'm kind of trying to understand more what the objective/s is/are of discussing and debating morality?

I can´t help thinking that the objective (even though people in their arguments often appeal to other objectives) comes down to: "What would help to make the world a more enjoyable place?"
The answers are similar to the same degree as the needs of people are similar, and differ to the same degree people´s individual needs differ.
The meta-moral discussions are, in my perception, more or less useless academic exercises.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Will killing/murder ever be eradicated? Will serious crimes cease to occur?

I doubt it. No worldview guarantees moral character.

Will minor crimes be committed?

Almost certainly. See above.

Will there be peace on Earth?

Perhaps, but see above.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Soul2Soul]

I can´t help thinking that the objective (even though people in their arguments often appeal to other objectives) comes down to: "What would help to make the world a more enjoyable place?"
The answers are similar to the same degree as the needs of people are similar, and differ to the same degree people´s individual needs differ.
The meta-moral discussions are, in my perception, more or less useless academic exercises.

Yes that makes sense. I also think it boils down to an individual's ego or internal character for want of a better term i.e. it's an individual's perspective according to their needs/desires/feelings etc and perhaps also their aspirations?

I want to steer away from moral debates/discussions not necessarily only because they are useless endeavours, but mainly because, in all honesty, I have (practical) moral deficiencies. Years ago I was 100% self righteous .... these days it's much less, but it's work in progress.

 

[Eudaimonist]

...atheist moral system?

I have one.

I don't expect you to agree that mine is correct and justified, but it exists and is godless, nevertheless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Who sets the standard of morality?

No one does, any more than anyone "sets" the shape of the Earth. The Earth is what sets the shape of the Earth.

Anyone, using reasoning skills, may recognize how the Earth is shaped. This is more of a discovery than an invention.

Likewise, if there is a correct standard of morality (which is my view), then anyone may in principle recognize this using a rational process. My view is that this requires a philosophical process.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Soul2Soul]

Will killing/murder ever be eradicated? Will serious crimes cease to occur?

I doubt it. No worldview guarantees moral character.

Will minor crimes be committed?

Almost certainly. See above.

Will there be peace on Earth?

Perhaps, but see above.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for sharing

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Who sets the standard of morality? For instance killing is considered by many to be ok, morally...for instance abortion is a respectable and consequently ok killing, morally, by many. Then there was the holocaust, where it was the respectable and morally ok thing to do to, to kill millions, and then slavery.....well there ya' have it being respectable and decent and morally ok to kill without much thought, an entire race of people. There were no consequences, because all of above were/are not deemed to be quite human and therefore not afforded the rights of a "human being".

Who sets these standards and decides who is worthy of basic human rights and who isn't?

Good question. I too would not know who would set those standards. The thread is about not who sets those standards rather about what happens once they have been set? If that makes sense?

And who would be able to set those standards? Who is qualified?

Reminds me of "laws" that are "set" and are downright wrong, throughout history.....behind those laws is a "mind-set" that brought them into existence, and they were then put into place by consensus. This "consensus" set up these "morals", so to speak. Therefore it was seen as "moral" to follow and abide by these laws.

Morality? It's basically very changeable, and unstable and varying, isn't it?

The bottom line is, who can be "trusted" (qualified) to set a "moral code"?

Thank you kindly.

 

[TillICollapse]

I have one.

I don't expect you to agree that mine is correct and justified, but it exists and is godless, nevertheless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you saying you have an atheist moral system ?

What is the moral system of atheism ?

 

[Soul2Soul]

And who would be able to set those standards? Who is qualified?

Reminds me of "laws" that are "set" and are downright wrong, throughout history.....behind those laws is a "mind-set" that brought them into existence, and they were then put into place by consensus. This "consensus" set up these "morals", so to speak. Therefore it was seen as "moral" to follow and abide by these laws.

Morality? It's basically very changeable, and unstable and varying, isn't it?

The bottom line is, who can be "trusted" (qualified) to set a "moral code"?

Thank you kindly.

Thank you too for your contribution. Yes I do agree morality is varying etc .... I guess it's down to each one's personal interpretation and application of it .... which may change depending on experience(s), mood(s), ideology etc?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you saying you have an atheist moral system ?

The key word there is "an". Perhaps "atheistic" is a more appropriate word than "atheist", since it is more obviously an adjective.

I'm not saying that atheism defines one-and-only-one morality. Just that atheists can have moral systems.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

Imagine that every human being on Earth is an Atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Bhuddist or whatever ....... but every human is of one particular persuasion and it's moral code/ ideology/etc?.

Will killing/murder ever be eradicated?

Will serious crimes cease to occur?

Will minor crimes be committed?

Will there be peace on Earth?

This is not about what one does and/or does not consider to be the right or wrong moral belief system ... but more about what does that particular morality prove in practical terms to every single human being ( ok babies don't count .... yet!) on the planet?

I believe the less diversity we have, the more peace and we will have and the more boring life will become.

Ken

 

[Soul2Soul]

I believe the less diversity we have, the more peace and we will have and the more boring life will become.

Ken

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing.