|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who's More Moral? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Or are we talking about who has more pure motives? It's not just "purer motives" but a purer source of morality. To me, morality is "purer" if you own it, if it's a part of you. A morality that is injected/imparted/imposed by an external force is more like an invading pathogen. A "foreign morality" can seldom be assimilated/acclimated to the same extent as a "native-born morality". There's always a culture shock. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: ... if the survival of the entire human race came down to the extermination of one group or sub-sect, would you consider it moral to destroy them? Or what if it was an alien colony out to get us? There's your proof that there's no absolute morality. It's exterminate or don't exterminate on a case-by-case basis. Since we can't see into the future, we don't know what action will produce what outcome. Morality consists in doing what seems best now. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: What would you tell a martyr? They obviously believe that there is an absolute in turning the other cheek. Even a person who refuses to lie to save themselves does this. As General Patton said:
quote: You can turn your cheek and be a martyr or you can make the other guy a martyr.It's all situational. So, you get back to the 'greatest amount of good' for the most people thing. And the accounting is done by each person in each situation.
And then you still have that issue of genocidal maniacs who think they are doing just that. Creating a better world for the majority. What is the problem here anyway? A genocidal maniac has his morals and a homicidal maniac has his. The collective morality frowns on both. Nobody said there's no competition between moralities. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: In theory, a Utilitarian principle of gaining the most good for the most people would possibly result in some genocides that are not frowned upon. You make it sound like there's a World Utilitarian Committee that decides what is moral and what isn't. It's really more like a democracy: "the voters" don't make a collective decision. Each individual voter makes an individual decision and the sum becomes the collective decision. So "gaining the most good for the most people" is the sum of what each person thinks is the "most good for the most people".
I still feel like I am distracted and missing something. I feel like that in every thread. At least you have the advantage of knowing where you meant this one to go. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: Or...perhaps there are no sides. The question "Who's more moral?" seems to imply a competition, but is one competitor clearly "superior" to another? Maybe sometimes one is ahead and maybe at other times another is ahead. In a competition, we don't just dwell on the weaknesses of our "opponent". For the long term, we look at his strengths to see how we can improve our own. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: However... it matters not, when the only pragmatic perspective for morality is, in fact, one that is discounted as a faith based system. To some extent, everybody has faith in their own moral principles. Nobody is discounting one moral "system" or another based on faith. The basis for evaluating a moral system is performance. Does it work? If a system produces inconsistent results, it's not because of one's faith in the system or the source of the system. It's because one doesn't "own" it, as I said earlier in the thread.
There is no pragmatic perspective for morality apart from the transcendent. That seems self-contradictory.
Faith is very pragmatic. It just takes into account a larger playing field that so many assure us is out of the bounds. Something can only be pragnatic insofar as the bounds of the playing field are pragmatic. There might be something "transcendent" about using the state of Kansas as a football field, but there is nothing pragmatic. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: The 3 years of active life that represent the ministry of Jesus, corrosponded to a shift in civilization so profound, that there is no peer in History. And you ask for performance... I didn't say anything about somebody who may or may not have existed once upon a time. Any pragmatic demonstration would have to be by the troops on the ground today. If some followers of an ancient sect happen to have a sense of morality, that could be taken into consideration. Morality depends on who owns it now, not where it came from. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Moral code; a code of conduct agreed upon by a group or devised by an individual. Morality; the ability to, as Ringo says, 'own ourselves' and to live by following the consience above and beyond the dictates of any code. I think I agree with the distinction you're making. A moral code is (usually) a collective thing, related to a social contract. Individual morality will sometimes be at odds with the local code. That's when it's important to really understand one's own morality. What is "mine" and what is "ours"? And what do I do when "we" try to usurp what is "mine"? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: You'll have to go against reality and nature herself and attempt to impose moral grounds upon an amoral universe. Nobody's trying to impose anything on "the universe". Morality is only about how we govern ourselves in relationship to ourselves.
Do you want to know who is ultimately in control? No. It doesn't matter. Morality is about how we control ourselves - to the extent that we can control ourselves. What we don't control may be covered by some alien morality, but it has nothing to do with ours.
There was only one person who owned such morality in the way you say must be done for it to be genuine Ringo. And His life is so intrinsically real and sovereign that death could not hold Him. Not at all. We all have possession of "morality", but only those who own their own can control it - or control themselves with it. Those of you who only rent their morality from some absentee landlord are constantly in fear of eviction, of rent hikes.... it doesn't matter how benevolent the landlord is, you can never be secure. On the other hand, those of us who own have to do our own maintenance.
When you say it must be consistent, you are referring to His disciples such as me. And you are making a hit against the failings of us to live such ideals in fullness. Well, if you claim a "superior" source for your morality, surely it's reasonable to expect some tangible result from that superiority. If you pay extra for a "luxury" apartment, don't you expect to get some luxuries? Surely there should be something you can point to other than "Rob says so."
What you are asking for is to see really moral beings before you will accept that that is the answer. Something like that. If you claim that God guides your behaviour, then I would expect your behaviour to be better than somebody guided by, say, Gandhi. If there is no significant difference, what function does your guide serve?
A moral being will not sanction immorality. Morality is not a state of being - it's a method of action. It has no existence when you're standing still. Immorality is the failure to do what is moral.
Morality... if it exists... is not only an intrinsic part of God and His very nature.... Our morality has nothing to do with God. It's possible that He has His own morality, but that has nothing to do with us. God's Ten Suggestions are for us to get along with each other. They don't effect our relationship with God. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Can you put the 'absentee landlord' analogy into practical terms? Examples of rent hikes, maybe? Weellll..... I suppose the "rent" would be surrendering one's will, control of one's own destiny. God gives us free will - that's our "salary" (pass Go - collect $200). Some people pay it back to Him by asking themselves, "What would God want me to do in this situation?" (Note that it's still themselves they are asking.)
Do you believe that a pragmatic secular morality can also be on a proxy basis? Where you are letting society's morals stand in for your own? I think the "foreign source" of morality could be almost anything. Religious people may be more prone to "giving up ownership" because of the element of surrender in most religions. But any philosophy/worldview that is not sufficiently understood/internalized (I'm getting tired of saying "owned" ) can be a morality-crutch.
Why should I expect a Christian to be better than anyone else? I didn't say you shoulld. I said I do. I'm addressing those Christians (**points at Rob**) who do claim, explicitly or implicitly, that Christianity gives them a "moral edge". Posts addressed to me by professing Christians positively drip with superiority.
It ALL has to do with our relatioship with God. Remember the sheep and the goats? I don't think the sheep and the goats are about our relationship with God. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," is about actions, not relationships. You can focus on the reward/punishment aspect of the story or you can focus on the sheep/goats metaphor. Does the Shepherd really have a different relationship with the sheep than with the goats? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Is it not you, who claims to create your own, and therefore own it? I, on the other hand, certainly do point to something else. I wasn't talking about pointing to a source for your morality. I was talking about pointing to symptoms of your morality. Fever, coughing, etc. are the outward signs that somebody has a disease. It doesn't matter where they caught it, if there's no sign, they ain't got it. I also didn't claim to create my own morality. I said I didn't buy it off the lot from some used-morality dealer. The bits and pieces might have come from several sources, but I assembled them and fine-tuned them myself. Thus, I know intimately how it will handle on the curves - and why. So I can get better performance out of it with less danger of an accident.
You go on and make your own bed. You can have it... I'll take the one I was made for. This thread isn't about your preferences. It's about how your morality performs, and possibly about how to improve that performance. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Your presupposition, is that performance in this world is the final authority. We are talking about performance in this world. Atheists don't believe there is another world, so their morality can not be assessed on any other basis than this world. And Jesus agreed. Whether or not you get to heaven depends on your performance in this world:
quote: Edited by Ringo, : Removed superfluous sentence. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Or maybe you mean that this surrender is just an outward following of conduct. One can follow rules out of fear or laziness, looking for a quick fix, and with no real internalizing. There's surrender and then there's surrender. A prisoner of war surrenders, but all the while he's trying to escape and get back home to fight again. On the other hand, when we get married we surrender a large part of our individuality in favour of the partnership. The partnership type of surrender can be internalized, but the master/slave type never is.
I think we are going over the same ground in many different vehicles. I'm content to just run over Rob, but you keep jumping out and flagging me down. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: what are you assuming needs to be accomplished? I am assuming nothing. Need is irrelevant. The performance of a morality system depends only on what is perceived as "good". So, do you have anything at all to say about the topic? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Btw, all the print on my page is coming up tiny, anyone else? Everything normal here. Say three hail Marys and call me in the morning.
It is abundantly clear that Rob feels a God-based morality is superior. Since this is what I asked in the OP, I suppose it is quite on topic. I don't see how "Opinion, Preach, Preach, Preach" addresses the topic.
Otherwise, we have my morality being better for me, yours for you, Ross Perot's for him, and Danny Bonaduce's for him. Then we have a Chinese morality, and a bronze-age morality, one for show-biz and one for cowgirls. Exactly.
Personal morality is good, but without some sort of industry performance standards, you are comparing preferences. It's not about preferences at all. It's about how one's performance is perceived by one's peers. There are no standards because every situation requires a different performance. I can body-check in a hockey game but not in a cafeteria line.
But in order to find the best husband for me, I have to find out how he performs not only FOR ME, but in way of what needs to be done in reality. That's what I'm saying. It's not about your preference and it's not about an iron-clad set of standards. It's about how he performs in real-life situations. Since you can't always anticipate the goals, your expectations have to be flexible. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024