Moral Guidance

Harika

hinault wrote: »

...
How does society justify that stealing is wrong?

Why should society see stealing as good? Cause if you steal you take someones fruits of their hard labor away, so if this would be good, then where is the incentive to work at all, as all your belongings are anyway free for grab? And if no one works anymore, will this be beneficial to society? Even if it was not part of hard work and received for free, the loss might harm the person psychological or even physical. Can this be in the interest of society?

hinault

Harika wrote: »

Why should society see stealing as good? Cause if you steal you take someones fruits of their hard labor away, so if this would be good, then where is the incentive to work at all, as all your belongings are anyway free for grab? And if no one works anymore, will this be beneficial to society? Even if it was not part of hard work and received for free, the loss might harm the person psychological or even physical. Can this be in the interest of society?

Who said that society should see stealing as being good?

I've asked the question how does society justify that stealing is wrong.
The point was put earlier that society can deem what is moral.

All I'm asking is how does society justify what it deems to be moral.

RecordStraight

Harika wrote: »

Why should society see stealing as good? Cause if you steal you take someones fruits of their hard labor away, so if this would be good, then where is the incentive to work at all, as all your belongings are anyway free for grab? And if no one works anymore, will this be beneficial to society? Even if it was not part of hard work and received for free, the loss might harm the person psychological or even physical. Can this be in the interest of society?

You know, it almost looks like religions appropriated pre-existing social rules for their 'morals', doesn't it?

(Hinault continues to furiously ignore these points... )

ScumLord

RecordStraight wrote: »

Where did this template come from in pre- and non-religious societies?

The fact is most religions got there moral framework from the earliest societies. "An eye for an eye" goes right back to mesopotamia long before even the Jewish religion appeared. That's why I always say the old testament is just a collection of stories from ancient societies.

Moral guidelines are the direct result of civilization and trade. Trade was one of the most influential systems when it comes to civilization, culture, mathematics and language.

Religious bodies have just hijacked pre existing ideals.

Frank Bullitt

To say that there needs to be a template to be a moral person, and to suggest that it comes from a religious body (in this case, Christianity) is absolute hogwash.

Human decency is innate in us, how anyone can say that we get our moral guidance from a book that advocates slavery, genocide and racism (to name just a few) is laughable, and suggests that the person saying this is just an ignoramus. To even suggest that we get our moral guidance from "The boss", literally degrades us in our decency as a species, and as people.

RecordStraight

Gintonious wrote: »

To say that there needs to be a template to be a moral person, and to suggest that it comes from a religious body (in this case, Christianity) is absolute hogwash.

Human decency is innate in us, how anyone can say that we get our moral guidance from a book that advocates slavery, genocide and racism (to name just a few) is laughable, and suggests that the person saying this is just an ignoramus. To even suggest that we get our moral guidance from "The boss", literally degrades us in our decency as a species, and as people.

Inconvenient facts. Expect them to be ignored...

ScumLord

Gintonious wrote: »

To say that there needs to be a template to be a moral person, and to suggest that it comes from a religious body (in this case, Christianity) is absolute hogwash.

Human decency is innate in us, how anyone can say that we get our moral guidance from a book that advocates slavery, genocide and racism (to name just a few) is laughable, and suggests that the person saying this is just an ignoramus. To even suggest that we get our moral guidance from "The boss", literally degrades us in our decency as a species, and as people.

I think it has to be pointed out that slavery back then probably isn't the slavery we know. Basically the treatment of African people by the European empires in America.

Slaves were like a class of people, it wasn't always a life of abuse and torture. It was the lowest class in society but it did give people access to a society, protection, food and possibly education. Being the salve of a prominent person may have been desirable to some people given the alternative of running around the wilderness looking for food on your own.

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

Of course there has to be a template. How are folk supposed to know what is unacceptable behaviour?

The Statute book is a template of sorts. The rules and regulations concerning maintaining the law and what constitutes breaking the law are contained in the Statute book.

no template required , the mechanism is being judged by your peers, neighbours, family etc. Writing it down is inflexible which is the problem with bible ethics. The system of ethics build up over time based on advancement in society. For instance take homosexuality , secular ethics have beaten biblical ethics based on the knowledge derived from science. If "I" was to make fun of a homosexual person in public it would be frowned on. If everyone based their ethics on the bible , homosexuality may very well still be a criminal offence. it has taken secular ethics to improve the behaviour of christians

hinault wrote: »

It's not off topic. You mentioned honesty.

How does society justify that stealing is wrong?

because it would be impossible for trade to happen or to leave your house if it wasnt. We all know that if we raised someone to believe that stealing was a valid activity that they would lose friends, never be able to keep a job etc etc. Now there is also a legal system that backs this ethic up but take the related ethic of honesty as in telling the truth, in most cases there is no legal implication but its an ethic none the less that is passed on because we know that we all judge each other and that someone who lies constantly is not trustworthy so is better to be steered clear of either in our social lives or work life.

hinault

silverharp wrote: »

no template required , the mechanism is being judged by your peers, neighbours, family etc

Judged by your peers, neighbours and family.
And if there is no unanimity among them about what is moral, what then?

My next door neighbours are Fred and Rose West.
I think what they do is immoral. But another neighbour may come to the conclusion that what Fred & Rose do is moral.

How do we reconcile these differing moralities.
And again if there is no template to measure moral behaviour how can what is moral be established?

The book of statutes clearly find what Fred & Rose did was morally wrong and criminal.

silverharp wrote: »

We all know that if we raised someone to believe that stealing was a valid activity that they would lose friends, never be able to keep a job etc etc. Now there is also a legal system that backs this ethic up but take the related ethic of honesty as in telling the truth, in most cases there is no legal implication but its an ethic none the less that is passed on because we know that we all judge each other and that someone who lies constantly is not trustworthy so is better to be steered clear of either in our social lives or work life.

Perjury. Perjury carries a legal implication for sure.

You're not making the case for how society justifies that stealing is wrong.

The 10 commandments say that stealing is wrong. God commanded that Moses inform his followers that stealing is wrong. Whether you agree that God gave this commandment to Moses is neither here or there.

The fact is that Judaism/Christianity/Islam cite the 10 commandments as the basis to justify that stealing is wrong.

You haven't made the case that society independent of religion has derived the conclusion that stealing is wrong. Because society never did derive that conclusion independent of religion.

At it's most fundamental I would argue that society needs an external reference point to derive and to measure what is moral.

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

Judged by your peers, neighbours and family.
And if there is no unanimity among them about what is moral, what then?

My next door neighbours are Fred and Rose West.
I think what they do is immoral. But another neighbour may come to the conclusion that what Fred & Rose do is moral.

How do we reconcile these differing moralities.
And again if there is no template to measure moral behaviour how can what is moral be established?

The book of statutes clearly find what Fred & Rose did was morally wrong and criminal.

I think you are mixing up criminal behaviour and general ethical behaviour we expect in our day to day dealings. for someone like Fred and Rose West , we dont need a legal system to tell us what they did was wrong , they would never have been able to conduct their activities in public.
You can already see an ethic build up about online activity. There was no Commandment about "thou shalt not make a fool of your self onlineth" however now young people are realising that employers etc might scan your online profiles

hinault wrote: »

Perjury. Perjury carries a legal implication for sure.

You're not making the case for how society justifies that stealing is wrong.

The 10 commandments say that stealing is wrong. God commanded that Moses inform his followers that stealing is wrong. Whether you agree that God gave this commandment to Moses is neither here or there.

The fact is that Judaism/Christianity/Islam cite the 10 commandments as the basis to justify that stealing is wrong.

You haven't made the case that society independent of religion has derived the conclusion that stealing is wrong. Because society never did derive that conclusion independent of religion.

At it's most fundamental I would argue that society needs an external reference point to derive and to measure what is moral.

that is just plain wrong I'm sure you have had the argument put to you on various threads that Greek culture and any number of Eastern cultures came up with legal sanction against stealing and murder without ever hearing of the 10 commandments
Lets assume a caveman society didnt understand the concept of stealing , although given that some animals react to stealing it existed in some form. move on to a sophisticated society like ancient Egypt, they had a legal code from about 3000 bce. Its a function of having a society, how to you trade with someone in ancient times when delivery and payment were dependent on intermediaries? A has to trust B has to trust C to get goods and payment back and forth. Off the back of such activities an ethic builds up and a legal system to both reward the ethic and punish it if appropriate through the legal system.

Andrewf20

hinault wrote: »

I would argue that society needs an external reference point to derive and to measure what is moral.

hinault wrote: »

On what basis do you instruct your kids to have respect and empathy for other people?

How do you justify the requirement that one must have respect and empathy for anyone else?

I would say evolution is the main driver. Social cohesion ( the golden rule etc) promotes the propogation of the species. We are social animals. We rely on others in this world to get through life. Its in most peoples interest to get on with each other.

Frank Bullitt

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it has to be pointed out that slavery back then probably isn't the slavery we know. Basically the treatment of African people by the European empires in America.

Slaves were like a class of people, it wasn't always a life of abuse and torture. It was the lowest class in society but it did give people access to a society, protection, food and possibly education. Being the salve of a prominent person may have been desirable to some people given the alternative of running around the wilderness looking for food on your own.

Where exactly do you think Europeans got their ideas from slavery from?

Ownership of people (no matter what period of time) is flat out wrong, and immoral. There is a reason why most modern societies don't use it anymore, it is evil. The reasons you listed above don't justify or lessen the impact that it was ownership of people, making them objects. You can't honestly think that just because it was back in the good ol days that it was PC.

Saying that it might have been different back then is just putting lipstick on a pig for the argument.

galljga1

silverharp wrote: »

I think you are mixing up criminal behaviour and general ethical behaviour we expect in our day to day dealings. for someone like Fred and Rose West , we dont need a legal system to tell us what they did was wrong , they would never have been able to conduct their activities in public.
You can already see an ethic build up about online activity. There was no Commandment about "thou shalt not make a fool of your self onlineth" however now young people are realising that employers etc might scan your online profiles





that is just plain wrong I'm sure you have had the argument put to you on various threads that Greek culture and any number of Eastern cultures came up with legal sanction against stealing and murder without ever hearing of the 10 commandments
Lets assume a caveman society didnt understand the concept of stealing , although given that some animals react to stealing it existed in some form. move on to a sophisticated society like ancient Egypt, they had a legal code from about 3000 bce. Its a function of having a society, how to you trade with someone in ancient times when delivery and payment were dependent on intermediaries? A has to trust B has to trust C to get goods and payment back and forth. Off the back of such activities an ethic builds up and a legal system to both reward the ethic and punish it if appropriate through the legal system.

Coincidentally Moses was a prince of Egypt.
I wonder where he got those ten commandments from.

Harika

hinault wrote: »

Judged by your peers, neighbours and family.
And if there is no unanimity among them about what is moral, what then?

My next door neighbours are Fred and Rose West.
I think what they do is immoral. But another neighbour may come to the conclusion that what Fred & Rose do is moral.

How do we reconcile these differing moralities.
And again if there is no template to measure moral behaviour how can what is moral be established?

The book of statutes clearly find what Fred & Rose did was morally wrong and criminal.

As we all are humans, we have different opinions and moralities, but we are living under the law and constitution that prohibits or allows things, and we mostly agree with those, as we also have free speech and we are allowed to campaign for or against such moralities and have those banned or legalized. What just recently happened in Ireland, against the will of god. This is an important process as 2000 year old rules might be outdated today and need to be changed, this discussion can be done among all people and a consensus can be reached, where we can live together under agreed rules.

hinault wrote: »

Perjury. Perjury carries a legal implication for sure.

You're not making the case for how society justifies that stealing is wrong.

The 10 commandments say that stealing is wrong. God commanded that Moses inform his followers that stealing is wrong. Whether you agree that God gave this commandment to Moses is neither here or there.

The fact is that Judaism/Christianity/Islam cite the 10 commandments as the basis to justify that stealing is wrong.

You haven't made the case that society independent of religion has derived the conclusion that stealing is wrong. Because society never did derive that conclusion independent of religion.

At it's most fundamental I would argue that society needs an external reference point to derive and to measure what is moral.

First of all you are missing to prove the case that god gave Moses the 10 commandments, and this is really important, but needs to be discussed in a different thread as it comes down to the existence of god. Cause if god didn't give it to Moses it was clearly a human decision to define stealing as wrong. Also other religions like Buddhism/Hinduism also have not stealing in their rule books, and those clearly did not derive from the 10 commandments. They have just five precepts, where four are similar and one is completely opposite to the 10 commandments. Also George Carlin showed how to make 2 commandments out of the 10 and not loose anything by that.

And I agree that we need a base of morality, and mostly we already have those with e.g. the Constitution in the US/Ireland, the Grundgesetz in Germany and so on. It can now be discussed if those bases were inspired by the 10 commandments or if those guys that wrote it, looked at what is beneficial for the society and set those very basic ground rules.

silverharp

I posted this a few days ago in the comedy section above but it works here too to make a serious point



The Bible: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."



Geneva Convention: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armedforces who have laiddown their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Harika

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it has to be pointed out that slavery back then probably isn't the slavery we know. Basically the treatment of African people by the European empires in America.

Slaves were like a class of people, it wasn't always a life of abuse and torture. It was the lowest class in society but it did give people access to a society, protection, food and possibly education. Being the salve of a prominent person may have been desirable to some people given the alternative of running around the wilderness looking for food on your own.

Matt Dillahunty had recently a discussion on youtube with a black fella (G Man) who also claimed slavery was something desirable back then, where Matt showed with Bible verses that it defo was something that was not worth it. Basically being the property like a chair, with different rules compared to free people and being able to be killed under circumstances without any further actions to the slave owner.
The argument remembers me also on the argument from the Confederates that claimed that slaves had at least a job when they were working for them on the cotton fields.

hinault

silverharp wrote: »

I think you are mixing up criminal behaviour and general ethical behaviour we expect in our day to day dealings. for someone like Fred and Rose West , we dont need a legal system to tell us what they did was wrong , they would never have been able to conduct their activities in public.

The rationale that you cite is that Fred & Rose did not do what they did in public and because they didn't do what they did in public makes what they did immoral.

silverharp wrote: »

that is just plain wrong I'm sure you have had the argument put to you on various threads that Greek culture and any number of Eastern cultures came up with legal sanction against stealing and murder without ever hearing of the 10 commandments

Did these societies codify a law against stealing, or murder? And did the law apply to every single citizen in those societies, regardless of their place in those societies?

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Judged by your peers, neighbours and family.
And if there is no unanimity among them about what is moral, what then?

My next door neighbours are Fred and Rose West.
I think what they do is immoral. But another neighbour may come to the conclusion that what Fred & Rose do is moral.

Ludicrous.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

The 10 commandments say that stealing is wrong. God commanded that Moses inform his followers that stealing is wrong. Whether you agree that God gave this commandment to Moses is neither here or there.

So, according to the Christian God, it's better that you let your children suffer and die of starvation than to steal a chicken from a billionaire.

Very moral.

hinault wrote: »

You haven't made the case that society independent of religion has derived the conclusion that stealing is wrong. Because society never did derive that conclusion independent of religion.

I'm assuming you have some amazing source for this that you are holding back, rather than it being some complete nonsense that you just made up...


Seeing as you never heard of the Golden Rule, I suppose it's a forlorn hope that you have read widely enough to hear of the famous Code of Hammurabi.

hinault

silverharp wrote: »

The Bible: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Geneva Convention: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armedforces who have laiddown their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

The commandments in the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill"

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

The rationale that you cite is that Fred & Rose did not do what they did in public and because they didn't do what they did in public makes what they did immoral.

This is hilarious material. So you are claiming that the argument is that if the Wests murdered people in public, it would have been fine?

You couldn't make this stuff up.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

The commandments in the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill"

It's odd then that the Bible is also full of people killing other people, and that being a good thing - up to and including genocide.

Perhaps God was confused?

todders

I think it's a common mistake to assume "organised religion" decides "Moral Guidelines". People need to start educating themselves and they'll realize that's not the case

hinault

Harika wrote: »

As we all are humans, we have different opinions and moralities

Morality is independent of opinion.

True morality has nothing to do with opinion. Morality is independent of opinion.
If morality was based on opinion, then we're in to moral relativism.

Harika wrote: »

This is an important process as 2000 year old rules might be outdated today and need to be changed, this discussion can be done among all people and a consensus can be reached, where we can live together under agreed rules.

A true moral teaching should be true (a) for all time and (b) should be universal.

PopePalpatine

Are you totally unfamiliar with the concepts of:

"Do to others what you want done to yourself"

or

"Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself"?

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Morality is independent of opinion.

True morality has nothing to do with opinion. Morality is independent of opinion.
If morality was based on opinion, then we're in to moral relativism.



A true moral teaching should be true (a) for all time and (b) should be universal.

So why were a lot of Old Testament laws scrapped in the New Testament??

Frank Bullitt

This is beginning to get hilarious.

Putting on popcorn.

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

The rationale that you cite is that Fred & Rose did not do what they did in public and because they didn't do what they did in public makes what they did immoral.

Im not sure what you are trying to say there. Im saying they knew what they were doing was considered wrong and immoral and illegal, they decided to do what they did in secret as it was the only way to get away with it from their perspective. im sure if polled 99.9% of people would agree that what they did was wrong.

hinault wrote: »

Did these societies codify a law against stealing, or murder? And did the law apply to every single citizen in those societies, regardless of their place in those societies?

if Greece was anything to go by it normally started with the elite making a set of rules "from the gods" which suited themselves, these systems would then be codified. Draco (of -nion) fame codified Greek law which did apply to everyone.
Im sure just like the 10 commandments they were unusually cruel when it came to things like adultery, was it ever right that someone should be stoned to death as a punishment? obviously God did at some stage or the jews thought god did at some stage or whatever the modern excuse for the practice was

RecordStraight

Gintonious wrote: »

This is beginning to get hilarious.

Putting on popcorn.

The sad thing is there is a proper discussion to be had here.

Harika

hinault wrote: »

Morality is independent of opinion.

True morality has nothing to do with opinion. Morality is independent of opinion.
If morality was based on opinion, then we're in to moral relativism.



A true moral teaching should be true (a) for all time and (b) should be universal.

Fact is there is no universally right moral value system, every moral value will be true in the eye of the beholder, but may be completely incongruent to that of the next contestant. Broken down to the most basic constructs, morality is simply the system by which living beings treat one another. Moral beings hold a sense of empathy and consideration toward others, thus forming more successful and steadfast societies with vigorous rates of reproduction and growth.
As we see even the moral values of the bible are not there for all time and not universal, the only way to achieve this is to set the moral values in stone and never touch them again, without ever discussing or even changing them again. I think the constitutions are doing a far better job here than the 10 commandments ever did as they were not created to favor specific groups of people, besides that they were widely ignored by even god himself.