Religious debate (split from main board)

#1,056
#1,056
BeecherVol said:
Kinda vague, why did this become acceptable?

When you say culture, is that mankind as a whole?
Click to expand...

No. I suppose many will disagree with this, but there is NOT some universal morality. Different cultures on this world have different morals and ethics.

Is Murder unacceptable in every culture? Maybe, but the definition of what IS a murder definitely varies.

There are certain concepts that are analogous across cultures, but that is because they are social constructs necessary to live cooperatively with other human beings.
 
#1,057
#1,057
BeecherVol said:
What if being good, led to suffering? Would it be worth it?
Click to expand...

For the greater good, I would say yes possibly. But don't try to sell it to me that all suffering is somehow "for the greater good" that we just can't see or comprehend. By that logic, I could punch the next person I saw in the face and thus be an agent of the greater good.
 
#1,058
#1,058
BeecherVol said:
What if being good, led to suffering? Would it be worth it?
Click to expand...

An action can be ethical on two levels (and more if we get into the second level deeper). It's ethical on the first level if the results are good (it stops, alleviates, or prevents suffering). They are then ethical on the second level if the motivation for the act is good. For example, a person who goes to help in Haiti is committing a good act, but if that person were going to help because they wanted to look like a good person, then they are committing that act for an amoral or immoral reason, depending on taste.

Torture, for example, is a highly unethical act because it involves inflicting intense suffering. But if it led to saving peoples' lives, some would argue that it is worth it. But that only makes the motivations good. The act itself is still bad.
 
Last edited:
#1,059
#1,059
IPorange said:
No. I suppose many will disagree with this, but there is NOT some universal morality. Different cultures on this world have different morals and ethics.

Is Murder unacceptable in every culture? Maybe, but the definition of what IS a murder definitely varies.

There are certain concepts that are analogous across cultures, but that is because they are social constructs necessary to live cooperatively with other human beings.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:
 
#1,060
#1,060
IPorange said:
For the greater good, I would say yes possibly. But don't try to sell it to me that all suffering is somehow "for the greater good" that we just can't see or comprehend. By that logic, I could punch the next person I saw in the face and thus be an agent of the greater good.
Click to expand...

He isn't talking about punching someone in the face.

:p
 
#1,061
#1,061
IPorange said:
No. I suppose many will disagree with this, but there is NOT some universal morality. Different cultures on this world have different morals and ethics.

Is Murder unacceptable in every culture? Maybe, but the definition of what IS a murder definitely varies.

There are certain concepts that are analogous across cultures, but that is because they are social constructs necessary to live cooperatively with other human beings.
Click to expand...

I think that there are universal ethics. That is, I believe that killing is always wrong. Self-defense is excusable because you have a right to life, but the act of killing itself is still bad, the only reason you can do it is because it is necessary. Hence we can say that if some culture in Africa is committing genocide, we are ethically obligated to stop it, even if their moral system dictates otherwise.
 
#1,062
#1,062
IPorange said:
No. I suppose many will disagree with this, but there is NOT some universal morality. Different cultures on this world have different morals and ethics.

Is Murder unacceptable in every culture? Maybe, but the definition of what IS a murder definitely varies.

There are certain concepts that are analogous across cultures, but that is because they are social constructs necessary to live cooperatively with other human beings.
Click to expand...

What drove man to find goodness, or be good, if it set him back by doing it?

I understand it being passed down, and somethings moral to one man, may be different that the other. But there are some general things that most agree are good acts, or evil ones.
 
#1,063
#1,063
Snakes on a Wii said:
I think that there are universal ethics. That is, I believe that killing is always wrong. Self-defense is excusable because you have a right to life, but the act of killing itself is still bad, the only reason you can do it is because it is necessary. Hence we can say that if some culture in Africa is committing genocide, we are ethically obligated to stop it, even if their moral system dictates otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is something that I have struggled with. Should we stop it.......... stupid political pundits and politicians cried how we stopped rape rooms/torture chambers in Iraq.... was it worth it for that reason alone?

If we are so holy then why aren't we other places in the world, Africa and Southeast Asia stopping mass murdering?
 
#1,064
#1,064
BeecherVol said:
What drove man to find goodness, or be good, if it set him back by doing it?

I understand it being passed down, and somethings moral to one man, may be different that the other. But there are some general things that most agree are good acts, or evil ones.
Click to expand...

What is the consensus?

Born or learned with regards to morals?
​
 
#1,069
#1,069
BeecherVol said:
What drove man to find goodness, or be good, if it set him back by doing it?

I understand it being passed down, and somethings moral to one man, may be different that the other. But there are some general things that most agree are good acts, or evil ones.
Click to expand...

Those universal behaviors aren't so universal. For example, in fundamentalist Islam it is required that a man kill his wife if he finds that she is an adulteress.

But evolution accounts for many sources of altruism. Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book on these ethical ideas that we see across cultures and observed that the same behavior also occurs in some animals.
 
#1,070
#1,070
Romans 14
1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Romans 15
1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me. 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#1,072
#1,072
BeecherVol said:
What drove man to find goodness, or be good, if it set him back by doing it?

I understand it being passed down, and somethings moral to one man, may be different that the other. But there are some general things that most agree are good acts, or evil ones.
Click to expand...

What moral sets one back?
 
#1,073
#1,073
BeecherVol said:
In the days of early man, what told him that killing another man (with no cause) was wrong?
Click to expand...

There was nothing. In fact, Neanderthals and early humans likely did kill each other over simple things like food, women, etc.

But in order for society to exist there have to be rules against that kind of behavior. And since nearly all people live in society, nearly all people follow these rules. That's evolution. The people that worked together in society survived, while those people that were prone to in-fighting and radical individualism died out.
 
#1,075
#1,075
Snakes on a Wii said:
There was nothing. In fact, Neanderthals and early humans likely did kill each other over simple things like food, women, etc.

But in order for society to exist there have to be rules against that kind of behavior. And since nearly all people live in society, nearly all people follow these rules. That's evolution. The people that worked together in society survived, while those people that were prone to in-fighting and radical individualism died out.
Click to expand...


They were gonna die anyway, why did they care if society moved on without them?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top