Morals

[Dennis1209]

Watching TV, reading the newspaper and observing everyday life, I have come to the conclusion people are not as moral as they were back in my day. This old fart thinks morality, as a civilization, is a thing of the past. I believe morality is the single most important thing that separates us from the apes and animals, save our own souls. So....

What is morality? Who defines it? Where did it come from? Why can't governments legislate morality? Who's to say what's moral and what is not? When do moral values change, and who says so and why? No one can disagree moral values change every year based on Supreme Court rulings, TV programing, video games, etc. etc.

With vicious crimes exponentially increasing and our American civilization in decay, would we as a nation, have lost our moral compass? Where does it end, if there is an end? Sodom & Gomorrah?

Just some of my life long observations and food for thought..

What do you think?

[Guest profgunner]

Well, this is a deep and important question. To be completely honest, I do not believe in god. Yet I consider myself to be a very moral person. I was raised by good parents who taught me to live and let live. I try to live by the golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Works for me.

[DaveS]

"Moraly", this country is coming apart at the seams. For everyone of us who "does right"....there is hundreds who don't. It's a loosing battle......

Edited April 11, 2012 by wd-40

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And that's good enough. It would be great if more people lived by the Golden Rule. I think I commented on

this briefly when I used the term "moral relativism" in another thread. And I know it wasn't completely on the

subject of morals at all, but morals come from the Bible, philosophy and other places. Morals are basic to

the success or failure of a society.

[Good_Steward]

Well, this is a deep and important question. To be completely honest, I do not believe in god. Yet I consider myself to be a very moral person. I was raised by good parents who taught me to live and let live. I try to live by the golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Works for me.

And that's good enough. It would be great if more people lived by the Golden Rule. I think I commented on

this briefly when I used the term "moral relativism" in another thread. And I know it wasn't completely on the

subject of morals at all, but morals come from the Bible, philosophy and other places. Morals are basic to

the success or failure of a society.

Actually, not to turn this into a theological debate, the "Golden Rule", to 6.8AR's point, is a Biblical verse:

Matthew 7:12

- "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

And I do agree that there has been moral decay, and I think it's cultural and localized. Taboos in certain areas that used to be widespread (cursing in front of Momma, disrespecting elders, teachers, authority figures, etc), are no longer taboo in areas. It was a huge culture shock for me when I moved from a small, rural town to work in the Chattanooga area. I see so many things here that would have never flown where I grew up. We aren't talking about the "good old days" either, as I am only 36.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Good_Steward

[Oh Shoot]

...but morals come from the Bible, philosophy and other places.

"Morals", at least those that translated to law, evolved long before any unified religions. They were natural outcomes of necessary behavior for groups of people to live together.

Morals are basic to the success or failure of a society.

Yep, what I just said. But though religions came to embrace them, societal mores came first as necessary behaviors. Concepts of marriage, murder, theft, property rights and the like were absolutely necessary for individuals to live together in groups; that's why they are relatively universal yet developed independently within cultures long before those cultures had any contact with each other.

- OS

[Guest profgunner]

Actually, not to turn this into a theological debate, the "Golden Rule", to 6.8AR's point, is a Biblical verse:

Matthew 7:12

- "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

And that's fine by me. I think much good can come from reading the Bible. I also think the same applies to the Koran. But I also believe that fundamentalism in any form, be it Christianity, Islam, or Pastafarianism is bad news.

Edited April 11, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Morals", at least those that translated to law, evolved long before any unified religions. They were natural outcomes of necessary behavior for groups of people to live together.

Yep, what I just said. But though religions came to embrace them, societal mores came first as necessary behaviors. Concepts of marriage, murder, theft, property rights and the like were absolutely necessary for individuals to live together in groups; that's why they are relatively universal yet developed independently within cultures long before those cultures had any contact with each other.

- OS

I realize they came from other places also. I agree. I could have probably put it better, though.

I've actually typed too much today and thought so much my brain hurts. Hard to keep up with some of

you guys.

[Good_Steward]

[/left]

And that's fine by me. I think much good can come from reading the Bible. I also think the same applies to the Koran. But I also believe that fundamentalism in any form, be it Christianity, Islam, or Pastafarianism is bad news.

Ok, sure, anything taken to extremes can be dangerous (the flying spaghetti monster, really?). Very much like the theory of evolution. Talk about having to have faith to believe something!

[Guest profgunner]

Ok, sure, anything taken to extremes can be dangerous (the flying spaghetti monster, really?). Very much like the theory of evolution. Talk about having to have faith to believe something!

Ok, I'm not really too concerned about the spaghetti monster. But, hey, some folks take it seriously! Is it really fair for you or me to dismiss it outright as a joke? Now, about evolution. What's so hard to believe about that?

[Guest bkelm18]

Now, about evolution. What's so hard to believe about that?

Oh you done did it now.

[Good_Steward]

Don't want to junk up the thread, I really don't, but to think that we just happened to spring forth from from primordial goo is a stretch for me. The theory of evolution, to me, is as much a stretch as God is to you, I guess. I mean, how do you explain life just spontaneously being there? To me, it's impossible to believe.

[Guest bkelm18]

Don't want to junk up the thread, I really don't, but to think that we just happened to spring forth from from primordial goo is a stretch for me. The theory of evolution, to me, is as much a stretch as God is to you, I guess. I mean, how do you explain life just spontaneously being there? To me, it's impossible to believe.

But isn't the theory of creationism pretty much the same? Replace primordial ooze with God and you still have life spontaneously being there?

[Good_Steward]

But isn't the theory of creationism pretty much the same? Replace primordial ooze with God and you still have life spontaneously being there?

I don't want to junk up the thread any more, since it is about morals, so I'll leave it at this:

Which is more feasible: A TV magically springing from the earth playing "I love Lucy" re-runs, or someone designing, constructing, plugging it in, and purposefully changing the channel to "I love Lucy"?

I'll leave the off-topic comments to that. Sorry to the OP for the derailment.

[Guest profgunner]

Don't want to junk up the thread, I really don't, but to think that we just happened to spring forth from from primordial goo is a stretch for me. The theory of evolution, to me, is as much a stretch as God is to you, I guess. I mean, how do you explain life just spontaneously being there? To me, it's impossible to believe.

Scientific theories are simply explanations, subject to modification, for how nature works. The predictions of theories are tested against observations, and if they don't match up, we know we are off track. And so we conduct more experiments to test other possibilities. And so on, and so on. We will never have all the answers to our questions. But we have made tremendous progress in understanding some things. It is also important to realize that some of our MOST important questions are not amenable to a scientific approach. Questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" and "do I have a soul?" cannot be answered by science. There really does not have to be a conflict between science and religion, and it is unfortunate that so many people fail to see this. This thread may be the wrong place for this discussion, but I do enjoy the thoughtful exchange of ideas on this topic.

[Guest bkelm18]

I don't want to junk up the thread any more, since it is about morals, so I'll leave it at this:

Which is more feasible: A TV magically springing from the earth playing "I love Lucy" re-runs, or someone designing, constructing, plugging it in, and purposefully changing the channel to "I love Lucy"?

I'll leave the off-topic comments to that. Sorry to the OP for the derailment.

Well, it's obvious that you're really not familiar with the theory of evolution so I won't digress into a dissertation on the flawed logic of your gross oversimplification. So I'll just leave it at that.

[Good_Steward]

Scientific theories are simply explanations, subject to modification, for how nature works. The predictions of theories are tested against observations, and if they don't match up, we know we are off track. And so we conduct more experiments to test other possibilities. And so on, and so on. We will never have all the answers to our questions. But we have made tremendous progress in understanding some things. It is also important to realize that some of our MOST important questions are not amenable to a scientific approach. Questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" and "do I have a soul?" cannot be answered by science. There really does not have to be a conflict between science and religion, and it is unfortunate that so many people fail to see this. This thread may be the wrong place for this discussion, but I do enjoy the thoughtful exchange of ideas on this topic.

PM'd you.

[Good_Steward]

Well, it's obvious that you're really not familiar with the theory of evolution so I won't digress into a dissertation on the flawed logic of your gross oversimplification. So I'll just leave it at that.

Thought better of my comment.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Good_Steward

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, it's obvious that you're really not familiar with the theory of evolution so I won't digress into a dissertation on the flawed logic of your gross oversimplification. So I'll just leave it at that.

Probably a good idea.

[gregintenn]

[/left]

And that's fine by me. I think much good can come from reading the Bible. I also think the same applies to the Koran. But I also believe that fundamentalism in any form, be it Christianity, Islam, or Pastafarianism is bad news.

I tip my hat to you. I believe you are the first person I've seen who claims not to believe in God that didn't get all pissy and defensive at the mention of God or the Bible.

[strickj]

Watching TV, reading the newspaper and observing everyday life, I have come to the conclusion people are not as moral as they were back in my day. This old fart thinks morality, as a civilization, is a thing of the past. I believe morality is the single most important thing that separates us from the apes and animals, save our own souls. So....

What is morality? Who defines it? Where did it come from? Why can't governments legislate morality? Who's to say what's moral and what is not? When do moral values change, and who says so and why? No one can disagree moral values change every year based on Supreme Court rulings, TV programing, video games, etc. etc.

With vicious crimes exponentially increasing and our American civilization in decay, would we as a nation, have lost our moral compass? Where does it end, if there is an end? Sodom & Gomorrah?

Just some of my life long observations and food for thought..

What do you think?

Meh...

Immoral acts have been around since the beginning. Says so in the bible.

Only thing that's changed is our openness to it.

A few decades ago, everything sex related was swept under the rug. But, people still had sex. People still had affairs. People still hired whores. People still had dirty pictures under their mattresses. People still had premarital sex.

Today, we are comfortable with discussing sex openly. You can not only talk about it but you can even see it on TV, in video games and even at the mall.

And guess what... people still have sex. People still have affairs.People still hire whores. People still have dirty pictures under their mattresses. People still have premarital sex.

Imagine that

[Jonnin]

I look at it a different way.

People have always been more or less "immoral" --- swearing, humping, petty crimes (taking pens from the work supply room, etc), selfish, and so on.

What is different about america is that for a short period of history, a bunch of religious zelots got together and formed a country .... the puritans. Their legacy influenced our culture, so back in 1700 (while pirates were doing the rape and pillage thing, slaves were acceptable, and so on....!!!) america formed a bubble that had a bunch of people who behaved somewhat decently (mostly by threat of force: the puritan leaders were very harsh with even mild offenses!!!). This is what is eroding: our puritan heritage has degraded over time until we are just like everyone else, and what is really happening is america is now a lot more "normal" (for better or worse) than it used to be.

Think about it.

[Mike.357]

I'll got with what Strickj said.

It is just more open now, doesn't mean things are less moral.

[mikegideon]

Well, it's obvious that you're really not familiar with the theory of evolution so I won't digress into a dissertation on the flawed logic of your gross oversimplification. So I'll just leave it at that.

It doesn't get any simpler that the core mechanism of evolution. Individuals with traits that allow them to thrive do so. Ones without those traits die off. The ones that thrive reproduce, and the traits become more common in the group.

It is obvious in so many instances in the world today, that denial is the only way to believe it doesn't exist. It ain't magic, it's downright simple,

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Regardless of the details of a culture's rules, there will always be those who break the rules.

Live and let live works fine for many situations.

I don't know where the universe came from and don't know how people and animals came about. I wasn't there to see it. The various theories are interesting, but observational and deductive science IMO is not as "strong" as statistical-based experimentalism. Because we don't have a bunch of parallel universes to experiment with, to run double-blind parametric studies, many things will never be entirely "certain".

On the teleological argument that the universe is a watch and God the watchmaker-- If everything must be manufactured in order to exist-- Then who made the watchmaker? etc. I don't know.

Maybe it is turtles all the way down. Sounds about as good explanation as any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"