Ethics and Morals discussion.

[strapko]

Hey guys,

Lately I've been wondering about Morals/Ethics, what is good and what is bad. And I need contribution to a system of Morals and Ethics on why something is right and why something is wrong.

The reason for this thread is because some religious/superstitious people claim that it is impossible to have a moral society without accepting god and having fear of him, thus making you follow his laws/commandments. As a reasonable human being I cannot accept this type of rational.

I usually think about this topic in bed while trying to go to sleep. At first I thought that one way to decide what is right and what is wrong is not to do on others, what you don't want done to yourself. But that has loop holes, because somebody might like being raped and use this as a pretense as justifying the raping of other people. In this case rape would be right, but we know it is wrong.

So I came to the conclusion on how to decide on what is right and what is wrong: Infringing upon peoples freedom and property is morally wrong, everything else that doesn't apply to the above is morally right.

Please contribute to this topic on explanations of right and wrong, without the use of god as a reasonable explanation.

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://common-law.net/nap.html

 

[Original_Intent]

My opinion is if it harms yourself or others, it is bad.
If it helps you without hurting others it is good.
If it helps others, whether or not it harms you, as long as you are doing it willingly it is good (assuming that the help done to others outweighs the harm to yourself)
If it helps some of the others at the expense of other others, and is done against the will of ANY of those that it harms, it is bad.

Of course, "helping" and "harming" may be as difficult to describe as "good" and "bad".

 

[Truth Warrior]

My opinion is if it harms yourself or others, it is bad.
If it helps you without hurting others it is good.
If it helps others, whether or not it harms you, as long as you are doing it willingly it is good (assuming that the help done to others outweighs the harm to yourself)
If it helps some of the others at the expense of other others, and is done against the will of ANY of those that it harms, it is bad.

Of course, "helping" and "harming" may be as difficult to describe as "good" and "bad".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad

 

[Spider-Man]

An it harm none, do what ye will.
And it cause harm, do what ye must.

OR

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

 

[Theocrat]

The Rejection of God is the Rejection of Moral/Ethical Standards

Hey guys,

Lately I've been wondering about Morals/Ethics, what is good and what is bad. And I need contribution to a system of Morals and Ethics on why something is right and why something is wrong.

The reason for this thread is because some religious/superstitious people claim that it is impossible to have a moral society without accepting god and having fear of him, thus making you follow his laws/commandments. As a reasonable human being I cannot accept this type of rational.

I usually think about this topic in bed while trying to go to sleep. At first I thought that one way to decide what is right and what is wrong is not to do on others, what you don't want done to yourself. But that has loop holes, because somebody might like being raped and use this as a pretense as justifying the raping of other people. In this case rape would be right, but we know it is wrong.

So I came to the conclusion on how to decide on what is right and what is wrong: Infringing upon peoples freedom and property is morally wrong, everything else that doesn't apply to the above is morally right.

Please contribute to this topic on explanations of right and wrong, without the use of god as a reasonable explanation.

[Emphasis mine]

I find it strange of you to first insist that you wish to be reasonable about understanding ethics/morals, but then you "stack the deck" by ruling out God as a cogent, necessary, and satisfying reason for the existence of ethics and morality. You are dealing with an unargued bias when you remove God from the discussion on ethics and morality, and it shows that you do not wish to be objective about this subject.

You need to understand that without God, there can be no reason to have ethics/morality. As a matter of fact, one cannot even appeal to what is right and what is wrong if there is no moral Lawgiver to establish what morality is. Thus, morality only becomes true in the eye of the beholder. For some people, it might be right to murder left-handed people. To others, it might be wrong, but neither one has a basis to claim their standard of morality/ethics is the better one because it's all relative.

However, this puts us into a logical dilemma, due to what's called the relativist fallacy:

1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

The problem with this is it makes a claim about a particular moral value true for one person and false for another person at the same time. Thus, morality becomes self-contradictory. This is the dilemma one is left with when they reject God (the only true God as He has revealed Himself in the Old and New Testaments) as the basis of morality and ethics.

Having said this, I know there are many non-theists who wish to be moral people and even appeal to morality as a standard for living rightly. However, I want to suggest that the only reason why such people wish to be moral is because God has implanted in all of us a knowledge of what is good and evil. The problem is men cannot live up to the demands of that knowledge of good and evil because of their own sinful natures. For that, men need to be born again by the Spirit of God to have a new nature which can live up to the standards of morality in the way which pleases God.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Not everyone PRESUMES to scan God.

 

[strapko]

You do not understand the point of this thread...It was intended to determine what is right and what is wrong with rational and not some boogie man.

 

[Theocrat]

The Impossibility of the Contrary

You do not understand the point of this thread...It was intended to determine what is right and what is wrong with rational and not some boogie man.

Yes, and I've presented how it's irrational to talk about and know what ethics and morality are without God. Did you even read my post?

 

[strapko]

Yes I read your post and it does not make any sense because I doubt your god. So as you see, I completely see it as flawed because your premise makes no rational sense to me.

 

[Kludge]

Ethics are just as arbitrary as morals.


The Golden Rule is all that guides me, and it isn't because I care for others, but because I care for myself. Blowback doesn't just affect the United States!


Even dictators can be murdered.

 

[idiom]

You need to understand that without God, there can be no reason to have ethics/morality. As a matter of fact, one cannot even appeal to what is right and what is wrong if there is no moral Lawgiver to establish what morality is.

However, this puts us into a logical dilemma, due to what's called the relativist fallacy:

1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

The problem with this is it makes a claim about a particular moral value true for one person and false for another person at the same time. Thus, morality becomes self-contradictory.

Appealing to God as a moral agent is a relativists claim. It is functioanlly absolute but not actually absolute. If God changed His mind about what was right and wrong, your position of what is right and wrong would in fact change. You are relying very heavily on God not changing his mind.


In fact most secular systems of morality reject relativism and make claims of absoluteness.

Hedonists make the absolutist claim that action is right which creates the greatest amount of good.

Kantians make the absolutist claim that action is right which is non-contradictory when univeraslayy undertaken. The NAP sort of comes in here.

Objectivists make the absolutist claim that self-interest is right and that self-disinterest is lways wrong.

Buddhists among others make the absolutistist claim that suffering must be minimised.

Christianity makes the relativist claim that God, a person, decides what is right and wrong and looks to no principle or standard outside Himself. You care what God says because you Love God. If you don't Love God then Chrisitianity doesn't really care what you get up to.

 

[Theocrat]

God Cannot Be Separated From His Own Attributes

Appealing to God as a moral agent is a relativists claim. It is functioanlly absolute but not actually absolute. If God changed His mind about what was right and wrong, your position of what is right and wrong would in fact change. You are relying very heavily on God not changing his mind.

You are mistaken, my friend. My appealing to God is in no way a relativist claim, for nowhere did I say that God's standard of morality is only true for me, but it's not true for anyone else. That would be a relativist claim.

You also need to realize that dealing with hypotheticals is not an affirmation of what is true. What we know to be true about God is clearly revealed in His own revelation about Himself, so we don't have to dabble with "what ifs." God has told us that He doesn't change in His character (Malachi 3:6), so it is our duty to take Him at His word. To doubt this is simply unbelief, and it's sinful (especially for a person who claims to be a Christian).

In fact most secular systems of morality reject relativism and make claims of absoluteness.

Hedonists make the absolutist claim that action is right which creates the greatest amount of good.

Kantians make the absolutist claim that action is right which is non-contradictory when univeraslayy undertaken. The NAP sort of comes in here.

Objectivists make the absolutist claim that self-interest is right and that self-disinterest is lways wrong.

Buddhists among others make the absolutistist claim that suffering must be minimised.

All of those belief systems commit the logical fallacy of begging the question, and because the inventors and proponents of those systems of morality do not possess absolute knowledge, it is impossible for them to assert any absolute truth about the tenets of their systems. In other words, hedonists, Kantians, objectivists, and Buddhists are all being arbitrary.

Christianity makes the relativist claim that God, a person, decides what is right and wrong and looks to no principle or standard outside Himself. You care what God says because you Love God. If you don't Love God then Chrisitianity doesn't really care what you get up to.

Once again, I think you're mistaken about Christianity being relativistic about God. You're right to state that no moral principles or standards exist outside of God because God embodies those things as part of His Being. For instance, notice Jesus Christ says in John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me." In essence, Jesus personalized those things as part of Himself. He did not say that He had the access to the right way, nor that He knew truthful things, nor that He possessed the key to life. He made those things contingent upon His very Being.

In 1 John 4:8, we're told that God is love (not God has the right propositions about love). Once again, love is not separated from God's character and nature. It is the very essence of God's personality. The same applies to morality. What is right reflects God's nature and is based on Who God is. In this sense, there are no absolutes outside of God, and no one can know what is absolutely true, moral, and logical outside of a relationship to God.

 

[idiom]

If God was different, Right and Wrong would be different. However that is still thinking within an 'actions' view of sin rather than looking at a mans nature which is closer to what the Bible describes.

This brings us to a system I left out, which was originally outlined by Aristotle oddly enough but has been revived by a number of philosophers in recent times. An understanding of this system, I find spreads a lot of light on Grace and Salvation:

Virtue Ethics: An absolutists system although not stongly justified that way. It claims that Good things are done by Good people and the evil is done by Evil people.

Glen Beck can say constitutitionalist things but he is still a unconstitutional person and so what he says is still unconstitutional. Ron Paul could say exactly the same phrase and it would be constitutitional because Ron Paul doesn't know how to say unconstitutional things. Virtue lies with the person not the action.

This is functionally similar to salvation. A non-christian can do exactly the same things as a Christian but they still go to hell. Why? Because actions flow out of the nature and an unredeemed nature can only produce unredeemed actions.

 

[idiom]

Most Specifically I think you are presenting God as a nihilist. He does what He does without regard for externalities.

From that point of view Nihilism is more or less a form of absolutism in that it allows you to project your values relaibly.

 

[strapko]

I agree with idiom he has a very good point theo... If god was to make rape not a sin, you would have to change your morals and who knows theo, maybe there will be a new prophet like all the ones in the bibles that have magical powers and able to make blood to wine..hmm But I do not think so in this information age people are not as gullible as before.

 

[Theocrat]

Lest We Be Mistaken...

I agree with idiom he has a very good point theo... If god was to make rape not a sin, you would have to change your morals and who knows theo, maybe there will be a new prophet like all the ones in the bibles that have magical powers and able to make blood to wine..hmm But I do not think so in this information age people are not as gullible as before.

You're operating on the same assumption that I had to correct idiom on, and it is the presumption that God will change His mind about what sin is. What evidence do you have that has ever occurred or will ever occur? God does not change on what constitutes immorality, so it seems moot for you to suggest otherwise. There is no reason to expect the sovereign, almighty God to change His standards of what is right and wrong, especially when we consider that which is morally good is based on God's character and nature.

Evil is not a thing in and of itself, but it is simply the absence of good. Since God is omnibenevolent, it is impossible for goodness to ever leave His character. Therefore, God will not change His mind about immoral acts, such as murder and homosexuality, because it is metaphysically impossible for Him to do so of his own perfectly moral nature. That needs to be grasped fully.

 

[strapko]

You're operating on the same assumption that I had to correct idiom on, and it is the presumption that God will change His mind about what sin is. What evidence do you have that has ever occurred or will ever occur? God does not change on what constitutes immorality, so it seems moot for you to suggest otherwise. There is no reason to expect the sovereign, almighty God to change His standards of what is right and wrong, especially when we consider that which is morally good is based on God's character and nature.

Evil is not a thing in and of itself, but it is simply the absence of good. Since God is omnibenevolent, it is impossible for goodness to ever leave His character. Therefore, God will not change His mind about immoral acts, such as murder and homosexuality, because it is metaphysically impossible for Him to do so of his own perfectly moral nature. That needs to be grasped fully.

I am operating on that fact that if god changes his mind the morals change that is what I am operating on. And this certainly is a problem for theist because this shows that there morals have a problem in it, and that problem is god may change his mind around, now there is no evidence that he will change them but that does not matter, because its up to him.

Now about the Omnibenevolent part, who are you to claim what goodness is? God claims that and if he says its good to murder then it will be Omnibenevolent to you and a good act/right thing to do.

Thus the system of the non aggression axiom and no infringing upon freedom and property rationally explains the difference between good and bad.

 

[Josh_LA]

Common arguments :

1. God said so (absolutist & religious)
2. Society says so (utilitarian, democratic, socialist)
3. I said so (individualist)
4. Might makes right
5. It's the law (Statism)
6. Greater good (same as #2)
7. As long as they chose it, it's good (same as #3)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're operating on the same assumption that I had to correct idiom on, and it is the presumption that God will change His mind about what sin is. What evidence do you have that has ever occurred or will ever occur? God does not change on what constitutes immorality, so it seems moot for you to suggest otherwise. There is no reason to expect the sovereign, almighty God to change His standards of what is right and wrong, especially when we consider that which is morally good is based on God's character and nature.

Evil is not a thing in and of itself, but it is simply the absence of good. Since God is omnibenevolent, it is impossible for goodness to ever leave His character. Therefore, God will not change His mind about immoral acts, such as murder and homosexuality, because it is metaphysically impossible for Him to do so of his own perfectly moral nature. That needs to be grasped fully.

Interesting perspective. Moses (among others) sought to change God's mind at one time ("Did Moses Prayer Change God's Mind?" Reflections on Exodus 32:11-14, Pt.1) and people still try to do this today (through prayer, etc.). Is it not valid for us to ask similar questions today? Something to think about. ttyl.

~HB34~