|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 19, 2004 22:08:18 GMT -5
As human beings, there is one common struggle that we must all deal with. I am referring to the definition of "right" and "wrong." Regardless of what some cultural theorists think, there is a right and a wrong in every culture; however, these codes may differ in their intrepretations. Thus, one society may say it is OK for people to eat their enemies after battle. Another society may say that it is not OK.
Which is right?
I'll give another example of the "moral problem." We (or at least those who have been in the high school for more than two years, I believe) have been exposed to those truly uninspiring video segments labeled "Choices." These videos that we all had to see as an assembly (are they bringing them back this year?) certainly detail moral norms that we all agree with (helping the underpriviledged, not being racist, showing others "respect), but they utterly fail to convince us to follow them.
So, what we are really looking for is a transcendent moral law and a transcendent moral purpose (as in, why in heck do I want to respect others?). For both, you need a God. Not just any old god, mind you, a real God. He'd have to be both infinite (absolute morality) and personal (able to give our lives meaning and purpose.)
Thus, the fact that we don't have a clue about right and wrong leads to the conclusion that there is a God, and that we really do need to know Him.
Because, as much as we argue about it, no one really thinks that society A should be allowed to cannibalize society B. We just need to know why we think that.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 22, 2004 20:41:19 GMT -5
As human beings, there is one common struggle that we must all deal with. I am referring to the definition of "right" and "wrong." Regardless of what some cultural theorists think, there is a right and a wrong in every culture; however, these codes may differ in their intrepretations. Thus, one society may say it is OK for people to eat their enemies after battle. Another society may say that it is not OK. Which is right? Great topic. Although, honestly.. I am surprised to find such a seemingly weak arguement. I'll give another example of the "moral problem." We (or at least those who have been in the high school for more than two years, I believe) have been exposed to those truly uninspiring video segments labeled "Choices." These videos that we all had to see as an assembly (are they bringing them back this year?) certainly detail moral norms that we all agree with (helping the underpriviledged, not being racist, showing others "respect), but they utterly fail to convince us to follow them. Truly uninspiring is right, they've even missed the boat by putting clips of the current flavor of the week rock bands on there. I haven't heard anything about their return, though. So, what we are really looking for is a transcendent moral law and a transcendent moral purpose (as in, why in heck do I want to respect others?). For both, you need a God. Not just any old god, mind you, a real God. He'd have to be both infinite (absolute morality) and personal (able to give our lives meaning and purpose.) I can answer just why in heck you want to respect others, without the aid of superstition. Enlightened Self Interest. We respect others because of the benefits we reap for doing so. When you show respect, you are given respect. There are other reasons of course, and many details. For example.. with me personally, I want to show others respect because I in fact, *do* respect them. Respect who they are, how they act/treat people and so on. In turn, that person (enjoying how they are treated) will enjoy your company. Showing you respect. (A friendship) Friendships = absolutely neccesary for life. Again, enlightened self interest. The enlightened aspect of this being that you recognize that a compromise of sorts must be made for you to gain what you are after. No god required, not even close. Thus, the fact that we don't have a clue about right and wrong leads to the conclusion that there is a God, and that we really do need to know Him. Oh but we do have a clue about what is right and wrong, not only a clue but we know just about all there is to know. This might sound real arrogant, but I assure you what I'm trying to say is anything but. Also, quickly, a self-actualized person would have a better grip on what is right and wrong (to them) than someone who is still socially/mentally growing/developing/maturing. Alright. Now what I mean is this: Morals, in one sense.. are completely relative. But in another, completely absolute. Not because of any sort of divine intervention, but because of personal perception. Looking at morals from a detached viewpoint, as in one completely separated from a human one: Morals are relative. Relative to each person that is, which is where the absolution line comes from. Each person, whether they know it or not, has their own version of right and wrong. Their personality, their perceptions.. dictate what they know is right, and what they know is wrong. Making them absolute to that person. Personal perception is everything, so the morals *are* absolute through their eyes. The only thing that matters in their world is what they see through their own eyes. (Their morals become absolute) Because, as much as we argue about it, no one really thinks that society A should be allowed to cannibalize society B. We just need to know why we think that. More perception here. From the cannibal's perception.. he doesn't even know why your asking him if its right.. 'of cooouurse you eat what you've killed', he'd tell you. To us, (obviously living in a completely different society, socialized in completely different ways/to different things) The thought of cannibalism is a horrendous one, not only disgusting.. but really, really scary. Perception. Who's looking through the right one? I say we are (as civilized people), the cannibal says he is. Also I think I should mention that now we'll probably see the question asked: But who IS right, someone HAS to be right.. which is why there must be a god. The reality is, I am a god, you are a god, ted, sally, and derek.. are all gods. We are our own gods. We do have moral absolution.. within ourselves. Outside of any human perception, morals are without doubt, relative. |
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 23, 2004 13:52:52 GMT -5
Thus, the fact that we don't have a clue about right and wrong. Well I happen to think that most people do have a good idea about the basics of right and wrong within their society today. Aspects of right and wrong evolve with society and culture and it's understandable that what seemed right thousands of years ago might not seem right today. By the same thinking, what seems right today may seem positively barbaric in two thousand years time. I don't believe there is an 'absolute' right and wrong. It is always relative to the society, culture, epoc and the specific circumstance in question, but what the localised society does is it forms a consensus opinion which in turn forms the laws by whuch we live. It certainly has nothing to do with God or religion - they may form the basis of some peoples perspective of right and wrong, but they are by no means necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 23, 2004 14:08:12 GMT -5
So, I assume that according to your [plural] theories of ethics that Hitler was entirely justified in his actions to exterminate the Jews because there was group consensus as well as absolute belief that he was absolutely right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 23, 2004 16:53:11 GMT -5
So, I assume that according to your [plural] theories of ethics that Hitler was entirely justified in his actions to exterminate the Jews because there was group consensus as well as absolute belief that he was absolutely right? I don't believe he was, but he (and millions of others) obviously did. The consensus went against him in the end. It's happened throughout history. The Catholic church probably believed they were doing the correct thing with their torture and killing during the inquisition; the religions which performed human sacrifices thought they were doing the right thing at the time; etc. The concept of 'right' is not clear today even. For example, when is it right to kill? Some people believe it's never right; some people believe that killing in war can be justified as right; some people believe that deaths caused by terrorism are right and 'just'. It comes down to a consensus in the end and most people know what that consenus is within their society and have their morals of right and wrong shaped by it. Of course it gets more complicated when one society or culture - who might be quite clear within themselves - tries to apply their sense of morals onto a society with a different version of right and wrong. There are no absolutes, merely opinions relative to the time, culture and place. These will evolve and change over time as society itself evolves and changes. It may be reasonable to expect a more global consensus of right and wrong in the future as we learn more about other countries and communicate more freely at the global level. Time will tell on that front as many cultures still fiercely defend their own cultural values. One will never elimate 'wrong' though unless we also eliminate 'right'. They are only comparisons on a scale. If we assume that killing is the ultimate 'wrong' (just for the sake of argument) and then imagine a world where killing is totally eliminated, then something else would take its place as the ultimate 'wrong'. Well, that's the way I see it anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Sept 23, 2004 19:12:44 GMT -5
I dont know about this, we read in the story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 that there was right and wrong before the law existed. Cain kills able and this is long before Moses decended Mount Sinai with the law from the Lord. Was there some sort of spoken law durring the Patriarchs?
|
|
|
|
Post by desertfox on Sept 23, 2004 19:17:17 GMT -5
Every one knows that protestants caused the catholics to go on an inquisition becuase they broke away from the catholic church. The protestants are nothing more than lost sheep. You need a catholic to answer these questions. Catholics have been around longer and thus have a better understanding of christianity. (except Irish Catholics)
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 23, 2004 19:26:32 GMT -5
So, I assume that according to your [plural] theories of ethics that Hitler was entirely justified in his actions to exterminate the Jews because there was group consensus as well as absolute belief that he was absolutely right? Thats not what he/she (?) mean't. What he mean't was just what he said really, what is right and wrong is relative to the society (or group of people) the actions are happening within. Within Nazi society, of course Hitler was absolutely right in murdering so many jews. Within our society, it's probably the most shameful thing to happen in all of history. This is pretty clear. Also, is anyone going to address my previous post in this thread? |
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 23, 2004 19:35:17 GMT -5
Yes, John, I'm sorry for confusing you, I was trying to address you and Satori. Forgive me the inconvenience.
From what I can gather from your and Satori's replies, what Hitler did was entirely OK.
What you are in effect saying is that there is nothing morally wrong with consigning the entire Jewish race to destruction?
If that is your answer, I would say you may have some problems with your moral theory. Either that, or the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, international war crime tribunals, and every other measure of international justice are entirely worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 23, 2004 19:40:24 GMT -5
Yes, John, I'm sorry for confusing you, I was trying to address you and Satori. Forgive me the inconvenience. From what I can gather from your and Satori's replies, what Hitler did was entirely OK. What you are in effect saying is that there is nothing morally wrong with consigning the entire Jewish race to destruction? If that is your answer, I would say you may have some problems with your moral theory. Either that, or the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, international war crime tribunals, and every other measure of international justice are entirely worthless. Okay. I'm going to say this as nicely as possible. To write what you just did, you must have completely missed everything I've said. Morals are Relative to each society. To nazi society what they did was fine and dandy. To our society what he did was more horrific than I can type. I, personally.. will tell you the obvious, I believe what he did was more horrific than I can type. The point isn't that its okay, or that because they think its okay, we should let them do it. The point is that to them, there was no problem with it. Who is right? This takes us directly back to the first post I wrote in this thread, which I think cleared things up itself really. Here is what I mean: -------------------myearlierwords----------------------------------------------- Perception. Who's looking through the right one? I say we are (as civilized people), the cannibal says he is. Also I think I should mention that now we'll probably see the question asked: But who IS right, someone HAS to be right.. which is why there must be a god. The reality is, I am a god, you are a god, ted, sally, and derek.. are all gods. We are our own gods. We do have moral absolution.. within ourselves. Outside of any human perception, morals are without doubt, relative. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 23, 2004 20:05:04 GMT -5
Right, so if we're all gods, Hitler is a god, and anything Hitler does is OK.
If all morals are equal, than we cannot say that Hitler's morals were wrong. We may say that we might not personally do that, we may not feel like it, but we can't go and tell him, "That's wrong." Thus, we have no basis on which to say that the Jewish holocaust was in any way, "wrong." It was perfectly acceptable because Hitler and his forces believed their cause was just. It must have beent just the Jew's bad luck to be under Hitler's power during that time period. The Hague war trials that condemned Himler were inherently flawed because we have no absolute morality on which to judge such criminals.
That morality has seriously flawed issues if we cannot even condemn a holocaust.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 23, 2004 21:42:31 GMT -5
Right, so if we're all gods, Hitler is a god, and anything Hitler does is OK. In his eyes, yes. In our eyes, no. We went to war with them, and won. Thus we then had control over their actions, and stopped them. If all morals are equal, than we cannot say that Hitler's morals were wrong. We may say that we might not personally do that, we may not feel like it, but we can't go and tell him, "That's wrong." Please don't resort to putting words in my mouth. Morals aren't ever equal, they can't be. I say this because from my perception.. mine are better than everyone else's, because they are mine. Hitler believed his moral's were better than everyone else's too, all people do. When the morals of two groups disagree with eachother, and one group acts on their own in any sort of large way... you have conflict. Of course we can look at hitler and say "your wrong" or "thats wrong" etc. Because in our eyes and minds, it IS wrong. Since what resides in our eyes and minds is all we can see, we have no reason to not look at someone so blatantly tearing apart the most basic moral we hold and not tell them that what they are doing is wrong. Just as hitler would tell us that loving and protecting the jewish is wrong. Thus, we have no basis on which to say that the Jewish holocaust was in any way, "wrong." It was perfectly acceptable because Hitler and his forces believed their cause was just. It must have beent just the Jew's bad luck to be under Hitler's power during that time period. The Hague war trials that condemned Himler were inherently flawed because we have no absolute morality on which to judge such criminals. use their own absolute morality, which they impose on the people they think have done something wrong by way of punishment. That morality has seriously flawed issues if we cannot even condemn a holocaust. We can, and do condemn the holocaust. |
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Sept 23, 2004 23:20:21 GMT -5
"We can, and do condemn the holocaust."
Now, under your proposal John, it would be wrong to condemn the holocaust. What right do you have to condemn it? It's not your holocaust. It was perpetrated by Hitler, it was entirely right in his eyes, he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
Who are you to tell him that was wrong? Your morality is relative, meaning it is not true all the time.
You are reducing morality to something of personal preference. It is the same logic to say that people have different tastes for pizza and believe quite fervently that pizza is either good or bad. Quite simply, the fact that you may not like the holocaust does not give you the right to condemn just as you not liking pizza does not give you the right to condemn pizza.
You are arguing from a relative base to an absolute conclusion -- you are saying that good and evil is relative but that we can condemn certain actions as right or wrong. Condemnation implies a moral standard because we are differentiating between moralities, saying that Hitler was wrong while we are right.
Otherwise, all we really have is pizza.
|
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 24, 2004 2:35:07 GMT -5
Bob, how you leap to this conclusion is beyond me:
In my set of morals what Hitler did was most certainly not okay. What Hitler did was that he gained a consensus from some of his followers that justified his actions. To him and the hard-core Nazis the murdering of Jews was the 'right' thing to do 'for the good of Germany and the human race'. That consensus was overthrown by the larger consensus of the rest of the world. He was defeated and history (correctly in my sense of morals) records what he did as wrong.
What we need in order to examine this more closely is an example a little closer to home. Was the US 'right' to invade Iraq? In some peoples morals it was (i.e. it's okay to kill during war for the greater good) and in other peoples morals it wasn't (i.e. it's never right to kill). How does what's 'right' resolve itself in that situation?
Well there is no absolute. A consensus forms within the societies concerned, political wheels start turning and something happens. In this case an invasion and war took place. There will be those that thought it was right and those that thought it was wrong and it will gradually fade into history with a consensus that's either fairly evenly split, a consensus that eventually agrees it was right or a consensus that puts it down as an atrocity.
That and other events in our society will shape our opinions of what's right and wrong, and those opinions will evolve over time as society progresses and changes.
No, they weren't. The Hague war trials were based on the consensus of morality at the time they took place. The world thought Hitler and his associates were wrong and dealt out appropriate justice. We don't need an 'absolute' morality, just a prevailing global opinion.
Let's look at another example. A man is at home with his wife and kids when a gunman bursts in and ties the man up, rapes his wife and murders one of his kids. The man manages to break free of his bonds, overpowers the gunman, and crushes his head with a poker, killing him.
Was what he did 'right' or 'wrong'?
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Sept 24, 2004 15:46:37 GMT -5
"We can, and do condemn the holocaust." Now, under your proposal John, it would be wrong to condemn the holocaust. What right do you have to condemn it? It's not your holocaust. It was perpetrated by Hitler, it was entirely right in his eyes, he was convinced he was doing the right thing. I think your either misunderstanding, or twisting my proposal. I have the right to condemn it because My morals go against what he and his set of morals are doing. .. now I'm not just leaving that there, keep reading, and when I say condemn I don't always mean stop someone from doing things physically, there are plenty of particulars. Who are you to tell him that was wrong? Your morality is relative, meaning it is not true all the time. No, my morality is absolute. (to me, in my world), and what my set of absolute morals say will dictate what I do and do not condemn of others. You are reducing morality to something of personal preference. Yes, for the most part I am. However your pizza analogy doesn't work out. It is the same logic to say that people have different tastes for pizza and believe quite fervently that pizza is either good or bad. Quite simply, the fact that you may not like the holocaust does not give you the right to condemn just as you not liking pizza does not give you the right to condemn pizza. This is a continuation of what I just said. It is basically a preference of sorts, but there are things to be noted. One being that morals are not as simple as other preferences, they come by way of instinct and the way someone is raised/what they are subjected to (the ideas and so on) among many other things that I'm sure there are plenty of books out there on. The second thing that Must be noted when comparing morals to personal preferences is that your analogy speaks of a taste in food. Food being an extremely unserious subject in a country as rich as ours. (what I mean is that we aren't worried about getting food, and eat specifically what we want). Basically, you flat out cannot compare a preference of food type to the murdering of hundreds of thousands of people and tell me that if I condemn one action I must condemn the other. If I did that to you, you'd quickly put me in my place as well and I think you know it. You are arguing from a relative base to an absolute conclusion -- you are saying that good and evil is relative but that we can condemn certain actions as right or wrong. Condemnation implies a moral standard because we are differentiating between moralities, saying that Hitler was wrong while we are right. The bulk of my arguement deals with perceptions. I have no relative base. My morals are absolute. Your morals are absolute. So were hitler's. Each individual's morals are absolute to their world. Their world is the only thing they see from, feel from, and have. ( thus they are absolute) Looking at the world completely separate from any human personality or viewpoint/perspective.. morals do become relative. (because we are godless). From an outside, emotionless, opinionless, inhuman perspective they must be relative, because there is no authority, there is nothing. The problem isn't atheism. The problem is people who have shitty morals for themselves. (to put it bluntly) Note: This post is real scatterbrained I think, I'll probably be back to change some things later, I've been in a rush. |
|
