The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 01:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The inability to make a moral decision is not the same as the inability to base one's decisions off of a moral code.

The inability to make a moral decision could be a result of a lack of empathy, as in serial killers, but they can still adhere to "moral codes" so as to blend-in.
I'd say that the inability to make a moral decision could be due to a lack of belief in right and wrong. You don't have to lack empathy in order to lack moral beliefs.
Empathy isn't necessarily the litmus test for whether something is right or wrong.

(16-02-2015 01:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Moral "codes" aren't static either, but adhering to them without considering the moral nature of them, is amoral. Because the code may or may not be moral.
I think the question that is being considered is "Is religious morality a moral system or is it a law?"
Obeying the law is not akin to behaving morally.
When a person obeys the law they are attempting to avoid the personal consequences of being caught in violation of laws. This is a matter of coercion rather than a free moral choice.
If you consider the religious moral code to be akin to god's law with the punishment of eternal hell or exclusion from heaven then this is law via coercion rather than moral adherence.
If you consider the religious moral code as being a revelation of what is right and what is wrong and that people are free to choose between these options without fear of personal consequences then it is a moral system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 08:30 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 01:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  They don't mean anything except in the presence of others.

I don’t even see how this follows. If I am a loving, honorable and humble person, do I cease to be such a person when no one else is around? Does my wife lose her virtues when I’ve left for work and only acquire them again when I return? The reality is, her virtues are a part of who she is rather than what she does.

You seem not to understand what is meant by 'the solitary man'. It is not being temporarily alone, it is being absent from society.

Quote:Even theist who believe in a Good God, believe that his Goodness was eternal, and not something he acquired only when he created others who were recipients of his goodness.

Goodness has no meaning to a solitary being - there is no one affected other than self.

Quote:
Quote: Why do you conclude that there is no objective foundation? Not harming others is an objective basis. Does your morality include harm to others?

Sure, it’s very well possible that harm can be defined in some particular way, and we can possibly even quantify that. And that quantitive assessment may even be objectively true. Just like we can measure the height and weight of a person, the color of their eyes, and skin complexion, and the symmetry of their face.

But making a moral judgement, like making a judgement on this observed person’s beauty, is a qualitative one. It’s one thing to a state a description of a person and another thing to say this person is beautiful. Someone who notes the same description, but does not find the person beautiful, is not someone denying a fact. He’s just someone with a different standard of beauty.

Quote:Morality is a meaningless concept except in regards to how we treat others.

Or perhaps morality is meaningless all together, a mere series of decorative frills. A fairy tale we tell ourselves exists, because it makes us feel better. Perhaps there is no meaningful response to someone who declares that it doesn't exist, other than that person makes us feel uncomfortable.

No, it is how we treat others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 01:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Morality is a meaningless concept except in regards to how we treat others.

Who or what we consider "others" is however ill-defined and individual.

Really? Others is not me. Pretty simple.

Quote:
(16-02-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course it's consequentialist. The only assumption is some understanding of empathy.

Just because the Bonobo appear particularly empathetic, are they moral? Do they have the capacity? And who the hell would know?

Just ask them? Vulcan mind meld? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Goodness has no meaning to a solitary being - there is no one affected other than self.
....
No, it is how we treat others.

Well, continually repeating this doesn't make it true, lol. You're just a man repeating that good music requires the sound of violins, and not a man telling me that 1+1 =2.

You're operating with a particular moral standard in mind, a standard that posits that Goodness can not be applied to a solitary being. That Goodness requires others to be affected.

Your particular standard is one that suggests Goodness is based on actions. But for others the standard of goodness can be intention. And for others, the standard of goodness is one's character.

The first standard might negate goodness to a solitary man, and perhaps even the second, but not for the third one, where goodness is merely a judgment of one's character. This "character" is not lost if one decides to spend his last remaining years in the wood, or sentenced to life in solitary confinement.

You may reject the standards of others and uphold your own, but this rejection is a not a matter of your perspective being true and the competing perspectives are false. It's not a kin to rejecting creationism in favor of evolution, but more akin to you rejecting hip hop in favor of country.

You're just a man who considers good music to be one accompanied by a violin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 07:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Goodness has no meaning to a solitary being - there is no one affected other than self.
....
No, it is how we treat others.

Well, continually repeating this doesn't make it true, lol. You're just a man repeating that good music requires the sound of violins, and not a man telling me that 1+1 =2.

You're operating with a particular moral standard in mind, a standard that posits that Goodness can not be applied to a solitary being. That Goodness requires others to be affected.

Your particular standard is one that suggests Goodness is based on actions. But for others the standard of goodness can be intention. And for others, the standard of goodness is one's character.

The first standard might negate goodness to a solitary man, and perhaps even the second, but not for the third one, where goodness is merely a judgment of one's character. This "character" is not lost if one decides to spend his last remaining years in the wood, or sentenced to life in solitary confinement.

You may reject the standards of others and uphold your own, but this rejection is a not a matter of your perspective being true and the competing perspectives are false. It's not a kin to rejecting creationism in favor of evolution, but more akin to you rejecting hip hop in favor of country.

You're just a man who considers good music to be one accompanied by a violin.

Apparently again you're missing the point that even connects and AGREES with part of your ideas of what you are saying... you just keep scoping things in boxes though.

Yes, that is 1 persons view that it matters to 1 person. If a person has a moral value that requires other people, how does that person judge his moral assessments without another? What is the comparison of his morality lead to? What impact does it have without another? It may be "meaningless" with or without another depending on an perspective, but does it have "impact?" In a ultimate solidarity sense?

I would also agree somewhat to Girlyman in contrast to Chas. How do you know what you define as you is not someway going to be defined as other to you at some other point. What creates this dual me/other distinction either way. But that's down a different nonsense tree.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 07:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, that is 1 persons view that it matters to 1 person. If a person has a moral value that requires other people, how does that person judge his moral assessments without another?

Well, apparently he wouldn't be able to would he? Just like a man whose standard of beauty requires blond hair and blue eyes, wouldn't be able to pass a judgement on beauty in some region in which there is no one with blond hair and blue eyes.

But his statement that there are no beautiful women here, or a solitary man cannot be moral, is not stating a fact, but rather merely stating his own preference. In which if someone rejected his standard, and held to one where his criteria does not apply, they wouldn't be wrong, or be denial of a truth.

Quote:What is the comparison of his morality lead to? What impact does it have without another? It may be "meaningless" with or without another depending on an perspective, but does it have "impact?" In a ultimate solidarity sense?

I'm not too sure what it is you are asking here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 08:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 01:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Who or what we consider "others" is however ill-defined and individual.

Really? Others is not me. Pretty simple.

Simple for who? Not so simple for Sybil.

(16-02-2015 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem not to understand what is meant by 'the solitary man'. It is not being temporarily alone, it is being absent from society.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, that is 1 persons view that it matters to 1 person. If a person has a moral value that requires other people, how does that person judge his moral assessments without another?

Well, apparently he wouldn't be able to would he? Just like a man whose standard of beauty requires blond hair and blue eyes, wouldn't be able to pass a judgement on beauty in some region in which there is no one with blond hair and blue eyes.

But his statement that there are no beautiful women here, or a solitary man cannot be moral, is not stating a fact, but rather merely stating his own preference. In which if someone rejected his standard, and held to one where his criteria does not apply, they wouldn't be wrong, or be denial of a truth.

Quote:What is the comparison of his morality lead to? What impact does it have without another? It may be "meaningless" with or without another depending on an perspective, but does it have "impact?" In a ultimate solidarity sense?

I'm not too sure what it is you are asking here.

It's routinely that, it's a matter of you not getting the points with and opposing your ideas. Constantly... in all of these topics about this. Why is this continually a problem?

And stop being bad at analogies or just stop trying to use them. This keeps being a bad pattern. That's not true about the man who thinks of blonde/blue as beauty, because he would be able to judge based on there being degrees of color still more like one. You didn't depict it as a world where everyone has the same colored eyes/hair. So there would be degrees closer to his ideal and further from his ideal.

I'm still never seen you draw out a conclusion to what you've been leading on about for months. You're bludgeoning constantly on this line trying to assert all moral positions are relative and the equivalence of musical taste... okay, so what? You've said a few things on it, but never actually indicated any issue as if there was an issue with this.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-02-2015, 11:07 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 11:14 AM by Chas.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 07:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Goodness has no meaning to a solitary being - there is no one affected other than self.
....
No, it is how we treat others.

Well, continually repeating this doesn't make it true, lol. You're just a man repeating that good music requires the sound of violins, and not a man telling me that 1+1 =2.

You're operating with a particular moral standard in mind, a standard that posits that Goodness can not be applied to a solitary being. That Goodness requires others to be affected.

Your particular standard is one that suggests Goodness is based on actions. But for others the standard of goodness can be intention. And for others, the standard of goodness is one's character.

The first standard might negate goodness to a solitary man, and perhaps even the second, but not for the third one, where goodness is merely a judgment of one's character. This "character" is not lost if one decides to spend his last remaining years in the wood, or sentenced to life in solitary confinement.

You may reject the standards of others and uphold your own, but this rejection is a not a matter of your perspective being true and the competing perspectives are false. It's not a kin to rejecting creationism in favor of evolution, but more akin to you rejecting hip hop in favor of country.

You're just a man who considers good music to be one accompanied by a violin.

You are just someone who thinks morality can exist in a vacuum.

And you are really bad at metaphors. Your music one is particularly poor.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 10:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're bludgeoning constantly on this line trying to assert all moral positions are relative and the equivalence of musical taste... okay, so what? You've said a few things on it, but never actually indicated any issue as if there was an issue with this.

I bludgeon constantly on this line because hardly anyone besides Stevel seems to accepts this.

Bertrand Russell, expressed this predicament quite welll:

"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."

Suppose my claim is in fact true, that all moral positions are relative, and are the equivalent of musical taste, stating our likes and dislikes, why is this a hard pill to swallow?

Why are we in seeming denial? Particularly atheists who acknowledge that morality is subjective, but yet have trouble accepting what that would imply, and will resort to all sorts of incoherent arguments in protest. Like Bertrand Russell stated, he can't find a way to refute this, yet he finds himself incapable of accepting that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that he doesn't like it.

I think this question, will likely shed more light on the predicament being addressed by the OP than any other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: