MrPresident1:


What is the difference between spirituality and morality?

Yes please, I would really love to see his meaning of spirituality and morality.

Image123:


Without spirituality, there is ultimately no point being moral. Morality itself being subjective.

It is very disturbing and amazing, to say the least, that you think like this. Like biologically fascinating

Image123:


Surely it does. Such a society's version of good and bad, right and wrong(morality) would bring some semblance of order. But it will continue to change and 'improve' depending on the set of people that make rules.

Morality was necessary for societal security and continuation.

Thus morality is not only valuable but useful from the human and societal perspective and derives meaning from societal definition.

Ultimately, it is useless. Wow, i see. When i say ultimately, i speak in terms of eternity, life beyond life. As you don't believe that, you'd probably struggle with my pov.

This part would have to assume the eventuality of eternity and then insert the necessity of moral values into it. You may like to expatiate on this and demonstrate the importance, use and value of morality in eternity

johnydon22:
I will post 2 pairs of moral enquiring scenarios to see how people would respond to that. Let us understand the intricacies our moral deductions.

Best way for this to work as intended is, you answer each question before even looking at the nexr question


1. A man walks past a pond and sees a young child drowning. He can easily save the child, as the pond is shallow enough that he can stand. But he will ruin his expensive suit in doing so. If he doesn’t save the child, nobody else will, and the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to walk into the pond and save the child?

No, I cannot not morally obligate anyone to save some damn girl drowning in a pond and ruin their expensive suit! No be them put am inside the pond, and I cannot morally oblige anyone to ruin their suit.

If I were walking past the pond, I may conscientiously obligate myself to ruin my damn expensive suit and walk into the pond to save the drowning girl. If I don't, every time I look at the suit after not walking into the pond to save the drowning girl all I'll think about is that I killed the drowning girl because of my expensive suit, and whenever I wear it, "I'd be thinking, buda, you murderer!" My conscience will prosecute me and find me guilty and no amount of whatever it is that I do would absolve me of my guilt. but that's not the question you posed.

johnydon22:
1b. A man plans to buy an expensive suit. With the money he intends to spend, he could instead save the child who lives in some distant country and is dying from malaria. Without the man's money, the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to forego buying the suit and to save the child instead?

No he isn't. It's hs mney and he can pend it however he wants.

Personally tough, I have done this in the past. However, I do it much less now. The story went, "if you want to get money from buda, mention school". At one point, more than a half of my wages went on paying other peoples' children's school fees. I had a hard time myself, and understood the implications of people not sending their children to school. But I do it much less now.

I spent two years in the Orolu Kingdom and found my sympathy for others was making me go hungry. At one point I had lost so much weight that my 85kg went down to 62! And besides, it seems people don't want to do what would ensure they can feed their child and provide proper medical care. Some idiot even stole my cows and sold them while I was being concerned about his child who was severely malnourished. The child eventually died, to my utter annoyance, so I put a spell on the cow thief and he died too for being a waste of space.

Now, my ideology is more of "no be me born your pickin, so why should I starve myself so your child should live?" But having read this op, tomorrow I am going to MoneyGram to send some money for Peter and Blessing's school fees. It will be coming out of my washing machine fund. But my reason is not that I am morally obligated. I just want to, and damn you, you've made me!

johnydon22:
2. You are standing at the point a train track breaks into two ways. 5 men are working on one side of the track, 1 man is working on the other side, each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

You have the opportunity to push the track lever and direct the train to either of the sides.

Which of the sides would you rather have the traib go?

This one is a classic. And my answer is neither, as in I would rather the train not kill the one nor the five. And I would stand there till the very last moment wondering what to do. And I might, just in time, push the lever to direct the train to the one. But if I am too late in deciding and the five were to die, then c'est la vie. No be me kill anybody. The train did!

johnydon22:
2b. You are standing on a bridge above a train track with a fat man at the point a train track. 5 men are working on the the track each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

The fat man with you can wedge the train if pushed under the train

Would you push him or not?

And murder the fat man, even to save five? No! I'll save my self a lot of hassle from my conscience by letting nature take its course. I don't think I could live with being the cause of the death of the fat man, and the train is culpable for the killing the five, and not me.

johnydon22:
I will post 2 pairs of moral enquiring scenarios to see how people would respond to that.
Let us understand the intricacies our moral deductions.

Best way for this to work as intended is, you answer each question before even looking at the nexr question

1. A man walks past a pond and sees a young child drowning.
He can easily save the child, as the pond is shallow enough that he can stand.
But he will ruin his expensive suit in doing so.
If he doesn’t save the child, nobody else will, and the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to walk into the pond and save the child?

Absolutely yes, he is morally obligated to walk into the pond and save the child
especially, if he is aware the pond is shallow enough that he can stand in it.
A ruined expensive suit, is no comparison to, a lost life

johnydon22:
1b. A man plans to buy an expensive suit.
With the money he intends to spend, he could instead save the child who lives in some distant country and is dying from malaria.
Without the man's money, the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to forego buying the suit and to save the child instead?

If guaranteed that the money he intends to spend, could instead save the child, then he is morally obligated to forego buying the suit and to save the child instead

johnydon22:
2. You are standing at the point a train track breaks into two ways.
5 men are working on one side of the track, 1 man is working on the other side,
each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

You have the opportunity to push the track lever and direct the train to either of the sides.

Which of the sides would you rather have the trail go?

What a dilemma.
In a judgement call situation like this, I wont intervene
I'll be a bystander and hope for a good and positive outcome for any the following reasons:
1/ The train driver, might just in time, get the train stopped
2/ Miracles hasnt ceased to occur,
so the 5 men & 1 man working might miraculously take off their earmuffs,
just in the nick of time, to hear the train's blaring and warning hoots and jump out of its way
3/ Failing #1 and #2, then it's up to the train driver, to sum up all his training, remember them and then decide which track to continue the train on

johnydon22:
2b. You are standing on a bridge above a train track with a fat man at the point a train track.
5 men are working on the the track each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

The fat man with you can wedge the train if pushed under the train

Would you push him or not?

Personal track safety (PTS) is a qualification which every worker has to have before being allowed to work on or near any line owned or managed by Network Rail
Safeguard – all lines are blocked and no trains will come through the site.
Site warden – a site warden will make sure you stay in a safe area while you work. Never distract a site warden.
Equipment warning – a warning system, operated by a lookout, or automatically, or by the train, will give you enough warning to reach a safe position at least 10 seconds before a train arrives.
Lookout warning – a lookout will warn you in time to get to a position of safety at least 10 seconds before the train arrives. Never distract a lookout.

It is certain, 2b, wouldnt be allowed to happen in sane environments

Though not advisable, but if an already dead fat man, sure, nothing wrong in pushing the fat man to wedge the train

MrPresident1:


What is the difference between spirituality and morality?

True spirituality connects to God through the spirit. As for morality, anybody can be moral, even a dog.

LucemFerre:


How is that funny?

By making me laugh, how else?

That's divine command theory, not morality. One is not moral simply because one follows some rules that make one appear as such. Think about it.

As i said, morality is subjective. Even you are showing here that it is. Think carefully.

LucemFerre:


Yes please, I would really love to see his meaning of spirituality and morality.

Morality has to do with what is right or wrong, good or bad. Like someone says colour white is good and colour red is bad, or you should not kill sick animals, or you should not take what belongs to the government official.
Spirituality has to do with the spirit. Ultimately, it has to do with God. God Himself being a Spirit.
1Co 2:13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 
1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 

It is very disturbing and amazing, to say the least, that you think like this. Like biologically fascinating

Big grammar.

johnydon22:

Morality was necessary for societal security and continuation.

Thus morality is not only valuable but useful from the human and societal perspective and derives meaning from societal definition.

It has not seemed to work. More people die today than before. Societies and cultures are struggling to continue. Physical security still remains a mirage. Though like i have earlier said, it indeed brings some law and order.

This part would have to assume the eventuality of eternity and then insert the necessity of moral values into it. You may like to expatiate on this and demonstrate the importance, use and value of morality in eternity

Seeing that we both assume as regards eternity, it would be good if we considered the eventualities. If there is no eternity like you assume, then there is no discussion. If there is eternity like i assume, then we would have to consider the One who lives in eternity and what/who He wants. Our morality here in time would have to correspond to His, else a sad eternity.