Steep:

This doesn't answer the question.
Logic deals with what is true or not, what constitute contradiction or not, it does not determine what is moral.

For example,
Mr A has an old rich grandfather who is sick,
Is it logical for Mr A to kill his grandfather and take his wealth, after all his grandfather is old and sick, doing so would.
1. End the misery of grandfather
2. Stop further medical expenses
3. Allow hi focus on his life.

Is logical?
Is it morally right?

LoLz! What do you mean it doesn't answer the question? Your questions were: How do you determine logic? What are the parameters? and I provided you a resource on logic so yeah I answered your questions.

LordReed:


It should come from well-reasoned out thought processes.

Interesting response. Although the question arises.. what if not everyone shares the same reasoning capacity? Or what if people follow different lines of reasoning?

vdestro:


Stop disgracing yourself. Your threads prove and shows that you still could not offer any counter to the evidences presented.

Counters to what evidences?

In your own house or room like the one you have or had when in the university, where did morality or imnorality come from? Is it from your neighbour or from your visitor or from your street people?

You're missing the point so I'll repeat it. I'm not asking where morality came from. I'm asking where it should come from. I'm asking where we should look when it comes to defining right and wrong. Emphasis on should.

Government is a pack of the strongest and the most dangerous men in an area who work together to subject and rule over their follow men, hence it is their ability and willingness to do violence and destruction that makes them different from you and i.

So, if they can make laws, i too can make laws, And if i dont have a right to make laws, then they too have no rights ti make it also, hence they are no different as we are all humans, having the same rights and liabilities and culpabilities.

Therefore, morality/immorality (Law) does not come from us most especiallly as the idea of government only came up around 4th BC by the first groups of criminal bandits (Summer Kings who broke The Morals (The Law) on ground already by violently attacking and invading unsuspecting lands that were not even theirs to surbordinate them to rule, just like what boko haram is doing in the north.

And everyone including you, called it wrong and immoral.

So, if boko haram is morally guilty, so therefore are the Summer rulers also guilty, so also are the governments who are like them, also guilty and unlawful.

Thus, the question standing again is where did the Morality, which was on ground before governments came, come from?

And this is where The Only standing Answer is God, again and again!

Again. I'm asking where it should come from. From your write-up, it seems you believe morality should come from a god. My question to you now, is why?

If governments impose laws based on their power, and these laws can be considered bad in some cases, then how much more different is a god? Replace the word government with god and you see exactly what's happening in some religions.

And then my follow up questions.. assuming a god exists, what makes it qualified to give moral laws on behalf of humans? What makes its laws correct? If a god says it's correct to murder children, would you do it? Would that make it right?

MaxInDHouse:

Good morning my friend, i'm fine and you?

Splendid

Supreme means most powerful, logically the most powerful person can't support stealing because He has all the power to give whatever you have to the person of His choice in multiple folds without that one coming to steal from you.

I think this is where we disagree. Power and empathy are different things. And completely unrelated too. There are many powerful people that support stealing, and there are many regular non-powerful people that oppose it.

Solomon became the richest in his time because the Almighty wanted it so but did the man steal from anyone?
NO!
The Almighty knows how to manipulate things in favour of the person of His choice without such one coming to steal from you!

Again, the story of solomon is an interesting one, but I don't think it applies here. I completely understand what you're saying. A supreme being, or someone with the highest level of power wouldn't need you to steal from anyone, since it has all the power to give you what you want.

But you're basically describing a supreme being that cares. And like i said earlier, empathy is not a requirement for power. What if you had a supreme being that didn't care, or simply one that enjoys watching humans fight with each other, much like some people enjoy watching boxing matches?

What if you had a psychopathic supreme being who derived pleasure in the misery of humans?

After sometimes people's brains grow weaker and weaker until they die but eternal beings are not prone to such so their brains are sharp always the only problem is there are many Gods and one Almighty God {1Corinthians 8:5} so while other Gods can be partial the Almighty can never be partial because He has all the powers and nobody can stop Him!

Again, having a sharp brain does not equate to being wise. Adolescents are supposed to have some of the sharpest brains, since their bodies are either reaching their peak, or are already there. But we don't argue that adolescents are wiser than every other age group. This isn't an issue of brain development.

Wilgrea7:

You're missing the point so I'll repeat it. I'm not asking where morality came from. I'm asking where it should come from. I'm asking where we should look when it comes to defining right and wrong. Emphasis on should.

I think the question you should first ask is "in your own house,

1.) would you look outside for the definition of right and wrong, knowing that you too have power to set right and wrong in your house and to some extents to the things you are involved in?

2) Why are you looking outside for it?

3) Are you aware that the outside morality could be wrong/right?

4) Which morality do you prefer?

5) Do you have a standard for measuring morality?

6) is your standard of measurement TRULY moral or is it one based on your own personal and selective preferance, even if falls short or above the standard?

These are your first hurdles, so that reasonable can ascertain if you truly know and understand what morality is truly and how it operates.

Something is blocking my comments on this thread but it's OK

Wilgrea7:


Interesting response. Although the question arises.. what if not everyone shares the same reasoning capacity? Or what if people follow different lines of reasoning?

The lack of homogeneity should play very well into determining morality because no man knows it all nor can any one many think of every possible thing. When people present multiple lines of reasoning it enriches and deepens the conversation towards determining what is moral. It is when people don't want to listen to others that they begin to seek homogeneity. We should listen to others because we never know when an unanticipated but pertinent line of reasoning will occur.

Another thing is morality is not an unchanging monolith, it should be expected to change because both we and our environment are changing. With non homogenous thoughts we get a breath of solutions to unique challenges as they appear.

LordReed:


LoLz! What do you mean it doesn't answer the question? Your questions were: How do you determine logic? What are the parameters? and I provided you a resource on logic so yeah I answered your questions.

No you did not, you only posted links, that did answer not in respect to morality.

Steep:

No you did not, you only posted links, that did answer not in respect to morality.

You did not ask me with respect to morality.

LordReed:


The lack of homogeneity should play very well into determining morality because no man knows it all nor can any one many think of every possible thing. When people present multiple lines of reasoning it enriches and deepens the conversation towards determining what is moral. It is when people don't want to listen to others that they begin to seek homogeneity. We should listen to others because we never know when an unanticipated but pertinent line of reasoning will occur.

Another thing is morality is not an unchanging monolith, it should be expected to change because both we and our environment are changing. With non homogenous thoughts we get a breath of solutions to umique challenges as they appear.

LoLz, you claim morality should not be unchanging but castigate the different OT and New Testament verses. Who go change the morality na, votes right? Like it's moral to teach LGBTQ values to children in primary school but immoral to use a Bible. Morality na democracy.

LordReed:


You did not ask me with respect to morality.

what topic where we on again?

Steep:
what topic where we on again?

Where SHOULD Morality Come From?

LordReed:


Where SHOULD Morality Come From?

It comes from God. God created man in his image so man display the some of the character of God how beit in a lesser and distorted manner.

Steep:

It comes from God. God created man in his image so man display the some of the character of God how beit in a lesser and distorted manner.

You are free to believe that.

Wilgrea7:

I think this is where we disagree. Power and empathy are different things. And completely unrelated too. There are many powerful people that support stealing, and there are many regular non-powerful people that oppose it.

That's why you need to study the Bible God in order to know how He feels when talking about partiality. Going by what the Bible teaches about this God He is the best in justice so you're not getting my point at all!

Wilgrea7:


Again, the story of solomon is an interesting one, but I don't think it applies here. I completely understand what you're saying. A supreme being, or someone with the highest level of power wouldn't need you to steal from anyone, since it has all the power to give you what you want.

But you're basically describing a supreme being that cares. And like i said earlier, empathy is not a requirement for power. What if you had a supreme being that didn't care, or simply one that enjoys watching humans fight with each other, much like some people enjoy watching boxing matches?

Why not study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses so that you can understand the Bible God and His ways?

Wilgrea7:

What if you had a psychopathic supreme being who derived pleasure in the misery of humans?

You need to study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses they are His WITNESSES so they can tell you everything you need to know about their God who claims to be the Almighty!

Wilgrea7:

Again, having a sharp brain does not equate to being wise. Adolescents are supposed to have some of the sharpest brains, since their bodies are either reaching their peak, or are already there. But we don't argue that adolescents are wiser than every other age group. This isn't an issue of brain development.

You missed the point again!

Humans always grow old and their brains get weaker so no matter the experience we had that makes us wiser than toddlers soon becomes a delusion when our brains began failing due to oldage, but supernatural beings don't grow old or getting weaker so their brains are getting refreshed on daily basis couple with the long time experience they have had for thousands of years that's what makes them wiser than any human!