mkmyers45:

Ok, every religion tries to depict thier God as the true moral judge based on the points we have set out so i am making an example with something more exclusive and rational

There is nothing "exclusive and rational" about generic parents and children which you have given no individual identity

Mr_Anony:

You see this is the problem with butting into a conversation halfway. I and mkmyers had already agreed on the necessity of a moral judge and moved on to describe what its attributes must then be. For you, I can't proceed with this debate from here since you don't acknowledge a moral lawgiver in the first place. We'll backtrack a little.

How do you define morality absent an objective moral standard?

I'd say that morality is the basis by which we determine that an action is right or wrong. I posit that this basis is arrived at due to the effects of actions on sentient creatures.

thehomer:

I'd say that morality is the basis by which we determine that an action is right or wrong. I posit that this basis is arrived at due to the effects of actions on sentient creatures.

but then, this definition leaves a problem because various sentient creatures have experienced diverse effects for similar actions some even direct opposite effects to others hence right and wrong varies largely across the board. This leads to the question: If right and wrong vary so much, can they be justly defined as right and wrong??

Mr Anony conception of morality is effectively isolated from reality. It undeniably that morality is very useful and it serves as a cohesion for society. Don't kill rule rule is preservative one and of fundamental to every society.

If the law giver delivers rules that are not for the moral adherents, then he ceases to be a law giver.

Mr_Anony:
but then, this definition leaves a problem because various sentient creatures have experienced diverse effects for similar actions some even direct opposite effects to others hence right and wrong varies largely across the board. This leads to the question: If right and wrong vary so much, can they be justly defined as right and wrong??

I don't really understand what you're driving at. Can you elucidate with an example?

lagerwhenindoubt:
Can humans discover on their own what is Right and Wrong? [/b]A simple Yes or No will suffice, but if you wish to lace it on with Scripture, be my guest

Your Answer

Mr_Anony:
My answer to your question is No. Human beings need a reference point from which to judge right and wrong.

In other words, your reference point for [b]Morality is not Universal (though I'd like to believe LOVE is a Universal Tenet of Morality) let me give you an example, there are Societies where it is considered Morally Right to Kill one's Daughter or Son for falling in Love with a person deemed lower-class or an outcast. Yet in that same sphere there are many who believe it is an individual's moral right to choose whom to fall in love with. How does this Authoritative Source determine what is Morally Right in one society and classifies it as Morally Wrong in another?

Are there multiple types of Morality? This is another question if your answer is yes to the above

Kay 17: Mr Anony conception of morality is effectively isolated from reality. It undeniably that morality is very useful and it serves as a cohesion for society. Don't kill rule rule is preservative one and of fundamental to every society.

Nothing I have said alienates my "concept" of morality from reality. Yes morality is useful for society but not necessarily for cohesion. The don't kill rule is fundamental for preservation of a society but fails as a moral rule when a community decides to kill off another community for the sole reason of preserving/enhancing theirs.

If preservation is the purpose of morality then selfishness would be the greatest good. This is not the case.

If the law giver delivers rules that are not for the moral adherents, then he ceases to be a law giver.

I don't see how so. All a moral adherent should be concerned about is the moral laws for him/her and not other rules that do not concern his/her morality.
It is like saying that if a Legal system ceases to be valid concerning criminal cases if it also has laws concerning family cases. That doesn't make sense....unless I got you wrong.

lagerwhenindoubt:

Your Answer


In other words, your reference point for Morality is not Universal (though I'd like to believe LOVE is a Universal Tenet of Morality) let me give you an example, there are Societies where it is considered Morally Right to Kill one's Daughter or Son for falling in Love with a person deemed lower-class or an outcast. Yet in that same sphere there are many who believe it is an individual's moral right to choose whom to fall in love with. How does this Authoritative Source determine what is Morally Right in one society and classifies it as Morally Wrong in another?

Are there multiple types of Morality? This is another question if your answer is yes to the above

There is a difference between an "is" and an "ought". Progress is moving from "what is" to "what ought to be".
Because one society thinks something morally right, it doesn't make it morally right. An authority implies that it is not subject to the whims of these societies therefore it's word is law and the two societies must be subject to that law so one of them must be wrong.
There cannot be multiple moralities else morality becomes meaningless.

I was about to answer your last comment prior to this but the instance in the question you asked shows what I was trying to point out to you anyway.

One more thing......it is interesting that you believe love to be a universal moral tenet (I do as well), but may I ask, how do you personally define love?

Oh sorry,(about referring to your previous comment) I was mistaking you for thehomer.

@thehomer, see lagerwhenindoubt's post following yours. It brings across the point I was trying to pass across.

Mr_Anony:
There is nothing "exclusive and rational" about generic parents and children which you have given no individual identity

There is nothing exclusive too about a 'god' of many faces who has no pin-point identity...

Mr_Anony:
There is a difference between an "is" and an "ought" .Progress is moving from "what is" to "what ought to be".
Because one society thinks something morally right, it doesn't make it morally right. An authority implies that it is not subject to the whims of these societies therefore it's word is law and the two societies must be subject to that law so one of them must be wrong.
There cannot be multiple moralities else morality becomes meaningless.

Okay.. .. in essence you posit that there is a Singular "precedent" Law of Morality for Simple to Complex "human" Societies.
You may answer the next question with a Maybe [/b]or [b]I don't know of have that information or YES

What or Who is the singular source of this Universal Law on Morality? (I have a good reason for this and any answer will suffice)


how do you personally define love?, I do not believe in personalizing a common virtue even at its elemental level, however I believe at its most evident, Love is an unselfish benevolent concern for the good of others - it is mostly emotion driven by value we place on them. so Love on one hand can be construed to be Hate on the other

mkmyers45:

There is nothing exclusive too about a 'god' of many faces who has no pin-point identity...

I have provided a particular God: Jehovah as described by the bible. Please show me how He has "many faces"

Mr_Anony:

I have provided a particular God: Jehovah as described by the bible. Please show me how He has "many faces"

Allah as depicted by the Qu'ran is also an embodiment of morality...
Krishna as depicted by Hindu's is also an embodiment of morality...
The 'Holy Guru' as depicted by Sikh's is also an embodiment of morality...

Please why is jehovah a better source of morality?

lagerwhenindoubt:
Okay.. .. in essence you posit that there is a Singular "precedent" Law of Morality for Simple to Complex "human" Societies.
You may answer the next question with a Maybe [/b]or [b]I don't know of have that information or YES

What or Who is the singular source of this Universal Law on Morality? (I have a good reason for this and any answer will suffice)

The answer to your question is the God's nature as shown in the bible. He is the source of morality

lagerwhenindoubt: how do you personally define love?, I do not believe in personalizing a common virtue even at its elemental level, however I believe at its most evident, Love is an unselfish benevolent concern for the good of others - it is mostly emotion driven by value we place on them. so Love on one hand can be construed to be Hate on the other

The love you describe here has no definite character, how can this love which is subject to emotion and perception be a valid universal moral tenet?
Your love brings us back to the problem of not being able to define exactly what is right and wrong since it in itself can be thought to be hate by another person.

Mr_Anony:

Nothing I have said alienates my "concept" of morality from reality. Yes morality is useful for society but not necessarily for cohesion. The don't kill rule is fundamental for preservation of a society but fails as a moral rule when a community decides to kill off another community for the sole reason of preserving/enhancing theirs.

If preservation is the purpose of morality then selfishness would be the greatest good. This is not the case.



I don't see how so. All a moral adherent should be concerned about is the moral laws for him/her and not other rules that do not concern his/her morality.
It is like saying that if a Legal system ceases to be valid concerning criminal cases if it also has laws concerning family cases. That doesn't make sense....unless I got you wrong.

OH!! Morality is useful?! At least we have agreed on one point.

Morality makes sense in a community, that could be a clan, a tribe or a nation; as long as they identify themselves with a common origin or goal. For the humanitarian ideals that developed the UN, the world was seen as one community, thus governed by morality.
So killing an unarmed Somali in war becomes a crime.

Hume has also warned against the careless use of "ought to". Morality will be what the community believes to be right, not what it ought to be right, where you interpose your morality.

It is like saying that if a Legal system ceases to be valid concerning criminal cases if it also has laws concerning family cases. That doesn't make sense....unless I got you wrong

It is still playing a useful role, providing laws in the family sphere.

mkmyers45:

Allah as depicted by the Qu'ran is also an embodiment of morality...
Krishna as depicted by Hindu's is also an embodiment of morality...
The 'Holy Guru' as depicted by Sikh's is also an embodiment of morality...

Please why is jehovah a better source of morality?

We have to weigh everyone of them against the criteria we have set and how they satisfy it. Do you agree?

Mr_Anony:

We have to weigh everyone of them against the criteria we have set and how they satisfy it. Do you agree?

Ok...lets do so

Mr_Anony:
The answer to your question is the God's nature as shown in the bible. He is the source of morality


The love you describe here has no definite character, how can this love which is subject to emotion and perception be a valid universal moral tenet?
Your love brings us back to the problem of not being able to define exactly what is right and wrong since it in itself can be thought to be hate by another person.

OK. i have kept a straight-face through all this - I give myself some credit.

I do not agree that Morality is impossible without God.
1: God's Nature is Human (or Human Nature is derived from God's) as documented in the Bible and as evidenced throughout History - "we" are created in his image Spirit, Soul and Body
2: Human Nature is Fluid-Duplicity between Good and Evil as is God's - He is the Source of Everything is he not?. It falls to Man to make that Moral Judgement where his Human nature and experiences decides.
3: Above All Preservation of Human Life and Unconditional Love can be realized with and without God
4: Character of the Authoritative Source of Morality: I agree by your Rule-based definitions as posited earlier, The problem with your position is this A Rule-Based Morality is insufficient for a continually evolving societies.
However virtues such as Love place less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. These character traits will, in turn, allow a person to make the correct decisions later on in life. This approach emphasizes on the need for people to learn how to break bad habits of character, like greed or anger. These are called vices and stand in the way of becoming a good person.

Peace

mkmyers45:

Ok...lets do so

Ok so we all agree that they are all supreme but then there cannot be multiple supremes, there can only be one supreme. We'll start by comparing who is more supreme than the other.

Krishna fails at this point because Krishna has an origin and was not powerful enough to bring himself to be so he is not supreme enough he's out of the race.
The Sikh Holy Gurus were men (at least to the best of my knowledge) and this also dents their supremeness. They are also out of the race.
This leaves us with Allah and Yahweh who many believe to be the same but they can't be the same as one is monopersonal and the other is tripersonal. Now Allah by his nature contradicts his very essence because the muslims believe that Allah can love but that raises the question. If Allah can love, who or what did he love before the creation? If love came after the creation, it implies that love is not subject to allah but allah is subject to love. Allah is now out of the race.

We are left with Yahweh who I put it to you satisfies all the criteria better than anything else you can put up.

Mr_Anony:
We are left with Yahweh who I put it to you satisfies all the criteria better than anything else you can put up.

Ok, lets assume yahweh has defeated those other two. Next up, I want you to tell us who wins this "wrestlemania" match for the supreme being.

Yahweh vs Brahman


In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as[b] the Absolute or Godhead[/b][2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything in and beyond this universe. Brahman is conceived as personal ("with qualities", impersonal ("without qualities" and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school.

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

I thought Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu who has always existed.

Martian:

Ok, lets assume yahweh has defeated those other two. Next up, I want you to tell us who wins this "wrestlemania" match for the supreme being.

Yahweh vs Brahman


In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as[b] the Absolute or Godhead[/b][2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything in and beyond this universe. Brahman is conceived as personal ("with qualities", impersonal ("without qualities" and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school.

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

Ok martian, I hope you know the context of this debate is based on a number of criteria which we have agreed to earlier, you can look them up on page 2 and 3.
Now questions about Brahman,

If Brahman is everything and everyone then It must not contradict it's nature therefore any time two people disagree, brahman will be negated as it will not be in harmony.
If brahma is everything, then brahman does not qualify as a judge at all much less a moral judge because it cannot judge between itself for or against itself. It can never be impartial
for brahma to qualify as a moral standard, it must have personal qualities. A brahma without qualities fails

Mr_Anony:
If Brahman is everything and everyone then It must not contradict it's nature therefore any time two people disagree, brahman will be negated as it will not be in harmony.

Brahman is not negated because the harmony lies within and whenever you acheive that harmony with others, Brahmanhood is acheived. And when people disagree, its just their inner quests to get back in harmony with Brahman so Brahman can't be negated because its everything.

Mr_Anony:
If brahma is everything, then brahman does not qualify as a judge at all much less a moral judge because it cannot judge between itself for or against itself. It can never be impartial
for brahma to qualify as a moral standard, it must have personal qualities. A brahma without qualities fails

Wrong again. Brahman being everything can choose to be peronal or impersonal, depending on the situation. Because of it's omniscience, it is the eternal judge that knows all but doesn't need to judge against itself because it is everything in itself. brahman is also the ource and support of the universe so obviously, it is the source and support of morality and immorality. Everything is everything and everything is Brahman.

I think Yahweh is on the ropes..............

Kay 17:

OH!! Morality is useful?! At least we have agreed on one point.

Lol, you've fought long and hard for this "agreement" ni.

Morality makes sense in a community, that could be a clan, a tribe or a nation; as long as they identify themselves with a common origin or goal. For the humanitarian ideals that developed the UN, the world was seen as one community, thus governed by morality.
So killing an unarmed Somali in war becomes a crime.

Well, you see here I have a problem with the humanitarian ideal. I'll explain
The Christian ideal is; All men are equal under God,

The Humanitarian ideal is; All men are equal.
Says who?
Says a few men who came together in a big UN meeting to decide for all men that they are indeed equal.
Wait a minute, doesn't this make the UN meeting men more equal than all other men?
No it doesn't
How come?
? ? ? ?

Hume has also warned against the careless use of "ought to". Morality will be what the community believes to be right, not what it ought to be right, where you interpose your morality.

For a community to truly believe something to be right, it has to be unanimous. Where it is not unanimous, someone someone is being oppressed. A true ought has to be independent every personal bias

Martian:

Brahman is not negated because the harmony lies within and whenever you acheive that harmony with others, Brahmanhood is acheived. And when people disagree, its just their inner quests to get back in harmony with Brahman so Brahman can't be negated because its everything.



Wrong again. Brahman being everything can choose to be peronal or impersonal, depending on the situation. Because of it's omniscience, it is the eternal judge that knows all but doesn't need to judge against itself because it is everything in itself. brahman is also the ource and support of the universe so obviously, it is the source and support of morality and immorality. Everything is everything and everything is Brahman.

I think Yahweh is on the ropes..............

in other words brahman is both good and evil, how then can it distinguish between good and evil since good and evil are the same?

Mr_Anony:
in other words brahman is both good and evil, how then can it distinguish between good and evil since good and evil are the same?

It can distinguish between good and evil because it is "EVERYTHING" and that's why there is no eternal punishment from the Brahman. It knows that everything can be good or bad depending on what or who it affects and that's why Brahman gives multiple chances for you to be in harmony with it so the cosmic balance can be acheived.

When the cosmic balance is acheived, the "good" will happen to the entities that consider it "good" and they will avoid the "evil". While the "evil" will happen to the entities that find it "good".

Everything is everything and everything is brahman. Attain Brahmanhood and the cosmic balance gets closer to fruition.

Martian:

It can distinguish between good and evil because it is "EVERYTHING" and that's why there is no eternal punishment from the Brahman. It knows that everything can be good or bad depending on what or who it affects and that's why Brahman gives multiple chances for you to be in harmony with it so the cosmic balance can be acheived.

When the cosmic balance is acheived, the "good" will happen to the entities that consider it "good" and they will avoid the "evil". While the "evil" will happen to the entities that find it "good".

Everything is everything and everything is brahman. Attain Brahmanhood and the cosmic balance gets closer to fruition.

Lol ok, let's cut the chase. I'll give him a case to judge:

Hi Brahman, I robbed Oceanic bank, I stole 1 million Naira at gun point, then I shot the bank manager in the head on my way out just because I felt like it. later in the evening, I kidnapped two little kids. I tied the five year old boy to a chair and raped him while hacking his 3 yr old sister to peices with a chain saw. Why? because I was bored.

Now Oh Great Brahman! how do you judge? were my actions good or evil? what is my punishment or what is my reward?

lagerwhenindoubt:

OK. i have kept a straight-face through all this - I give myself some credit.

I do not agree that Morality is impossible without God.
1: God's Nature is Human (or Human Nature is derived from God's) as documented in the Bible and as evidenced throughout History - "we" are created in his image Spirit, Soul and Body
2: Human Nature is Fluid-Duplicity between Good and Evil as is God's - He is the Source of Everything is he not?. It falls to Man to make that Moral Judgement where his Human nature and experiences decides.
3: Above All Preservation of Human Life and Unconditional Love can be realized with and without God
4: Character of the Authoritative Source of Morality: I agree by your Rule-based definitions as posited earlier, The problem with your position is this A Rule-Based Morality is insufficient for a continually evolving societies.
However virtues such as Love place less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. These character traits will, in turn, allow a person to make the correct decisions later on in life. This approach emphasizes on the need for people to learn how to break bad habits of character, like greed or anger. These are called vices and stand in the way of becoming a good person.

Peace

Wow! some very wrong premises and assumptions here. I'll get back to this.
First, God made human nature like his nature is not the same as God's nature is human nature.

Second, God is love, Preservation of human life and unconditional love cannot be realized without God. More especially since you haven't even been able to define the love you are claiming.

Thirdly, As regarding your point 4. I believe that morality must never change, else we can never know in which direction our morality is evolving to i.e. if our societies are evolving for the better or for the worse.
Funny enough, you seem to turn around and agree with me that Love must not change it's meaning.

It appears to me that you know what is moral but you don't want to define it for fear that you will be defining God's loving nature

Mr_Anony:
Lol ok, let's cut the chase. I'll give him a case to judge:

Hi Brahman, I robbed Oceanic bank, I stole 1 million Naira at gun point, then I shot the bank manager in the head on my way out just because I felt like it. later in the evening, I kidnapped two little kids. I tied the five year old boy to a chair and raped him while hacking his 3 yr old sister to peices with a chain saw. Why? because I was bored.

Now Oh Great Brahman! how do you judge? were my actions good or evil? what is my punishment or what is my reward?

O, how thou art mistaken! I am not the eternal Brahman. You, me and the people you murdered in your imaginary crime spree are all part of the Brahman. How the eternal Brahman judges is up to it and I as a minute part can't tell you the what Brahman will judge. But rest assured that Brahman in it's infinite wisdom has made eternal provisions for these occurences.

Martian:

O, how thou art mistaken! I am not the eternal Brahman. You, me and the people you murdered in your imaginary crime spree are all part of the Brahman. How the eternal Brahman judges is up to it and I as a minute part can't tell you the what Brahman will judge. But rest assured that Brahman in it's infinite wisdom has made eternal provisions for these occurences.

Nonsense, Brahman is incapable of moral judgment

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense, Brahman is incapable of moral judgment

Nonsense, Brahman is the source of what's moral. Brahman is the source of yahweh's morality.

Martian:

Nonsense, Brahman is the source of what's moral. Brahman is the source of yahweh's morality.

Then please pronounce judgement or forever be silent

Mr_Anony:
Then please pronounce judgement or forever be silent

Only a person filled with excessive hubris will attempt to fill the shoes of the eternal Brahman and pass judgement.