1. If we say someone is a moral person, do they need to be moral
100% of the time, 75%, 50%?
2. Who gets to decide what's moral and what's not?
3. How long is the list which determines what is moral?
4. Should each person or society be allowed to create their own
morals such as a society believing it's moral to force little
girls to be circumcised, killing races of people as the Germans
did, or committing cannibalism? If not, what right do we have
to tell them how to live?
5. If you live an immoral life, such as being a child molester
and never get caught as long as you live, does it matter after
you die, or did you get away with it?
Comments (31)
1. I think we should always try our best to be moral, but it's a given as the Bible says we all fall short. I'm assuming it means in the area of "moral" as well. Just my guess at least.
2. I just figure moral is determined as right, like doing the right thing.
3. I'm not sure about the length of the moral list, lol.
4. Got me on this one, lol.
5. One thing I know about sin....you NEVER get away with it!!! You may think you got away with it down here, but I have never believed that. I believe that while you may not get caught down here by the cops, et cetera, you will see your return on your sin. I personally know for one I have. It may be emotional or it may be financial or what have you, but I know you do not ever go unscathed. It may take 25 years or on your deathbed, but it always comes back to you. With God, you never get away with anything as far as sin. Many people believe if you sin, you ask forgiveness and God forgives you and it's an open and shut case. I do not believe that. I believe we still are chastised. The Bible, in fact, says if we are not chastised, then we are "bastards" and not "sons." It works like with a child. We have to discipline them even if they realize they did wrong. Sure, they may say "I'm sorry," but we still have to discipline them so that they learn it's wrong, or at least we should.
And if it works for other people, like with me, God always brings it back to my remembrance. I cannot count the times in fact I've complained about something someone was doing or wronged someone and down the line, up to 20 years later, I have found myself in that same situation wherein someone was complaining about the same thing with me or wronged me in the very same manner that I wronged someone else!
I have to laugh at the very thought that anyone would think they would get over on God, lol, :) It's simply NOT possible!
We are told that God reigns over the just and the unjust, the saved and the unsaved, the good and the evil basically.
You can live immoral or moral but one thing you can bet is your sins will find you out. Mine are still finding me out, in fact, :(
Great post, Larry. I've done my best to answer accordingly.
"1. If we say someone is a moral person, do they need to be moral
100% of the time, 75%, 50%?"
Silly question. Someone can be good most of the time but tell white lies or lose their temper occasionally, or be good most of the time and murder people occasionally. The nature of the offense, the intention of the person and various other factors go into determining whether someone is a good person. This determination is more often than not a simple threat assessment. Will this person betray you, steal from you, screw you over, harm you physically, deceive you etc? I think people are good who are generally well intentioned and do not want to hurt people and want to help them.
"2. Who gets to decide what's moral and what's not?"
No one "gets to decide". You assume that morality is decided. I think morality is determined, not decided. Much the same way mathematical proofs and scientific discoveries are determined to be accurate, by being tested through debate and critical thought. The objective basis for a scientific theory is the facts of the phenomenon being studied, and the objective basis of human morality is human nature. It is wrong to cause suffering because of the nature of suffering. If jabbing someone with a pin did not hurt or pose a medical risk, and instead tickled, it might instead be a friendly form of greeting, like shaking hands. But because human nature is what it is, jamming a pin in someone's arm is a really dickish thing to do. If we were bullet-proof, shooting people would be less egregious, etc. Our nature and the properties of the universe determine what is good or bad, not some authority.
"3. How long is the list which determines what is moral?"
Silly question. There is no list.
"4. Should each person or society be allowed to create their own
morals such as a society believing it's moral to force little
girls to be circumcised, killing races of people as the Germans
did, or committing cannibalism? If not, what right do we have
to tell them how to live?"
I believe people should be left alone to do or believe whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on your ability to do or believe whatever you want.
"5. If you live an immoral life, such as being a child molester
and never get caught as long as you live, does it matter after
you die, or did you get away with it?"
Of course it matters, what are you a sociopath?
Great questions!
1. If we say someone is a moral person, do they need to be moral
100% of the time, 75%, 50%? Answer: No one is Moral all of the time, just as no one is good.
2. Who gets to decide what's moral and what's not?
Answer: God in his word.
3. How long is the list which determines what is moral?
Answer: Not sure on that one.
4. Should each person or society be allowed to create their own
morals such as a society believing it's moral to force little
girls to be circumcised, killing races of people as the Germans
did, or committing cannibalism? If not, what right do we have
to tell them how to live?Answer, NOOO
5. If you live an immoral life, such as being a child molester
and never get caught as long as you live, does it matter after you die, or did you get away with it?
Answer: GOD KNOWS, so NO you don't get away w/ it unless you repent and give your life to Jesus Christ
Great questions... especially #4 and 5 for an agnostic or atheist...
@Agnophilo - on your answer to #4, are you saying "yes" to the question? I.e., we should not try to stop female circumcision, genocide of Jews or Rwandans or Darfuris or Serbs, cannibalism, etc (since they don't "affect you directly")? How about slavery? Ought the abolitionists to have not pushed for an end of slavery, even if they knew it would hurt their economy when the slaves were freed?
You wrote: "I believe people should be left alone to do or believe whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on your ability to do or believe whatever you want."
What about if you see a murder happening in front of you? As the victim cries out "Do something! Please help me!" Would you say, "No, I believe this murderer should be left alone to do whatever he thinks is 'right for him'. I personally wouldn't murder anyone, but I can't impose my moral beliefs on others."
What about child abuse, or rape, or any crime really, as crime is the strong taking advantage of the weak in some way. Would you say "as long as it doesn't affect me, I will not intervene."
Also, on question #5, why does it matter?
I ask you these followup questions not because I'm trying to be argumentative, but because I am genuinely interested in how you arrive at your moral beliefs without appealing to a standard higher than human opinion.
Question One: There is no intrinsic value in "being moral", as one infraction makes you immorral. I guess that means if you are counting on morality being the measuring stick, you must attain 100%
Question Two: God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe gets to decide. He made it - He gets to decide the rules.
Question Three: How big is the list? Two things. If you attain these two things, you will have fulfilled the law of God, which is what morality is. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." Do this and you will live. Fail to do this and you are guilty of sin, and need a savior.
Question Four: This is actually the same as question two. God made it - he establishes the rules. Man will always try to usurp his role and make the rules, but that doesn't change the reality.
Question Five: "Behold, your sins will find you out." Every sin must be paid for, because it incurs the wrath of God. Jesus took on himself the wrath of his father (God) and paid for my sins. Did he pay for yours?
@HisWorkInProgress - You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I said anyone should be left alone to follow their own ethics so long as their behavior doesn't impose on someone else's ability to do the same. Murdering someone, raping them, stealing from them etc imposes on their ability to live their life as they see fit.
I never said "anyone should be left alone to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't effect ME" which is what you turned it into, which was kind of shitty of you.
So far as question five, if someone hurts someone else it matters to me because I care about the welfare of others, and it matters to the person that got hurt. It matters. Where's the mystery?
@agnophilo - Hi Agnophilo,
Thanks for the clarifications.
On Question 4, your approach makes sense to me as long as the two ethics are in agreement. But in a particular situation if your ethic (or your society's ethic) directly conflicts with someone else's ethic (or another society's ethic), then do you submit to their ethic, or do you claim that yours is better? How do you decide morality conflicts?
For example, with the Holocaust, the German officials at the Nuremberg trials made the case that their actions were indeed the more moral and ethical actions (i.e. ridding the earth of evolutionarily 'lower' races). What makes your ethic (leave people alone unless they are hurting others) "morally better" than their ethic (clean up the world's gene pool)?
I don't think you ever directly stated whether you think that female circumcision, genocide, and cannibalism are wrong. I'd be curious to hear your answer to this. Then, if you do think that these things are "wrong", I think Larry is asking whether you would actually oppose these things, even if in other societies at particular times in history these things were considered morally "right".
In other words, if you think cannibalism is wrong (because of your moral basis "leave people alone unless they are hurting others"), and a particular native thinks cannibalism is right (because of his societal training), would you say that your view is "more right" or "more moral" than his view? Or would you say the two views are exactly equivalent and there's no way to say one view is better than the other?
On Question 5, I can see how it matters to you here in this life because you care about the person, and I can see how it matters to that person in this life because of their pain. But the question was asking about whether it matters after death. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
With esteem, Tim
1. A lot of people are unfaithful to their partners behind their back for example. I don't think that's right. Should these cheaters be called "moral people" in my perspective? I don't know but I wouldn't like if my partner was cheating on me.
2. A large group of people get to decide what's moral to them but usually a large group of people decide what is more based on whether or not it's beneficial as well. cannibalism is a good example that you mention in another question.
3. I don't know. Smoking in a car with children is about to become illegal in some states. I bet that's something a lot of people haven't though to put on their list of immorals.
4. No. If a group of people were allowed to practice cannibalism, my life would be on the line, and the life of other people that care about their lives and the families...
5. You got away with it. I don't believe in the after life.
@tim223 -
"Hi Agnophilo,
Thanks for the clarifications."
You're welcome, though I somewhat resent being asked if I think the actions of the nazis were moral.
"On
Question 4, your approach makes sense to me as long as the two ethics
are in agreement. But in a particular situation if your ethic (or your
society's ethic) directly conflicts with someone else's ethic (or
another society's ethic), then do you submit to their ethic, or do you
claim that yours is better? How do you decide morality conflicts?"
As someone once said, you have the right to swing your arms as much as you like, but just so far as the other man's face. You can do whatever you like, short of harming someone. And I can do whatever I like, short of harming someone. I don't think anyone but a total sociopath (or a fascistic puritan) would disagree with this ethic, and even they would disagree with it only hypocritically, as they would themselves desire all of the protections it would offer.
"For
example, with the Holocaust, the German officials at the Nuremberg
trials made the case that their actions were indeed the more moral and
ethical actions (i.e. ridding the earth of evolutionarily 'lower'
races). What makes your ethic (leave people alone unless they are
hurting others) "morally better" than their ethic (clean up the world's
gene pool)?"
Well for starters the basis of their ethic was utter horseshit. That isn't how evolution works, nor did it have anything to do with the understanding of biology at the time. In fact if you know anything about the theory you know it requires that there be tremendous amounts of diversity in every gene pool, the idea that some humans were as a group inferior or superior to other groups is evolutionarily impossible without speciation, and they knew even in darwin's day that there were not more than one species of humans.
That bullshit was the rationale for their actions, not the reason. The nazis distorted every fields of science, claiming they could prove someone's moral capacity by measuring the contours of the skull, and chiseling swastikas into thousand year old ruins then releasing film reels and news articles about how it was "discovered" that the reich was ancient, and stretched back into antiquity. So what makes me think this bullshit rationale for obscene military campaigns doesn't hold water? Even the nazis didn't believe it. They may have used it as an arugment in court but what other argument is there? I slipped, fell, and made a death camp?
"I don't think you ever directly stated whether
you think that female circumcision, genocide, and cannibalism are
wrong."
Cannibalism, while I find it disgusting, is only morally reprehensible if it harms someone. If someone ate my corpse after I was dead it would I'm sure bother my loved ones. But if it didn't, if they had no problem with it, then what's the harm? Genocide is of course wrong, and female circumcision is not so much wrong as stupid. It was a movement during the female sexual liberation movement because people thought it increased sexual stimulation, when it, like male circumcision, actually decreases it. But I think you're talking about female genital mutilation, not female circumcision, which is of course despicable.
"I'd be curious to hear your answer to this. Then, if you do
think that these things are "wrong", I think Larry is asking whether
you would actually oppose these things, even if in other societies at
particular times in history these things were considered morally
"right". "
The opinion of a society has no bearing on right or wrong except in altering how an action effects people emotionally or mentally. For instance going around creating cannibal clubs in this country would I'm sure unsettle many people, whereas it might be considered normal in another country. If I went up to a hindu person and asked if they wanted to go for cheeseburgers, that would obviously be lousy behavior, even though it is bad because of how it would effect that particular person, not because asking someone if they want to buy cheeseburgers is necessarily bad.
"In other words, if you think cannibalism is wrong
(because of your moral basis "leave people alone unless they are
hurting others"), and a particular native thinks cannibalism is right
(because of his societal training), would you say that your view is
"more right" or "more moral" than his view? Or would you say the two
views are exactly equivalent and there's no way to say one view is
better than the other?"
The basis of all morality is human nature. It is human nature to feel and dislike pain, it is human nature to fear death etc. Every action must be weighed individually. There is no "rule" in any religion that says giving your child a peanut butter sandwitch is good or bad. But if one person's child is deathly allergic to peanuts and the other person's child is not, doesn't that change things? That is because of the intrinsic qualities of peanuts and the intrinsic qualities qualities of each child. The reason morality has so much overlap is because human nature is generally uniform. But there are always exceptions. Even the bible says as much, for everything there is a season.
Morality is very complicated, and people who evaluate individual situations based on a set of criteria and continually refine those criteria through debate and discussion are going to have a much better "moral" impact on the world (whatever is right or wrong) than people who follow moral "rules" (whatever rules they follow) because life is vastly too complex to simply follow any set of ethics. It demands we use our minds as new, unique situations emerge. Again something the bible suggests, when it says to follow the spirit (reason behind?), not the letter of the law.
"On Question 5, I can see how it
matters to you here in this life because you care about the person, and
I can see how it matters to that person in this life because of their
pain. But the question was asking about whether it matters after
death. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this."
Why would it matter after death? Matter to whom? If someone murders someone it matters after the death of the victim because that person is probably dangerous. But after everyone involved is dead? Things don't just "matter" in a vacuum. They matter to people.
"With esteem, Tim"
Mark.
@agnophilo - Thanks for your reply, Mark.
On Question 4, you stated emphatically that you think the Nazis' stated reasons for their actions were not legitimate, and said that you don't even think the Nazis really believed those reasons themselves, deep down.
This is very interesting. As you know, the Bible says something along the same lines, in Romans 1 -
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
and from chapter 2:
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
In other words, people have some knowledge of God's truth and morality built-in, in their own consciences... but we tend to repress some aspects of this truth, because our hearts are evil... so eventually, we tend not to even feel guilt anymore.
The Nazis (and the genocidal tribes, cannibals, etc) have their own stated rationales, but as you say, upon more objective examination, it looks ugly. In the same way perhaps future generations will look back upon things that our society considers normal (abortion "choice", homosexual "marriage", etc) and will use the same words on them that you used toward the Nazis. "How could those 20th century westerners have been so utterly stupid and evil?" ...because truly, societal opinion does change. But God's truth and moral principles, revealed in the Bible, do not change. Many of the evils we now recognize (the South's chattel slavery, the genocides) are recognized as evil because of the unchanging and pure standards given in the Bible...
You wrote:
The basis of all morality is human nature. ...
The reason morality has so much overlap is because human nature is generally uniform. But there are always exceptions.
How, exactly, is "human nature" a basis for morality? Are you saying that "whatever comes naturally" to humans is "right"? I understand you to be saying, essentially, that since all cultures value things like "loving your neighbor", "valuing marriage", "taking care of the weak", etc, that these things are somehow "right".
But I think this is a case of what is called the "naturalistic fallacy" - that is, assuming that just because something "is" a certain way means that things "ought" to be that way.
For example, as you say, "there are always exceptions". There are always Hitlers, Stalins, Ghengis Kahns, etc. How could you use "human nature" to say that they are "wrong" in their violent ways? Wouldn't your own reasoning say that "if it comes naturally to them, then it must be right for them"? For a bit of humor, this link ( http://www.livescience.com/culture/081210-men-overspend.html ) illustrates this - would we say that overspending one's income and credit limit is "right" and "honorable" because it reflects "human nature" and "the way we've evolved to be"? :)
Thanks for your thoughts,
Tim
Hey Larry, haven't seen you around in a while...how are you doing?
1. Morality is an attitude. People are imperfect and an immoral act makes one immoral if one does not regret it.
2. There are cultural guidelines but the ultimate responsibity rests on the individual.
3. That is down to the individual.
4. It is not a question of permission. Everyone just does it. In passing, for an American to use Germans as an example of comitting genocide is laughable. American history is far worse because it was the norm. The Nazis were an aberration.
5. Everybody is immoral to one degree or the other. Whether anything happens one way or the other after death is total speculation.
Great questions. Very probing. And the unsaid conclusion is strong.
@pychen - Thanks Peter.
@agnophilo - Hi, good to talk with you again. Hope you don't mind me butting in.
[You apparently didn't read what I wrote.
I said anyone should be left alone to follow their own ethics so long
as their behavior doesn't impose on someone else's ability to do the
same. Murdering someone, raping them, stealing from them etc imposes
on their ability to live their life as they see fit.]
Why should some people be free to do what they want and the rapist is not? Oh the answer maybe harder than one may think. For to say that it would cause pain, then it you have the problem that some people like pain. And on the other side, if you stop the rapist, then you are preventing him from doing what he wants. On what basis do you do that?
[So far as question five, if someone hurts someone
else it matters to me because I care about the welfare of others, and
it matters to the person that got hurt. It matters. Where's the
mystery?]
It is nice that you care for the welfare of others, but why do you? Why should it matter if people get hurt? Let us say that there is a person who just goes around hurting people, is he wrong to do that? Sure, people don't like to get hurt, but why care about them? Why not hurt them?
Is there anything that you would hold to be a definite wrong? Anything you feel strongly about was what is right?
@Lovegrove - I take it that you don't think morality is objective?
@lalalandsucks4ever - Hi again.
["I don't believe in the after life."]
Why not?
[Should these cheaters be called "moral people" in my perspective? I don't know]
You really don't know?
[usually a large group of people decide what
is more based on whether or not it's beneficial as well. cannibalism is
a good example]
I don't think you are saying this but is almost sound like you are saying that, just as long as they share, you are okay with cannibalism. I found that funny, I hope you do too.
@pychen - The term morality covers a kaleidoscope of ethical considerations, so the answer is not as easy as first appears. To cause unnecessary pain and suffering merely for one's enjoymlent, is I would suggest always immoral. An example of immorality that stands over and above what any individual or culture considers right or wrong. A sexually promiscuous person may or may not be immoral according to the mores of the culture. A man who drinks and plays cards on a Sunday is never immoral per se, although it has got men killed (Calvin in Geneva).
An example is genocide. It is one would think , always immoral btu when is the perpetrator culpable and by how much? When savages such as Moses, Joshua or Genghis Khan carry ot genocide, are they as guilty as the "Christian" invaders of the New World both north and south? When the Mohawks massarce a colonial family, are they as guilty as the Europeans who wiped Mohawk villages out? Is a Viking as culoable as a present-day Dane? I would suggest not. According to one's lights, one should be judged.
It is like discussing God without defining the terms. There are as many different ideas of God and morality as there any people.
@Lovegrove - [To cause unnecessary pain and suffering merely for one's enjoymlent, is I would suggest always immoral.]
oh, why do you say that?
[A man who drinks and plays cards on a Sunday is never immoral per se, although it has got men killed (Calvin in Geneva).]
Are you saying that Calvin was killed for playing cards on Sunday? If you are talking about the "men" killed by Calvin, then please give their names and your sours that it was Calvin in Geneva who killed them.
So you think that genocide is wrong? Why?
* To cause unnecessary pain and suffering merely for one's enjoyment, is I would suggest always immoral.] oh, why do you say that?
I say that because I've not a psychopath.
* [A man who drinks and plays cards on a Sunday is never immoral per se, although it has got men killed (Calvin in Geneva).]Are
you saying that Calvin was killed for playing cards on Sunday? If you
are talking about the "men" killed by Calvin, then please give their
names and your sours that it was Calvin in Geneva who killed them.
a) You seem to show a lack of basic knowledge as to Calvin's regime in Geneva.
b) don't be a adolescent smart alec or I'll tell your mummy.
* So you think that genocide is wrong? Why?
Is it wrong to rape your momma? Why?
@Lovegrove -
So you think that genocide is wrong.
But what I was getting at is that you did not explain on what basis are you coming to that conclusion? Is it just what you feel or on what other basis are you saying that genocide is wrong?
I do happen to know about the history on Calvin, and I did not read anything about Calvin killing people for playing cards. If you would provide the reference. that would be great.
My morality is innate, as it is in any sane person. This is given different expression according to culture and may at time apper on conflict with other cultures but essentially, it remains the same.
Calvin was the capo de capo of Geneva, and under his rule, people were executed for many things. Playing cards I cannot find at this time, but adultery, perceived heresy and plotting against the council were capital crimes and people suffered the ultimate for all three. I doubt if Calvin dirtied his own hands but he held responsibity, just like Adolph in Berlin, far from the killing grounds,
I dismiss Calvin for his acts and they mar his philosophy. I don't believe Calvin was a man of God because of his acts. I realize that reflects my subjective view of God, which is all that is available to me.
1. 100%. Morality is doing your best to do right in every situation -- having first evaluated why you hold the morals you hold. (And I'd like to posit that morality lies somewhere between libertarianism and Objectivism).
2. I do.
3. 3^pi x r
4. No. (Although I see nothing wrong with cannabalizing already dead people...it's economical...although possibly health-hazardous) There's a difference between feeling entitled to tell a people how to live and demanding that people not infringe upon others' right to exist without harmful interference -- which is the only right people have.
5. Life after death is improbable.
-Katie
@syntax_of_lenses - 1. 100%. Morality is doing your best to do
right in every situation -- having first evaluated why you hold the
morals you hold. (And I'd like to posit that morality lies somewhere
between libertarianism and Objectivism).
So, are you saying that nobody is moral? Who can be moral 100% of the time?
2. I do.
So, you're saying that absolute morality does not exist but is only relative to what each person gets to decide what's moral. What if someone thinks it's ok to rape you?
4. There's a difference between feeling
entitled to tell a people how to live and demanding that people not
infringe upon others' right to exist without harmful interference --
which is the only right people have.
That seems contradictory to your #2 reply. If you get to decide what's moral, then why can't a society decide what's moral?
5. Life after death is improbable.
So that means that the child molester got away without being punished.
@LSP1 -
1. The person who tries.
2. No, that was me fucking around.
4. See above.
5. yeah, pretty much.