Explain to me why the following things are wrong

[Norsefire]

I think what Kadark is saying is that without God, who can say what is right and wrong? If man is allowed to choose his own morality, that morality can be done in any way that suits man. This can lead to many problems, conflicting moralities, and an overall lack of sense of right and wrong.

i.e, without God, who judges what is "right" and "wrong"?

 

[madanthonywayne]

I agree, however if a mother must steal to feed her children, I can't say I would blame her.

Of course not. As I said, it's easy to imagine circumstances in which it's perfectly understandable. But one person's need, no matter how great, doesn't give them the right to take whatever they want from someone else.

 

[Norsefire]

Of course not. As I said, it's easy to imagine circumstances in which it's perfectly understandable. But one person's need, no matter how great, doesn't give them the right to take whatever they want from someone else.

Yes, therefore I'd suggest to the mother to simply ask. If she asked me and proved to me that she needed it, I'd give. Ah well.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

I think the value of religion in regards to morality is objectivity. Religion presents an objective universe, and thus "God" decides what is right and wrong. Without objectivity, "right" and "wrong" are decided by human beings, and the problem is, one can most definitely consider all of the things I have listed right and nobody can stop them.

You're confusing religion with God. Religion is not objective. Every religion is the centre of its own subjective universe, and its followers are the "chosen people".

As for God, there's another problem. If God hands down moral laws, we may ask: why does he say some things are wrong? Is it an arbitrary choice of God's, or does God say things are wrong because they are wrong independent of God? If it's arbitrary, then that seems a poor basis for a moral system. But if some things are wrong independent of God, then morality isn't founded on God.

Then that person would be a sociopath.

That doesn't answer my question

Yes it does. A sociopath has no morals; he recognises no intrinsic value in other human beings. For the sociopath, there is no right and wrong; just what's good or bad for him. Pure self interest.

think what Kadark is saying is that without God, who can say what is right and wrong? If man is allowed to choose his own morality, that morality can be done in any way that suits man. This can lead to many problems, conflicting moralities, and an overall lack of sense of right and wrong.

It's no more arbitrary than having some single being dictating morality on a whim, is it?

i.e, without God, who judges what is "right" and "wrong"?

With God, who judges? Human beings, either way.


Kadark:

Morality has existed for as long as religion has. Back before religion, there wasn't much that separated us from the animals.

Correlation does not prove causation.

All of those "enlightenment philosophers" had a religious upbringing, and lived in a society dominated and defined by religious principles and values, as did the generations before them. If they have accomplished anything, it's due to their core values and beliefs stemming from religion.

But many of them explicitly rejected religion.

4. The idea that people don't know what is right and wrong unless some religious figure tells them is nonsense.

History begs to differ. We can argue until we're blue in the face about this one, or we can simply refer to ample historical examples. Without religion, there are too many conflicting ideas on morality for a sustainable society to exist.

You say there are ample historical examples, yet you fail to quote even one.

 

[Read-Only]

I never had that idea. I'm speaking from your typical liberal point of view, and proving that it's incorrect and stupid.

I don't think I'd go as far as to call it typical, but it's most certainly incorrect and dumb.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

I never had that idea. I'm speaking from your typical liberal point of view, and proving that it's incorrect and stupid.



I agree, however if a mother must steal to feed her children, I can't say I would blame her.

I would blame her. You never have to do anything. I would say that her predicament is terrible if things have gotten so bad for her that she would resort to stealing. Its a sad story, but its still wrong and she should still suffer the consequences unless the person she stole from feels like taking pity upon her and letting it go.

 

[Asguard]

james i hate to disagree with you but nothing is intrinsic to a person. It maybe intrinsic to a CULTURE but no one is born knowing that "killing is wrong", they are EDUCATED into it.

If they were abandoned and grew up with wolfs they wouldnt belive that killing other humans was wrong because the contract would be defence of the pack

 

[madanthonywayne]

james i hate to disagree with you but nothing is intrinsic to a person. It maybe intrinsic to a CULTURE but no one is born knowing that "killing is wrong", they are EDUCATED into it.

If they were abandoned and grew up with wolfs they wouldnt belive that killing other humans was wrong because the contract would be defence of the pack

Hmm. That's a tough one. I think I'll have to side with James. I think humans do have an innate sense of right and wrong. Who hasn't seen a 2 year old crying about something "not being fair". Who teaches him that?

I'll agree with you that our natural inclinations can be overcome by education/culture. But I do think certain things just seem wrong to all humans.

 

[Simon Anders]

We do. We arrest people who think it is OK to murder and rape people.

Which 'we' does this?

 

[Simon Anders]

I think what Kadark is saying is that without God, who can say what is right and wrong? If man is allowed to choose his own morality, that morality can be done in any way that suits man. This can lead to many problems, conflicting moralities, and an overall lack of sense of right and wrong.

i.e, without God, who judges what is "right" and "wrong"?

People then tend to choose Gods that tell that it is ok to be the way the ones in power are. Having a God merely allows people to claim that objectively they are being moral. The Inquisition, various religious wars, all sorts of abuse of children, stoning women to death and so on have all been justified by religion. Men find a way to use their gods to fit their own violence. Religion is not the key issue here.

 

[Enmos]

Murder
Rape
Stealing
Torture
Kidnapping
Genocide

And anything else of the nature that, today, is considered "wrong".

Please explain to me why it is wrong, with something other than "well, it's wrong". And don't say "because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you" or "because you are killing people"

Why are those things wrong?

I do have an actual motive for this thread other than the question, something that am trying to see by studying your responses. However, I first want to see what you come up with.

Do you like society ? Do you like the things you mention to be done to you or your family ?

 

[Enmos]

Norsefire,

Nobody can explain to you why these things are considered, by and large, to be "wrong". In fact, there are varying opinions as to how severe the aforementioned practices are, and I'm sure many people have exceptions for them, too. People may consider murder to be "wrong", but there are always exceptions: self-defense; warfare; capital punishment; etc. Stealing is the same: is it "wrong" to steal if you have no other way to feed your family? The only reason these practices are universally considered "wrong" is because we have laws in place dictating so. Furthermore, those laws are based on a given society's standards of morality, which itself is based on religion. Essentially, unless you have religion telling you what is and isn't "wrong", there is no way of concluding which practices are permissible, and which practices are wrong. Left to themselves, people will do as they please, meaning some will engage in these practices because they won't think it's "wrong" (regardless of what the victim believes).


Kadark

I could explain why they are wrong from an evolutionary viewpoint.. but it almost seems to obvious to even bring it up..

 

[Simon Anders]

I disagree. Theft is always wrong. It's easy to imagine circumstances in which it is understandable, but that still doesn't make it right.

It depends how you define theft. Conservatives have often viewed certain kinds of taxation as theft. In the sharecropper post Civil War south relationships between the landowners and the blacks (and many poor whites also) were in effect relationships of theft. The poor did not have the option to live elsewhere and had to accept theft of their energy, work, talent which wént into the pockets of the landlords.

Often those with power define theft differently from what each of us would consider moral. They see a right to take - and we want to call it theft - and attempts to balance this - withholding taxes, lying about harvest totals - are considered theft by those in power.

In my opinion much theft is legal and I tried to present this party neutral to give it the best chance of being received.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



You're confusing religion with God. Religion is not objective. Every religion is the centre of its own subjective universe, and its followers are the "chosen people".

The role that "God" plays within religion is a judge, at least, that's one of the roles.

The problem is, if we Humans judge ourselves, we can judge ourselves in any way we see fit.

s for God, there's another problem. If God hands down moral laws, we may ask: why does he say some things are wrong? Is it an arbitrary choice of God's, or does God say things are wrong because they are wrong independent of God? If it's arbitrary, then that seems a poor basis for a moral system. But if some things are wrong independent of God, then morality isn't founded on God.

However it is enforced by "God". It is established by "God" within religion. If we truly recognize it as being established by man, it can be twisted by man. Therefore murder can be right, if man sees it as such.

Yes it does. A sociopath has no morals; he recognises no intrinsic value in other human beings. For the sociopath, there is no right and wrong; just what's good or bad for him. Pure self interest.

And why is that wrong? Why is self interest at the cost of other's lives wrong?

With God, who judges? Human beings, either way.

And therefore I can judge that murder is right. Of course I don't, but I could.

Hmm. That's a tough one. I think I'll have to side with James. I think humans do have an innate sense of right and wrong. Who hasn't seen a 2 year old crying about something "not being fair". Who teaches him that?

I'll agree with you that our natural inclinations can be overcome by education/culture. But I do think certain things just seem wrong to all humans.

Perhaps. However nonetheless to some people murder can be right. Who can tell them they are wrong?

Which 'we' does this?

Society

People then tend to choose Gods that tell that it is ok to be the way the ones in power are. Having a God merely allows people to claim that objectively they are being moral. The Inquisition, various religious wars, all sorts of abuse of children, stoning women to death and so on have all been justified by religion. Men find a way to use their gods to fit their own violence. Religion is not the key issue here.

The abuse of religion. However many people who do as you say ignore the fundamentals of their own religion, and are, thus, hypocrites. For instance, Christ taught to love they enemy, right? Therefore the Crusaders in their brutality were hypocrites. I think religion starts out with good intentions, but it ultimately gets abused and used, like all things.

Do you like society ? Do you like the things you mention to be done to you or your family ?

No. However, if I wished to do these things, who can call me wrong?

 

[Enmos]

No. However, if I wished to do these things, who can call me wrong?

No what ? You don't like society ?

 

[Norsefire]

No what ? You don't like society ?

I meant, no I do not want these things to happen to my family. However, again, if I wished to do them, who could call me wrong?

 

[Enmos]

I meant, no I do not want these things to happen to my family. However, again, if I wished to do them, who could call me wrong?

Society. Play by the rules.

 

[Norsefire]

Society. Play by the rules.

Who gives them the right to tell me I'm wrong?

 

[Enmos]

Who gives them the right to tell me I'm wrong?

You do, if you want to be a part of society.

 

[Norsefire]

You do, if you want to be a part of society.

How do I? What if I think the righteous thing to do is to be a part of society while murdering them and causing them harm? And what if I thought that by them living in society, they are agreeing with me?