Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Who are more moral? Men or women?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
As to gullible, religion is full of belief in the supernatural. Fantasy, miracles and magic. Angels and demons and cute little cherubs. Stupider and stupider. Christ.
Religions are sold to the gullible men around them. This shows the insecurity of men.
All religions start the same way.
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/59507/detail/
Regards
DL
Why don't you provide some refuting facts rather than mere proclamation?
So women are "fighting for their 'human' rights" by being prostitutes?! Now tell me again about what does not make sense.
Really?! So women undervalue themselves to keep tabs on men?! Seems the ends doesn't justify the means, especially to the extreme of prostitution.
Really? South Park is your reference? Here's a better one:
"A new analysis of survey data finds women pray more often then men, are more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men in a variety of other ways." http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html
So not only do women take their moral cues from men, they are also more susceptible to being religious. This makes perfect sense seeing as religion is generally suited to followers.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Women do learn quite a bit from men. Mostly what not to do to remain moral.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
Thanks for making my point.
@Greatest --
Again, since morality is an almost entirely subjective value it is possible that people and groups with widely varying behaviors and actions could both be considered moral or immoral depending on your point of view and the circumstances. The "who is more moral?" question is one that smacks of phishing for a specific answer in order to smack it down, it smells of trolling for an easy win to me.
To put it simply, it is impossible for any person or people to decry immorality in another group without first clarifying the starting point(and thus, the ending point) of where they're getting their morality from. And that's not even taking into account the problem of circumstance nor the difference between ethics and morality. In short, answering such questions is something that is yet beyond our ken, at least until we develop some sort of moral system which could be morally applied to everyone(and we're not there yet, we still have to choose between evils).
Again, since morality is an almost entirely subjective value it is possible that people and groups with widely varying behaviors and actions could both be considered moral or immoral depending on your point of view and the circumstances. The "who is more moral?" question is one that smacks of phishing for a specific answer in order to smack it down, it smells of trolling for an easy win to me.
To put it simply, it is impossible for any person or people to decry immorality in another group without first clarifying the starting point(and thus, the ending point) of where they're getting their morality from. And that's not even taking into account the problem of circumstance nor the difference between ethics and morality. In short, answering such questions is something that is yet beyond our ken, at least until we develop some sort of moral system which could be morally applied to everyone(and we're not there yet, we still have to choose between evils).
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Judgment calls are done continuously and we do judge the morals of others.
If you do not feel you have the moral base to judge then of course, do not.
Regards
DL
If you do not feel you have the moral base to judge then of course, do not.
Regards
DL
@Greatest --
Of course I judge their morals(I am human after all), however I do so from my moral perspective which, just like their moral perspective, is subjective. That I am able to admit that not only allows me to look at things hopefully from their perspective but also grants me a better way to criticize any ethical lapses I might observe. There may, indeed, come a day where we do have something resembling an objective morality, but I think that day is quite far off and not getting that much closer(especially not with theists claiming absolute moralities).
Of course I judge their morals(I am human after all), however I do so from my moral perspective which, just like their moral perspective, is subjective. That I am able to admit that not only allows me to look at things hopefully from their perspective but also grants me a better way to criticize any ethical lapses I might observe. There may, indeed, come a day where we do have something resembling an objective morality, but I think that day is quite far off and not getting that much closer(especially not with theists claiming absolute moralities).
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
We already have something close to objective morality.
It is driven out of us by those in the environment.
Evil people are created by man, not by nature.
We are born leaning towards good.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/
We just cannot quite articulate it yet.
Regards
DL
HectorDecimal
Registered Senior Member
Man was destined to be a control freak. Woman was destined to be a slut. Sluts make babies rampantly for control freaks to crush. If the control freak runs out of crushable babies, he demands the slut makes more or be crushed, thus all is a self-destructive symbiosis.
Both are equally immoral.
Both are equally immoral.
@Greatest --
Sloppy terminology. It would be more accurate that we are born leaning towards being cooperative, as all life is "born" being geared for survival. Cooperation was in our genes long before we became homo sapiens sapiens as it worked well for survival. What worked well for survival eventually became known as "good". Evil could just as easily be deemed anything that worked against the survival of that "cultural organism".
Sloppy terminology. It would be more accurate that we are born leaning towards being cooperative, as all life is "born" being geared for survival. Cooperation was in our genes long before we became homo sapiens sapiens as it worked well for survival. What worked well for survival eventually became known as "good". Evil could just as easily be deemed anything that worked against the survival of that "cultural organism".
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Semantics. Grow up.
It is said that those who know more than one language are harder to understand. I know three and English was not my first language.
Regards
DL
@Greatest --
Actually it's not semantics because being born "good"(a subjective term) and being born with a tendency towards cooperation are two vastly different things which may(or may not) have the same outcome. One is a subjective interpretation of human instinct and the other is a statement about human physiology.
Engaging in sloppy terminology, while not a reason to cut off discourse, is simply begging for people to misinterpret and straw man your statement. And since we're talking about science now, specifically biology, accuracy in statements made is vital and no longer a game that can be played.
So I was not bashing your choice of words because I don't like it but because it's an inaccurate description based on a concept(good and evil) which is by definition subjective. Correcting such sloppy terminology is not a comment on your language skills but on your argument.
Actually it's not semantics because being born "good"(a subjective term) and being born with a tendency towards cooperation are two vastly different things which may(or may not) have the same outcome. One is a subjective interpretation of human instinct and the other is a statement about human physiology.
Engaging in sloppy terminology, while not a reason to cut off discourse, is simply begging for people to misinterpret and straw man your statement. And since we're talking about science now, specifically biology, accuracy in statements made is vital and no longer a game that can be played.
So I was not bashing your choice of words because I don't like it but because it's an inaccurate description based on a concept(good and evil) which is by definition subjective. Correcting such sloppy terminology is not a comment on your language skills but on your argument.
Babies are born like a sponge, they quickly absorb what they are being taught and treated like and carry those memories until they die.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
True but the sponge seems to be born with some sense of morality.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/
Regards
DL
From your link:
Just what exactly is a "good" animal and a "bad" animal, especially to a baby who doesn't even know what animals are or what they do.:shrug:
This "study" sure seems very unscientific to say the least to determine what "morals" a baby has or doesn't have at 6 months old.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
From your link:
Just what exactly is a "good" animal and a "bad" animal, especially to a baby who doesn't even know what animals are or what they do.:shrug:
This "study" sure seems very unscientific to say the least to determine what "morals" a baby has or doesn't have at 6 months old.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.
Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, we should see that what we have, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.
That clip shows that even babies instinctively "know" that it is safer to their survival to cooperate/do good, than to compete/do evil.
This I have seen expressed by my own children, who when young, did not care what color or sex their friends were. Their basic instincts were just telling them to get the numbers as high as possible. Survival is best served that way.
Regards
DL
That is very untrue because competition can benefit humans in many ways IF it is done with good intentions. The problem is when those intentions become bad ones and people are hurt in some way, then it is bad. So it is up to each of us to either want to compete for the benefits it will garner or for the problems it can cause. There is no "victim" in a running contest as just one example of what I am saying. If 50 people run they are competing against a clock to see how fast they can be, not to try to hurt anyone what so ever.