ChatterBank2 mins ago
Right And Wrong
97 Answers
God is my ulitmate authority on right and wrong, but if you don't believe in God, from where does moral authority originate?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
laughing my b******s of at waldo.Clanad has religious beliefs therefore logic is alian to her Theland, i find something disturbing about people who need "God" to tell them what is right or wrong. Morality (like everything else in life) has evolved over the years as a means of survival.
Now listen closely Theland , because it gets a bit tedious to have to keep repeating oneself. As long as people object to being murdered, then murder will always be morraly reprehensibe.As long as women object to being raped,then rape will always be morraly reprehensible.As long as people object to having their possesions taken from them, then stealing will always be morraly reprehensible. If you need the bible or (or god) to tell you what is right or wrong then I would seriously have to question YOUR morrals.
Now listen closely Theland , because it gets a bit tedious to have to keep repeating oneself. As long as people object to being murdered, then murder will always be morraly reprehensibe.As long as women object to being raped,then rape will always be morraly reprehensible.As long as people object to having their possesions taken from them, then stealing will always be morraly reprehensible. If you need the bible or (or god) to tell you what is right or wrong then I would seriously have to question YOUR morrals.
My morals were imposed on me from childhood, by various authorities, parents, school, neighbourhood, police etc.
Call it "custom and practice" if you like but I just thought that way, (this is right and that is wrong) without questioning it.
But, deep inside me, was always this feeling that some things were right, and others wrong.
However, as parental, school and societies authority has dwindled, so there has been an increase in the number of kids who have no authority in their lives, and behave so appallingly so often.
It's amazing that the problem is not even more widespread than it actually is. I can only venture that what keeps those other kids on the straight and narrow, is the innate feeling within, that I believe comes from God, but others believe evolved, or some other explanation.
Call it "custom and practice" if you like but I just thought that way, (this is right and that is wrong) without questioning it.
But, deep inside me, was always this feeling that some things were right, and others wrong.
However, as parental, school and societies authority has dwindled, so there has been an increase in the number of kids who have no authority in their lives, and behave so appallingly so often.
It's amazing that the problem is not even more widespread than it actually is. I can only venture that what keeps those other kids on the straight and narrow, is the innate feeling within, that I believe comes from God, but others believe evolved, or some other explanation.
If a child is forced to give up his/her chair, or lose their place in a queue, or miss out on something that they were expecting, they automatically cry out, "It's not fair!" So the embedded knowledge of right and wrong is there in virtually everybody.
If a person questions the moral norms that most of us live by, do we just have to say, that this is right because "I say so", to which that person can reply, "Who are you to say so?"
There is a vacuum of authority here, whereas a belief in a supreme being, God, fills that vacuum and to me at least, makes more sense.
If a person questions the moral norms that most of us live by, do we just have to say, that this is right because "I say so", to which that person can reply, "Who are you to say so?"
There is a vacuum of authority here, whereas a belief in a supreme being, God, fills that vacuum and to me at least, makes more sense.
"If a child is forced to give up his/her chair, or lose their place in a queue, or miss out on something that they were expecting, they automatically cry out, "It's not fair!" So the embedded knowledge of right and wrong is there in virtually everybody. "
Rubbish. Children shout out that it's not fair because they have lost out and children are fundamentally selfish until they get old enough to learn co-operation is a safer and more productive way to be. The same child who cries 'unfair' when s/he loses the chair does not recognise unfairness when they are the one who has taken the chair at another's expense. These are learned concepts, not innate. Are you suggesting a feral child would have an understanding of right and wrong?
"If a person questions the moral norms that most of us live by, do we just have to say, that this is right because "I say so", to which that person can reply, "Who are you to say so?""
And quite rightly. It is by questionning that we develop understanding.
"There is a vacuum of authority here, whereas a belief in a supreme being, God, fills that vacuum and to me at least, makes more sense."
Well, to me, this is just pushing 'I told you so' on to a third party.
Are you claiming that when God is invoked as the ultimate power, no one has ever said the equivalent of, 'and who are *you* to say so?' That is what atheists and people who believe in different religions do all the time. Just because *you* believe God is the ultimate force, it certainly doesn't stop people disagreeing and never has.
Rubbish. Children shout out that it's not fair because they have lost out and children are fundamentally selfish until they get old enough to learn co-operation is a safer and more productive way to be. The same child who cries 'unfair' when s/he loses the chair does not recognise unfairness when they are the one who has taken the chair at another's expense. These are learned concepts, not innate. Are you suggesting a feral child would have an understanding of right and wrong?
"If a person questions the moral norms that most of us live by, do we just have to say, that this is right because "I say so", to which that person can reply, "Who are you to say so?""
And quite rightly. It is by questionning that we develop understanding.
"There is a vacuum of authority here, whereas a belief in a supreme being, God, fills that vacuum and to me at least, makes more sense."
Well, to me, this is just pushing 'I told you so' on to a third party.
Are you claiming that when God is invoked as the ultimate power, no one has ever said the equivalent of, 'and who are *you* to say so?' That is what atheists and people who believe in different religions do all the time. Just because *you* believe God is the ultimate force, it certainly doesn't stop people disagreeing and never has.
What I am also saying, is that without an exterior ultimate authority, we are left to make up our own rules. That is fine as long as we all agree on them.
However, when we do not agree, then we have the debate over things like abortion and euthenasia.
It makes more evolutionary sense and is more convenient economically, for us to be less caring about the vulnerable in our society, but an outside source of authority puts greater value on life.
However, when we do not agree, then we have the debate over things like abortion and euthenasia.
It makes more evolutionary sense and is more convenient economically, for us to be less caring about the vulnerable in our society, but an outside source of authority puts greater value on life.
You can't claim logic alone as a moral basis.
You have to have a principle to relate that to.
That might be for example to allow people the maximum personal freedom providing it doesn't interfere with anybody else's freedom.
It is quite common I find for people with a religious background to find it hard to understand how atheists or agnostics can have a moral basis totally seperate from a concept of God.
They often seem to think that without a belief in devine punishment or reward people will act totally selfishly.
There have of course been a great history of very ethical atheists or agnostics like Einstein or Bertrund Russell.
Usually moral authority derives from identification with fellow individuals such as yourself and with their suffering.
I'm a bit rusty on my middle-eastern religions but in the parable of the good samaritan - doesn't Jesus suggest that someone who does not believe in God (at least in the God of Israel) is capable of an altruistic act?
Doesn't that suggest that to Jesus at least, moral action is possible without God's "moral authority"?
You have to have a principle to relate that to.
That might be for example to allow people the maximum personal freedom providing it doesn't interfere with anybody else's freedom.
It is quite common I find for people with a religious background to find it hard to understand how atheists or agnostics can have a moral basis totally seperate from a concept of God.
They often seem to think that without a belief in devine punishment or reward people will act totally selfishly.
There have of course been a great history of very ethical atheists or agnostics like Einstein or Bertrund Russell.
Usually moral authority derives from identification with fellow individuals such as yourself and with their suffering.
I'm a bit rusty on my middle-eastern religions but in the parable of the good samaritan - doesn't Jesus suggest that someone who does not believe in God (at least in the God of Israel) is capable of an altruistic act?
Doesn't that suggest that to Jesus at least, moral action is possible without God's "moral authority"?
This is the most fundamental basis of ethics.
It unites almost all religious and non religous concepts of ethics.
Putting it into practice becomes notoriously difficult.
Is it "Right" to kill 5 people in order to save 6?
How do animals fit this equation? Can I torture an animal to save a thousand people? what about an insect?
If I don't give all my available income to charity am I responsible for the deaths of people who might have otherwise been saved?
I'd suggest moral principles are a lot harder than many specific examples.
It unites almost all religious and non religous concepts of ethics.
Putting it into practice becomes notoriously difficult.
Is it "Right" to kill 5 people in order to save 6?
How do animals fit this equation? Can I torture an animal to save a thousand people? what about an insect?
If I don't give all my available income to charity am I responsible for the deaths of people who might have otherwise been saved?
I'd suggest moral principles are a lot harder than many specific examples.
Also, Theland, following on from Llamatron, what happens when your God has no guidance on a subject? I have often heard religious people floundering when asked for comments on modern matters of ethics and morals because their Bible/Koran/list of rules or whatever doesn't cover them.
Don't you ever feel a wimp when realising that you cannot, like the rest of us, use your own conscience, the built-in sense of right and wrong that we all have, but have to hang around waiting for orders from some supernatural being for whose existence there is not a scintilla of evidence? I would find that a humiliating way to live.
Don't you ever feel a wimp when realising that you cannot, like the rest of us, use your own conscience, the built-in sense of right and wrong that we all have, but have to hang around waiting for orders from some supernatural being for whose existence there is not a scintilla of evidence? I would find that a humiliating way to live.
Oh, sorry, Waldo... I must have missed the fact that the original post was addressed solely to you. But since we're in it, what's "lazy and wrong" about my observation? While you're at it, perhaps you could explain whose view point of right or wrong gets to prevail if there's a disagreement? The guy with the biggest stick? Logic tells me that's what happens when the determination of right or wrong is individually decideable.
Actually, by the way, I have no interest in your choice of bands, but if someone does disagree with you, who becomes the arbiter?
Fact is, it's a simple matter to show that almost all codices of law have, as their foundational principles, religous teachings in use prior to the establishment of the law itself. This includes English Common Law, which became the basis for nearly all law in the western world.
While I agree in principal (I'll try not make a habit of it) with most of what JTP states regarding law requiring a "moral principle" from which the law descends, I'm forced to ask what is the "moral principle" to which atheists (or agnostics) adhere. What is it's foundation? Does it not equate or parallell the religious teachings prevalent in his/her surroundings? This applies to wizard69's observation since, in many cultures, rape, for example is permitted and not seen as a crime, since the personhood (woman) against which it's perpetrated is property only, so any such crime is against the owner of the property, not the woman. Where does the "sense of right or wrong we all have", come from? Evolutionary? Where is the evidence for that genetic mutation helping the species to survive?
Actually, by the way, I have no interest in your choice of bands, but if someone does disagree with you, who becomes the arbiter?
Fact is, it's a simple matter to show that almost all codices of law have, as their foundational principles, religous teachings in use prior to the establishment of the law itself. This includes English Common Law, which became the basis for nearly all law in the western world.
While I agree in principal (I'll try not make a habit of it) with most of what JTP states regarding law requiring a "moral principle" from which the law descends, I'm forced to ask what is the "moral principle" to which atheists (or agnostics) adhere. What is it's foundation? Does it not equate or parallell the religious teachings prevalent in his/her surroundings? This applies to wizard69's observation since, in many cultures, rape, for example is permitted and not seen as a crime, since the personhood (woman) against which it's perpetrated is property only, so any such crime is against the owner of the property, not the woman. Where does the "sense of right or wrong we all have", come from? Evolutionary? Where is the evidence for that genetic mutation helping the species to survive?
If moral authority comes from God, it begs the question, whose God.Theland would have it that it was the God of the bible,because thats his belief.Obviously muslims/hindus etc would have a different take on that.
Following on from Llamatrons post and the drowning of heathens , would Theland have any objections to stoning children to death or women that dont bleed on their wedding night.Would he feel it morraly right to own slaves or sell his daughters into slavery.Does he feel it is just to tear a group of children to pieces for calling someone "baldhead".All this is bible based morality but ignored nowadays because we have grown more civilised.
Those people who bang on about how much better the world would be if we returned to religious values need to remember that there was a time when the world was ruled by such.It was called the dark ages.
Following on from Llamatrons post and the drowning of heathens , would Theland have any objections to stoning children to death or women that dont bleed on their wedding night.Would he feel it morraly right to own slaves or sell his daughters into slavery.Does he feel it is just to tear a group of children to pieces for calling someone "baldhead".All this is bible based morality but ignored nowadays because we have grown more civilised.
Those people who bang on about how much better the world would be if we returned to religious values need to remember that there was a time when the world was ruled by such.It was called the dark ages.
-- answer removed --
"If moral authority comes from God, it begs the question, whose God."
The answer is all gods because they are alll the same.
I'm a big fan of the lyrics of Sympathy for the Devil by The Rolling Stones.
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I think it is right to have a god but i believe that he/ she/ it was created by us.
We know what is right and wrong because it is essentially what we want. It is only natural to want to communicatate that, it is genius to use a god as a symbol of our good intentions because it takes hard work and teaching to be a good person.
The answer is all gods because they are alll the same.
I'm a big fan of the lyrics of Sympathy for the Devil by The Rolling Stones.
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I think it is right to have a god but i believe that he/ she/ it was created by us.
We know what is right and wrong because it is essentially what we want. It is only natural to want to communicatate that, it is genius to use a god as a symbol of our good intentions because it takes hard work and teaching to be a good person.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Charging Order On Leasehold Flat
Law24 mins ago
