Morals v. Religion

RedSquirrel456 · Post by **RedSquirrel456** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:15 am

I'd just like to know how long you'd all last submitting these kinds of arguments about "ambiguous moral authority" to the Greeks or the Goths when the Roman Empire was going around ruthlessly conquering everybody to impress their society on other people to bend them to their will.

My opinion?

In an Earthly sense, the guy with the sword wins over the guy who doesn't, especially if the guy without one is no longer living. As Sarge said in Red Vs. Blue: "Hand to hand combat affirms that we are all equal as men! ...Except, I am now a little more equal because I am alive and you are now dead." Whether you're fighting for freedom or opression, you want to win, you better get ready to kill somebody, and not just in the literal sense. There have never been particularly long, easy, laid back, tolerant, beneficial periods of peaceful co-existence between different cultures, and there never will. It's in human nature to know you alone are right, because one thing we cannot stand is somebody else telling us what to do with our lives. It goes all the way back to different tribes squabbling over a buffalo carcass. My point is, this is a moot point to argue.

From my Christian point of view:

I don't like arguing with a guy that can obliterate my existence with a wink and a nudge. Generally that's not accepted as a smar thing to do. God is real, and if you want to argue with Him, don't take it to me... if there's one thing I've learned, it's that I as a lone force am incapable of changing anyone's mind. I can't reach into a guy's brain and twist his thoughts. Go look for God, and when you find Him, go find a quick way to die and then see what happens when you raise your little fist.

Finally, to address the actual topic of this thread:

Without religion and a defining standard I'd give the human race about seventeen minutes to devolve into its regular "I'm right, so I'm gonna go blow this guy's face off" routine. You want pure moral authority?

If it keeps you from living, it's likely a bad thing. Take that literally to get down to the bare bones.

JakeWasHere · Post by **JakeWasHere** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:12 pm

Of course, there's always that old NON SEQUITUR strip with the two generals being the last guys left alive on a sea of dead bodies. They've just finished dueling, and the loser says, "Okay, okay, I admit it: You were right. God is on YOUR side."

Bengaley · Post by **Bengaley** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:52 am

Personally, I think we're near the point when we don't need a religion to know what we think is right, and what we think is wrong. I certainly don't - my religious beliefs arose from what I think is right and wrong, not vice-versa.

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:37 am

maxgoof wrote:Well, hang on...

Stealing, lying, and rape are a part of a natural moral code?

So, when a pack of hyenas steals a lioness's kill there will be a price to pay?

When a Viceroy Butterfly lies about it's species by looking exactly like a Monarch Butterfly that most insectivores fine distasteful, it is actually doing itself a disfavor?

And don't get me started on rape in the natural world...

You're assuming that animals are moral actors and that's a very dangerous assumption to make in the real world. This way lies "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and the inability to decide whether a human or a dog get saved if you had to choose just one (see Ingrid Newkirk).

Ultimately I think that you're making a good point. You're just ruining it by your choice of examples.

Mjolnir · Post by **Mjolnir** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:48 am

TMLutas wrote:... the inability to decide whether a human or a dog get saved if you had to choose just one (see Ingrid Newkirk).

Yeah, except for the fact that there are many examples where I'd save the dog instead of the person.

- Mjolnir

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:07 am

EdBecerra wrote:
Narnian wrote:
Kerry Skydancer wrote:In practice, that's exactly right. The morality of a culture depends on its collective agreement to behave in conformity with a set of rules.

The -origin- of those rules may be legislative, religion-based, philosophy-based, or simply pragmatism that has grown up over the years as to what works. The US and the Roman Empire are a combination of the first two; Islamic culture is the 2nd; ancient China was the third; many tribal cultures are the last.
So if a society says it is OK to kill children who do not measure up to the societies standards (e.g. they are crippled in some fashion menatally or physically, or maybe they have red hair) then that is a valid moral position since a majority of the society agrees to it?
Actually, some ancient societies did exactly that, and it was considered moral and acceptable.

While the Spartans didn't go that far, their "win or die" ethos comes very close and that was only a few thousand years ago.

Remember, most of the laws we're talking about are TENS of thousands of years old, gradually taking form as mankind discovered agriculture and began to abandon the migratory hunter/gatherer way of life.

I know it might be hard, but try to think of it this way... most laws work - because they work.

Yeah, I know, sounds circular. So, tell me... 2 + 2 = 4. WHY does it equal 4? Because it does.

Laws are much the same. Got a problem. Try a solution. Did it work? No? Then throw it out, and try another. The next one solved the problem? Hurrah! Keep it, and call it a law.

Then, after a few thousand years, it grandually becomes something we don't even think about. Something that's as natural as breathing. Because we no longer remember a time when it WASN'T a law.

2+2=11
Really, it does...

in base 3.

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:14 am

Yes but 11 base 3 is pronounced 'four'.

Tbolt · Post by **Tbolt** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:59 pm

No it isn't, it's pronounced eleven there is no "four" in base three

However, it still represents X, X, X, X number of items...

Just an argument of semantics... =^^=

Hmmm, if you really wanted to get nitpicky, X, X, X, X, is forty in roman numerals...

Gengar003 · Post by **Gengar003** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:08 pm

Tbolt wrote:Just an argument of semantics... =^^=

Somebody call?

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:20 pm

Bengaley wrote:Personally, I think we're near the point when we don't need a religion to know what we think is right, and what we think is wrong. I certainly don't - my religious beliefs arose from what I think is right and wrong, not vice-versa.

I'm guessing you haven't done much child raising...

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:25 pm

Mjolnir wrote:
TMLutas wrote:... the inability to decide whether a human or a dog get saved if you had to choose just one (see Ingrid Newkirk).
Yeah, except for the fact that there are many examples where I'd save the dog instead of the person.

- Mjolnir

As long as you recognize that by doing so, you've committed a vigilante execution, judge, jury, and executioner all in one neat package, it would work. A priori, I'm arguing, you save the moral agent unless you've already held the trial and are making an exception. The presumption should be that the human gets saved because the human is uniquely a moral agent. Ingrid Newkirk, when asked, spluttered and immediately wanted to know the moral details of the human being to compare it to the worth of the dog. This is wrong even if we're talking Stalin/Hitler/Mao territory. The proper standard is whether the human deserves execution and this is the best way to accomplish it. The moral value of the dog is irrelevant.

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:31 pm

Tbolt wrote:No it isn't, it's pronounced eleven there is no "four" in base three

However, it still represents X, X, X, X number of items...

Just an argument of semantics... =^^=

Hmmm, if you really wanted to get nitpicky, X, X, X, X, is forty in roman numerals...

Actually XL is forty in roman numerals, just like IIII isn't used but IV is used for four.

The larger point I was trying to make is that law has *never* been as cut and dry as Ed was making out. Property ownership isn't like that, even the laws of murder, theft, rape have evolved within our lifetime.

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:49 pm

"Nobody hurts my horse" - anyone remember that?

Mjolnir · Post by **Mjolnir** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:00 am

TMLutas wrote:The moral value of the dog is irrelevant.

Unless he's my dog.

- Mjolnir

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:12 am

TMLutas wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:
TMLutas wrote:... the inability to decide whether a human or a dog get saved if you had to choose just one (see Ingrid Newkirk).
Yeah, except for the fact that there are many examples where I'd save the dog instead of the person.

- Mjolnir
As long as you recognize that by doing so, you've committed a vigilante execution, judge, jury, and executioner all in one neat package, it would work. A priori, I'm arguing, you save the moral agent unless you've already held the trial and are making an exception. The presumption should be that the human gets saved because the human is uniquely a moral agent. Ingrid Newkirk, when asked, spluttered and immediately wanted to know the moral details of the human being to compare it to the worth of the dog. This is wrong even if we're talking Stalin/Hitler/Mao territory. The proper standard is whether the human deserves execution and this is the best way to accomplish it. The moral value of the dog is irrelevant.

The presumption, perhaps, but not a hard and fast rule if the human is already known to be a negative moral actor. You are assuming here that animals have no inherent worth as moral agents; but dogs regularly (and other animals have been known to) exhibit friendship, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. They are not human, but they are part of human society and act within that society to the extent that they are able. They are not just discardable biological machines.