The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Elminster_Amaur]

Originally Posted by Demetri

A person may take something and try to shade it in one direction or the other, but in the end any and all things fall into one category or the other.

That sounds suspiciously...

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Kenobi, before the fall of the Jedi

You're dealing in absolutes, Anakin! Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

That's right...I just brought the Jedi into religious discussion.

They are actually very good for drawing examples from when it comes to religion, but that's not my point. My point here is that there are certain situations where your actions can fall in neither of your categories. Sure, there are quite a few that are absolutely good or absolutely evil. Murder is always evil, where killing doesn't have such a narrow definition. A child steals an apple to feed a sick parent, because child labor is illegal here and no one will help him. Is the child doing an evil act? Stealing is bad, but if it's the only way the child can help, is it a bad act? There are almost always shades. There are some times when you have a choice between committing a greater evil or a lesser evil, where failing to act or acting in a different manner will cause an even greater evil to occur.

[GOD OF IRONY]

I guess what you're saying is that religion is just a means to control and advance the populace? Can you give us an example of this, maybe to better understand what you mean?

Thank you for understanding back when the jews could still eat pork. The leader realised that pork spoled easly and that it didnt change much when it spoiled. Basicly the jews got sick form eating pork so the leader said "God says pork is a unclean meat" and the jews follow this rule now even with our new ways of perserving our food. this is my example

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

Fatal flaw: "right" and "wrong" are not at all absolutes. They have no objective meanings (well, they do in the sense of "true" and "false," but that's how their used when discussing morality); they are subjectively defined, and therefore the entire concept of morality is itself subjective.

Even in spite of that, you seemed to misunderstand, because I wasn't talking about whether there is subjectivity within a system of morals, but whether whether any system of morals could itself be considered objectively or if it was subjective. The only way to objectively judge a moral system is to declare some sort of overall goal beforehand, then consider whether those morals lead to that goal (a bit of a hairy process in itself). Since the goal chosen is in no way an absolute but instead depends upon the individual, the judgment of morality(ies) is subjective.

Nique: Like I said, PM's are fine.

[GOD OF IRONY]

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

this is the bigest pile of crap the world has ever seen. there is a nutral there is a slightly damned and a slightly blessed the "fact" of right and wrong is diffrent than fable or KOTOR its not just good and evil light and dark ETC.ETC.

the world forgets and memorizes there is no complety good person anyway we all have done wrong (my spelling for exaple) here is a true fact there is darkness unless there is light

[Tendronai]

There are no moral absolutes - a person can act in any way which they deem necessary. As a Jew, whenever I see someone eating/buying pork, some part of me declares it an evil (okay,wrong) act. However, there is no doubt that the person with the pork does not think that it is evil/wrong in any sense. This is kind of a stupid example, but I think you all get the point. There cannot be any moral absolutes because every person has their own moral code.

[Content]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

QFT.

Sorry, but morality is an absolute. If you think an act is wrong and someone else thinks its right, then someone is wrong.

Stealing an apple is wrong, he comitted a morally reprehensible act. The means never justify the extremes.

Doing nothing can ini fact never be an act of evil. Letting evil pass is not in itself evil. Supporting Evil is evil. Supporting good is good. Doing good is good.

Doing nothing is not, and I repeat, not evil nor good.

Civilized people help one another out. Working collectivly to help one another in keeping evil at bay and good within. For the price of raising and protecting you the community then asks you do the same in turn for others.

Somewhere along the lines this got intertwined with morality.

[Azisien]

I can definitely disagree there. Non-action is an action, in the realm of choice as it comes to morality. You can be wrong, or right, to do nothing.

[Sithdarth]

I would like to point out that Socrates very clearly pointed out the problem with absolute morality. Well really he pointed out the logical paradox with defining morality as separate from humans and their perceptions. Any objective morality would exist as separate from humans and their perceptions thus making the system logically flawed at the most basic level.

Here is how he did it.

[GOD OF IRONY]

Originally Posted by Tendronai

There are no moral absolutes - a person can act in any way which they deem necessary. As a Jew, whenever I see someone eating/buying pork, some part of me declares it an evil (okay,wrong) act. However, there is no doubt that the person with the pork does not think that it is evil/wrong in any sense. This is kind of a stupid example, but I think you all get the point. There cannot be any moral absolutes because every person has their own moral code.

That had nothing to do with the moral thing but what a nice way of mixing it in. I was saying that relgion is only a means of controling a large group of people. but you did a much greater job of showing that morals are said controling... thing-thingys. ANYWAY morals are just ways relgion controls the followers of said relgion

[Azisien]

There's a big difference between moral absolutism and some of the skepticism that just hurts my ears. There are absolutes to the extent of doing what morality sets out to do, in general, protect people, drive social cooperation for the better of the species, however else you like to rationalize it. There is a human and cultural norm. There is also a degree of cultural relativism, and there can be people that deviate from the norm in small and large (rare) ways.