Science of Morality

[shunyadragon]

But that is where you opinion comes in. A man may believe that it is perfectly moral to help his and his own at the expense of others, to gain wealth and power at the expense of others. You and I may disagree but again our opinion is no moral valid or correct than his.

As a fallible individual in any culture or society can justify there own actions whether moral or immoral, but that is not what morality and ethics represent. They are the cultural social norms, and codes of behavior for any given society or culture.

Opinions of individuals do not represent morals and ethics of a society or culture.

[shunyadragon]

Morality is based not on morals themselves but on what individuals think God's says is moral.

Disagree here, morals and ethics are not based on what individuals thank God(s) say is moral. Morals and ethics are based on what the society or culture determines what they believe what God(s) say is moral. Individuals can make decisions nor opinions as to whether to obey or not, do not represent the morals and ethics of the society or culture they are part of.

[Bill the Cat]

The default position is that it is more likely all religions are wrong rather than one happening to be born right. Each has Faith, scripture, spiritual experiences to justify their beliefs. Of course you do not think so, you happened to be born into the one true religion. But what evidence do you have to offer that another religion cannot claim itself?

I am convinced by the veracity of the words of the New Testament and the historical evidence of the early church. JP Holding's book "The Impossible Faith" pinpoints many of the things I consider valid evidences of truth.

Plus, I was not born into Christianity. I got saved at 19, baptized at 20.

[shunyadragon]

I am convinced by the veracity of the words of the New Testament and the historical evidence of the early church. JP Holding's book "The Impossible Faith" pinpoints many of the things I consider valid evidences of truth.

Plus, I was not born into Christianity. I got saved at 19, baptized at 20.

What were you born into?

[Bill the Cat]

What were you born into?

Apathy. The only thing my birthmother cared about was doing drugs with her friends. My dad was too busy working to bother with church or anything like religion.

[AlecWelsh]

I think it's funny how you're conveniently excluding atheism. Why is it that atheism should be considered more likely than any religion by default?

Because it is more likely all of you are wrong than all of you being right. All of you have similar conclusions and arrive at them with similar rationalizations. Take that into consideration why should we think we move on to the next life anymore any other biologically evolved being?

[AlecWelsh]

I am convinced by the veracity of the words of the New Testament and the historical evidence of the early church. JP Holding's book "The Impossible Faith" pinpoints many of the things I consider valid evidences of truth.

Plus, I was not born into Christianity. I got saved at 19, baptized at 20.

There are exceptions to the rules. Have you consider this with historical and scientific analysis of all the many other possible religion in the world that have ever existed? That is a lot of work to be done.

[seer]

No, it is objective because the experience of humans an animals are no whims. The point of having a moral code is to reduce suffering and increase well-being. This is not subjective this is the entire point of having a moral standard. It would be subjective if say, morality was based on the whims of a imaginative creator. The issue is you cannot move past the is point because you lose the argument. I see no point in continuing with you Seer until you begin to form your opinions based on facts and not bias. Either argue the alternative, that an individual could live on his own without any help from society or admit that individuals are dependent on humanity.

What are you talking about? Animals kill and eat other animals, men kill other men. Take their lands and property. That is also the experience of humans and animals. Your goal, to reduce suffering and increase well-being is subjective. Nothing objective about it.

[Bill the Cat]

There are exceptions to the rules. Have you consider this with historical and scientific analysis of all the many other possible religion in the world that have ever existed? That is a lot of work to be done.

I've investigated the major ones, yes.

[AlecWelsh]

What are you talking about? Animals kill and eat other animals, men kill other men. Take their lands and property. That is also the experience of humans and animals. Your goal, to reduce suffering and increase well-being is subjective. Nothing objective about it.

I have no idea that your point is saying the first part of that. Your second part is the issue. I know others disagree that the point of morality is to reduce well being but they are wrong no different than arguing a Doctors goal is to work to reducing the health of their patients. What individual would argue that suffering is the goal in life? What rational individual would argue for more pain and suffering among themselves?

[AlecWelsh]

I've investigated the major ones, yes.

Well I am quite interested in hearing how you happened choose the right religion while many others chose the wrong one.

[Bill the Cat]

Well I am quite interested in hearing how you happened choose the right religion while many others chose the wrong one.

Something tells me that comment was less than sincere...

[seer]

I have no idea that your point is saying the first part of that. Your second part is the issue. I know others disagree that the point of morality is to reduce well being but they are wrong no different than arguing a Doctors goal is to work to reducing the health of their patients. What individual would argue that suffering is the goal in life? What rational individual would argue for more pain and suffering among themselves?

But it doesn't matter. The Nazi may not to personally want to suffer, no animal would. That however does not prevent the Nazi from ushering Jewish children into gas chambers. The bottom line Alex is that the Christian lives in a just and moral universe and the atheist lives in an unjust and amoral universe. And so it will ever be....

[AlecWelsh]

Something tells me that comment was less than sincere...

I am being serious. What make you personally think out of everyone who has gotten it wrong under the same standard or rationalization you figured it out? Is it the writers of the Bible, did the make that compelling of a case to you? Is it historically scientific, spiritual?

[AlecWelsh]

But it doesn't matter. The Nazi may not to personally want to suffer, no animal would. That however does not prevent the Nazi from ushering Jewish children into gas chambers. The bottom line Alex is that the Christian lives in a just and moral universe and the atheist lives in an unjust and amoral universe. And so it will ever be....

Any individual arguing against a standard of morality based on not causing unjust suffering would also be including themselves in that argument if they liked it or not since they too are an individual. They would either be a masochist or making a irrational argument. Christians do not have a basis of morality they have many different interpretations of the Bible where they pick and choose which parts to use. I am going to take it that you cannot present a rational argument that it makes sense for an individual to argue for a morality that encourages unjust suffering. Since they too are an individual that also would be subjected to unjust suffering.