jaxenro Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 "So if I live in a society where it is acceptable to enslave a person based on the color of their skin, and I disagree with this, am I therefore immoral because I go against societal norms, this so-called transcendent morality?" No but the reverse is true. If you live in a society where it is not acceptable to enslave another person, for any reason and you decide it is moral it is still not moral. This is what I mean by morality is not individual you can't decide a immoral act that goes against societies cohesion is moral. Part of the problem is your all in 21st centory mentality and I am starting with pre-historical and early history morality development. I had got as far as King David, you bypassed the 19th century (most of the Western world abolished slavery then) and jumped to the 21st. You can live in a society that teaches same sex marriage is moral and decide for yourself it is immoral as long as your stance does not harm society (yet isn't that what we are seeing playing out where people whose individual decision not to participate in SSM as a business providor are being prosecuted?) "Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not? Is it immoral to steal food if you are starving? Is it immoral to lie? What if telling the truth to an ignorant client will have them make a very bad decision? Is gay marriage immoral? society used to think so but not anymore. There are some basic standards that the majority of society agrees with such as torcture, but the U.S government does not feel this is immoral. Is killing suspected terrorists with drones immoral? If there was a single transcendent morality, everybody would belong to the same church and the planet would have a single cultural group" Society as a whole using the principles I posted above, call them the three laws of basic morality. And yes as I am trying to show morality is an evolving concept. Is gay marriage immoral from a strictly non religious standpoint? Ask me in 200 years when we have seen the full effects of the practice on the fabric of society and I will answer. Is torture immoral? I know I would cut the testicles off a man with blunt shears if he knew where a kidnapped child was and it would save the child so I can see situations where it could be both
jchristopher Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God? If so what is its source? Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there? Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife? There is man-made morality, and there is divine morality. Divine morality is absolute and eternally fixed to God's laws.
jchristopher Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 No, I don't think that we're the source of morality. I think we awaken to morality. We've been doing so very gradually for many thousands of years. If man is not the source of morality, that what is?
jchristopher Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Now this I agree with 100% (it had to happen sooner or later Gray ). God is as bound by eternal law as we are or he would cease to be God. And that is where morality originates. But I still say God represents true morality to us mere mortals, even if he isn't the originating source. This sounds about right.
jaxenro Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 "What other motivator is there for morality without a hope for a pleasant afterlife" How about collective social security? If both you and your neighbor are moral there is little need for you to lock up your valuables from your neighbor. As I posted earlier morality (without recourse to God) grew from the need for group cohesion. Stop thinking so 21st century. All of these concepts have been evolving for thousands of years and began at a time when an individual, living alone, had little chance of survival. Man didn't develop packs like wolves because we wanted someone to talk to at night we develop the complex social system we inherited based on the needs of survival. If I couldn't trust you to watch my wife and children when I went to hunt I didn't hunt. And if you couldn't trust that I wouldn't steal your belongings when you were gathering food you needed to bring everything with you or give up gathering food
jchristopher Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 That is kind of like asking the question does God exist without a belief in God? The answer is yes. If you are asking, is a belief in God necessary for one to be moral? The answer is no. As Rob points out below, we all are endowed with the light of Christ wether we believe it or not. One can be moral simply by adhering to correct or divine principals, whether they're aware of it or not and whether they believe in God or not.
jaxenro Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 Just to be clear I left off my posts on the "evolutionary" development of morality about 3,000 years ago. And yes I think morality has evolved in it's application (which I will discuss) but not in it's core concepts. And although, as I said at the beginning, I am trying to leave God out of it I do think God is an integral part of morality. It just enters my argument at a later point.
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 There is man-made morality, and there is divine morality. Divine morality is absolute and eternally fixed to God's laws. But the debate if God's law is not actually created by him, rather it is the name of the law that is distinct from God that he follows, then God and morality are distinct. God is God in virtue of his moral living. Morality is achieved by living a law that exists distinct from God. What is this man made morality you speak of? Saying something is moral does not make it moral if morality is correlated with action contingent with an external law. Also if the principal of morality is outcome based then it would not appear absolute and fixed from our perspective as it would tolerate a wide range of varying action.
Freedom Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Relative to what, would you say?As cinepro points out, the laws of God that we follow are largely temporal. Sex, drugs, murder - all apply to mortals. the laws that govern children are far different than the laws that govern adults. We do not allow our children to eat in the living room, but me and my wife do because we are responsible enough to eat without making a mess. We cannot murder, but God kills people all the time. The word of wisdom is a law today but not 150 years ago. Slaves are a no-no but God allowed for it during the time of Moses. modesty in dress is a standard today but not among the nephites.
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Just to be clear I left off my posts on the "evolutionary" development of morality about 3,000 years ago. And yes I think morality has evolved in it's application (which I will discuss) but not in it's core concepts. And although, as I said at the beginning, I am trying to leave God out of it I do think God is an integral part of morality. It just enters my argument at a later point. I think God is highly moral... morality is not highly godly. There is a big difference. Bread is made of flour... it makes no sense to say flour made of bread. Edited March 13, 2014 by Bikeemikey
JLHPROF Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 What other motivator is there for morality without a hope for a pleasant afterlife? A pleasant mortality. There's a reason that the eternal laws upon which God operates are revealed to us in this life. We are supposed to apply them here and achieve happiness, not wait for the next life to be happy.Sometimes we come to recognize their benefit through God, sometime we come to recognize their benefit through society (although I would argue this occurrs less often). 1
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 As cinepro points out, the laws of God that we follow are largely temporal. Sex, drugs, murder - all apply to mortals. the laws that govern children are far different than the laws that govern adults. We do not allow our children to eat in the living room, but me and my wife do because we are responsible enough to eat without making a mess. We cannot murder, but God kills people all the time. The word of wisdom is a law today but not 150 years ago. Slaves are a no-no but God allowed for it during the time of Moses. modesty in dress is a standard today but not among the nephites. Repeat from post #58: Saying something is moral does not make it moral if morality is correlated with action contingent with an external law. Also if the principal of morality is outcome based then it would not appear absolute and fixed from our perspective as it would tolerate a wide range of varying action.
pogi Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 To say something is immoral is to say it is not beneficial to everyone, collectively, I can't even fart without offending someone.
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I can't even fart without offending someone. Unless its a moral fart!
Ahab Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Just to be clear I left off my posts on the "evolutionary" development of morality about 3,000 years ago. And yes I think morality has evolved in it's application (which I will discuss) but not in it's core concepts.And although, as I said at the beginning, I am trying to leave God out of it I do think God is an integral part of morality. It just enters my argument at a later point.What I see when I look at history is that societies generally fall, instead of advance. But yes I know there are exceptions, and the fact that a society has fallen doesn't mean it can't rise again, and then fall again, and then rise again, etc etc.And no it does not take time for a society to be at its best, because it can start out in perfect condition and stay that way indefinitely. Like how the society of Adam and Eve was perfect in the beginning, before they fell, and then later rose to be perfect again, in Enoch's day, before falling again in the days of Noah. And here we are again trying to get back to that perfect society where everyone can live as they did, and how our Lord now lives. And no they still don't condone sexual intercourse between people of the same sex.
Ahab Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I can't even fart without offending someone. Too bad there's not a way to use the gas in a way that would be beneficial to everyone. For now I can only try to ignore it when it happens, or light a match.
jchristopher Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 So while we may argue that we wouldn't know about these moral laws if God didn't tell us, it's hard to say that they wouldn't exist if God didn't exist.... and without God, we are not, neither the cosmos
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 ... and without God, we are not, neither the cosmos Which again contradicts the D&C which talks about us being coeternal with God. Take that for what you will... we just dont know enough to have more than a speculative conversation about it.
jchristopher Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 As for the light of Christ, I was always of the opinion that it was a gift bestowed not an innate quality, but I am open to being instructed.This is an interesting thought. Based on the below scripture, I would say that it is a gift. For all good things come from God. For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ (D&C 84:45).
Freedom Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Repeat from post #58: Saying something is moral does not make it moral if morality is correlated with action contingent with an external law. Also if the principal of morality is outcome based then it would not appear absolute and fixed from our perspective as it would tolerate a wide range of varying action.yes it does. This is the only way for anything to be moral. Someone somewhere has to decide if something if moral or not. After all, how else are morals determined? What is moral to you may not be moral to me. For example, answer this question - is it immoral to drink alcohol?
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God? If so what is its source? Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there? Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife? What I find interesting is that like the belief in God, belief in moral principles cannot be justified by objective evidence, yet every atheist affirms them That is inconsistent. If one believes that only beliefs can be true if there is objective evidence for them, moral beliefs cannot be true So atheists who believe both propositions are inconsistent. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 yes it does. This is the only way for anything to be moral. Someone somewhere has to decide if something if moral or not. After all, how else are morals determined? What is moral to you may not be moral to me. For example, answer this question - is it immoral to drink alcohol? It is not immoral to drink alcohol. It is immoral to a) drink in a manner that harms b) drink against the instruction of God. Otherwise, there can be no immorality in it, at least according to any definition of moral.True morals are NOT relative. Societal morals ARE relative. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't. As Joseph said, "whatever God requires is right" and therefore moral. And since God operates exclusively according to eternal law, our moral compass comes from eternal law.
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 yes it does. This is the only way for anything to be moral. Someone somewhere has to decide if something if moral or not. After all, how else are morals determined? What is moral to you may not be moral to me. For example, answer this question - is it immoral to drink alcohol? No it is not immoral to drink alcohol. Not even for a mormon. It is however a sin if you are a mormon and have covenanted to follow the WoW. Can we sin by performing actions that are moral. Sure. The act of consuming alcohol may not be immoral, perhaps however the act of violating a promise may be immoral. I really have no idea :-) 1
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 It is not immoral to drink alcohol. It is immoral to a) drink in a manner that harms b) drink against the instruction of God. Otherwise, there can be no immorality in it, at least according to any definition of moral.True morals are NOT relative. Societal morals ARE relative. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't. As Joseph said, "whatever God requires is right" and therefore moral. And since God operates exclusively according to eternal law, our moral compass comes from eternal law. True morals are not relative but the actions that provide a pathway to true morality may seem relative if true morality is outcome determined.
Recommended Posts