[Martyn*]

I think that people are catching onto the idea that you don't get anywhere in life by being moral. In fact, the elite of the world, in every society, every community and in every nation, know this too well, which is why they continue to preach morals whilst being very immoral. The dictum: do what thou wilt, would have to be the morality of the future.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
I didn't say the bible, I said religion. religions preach good morals inc. charity, loving your neighbor as yourself. The bible was not a part of my argument.

I never said the bible either. I'm saying that you can't say that religion enforced morals when religion was backed by the state.

Just as well, religious morals can easily be bypassed with simple wildcards. "This man is against God!" "God says this is sinful" "God told me to do it".

Are you really going to say that the middle ages were politically moral? Religious morals are only for common folk.

(Original post by Brevillemonkey)
I don't think religion explains morality at all, I think peoples religion has an effect on their morality. Those are two different things.

I was saying quite the opposite, that religion can ONLY have an effect of morals, and that 'truer' morals are innate.

(Original post by Martyn*)
I think that people are catching onto the idea that you don't get anywhere in life by being moral. In fact, the elite of the world, in every society, every community and in every nation, know this too well, which is why they continue to preach morals whilst being very immoral. The dictum: do what thou wilt, would have to be the morality of the future.

Very true, it has always been that way though. Whenever kings were immoral, they just change the definition of moral (Catholicism, anyone?).

Although I disagree with your last sentence. Morality needs to be enforced as they always have been, through the state.

[thetobbit]

(Original post by Cephalus)
I honestly link decline in morals to decline in religion

Religion is not an automatic precursor to a moral life, I know plenty of people that have turned to alcohol abuse/etc simply as a reaction to a suffocating religious upbringing.

Morals start with good parenting, it is irrelevant whether the family is religious or not.

[Emaemmaemily]

Well it clearly isn't linked to religion at all.
I think the facts that people don't realise is that things weren't amazingly better in the past. Society has always been so universally pointed towards "I must do what's better for ME", it's just that we like to pick out the good things to teach in history and miss out those kinds of details. I don't think it's such a new development at all; certainly, it needs to be better, but it's not linked to religion like so many on this thread appear to be arguing.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I think that people are catching onto the idea that you don't get anywhere in life by being moral. In fact, the elite of the world, in every society, every community and in every nation, know this too well, which is why they continue to preach morals whilst being very immoral. The dictum: do what thou wilt, would have to be the morality of the future.

This is true but how can we change it? It surely can't be good for society?

[badcheesecrispy]

What do you define as 'morals'? I dont think restrictions on things like a persons sex life are acceptable at all, this goes for the stigmatization of women who enjoy sex or sex with multiple partners

no one has a right to dictate to what someone else does with their body, that is their choice and theirs only

my theory obviously doesnt fit with religion, and thats fine, i see barely any morality going down in places where it takes hold so thats religions morals out the window in my book

a completely immoral person is someone who deliberately does something cruel and evil, that they know will ruin someone elses life

plenty of things currently illegal fit that mould, when it comes to ones personal life though no one should dictate, that is the great thing about the free west

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by badcheesecrispy)
What do you define as 'morals'? I dont think restrictions on things like a persons sex life are acceptable at all, this goes for the stigmatization of women who enjoy sex or sex with multiple partners

no one has a right to dictate to what someone else does with their body, that is their choice and theirs only

my theory obviously doesnt fit with religion, and thats fine, i see barely any morality going down in places where it takes hold so thats religions morals out the window in my book

a completely immoral person is someone who deliberately does something cruel and evil, that they know will ruin someone elses life

plenty of things currently illegal fit that mould, when it comes to ones personal life though no one should dictate, that is the great thing about the free west

Exactly. I almost feel like ethics are morals should be considered two seperate things, just to keep religious dogma out of it.

[Xotol]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
Exactly. I almost feel like ethics are morals should be considered two seperate things, just to keep religious dogma out of it.

If you want to be pedantic, then technically this thread should be discussing ethics and not morals since ethics is more closely related to societal standards. People generally tend to use both terms synonymously though.

[Brevillemonkey]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
I never said the bible either. I'm saying that you can't say that religion enforced morals when religion was backed by the state.

Just as well, religious morals can easily be bypassed with simple wildcards. "This man is against God!" "God says this is sinful" "God told me to do it".

Are you really going to say that the middle ages were politically moral? Religious morals are only for common folk.



I was saying quite the opposite, that religion can ONLY have an effect of morals, and that 'truer' morals are innate.



Very true, it has always been that way though. Whenever kings were immoral, they just change the definition of moral (Catholicism, anyone?).

Although I disagree with your last sentence. Morality needs to be enforced as they always have been, through the state.

It looks a lot like you said "I don't see why it would effect them."

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Cephalus)
I honestly link decline in morals to decline in religion

But there doesn't seem to be a link between religion and the having of 'good' morals. As plenty of atheists are moral people, and there are plenty of religious people who are not morally good people.

EDIT: That's not to say that atheists are all have good morals or that all religious people don't. Also why was I negged for this?

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by Xotol)
If you want to be pedantic, then technically this thread should be discussing ethics and not morals since ethics is more closely related to societal standards. People generally tend to use both terms synonymously though.

I was unaware that they were not actually synonymous. The underlying point of what I was trying to say is that it frustrates me when people try to label rationally amoral/ utilitarian acts as immoral (divorce, sexual acts, basically anything controversial yet done with consent). Mostly because once they buy into this doctrine, it's damn near impossible to talk them out of their circular reasoning.

[Xotol]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
I was unaware that they were not actually synonymous. The underlying point of what I was trying to say is that it frustrates me when people try to label rationally amoral/ utilitarian acts as immoral (divorce, sexual acts, basically anything controversial yet done with consent). Mostly because once they buy into this doctrine, it's damn near impossible to talk them out of their circular reasoning.

Fair point. Religious based morality does tend to become circular reasoning when neither party is forced into an action. In the case of a situation like divorce or fornication, I suppose the non-religious justification would be along the lines of 'it can damage a family psychologically' and 'STDs or unwanted pregnancy' respectively. But these both become redudant as technology and morality move on but religious doctrine doesn't.

Oh and as for the difference between morals and ethics, I'm not surprised. There isn't really even a universally accepted definition or difference. There is definitely a difference but it's different depending on who you're talking to, if you get what I mean.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by Brevillemonkey)
It looks a lot like you said "I don't see why it would effect them."

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
But what is so hard to understand about morals? Most of them revolve around the golden rule- To do to others as you would have done to yourself. Which is basic empathy skills, our brains are literally wired so that we feel this emotion. Any pieces of information that we need to contextualize whatever empathetic emotion we have is made using rationality.

I believe that innate morals are made in the way I worded it in the above quote. Our unconscious mind is so swimming with information that we mentally anesthetize the vast majority of our computations. Rationality contextualizes our innate morals so deceivingly well that we believe them to be concepts that we thought up ourselves. Many of our higher- processes work in this sense, a perfect example is when you feel strong emotions toward something that is rationally undesirable, such as social anxiety or addiction. The end result is that people suffering from these mental illnesses end up rationalizing their behaviour, and come to believe that they are really in some form of danger in public, or that they truly need that glass of whiskey.

The same way we can rationalize our emotions, we can connect emotions to our (sometimes ir)rational thoughts. Such is the case of the Christian who exclaims "Masterbation is sinful because God declares it!"

Addiction is possible due to our brains reward system. The substance that fuels the addiction manipulates our reward pathways in such a way that our feel- good hormones, which are meant to be used when we find food or complete some other sort of survival instinct, are instead being released when we drink. Despite working the exact same way that other things that make us feel good do, it's generally accepted that substances do not provide "real" happiness. I believe that the way that some religious people prescribe certain moral beliefs are done in the same vein. They believe them to be moral, and their brain processes that morality the same way they process innate morals, but I would not call them "real" morals the same way I would not call drug- induced happiness fake happiness.

Hope that clears my logic up.

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by Xotol)
Fair point. Religious based morality does tend to become circular reasoning when neither party is forced into an action. In the case of a situation like divorce or fornication, I suppose the non-religious justification would be along the lines of 'it can damage a family psychologically' and 'STDs or unwanted pregnancy' respectively. But these both become redudant as technology and morality move on but religious doctrine doesn't.

Oh and as for the difference between morals and ethics, I'm not surprised. There isn't really even a universally accepted definition or difference. There is definitely a difference but it's different depending on who you're talking to, if you get what I mean.

This explains why some people believe that Christian and other religious morality should "move with the times"; the morally correct response to many specific situations will depend on overall context, which WILL change over time, therefore this can make sense for certain issues. Yet I do not believe that the fornication issue can change over time because I believe God has ordained that we be faithful to one partner, and that this was intended for numerous reasons including the control of sexual jealousy, security for children and preventing people living hedonistically and forgetting that serving God and other people should be primary in their life. Children can be brought up securely out of wedlock and we now have systems of organised social welfare that did not exist at the writing of the Scriptures, but there is still nothing superior to being brought up by a mother and father.

As a pro-life individual, I would say sexual continence is important for preventing unwanted pregnancy as abortion statistics show over half of British and American women seeking to end their pregnancy DO use contraception. This adds up to hundreds of thousands of pre-born human lives snuffed out purposely every year. With condoms splitting or being forgotten in the heat of the moment, pill missed or rendered inefficacious by GI symptoms, and other methods also liable to fail, the usual liberal response that contraception can vitiate this principle comes at a horrific human cost. If these children were born, it would be better than them being aborted but problems would still pile up for many of these women in poor positions to care for a child along with their offspring.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
This explains why some people believe that Christian and other religious morality should "move with the times"; the morally correct response to many specific situations will depend on overall context, which WILL change over time, therefore this can make sense for certain issues. Yet I do not believe that the fornication issue can change over time because I believe God has ordained that we be faithful to one partner, and that this was intended for numerous reasons including the control of sexual jealousy, security for children and preventing people living hedonistically and forgetting that serving God and other people should be primary in their life. Children can be brought up securely out of wedlock and we now have systems of organised social welfare that did not exist at the writing of the Scriptures, but there is still nothing superior to being brought up by a mother and father.

But if religious morals can be influenced by external means, then how can you make the claim that religious enforces morals? (I know you didn't say it, but plenty others do). As well, I prefer long relationships yet do not want to get married. Is there harm in that?

(Original post by ScheduleII)
As a pro-life individual, I would say sexual continence is important for preventing unwanted pregnancy as abortion statistics show over half of British and American women seeking to end their pregnancy DO use contraception. This adds up to hundreds of thousands of pre-born human lives snuffed out purposely every year. With condoms splitting or being forgotten in the heat of the moment, pill missed or rendered inefficacious by GI symptoms, and other methods also liable to fail, the usual liberal response that contraception can vitiate this principle comes at a horrific human cost. If these children were born, it would be better than them being aborted but problems would still pile up for many of these women in poor positions to care for a child along with their offspring.

Hey, just because you're not getting any doesn't mean you need to tell others not to. :P (don't worry, it's a joke haha).

But more seriously, if you think first world abortion is an issue, I think your time would be much better spent helping third world countries. As while you're worrying about people who aren't even alive yet, there are people right now who are actually alive and are wasting away in some godforsaken corner of this earth. The amount of pregnancies taking place in those places are so large that families cannot take care of their own, causing a horrendous child mortality count. It's to the point where many are demanding access to birth control/ contraception/ abortion services.

This has always been the problem that I have had with pro- lifers. You argue that a few cells that cannot even begin to have a sense of self has more rights than it's own mother, and then when it's born you're nowhere to be found. For all we know that child is dying of a terminal illness in a foster home. Wouldn't you think that a just God would rather have, say, 6 billion happy, healthy, productive humans inhabiting the earth; or 12 billion undernourished people with significantly less life satisfaction?

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)

But more seriously, if you think first world abortion is an issue, I think your time would be much better spent helping third world countries. As while you're worrying about people who aren't even alive yet, there are people right now who are actually alive and are wasting away in some godforsaken corner of this earth. The amount of pregnancies taking place in those places are so large that families cannot take care of their own, causing a horrendous child mortality count. It's to the point where many are demanding access to birth control/ contraception/ abortion services.

This has always been the problem that I have had with pro- lifers. You argue that a few cells that cannot even begin to have a sense of self has more rights than it's own mother, and then when it's born you're nowhere to be found. For all we know that child is dying of a terminal illness in a foster home. Wouldn't you think that a just God would rather have, say, 6 billion happy, healthy, productive humans inhabiting the earth; or 12 billion undernourished people with significantly less life satisfaction?

Two standard pro-choice memes: 1)overpopulation (it's predicted to peak around 8 billion then go DOWN at current rates of change in population growth, and this has been used to support abortion since Margaret Sanger without any connection to the actual mathematics.)

and 2)the worse, because a personal attack: an extended rendition of "you people only care about ZEF's." That is not true of any pro-lifer I've heard of. It makes absolutely 0 sense. Just because we disagree with killing the unborn before they are sentient on the basis they are still developing humans, why should we not care about born sentient individuals? Why does that mean we are happy for born people to starve or dehydrate to death in Africa, or ignorant about issues affecting developing countries and their massive death tolls from poverty, war and oppression? Why does it mean we don't care about the poor in our inner cities and the existence they struggle through? Why should we not be concerned about child abuse or child protection?

(After Baby P, the pro-choicers in school RE class had a field day and said we should support the NSPCC instead of pro-life, as if the two were mutually exclusive. I did at that time argue for not reporting suspected child abuse as "non-snitching" and oppose Working Together to Safeguard Children as it was "anti-parental rights", due to the fact it encourages professionals working with a child to share information without parental consent if they have concerns about the child's wellbeing. But I have long since given up those positions and anti-safeguarding isn't typical of pro-life in any way.)

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
Two standard pro-choice memes: 1)overpopulation (it's predicted to peak around 8 billion then go DOWN at current rates of change in population growth, and this has been used to support abortion since Margaret Sanger without any connection to the actual mathematics.)

I've seen a lot of statistics about predicted population growth, none that predict a worldwide decline. Not to mention that a part of that decline is due to West Nile/ AIDS in the areas I talked of. A source would be handy here.

(Original post by ScheduleII)
and 2)the worse, because a personal attack: an extended rendition of "you people only care about ZEF's." That is not true of any pro-lifer I've heard of. It makes absolutely 0 sense. Just because we disagree with killing the unborn before they are sentient on the basis they are still developing humans, why should we not care about born sentient individuals?

Why should we not be concerned about child abuse or child protection?

Because it's not yet a legitimate human being. It has no thoughts or feelings. Many things could happen to it, it could die in the womb, it could become deformed in such a way to make bringing it to term unethical. Not to mention whatever external problems that may exist for the child (unwilling parents, druggie mom, parents trying to get through law/ med school, what-have-you). You cannot understand every single abortion situation, so I don't see how you can make the decision for them.

I never said you lack empathy for those people, but we all have a limited amount of time on this earth. You can either 'help' people by taking away their opportunities in life, or you can help even more people by giving them more opportunities. What would the totalitarian do here?

I also fail to see how allowing women to have the choice of when to have a child being anti- child protection.