Queen Mary student brought sixth formers to join ISIS

Scroll to see replies

It may do but not always. If it makes you feel better that is a bonus. If you only do it for how it makes you feel then you are unfortunately functioning only on the level of an adolescent. Motivation for doing right is indicative of the individual's level of psychological/intellectual/spiritual maturity. To act because of what one gains from it is not a noble act in itself. The best motivation for doing right is acting so, simply because one realises it is worth doing so for its own sake. It is an unselfish act, without passion or desire.

LOL the denial.

If you do something you 'realise is worth doing so for its own sake', you feel better than
if you don't do something you 'realise is worth doing so for its own sake'.

Original post by Marco1

Of course we can be moral on our own. We are free agents capable of reason and able to choose and decide. Within us is the divine universal law. We all have a divine essence within. Or as Christ himself said, 'The kingdom of heaven lies within'. Our job is too realise and seek that. If a humane morality is not taught, then it needs to be learned from life and one's own inquiry. Many of course live and die in ignorance. That's a bit of a waste if you ask me but that's the way it is. Perhaps there is something in the theory of reincarnation but anyway. None of us are perfect but the eternal objective good, exists regardless, thank God. We all fail to act well sometimes but it is about seeking to be wiser and better individuals. Socrates, the wisest man in Ancient Greece said the unexamined life is not worth living. To live fully is to seek truth and know thyself.

How do you know any of these? Once again, you're so very confident about what you personally feel within yourself, so much that you assert that to not only be universal, but from 'god''s.

You are literally creating god and god's rules.

If there's something about morality from god, then:
everyone should feel the same way about morality, but they don't;
god didn't install morality in everybody, or people don't just get morality from god.

How can I make this any more clear?

Reply 21

Exon

I have about as much sympathy for these guys as I do for the Nazis. None whatsoever.

Reply 22

Pride

Hello

Original post by Little Toy Gun

None of the existing gods is moral.

I bet you can guess what my answer to that would be. God is moral. In fact, God knows all things. We (humans) don't. How many times can you look back and think, boy oh boy, what was I thinking? I was clearly wrong that time. How many times have you come across someone (even those older than yourself) who have views about something that to you are quite obviously wrong?

So I rely on what God's idea of what morality is, over the views of any person. That said, I don't want to totally dismiss human's ability to discern right from wrong, or reason logically about things. I am just confident that God is omniscient, and is 'good'. That confidence comes from knowing God for myself.

It does if you consider it under the framework of evolution. People who do not help other humans generally do not survive, and cannot mate with other humans to pass on their genes. It certainly holds much water than to claim that it comes from 'something' 'somewhere' we have absolutely no idea what 'it' is.

Like I said, I don't think that's sound. What you're saying is that there is objective morality, but it's based on promoting survival of the species, evolution, and natural selection. But that doesn't make sense. Why is it so important for the human race to survive? How can you objectively assert that propagating the human species is moral, and taking steps that would raise the likelihood of humans dying out is immoral? How can it be objectively moral for someone to kill another human if that was the only way to ensure your own survival, when you can't even explain what the point of living is?

And if morality comes from 'god', this suggests that one or some of the following:
1. 'god' has failed to give everyone morality;
2. 'god' does not think giving everyone morality is a good thing (but is this behaviour moral in itself?);
3. 'god' thinks it is normal to be selfish.

Once again, your reasoning shows that either 'god' is unable or unwilling to install morality in everyone.

God does not force people to do moral things. He allows us to make choices. He does not give people morality from birth in the way that you're suggesting. That's not necessarily immoral. That said, he did come to earth, and he did tell and show people the truth (with signs), he also instructed people to spread the truth he'd been saying, which is that he existed, and that we should change our lives and follow him. Then, it's up to people to see for themselves whether it's true.

Morality is not objective, and it's also very complex under different contexts with different concerns and stakeholders.

human morality isn't objective, that's what I've been explaining.

Yes, there are.

I should qualify what I said. There is no paper that can definitively show that all the decisions people make are solely due to the interaction of biomedical (like EEG readings from certain parts of the brain) and psychosocial factors. There isn't one. I would actually go on to argue that that's not possible. It's also not biblical, as then there would be no such thing as justice: "You will be judged for your wrongdoings" "but I couldn't help it, it was my genes, and the society" "Oh. Fair enough."

So on what basis can you see that there is objective morality from anything anyone?
Not sure if I understand your question, but I think the answer is that the basis is the bible, what God says, the holy spirit etc. It's up to us whether we give these things a fair go.

Doing the 'right' thing makes you feel better about yourself - that is a personal gain, and the exact reason why anyone does anything good, ever if it costs them them effort, money, or their lives.

People say this a lot, and I simply disagree. It's not biblical. You also cannot prove that that is true.

God loved the world, therefore he sent his son. Jesus loved his father and people, therefore, he obeyed his father's commands and allowed himself to be killed by the people he loved. You may say that anything anyone ever does has a self-serving motivation at its root. But I'd simply say, you only think that because that's what motivates you. You can't imagine ever doing something for someone else without a personal gain - therefore, it must not be possible. That's not convincing evidence.

Unconditional love is what underpins my faith in God. According to the bible, the holy spirit (a form of God) makes it possible for humans to love others unconditionally, and to do things for others, regardless of personal gain. I think you overstate the power of that warm fuzzy feeling when you help somebody. I honestly think I can do things for others with great sacrifice to myself, even if I benefit in no way, through faith.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 23

Pride

Original post by Nuvertion

I'm not sure how you can make such a bold statement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924174331.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=neurological-basis-for-lack-of-empathy-in-psychopaths

The brain makes all of your decisions, you can only disagree with that if you're religious which appears to be the case. I'm not sure what point you're making by continuously enclosing activity in quotes, I'm not interested in a religious debate. By the way, applying science couldn't be more objective than say, believing what your family told you. I've already indirectly explained the quote in italics. As for the underlined, where do you think these experiences are stored, the brain maybe?

There is no objective morality, every court in the west uses relative mortality. For example, saying stealing should get your hands cut off is ridiculous. What if you were starving? What if you stole one loaf of bread and someone else stole £10,000, do they deserve the same punishment? Everything is based on context, there is no rule that always applies no matter what the context.

Well I was just answering the question. I think the answers are unavoidably and directly to do with God. If you don't want to talk about God, that's okay. I'm not posting because I want to debate with people, I just wanted to help answer people's questions :dontknow:

Reply 24

Marco1

Original post by Little Toy Gun

LOL the denial.

If you do something you 'realise is worth doing so for its own sake', you feel better than
if you don't do something you 'realise is worth doing so for its own sake'.

How do you know any of these? Once again, you're so very confident about what you personally feel within yourself, so much that you assert that to not only be universal, but from 'god''s.

You are literally creating god and god's rules.

If there's something about morality from god, then:
everyone should feel the same way about morality, but they don't;
god didn't install morality in everybody, or people don't just get morality from god.

How can I make this any more clear?

I tried. It's not about feelings dude.