Golden Rule 2.0

[Philboid Studge]

I'm tired of hearing how frigging wonderful the Golden Rule is. Isn't it rather arrogant to assume that others want to be treated the way you do? I think it needs it to be modified thus: 'Do unto others as you believe they would want done to them.'

At best, the way the GR reads now should be used only as a last resort, as when forming an opinion on another's wishes is impossible.

Golden Rule 2.0 would get people to think outside their own narrow worldviews for a change and it would foster a climate of honest cooperation.

[thomas]

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people. This is one instance where humanists trying to steal the best from Christianity and matching it up with relativist morality end up with nonsense.

[Philboid Studge]

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality.
Ya think? Too bad in the real world there is no such agreement, and never was.

This is one instance where humanists trying to steal the best from Christianity and matching it up with relativist morality end up with nonsense.
Instead of calling me a thief, why don't you tell me why you think my version is 'nonsense'? I notice you didn't go there for some reason.

[thomas]

Ummmm, why don't you stop cutting out the reasons from my arguments and then accusing me of "not going there".

Here is a repeat of an example of the nonsense caused by the Golden Rule if the society applying it are moral relativists.

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people.

[Philboid Studge]

Ummmm, why don't you stop cutting out the reasons from my arguments and then accusing me of "not going there".

Here is a repeat of an example of the nonsense caused by the Golden Rule if the society applying it are moral relativists.

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people.

Ya happy? I quoted all of it. Now show how any of this shows 2.0 is nonsense. Your last sentence suggests you agree with me, fer chrissake. It only demostrates that you do not understand Golden Rule 2.0, or perhaps you're just pissed that the stoner came up with something that's wiser than Christendom's most beloved bromide!

[snap crafter]

Ummmm, why don't you stop cutting out the reasons from my arguments and then accusing me of "not going there".

Here is a repeat of an example of the nonsense caused by the Golden Rule if the society applying it are moral relativists.

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people.

I take that in offense sir. Being a masochist myself, it would go against the basic principles of masochism to go around cuttin' people up. What your talking about is Sadist. Would a sadist then start hurting himself? Words that specifically talk about the first or second person shouldn't be used in this context, think of something else if you would.

[Metman07]

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people. This is one instance where humanists trying to steal the best from Christianity and matching it up with relativist morality end up with nonsense.
As pointed out earlier, there is no agreement on a common morality. What is moral differs amongs Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews. They may have a lot in common, but they are not in agreement on all things.

You seem to imply that the Golden Rule is unique to Christianity, when the same basic concept is found in many religions (probably most), including many religions which are much older than Christianity.

Exactly how is Philboid's modification "nonsense"? I think it makes much more sense than the Golden Rule, and perhaps the authors of the Bible meant to say what Philboid is saying. Just because I'd want something done to me doesn't mean that everyone else would.

Let's say that I was feeling really down and depressed. A hug would probably cheer me up a little. But now, let's say I have a female friend who happens to be a conservative Muslim. Let's say that she's feeling a little blue. She would probably be offended if I tried to giver her a hug since it is against her system of morals for unrelated males to have physical contact with females.

[Viole]

Please, people! 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' did not originate with Christianity. You can figure this one out just by thinking about it. What religions are older than Christianity, and believed in karmic retribution? Just another theme stolen by early Christians from other faiths.

[calpurnpiso]

It is a delusional thinking ( just like that of castrato Origen in the 4th Century and his laughable "Diabolic mimicry) to think humanists or anyone with a healthy brain would like to steal ANYTHING from Christianity!! Alas, what is there to steal?..Who wants to steal deceit, conniving attitudes, absurd delusions, lies, irrational thinking, plagiarism, mental flatulence and intolerance?

The Christ-psychotics are the ones stealing about EVERYTHING, physical and mental, from others including their fairy tales at the roots of their faith. There is lots of evidence that attests to that....no "diabolic mimicry" there...:)

One must remember that the Latin phrase: Ab alio exspectes alteri quod feceris" ( do unto others....) was a moral guidance of ancient pagan cultures millennia before Christianity show its demented ugly face in the pagan world over 1,700 years ago..:)

[Metman07]

I forgot exactly how it goes, but there is a Wiccan saying, similar to the Golden Rule, except for the fact that it takes into account the fact that not everyone wants the same things done to them.

[ocmpoma]

Actually, even if there was objective morality, the GR is still crap, for exactly the reason thomas cited. A masochist, following the GR, would inflict pain on others, since he would be 'doing unto them as he would want them to do unto him'.
GR 2.0 fails as well, because if a person honestly believed that another wanted the first to kill them, the first would be bound by the GR2.0 to do so.
GR 3.0, 'do unto others as they want you to do unto them', fails as well, since it would make all of you duty bound to give me all of your money. Imagine what would happen if you followed GR 3.0 with Ghoulslime.

I prefer "Do unto others, including non-humans, that which causes the least harm, both physical, emotional, and mental, to all, if possible, with certain unspecified exceptions, in the most efficient manner possible which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition."

[Philboid Studge]

I prefer "Do unto others, including non-humans, that which causes the least harm, both physical, emotional, and mental, to all, if possible, with certain unspecified exceptions, in the most efficient manner possible which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition."
Catchy.

GR 2.0 fails as well, because if a person honestly believed that another wanted the first to kill them, the first would be bound by the GR2.0 to do so.
Never mind the unlikelihood of one person wanting to be killed by another. And I'm not saying that 2.0 should dictate all behavior -- that everyone should be going around trying to grant the wishes of others. (I'm pretty sure my neighbor wants to be fellated and I can't help him.) I'm just saying it could be used as a guideline (with certain unspecified exceptions!). I think of it more like cultural norms. Example: You are entering a Japanese house. Under GR, a westerner might just walk in be friendly, because that's how he receives guests. Under GR 2.0, the guest would do a little research and realize it's good form to take his shoes off -- because that's what the host wants. Under GR 3.0 with Ghoulslime, the host has to lock his daughters up. GR 4.0 is too hard to remember.

[thomas]

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people.
Ya happy? I quoted all of it. Now show how any of this shows 2.0 is nonsense. Your last sentence suggests you agree with me, fer chrissake. It only demostrates that you do not understand Golden Rule 2.0, or perhaps you're just pissed that the stoner came up with something that's wiser than Christendom's most beloved bromide!
I don't think that Golden Rule 2.0 was nonsense, just that your reasons for rejecting the Golden Rule were founded on a rejection of absolute morality. It's this rejection of a basic pre-supposition of Christianity that leads to the Golden Rule not working. There is an assumption that what the other person wants is for you to act morally towards them.

[thomas]

I take that in offense sir. Being a masochist myself, it would go against the basic principles of masochism to go around cuttin' people up. What your talking about is Sadist. Would a sadist then start hurting himself? Words that specifically talk about the first or second person shouldn't be used in this context, think of something else if you would.
You're quite right. I meant to say sadist and not masochist.

[thomas]

I think I mentioned before that the Golden Rule only really makes any sense if you have some agreement on a common morality. Otherwise the Golden Rule says that masochists should go around inflicting pain on people. This is one instance where humanists trying to steal the best from Christianity and matching it up with relativist morality end up with nonsense.
As pointed out earlier, there is no agreement on a common morality. What is moral differs amongs Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews. They may have a lot in common, but they are not in agreement on all things.

You seem to imply that the Golden Rule is unique to Christianity, when the same basic concept is found in many religions (probably most), including many religions which are much older than Christianity.
I never said it or implied it. The only person implying things here is you. I'm sure you're right about other religions having the Golden Rule earlier than Christianity. Can you supply any proof of your claim ? I know of many examples of the Golden Rule that are negative ( Don't do to other people what you don't want them to do do to you ). Do you know of any positive versions of the Golden Rule (Do to other people what you want them to do to you ) that pre-date Christianity ?

Exactly how is Philboid's modification "nonsense"? I think it makes much more sense than the Golden Rule, and perhaps the authors of the Bible meant to say what Philboid is saying. Just because I'd want something done to me doesn't mean that everyone else would.
I never said his modification was nonsense.

Let's say that I was feeling really down and depressed. A hug would probably cheer me up a little. But now, let's say I have a female friend who happens to be a conservative Muslim. Let's say that she's feeling a little blue. She would probably be offended if I tried to giver her a hug since it is against her system of morals for unrelated males to have physical contact with females.
Wouldn't you want her to consider your feelings and ways you would be offended before consoling her ?

[thomas]

Please, people! 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' did not originate with Christianity. You can figure this one out just by thinking about it. What religions are older than Christianity, and believed in karmic retribution? Just another theme stolen by early Christians from other faiths.
Like I said to Metman, I'm sure you are right, and I'm not trying to claim Christianity was first in making this statement, but can you please point me at the texts that pre-date Christianity and have the Golden Rule in it's positive form ?

[Philboid Studge]

I don't think that Golden Rule 2.0 was nonsense, just that your reasons for rejecting the Golden Rule were founded on a rejection of absolute morality. It's this rejection of a basic pre-supposition of Christianity that leads to the Golden Rule not working. There is an assumption that what the other person wants is for you to act morally towards them.
Thanks, I misunderstood your initial post. No harm, no foul.

I don't think I reject the original GR because of absolute morality, but I can see how belief in abmo is necessary for GR to work. I.e., there would be no "assumption [of] what the other person wants" if there wasn't an agreement in place already as to what everybody wants.

It's true that GR is impossible -- or at least deeply flawed -- without abmo. On the other hand, even among Christians there're often 'troubles.' Witness Belfast. Wouldn't they get along better if they applied 2.0?

[thomas]

It is a delusional thinking ( just like that of castrato Origen in the 4th Century and his laughable "Diabolic mimicry) to think humanists or anyone with a healthy brain would like to steal ANYTHING from Christianity!! Alas, what is there to steal?..Who wants to steal deceit, conniving attitudes, absurd delusions, lies, irrational thinking, plagiarism, mental flatulence and intolerance?
If you think there is nothing good in the moral teaching of Jesus then you are blinded by your hatred.

The Christ-psychotics are the ones stealing about EVERYTHING, physical and mental, from others including their fairy tales at the roots of their faith. There is lots of evidence that attests to that....no "diabolic mimicry" there...:)
So, you keep on saying. But when you're challenged on the evidence you provide you have no answers other than diatribe. I'm getting bored of you and your whining calpurnpiso.

One must remember that the Latin phrase: Ab alio exspectes alteri quod feceris" ( do unto others....) was a moral guidance of ancient pagan cultures millennia before Christianity show its demented ugly face in the pagan world over 1,700 years ago..:)
The only thing I need to remember is that you are no respecter of evidence. This latin phrase was alledgedly written by Publilio Siro, who was a contemporary of Ceasar. It's part of a book of maxims that were supposedly taken from his plays. But nobody really knows if it was added to at a later date. RThere are no early manuscripts. Regardless, it was not written millenia earlier by pagans. Also your latin translation is not correct. The phrase translates as "As you treat a neighbour, expect another to treat you." ? There is a difference between that phrase and "do unto others as you'd have them do to you". The first is essentially negative, the second positive.

Again, I don't really think its important to show this was unique to Christianity, just curious to see if anyone on this board has evidence that it really wasn't ?

[thomas]

I forgot exactly how it goes, but there is a Wiccan saying, similar to the Golden Rule, except for the fact that it takes into account the fact that not everyone wants the same things done to them.
Thanks, can you look it up and try and provide some indication of evidence for the date it was first used.

[thomas]

I prefer "Do unto others, including non-humans, that which causes the least harm, both physical, emotional, and mental, to all, if possible, with certain unspecified exceptions, in the most efficient manner possible which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition."
Ah, the moral relativists dilemma ! Shouldn't the moral relativists Golden Rule be "do whatever you think feels right" ?

[thomas]

Thanks, I misunderstood your initial post. No harm, no foul.
OK, I was still reacting to the other thread that raised the Golden Rule and WithTeeths ideas about humanism (as were you I think). I didn't make that clear, and that context probably would have helped.

It's true that GR is impossible -- or at least deeply flawed -- without abmo. On the other hand, even among Christians there're often 'troubles.' Witness Belfast. Wouldn't they get along better if they applied 2.0?
I think Golden Rule 1.0 works just fine for situations like Belfast. I don't think either side really wants to be bombed and shot. The problem isn't the rule, it's the people.

[ocmpoma]

Never mind the unlikelihood of one person wanting to be killed by another. And I'm not saying that 2.0 should dictate all behavior -- that everyone should be going around trying to grant the wishes of others. (I'm pretty sure my neighbor wants to be fellated and I can't help him.) I'm just saying it could be used as a guideline (with certain unspecified exceptions!). I think of it more like cultural norms. Example: You are entering a Japanese house. Under GR, a westerner might just walk in be friendly, because that's how he receives guests. Under GR 2.0, the guest would do a little research and realize it's good form to take his shoes off -- because that's what the host wants. Under GR 3.0 with Ghoulslime, the host has to lock his daughters up. GR 4.0 is too hard to remember.
Not gonna argue with that.

[ocmpoma]

Ah, the moral relativists dilemma ! Shouldn't the moral relativists Golden Rule be "do whatever you think feels right" ?
Ah, the dilemma of those who misunderstand moral relativism ! Shouldn't the moral objectivists Golden Rule be "do whatever you're told is right, even when you know it isn't" ?

[thomas]

Can't answer my question then ?

I've already told you what the Christian's morally objective Golden Rule is. Your version is inaccurate, because a moral objectivist can't hold that something that is objectively moral is objectively immoral.

You still speak like a moral absolutist even though you claim to be a relativist. What is this "knowing it isn't" that you speak about. How can a moral relativist "know" that some thing isn't moral ?

[Another brick in the wall]

Please, people! 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' did not originate with Christianity. You can figure this one out just by thinking about it. What religions are older than Christianity, and believed in karmic retribution? Just another theme stolen by early Christians from other faiths.
Like I said to Metman, I'm sure you are right, and I'm not trying to claim Christianity was first in making this statement, but can you please point me at the texts that pre-date Christianity and have the Golden Rule in it's positive form ?
Confucius said it 600 years before Christ. Hinduism espouses "ahimsa," non-violence to all living things. The Golden Rule is pretty much a synopsis of the Big Ten. It's actually better because there about four useless commandments: No swearing, keep the Sabbath holy, no idols, and no other gods. The rest are pretty much about resepecting other people.

[thomas]

None of these examples seem to equate to "Do to others what you would have them do unto you"

Confucious actually gave the negative version "Never do onto others what you would not like them to do onto you" which is quite different. The concept of ahimsa is more limited than the Golden Rule in that it specifically refers to violence only. As for the Ten Commandments, I hope you'll acknowledge that that was the same God as the NT God.

[Another brick in the wall]

Sure, sure. Yahweh is Yahweh. But didn't he first command "an eye for an eye?" Anyway, Confucius' version is better because it simply tells what you can't do. Not everyone likes the same things but most people hate the same things. There are various kinds of actions. Just because a deed is good does not mean that not doing it is bad. In ethics, this is called a supererogatory (sp? ) action. Most of the Commandments are dont's, if I recall correctly.

[thomas]

My point is not about who has the best version of the Golden Rule. The claim has been made that "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" predates Christianity. As yet nobody has provided evidence that this is actually true.

[Another brick in the wall]

The negation is pretty damn close. The Buddhist eightfold path is pretty close to the Ten Commandments. If the exact phrasing of the Golden Rule is what you're looking for, well maybe that is unique to christianity. So what? Bowing toward Mecca is unique to Islam (as far as I know). You say the argument is not about who has the best version of the golden rule, but if someone else came up with a better version earlier, what does that say for Jesus?

[Amazonis]

I'm tired of hearing how frigging wonderful the Golden Rule is. Isn't it rather arrogant to assume that others want to be treated the way you do? I think it needs it to be modified thus: 'Do unto others as you believe they would want done to them.'

At best, the way the GR reads now should be used only as a last resort, as when forming an opinion on another's wishes is impossible.

Golden Rule 2.0 would get people to think outside their own narrow worldviews for a change and it would foster a climate of honest cooperation.
I agree with you that the Golden Rule goes against common logic, simply because everyone has diferent morals, and they may not be the same as yours. However Golden Rule 2.0 (while not quite as illogical as 1.0) may still cause problems if there was a missunderstanding of what the other person wanted. Still, without realising it i probably live most of my life by 2.0. For example, on my travels to Indonesia i would always try to only use my left hand for handshaking (or was it the right hand?) because the other hand is used for anal cleansing by Indonesians :P

Even though i usually follow 2.0, i don't make a habbit of following any moral codes, because quite simply, they only work some of the time. You may nead to chop and change between several of these Golden Rules at diferent stages in your life, because one cannot work for every situation.

[Amazonis]

I prefer "Do unto others, including non-humans, that which causes the least harm, both physical, emotional, and mental, to all, if possible, with certain unspecified exceptions, in the most efficient manner possible which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition."
This basically sums up how most people live there lives, with or without realising it. Far more logical that 1.0 (or even 2.0 and 3.0) because it has the 'exeptions' built into the rule. Well Done :)

[ocmpoma]

thomas -
"Can't answer my question then ?"
What question? What the moral relativist's GR should be? If you want a serious answer to what I think is a frivolous question, read my first post. I laid it out there. The one that you think causes some sort of dilemma.

"I've already told you what the Christian's morally objective Golden Rule is. Your version is inaccurate, because a moral objectivist can't hold that something that is objectively moral is objectively immoral."
Ummmm... at no point did I say that the objectivist holds something to be moral and immoral at the same time. Look again - I said that the moral objectivist should do what they are told is morally right. (After all, since morality is objective, one can't make moral decisions on one's own. They should adhere to the objective morality, which is something greater than individual opinion.) They should do this (what they are told) even if they know (deep down in their objectivist hearts) that it is wrong - since their personal knowledge, beliefs, and opinions mean jack shit when compared to objective morality. If Objective Morality says that eating lettuce is morally wrong, well, how can I argue? After all, it's objective - you can't argue with it. Arguing with the objective morality of lettuce consumption is like arguing with 2 + 2. Can't be done.

"You still speak like a moral absolutist even though you claim to be a relativist. What is this "knowing it isn't" that you speak about. How can a moral relativist "know" that some thing isn't moral ?"
You haven't forgotten how to read, have you, thomas? First off, the line you are playing on here would have been spoken by an objectivist. Read it again. See? The objectivist says that he knows something is immoral, not the relativist. As a relativist, I would say "...something that I feel is immoral." Now go do what you're told, and try not to think about it.

[Philboid Studge]

Even though i usually follow 2.0, i don't make a habbit of following any moral codes, because quite simply, they only work some of the time. You may nead to chop and change between several of these Golden Rules at diferent stages in your life, because one cannot work for every situation.
Agreed! They're all just guidelines I tells ya.

You haven't forgotten how to read, have you, thomas? First off, the line you are playing on here would have been spoken by an objectivist. Read it again. See? The objectivist says that he knows something is immoral, not the relativist. As a relativist, I would say "...something that I feel is immoral."
I stand corrected, re the other thread on relativism. You really do have to qualify every statement with some variation of "I feel" or the gotcha! police will kick your doors in. (Even when it doesn't apply, like here.)

[thomas]

thomas -
"Can't answer my question then ?"
What question? What the moral relativist's GR should be? If you want a serious answer to what I think is a frivolous question, read my first post. I laid it out there. The one that you think causes some sort of dilemma.
I prefer "Do unto others, including non-humans, that which causes the least harm, both physical, emotional, and mental, to all, if possible, with certain unspecified exceptions, in the most efficient manner possible which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition."
Here is the dilemma. You seem to want to propose a rule, but can't find a way to pose a rule that doesn't involve some element of moral absolutism. So you end up writing a statement that has no meaning at all, or at least only a very vague one. I think what you've written is that a person should do certain things except for when they don't. And, in the vein of reverse-Philboidism, you really need to insert a whole lot of "in my opinions" in there.

For example "Do unto others, including non-humans (if you think they are equal, which you don't have to of course), that which causes the least harm (in your opinion), both physical, emotional and mental (only if you agree that these are moral acts in your opinion), to all (providing you think people are equal), if possible (providing you agree that people should act in such a way), with certain unspecified exceptions (although of course you could feel that exceptions aren't warranted, and that's ok too), in the most efficient manner possible (or other manner as you feel) which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition ( by which we mean whatever understanding of the human condition you feel like agreeing with ).

If you don't do this you are assuming moral absolutes regarding the equality of humans and animals, that least harm is good, that physical, emotional and mental harm are immoral, that all people are equal, that its morally good to act if you can, that it's morally good to make exceptions to rules, that it is morally good to act efficiently and that there is a universal understanding of what the human condition is. Without these things your statement is bunk.

"I've already told you what the Christian's morally objective Golden Rule is. Your version is inaccurate, because a moral objectivist can't hold that something that is objectively moral is objectively immoral."
Ummmm... at no point did I say that the objectivist holds something to be moral and immoral at the same time. Look again - I said that the moral objectivist should do what they are told is morally right. (After all, since morality is objective, one can't make moral decisions on one's own. They should adhere to the objective morality, which is something greater than individual opinion.) They should do this (what they are told) even if they know (deep down in their objectivist hearts) that it is wrong - since their personal knowledge, beliefs, and opinions mean jack shit when compared to objective morality. If Objective Morality says that eating lettuce is morally wrong, well, how can I argue? After all, it's objective - you can't argue with it. Arguing with the objective morality of lettuce consumption is like arguing with 2 + 2. Can't be done.
It's the statement "even if they know(deep down in their objectivist hearts) that it is wrong" that creates the contradiction in your statement. If I'm an objectivist I can't think deep down in my heart that something that is given as objectively right is objectively wrong. It's like saying that the objective mathematician must hold that 2+2=4 even if deep down in their heart they know the answer is 5. Knowing deep down in their heart that the objective truth is wrong makes them a relativist.

"You still speak like a moral absolutist even though you claim to be a relativist. What is this "knowing it isn't" that you speak about. How can a moral relativist "know" that some thing isn't moral ?"
You haven't forgotten how to read, have you, thomas? First off, the line you are playing on here would have been spoken by an objectivist. Read it again. See? The objectivist says that he knows something is immoral, not the relativist. As a relativist, I would say "...something that I feel is immoral." Now go do what you're told, and try not to think about it.
I indeed have not forgotten how to read. And I don't see your clarification at all.

[thomas]

I stand corrected, re the other thread on relativism. You really do have to qualify every statement with some variation of "I feel" or the gotcha! police will kick your doors in. (Even when it doesn't apply, like here.)
You do have to qualify it in the context of these discussions because you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't be a moral relativist and then expect to get away with making statements about moral absolutes. Often the addition of the "in my opinion" is what shows the weakness and moral repugnance of the relativist view-point.

"in my opinion it's wrong to shoot a police officer", and "it's wrong to shoot a police officer" are very different statements with very difference consequences for how a person thinks about the world.

[Philboid Studge]

The following is Philboid's frigging opinion:

You can't be a moral relativist and then expect to get away with making statements about moral absolutes.
Why not? The only statement I want to make about moral absolutes is that they don't exist. You think it's clever when Objectivists or theists (same thing) then say 'Aha! That's an absolute statement!' It should be implicit that Philboid's views come from Philboid.

Often the addition of the "in my opinion" is what shows the weakness and moral repugnance of the relativist view-point.
Often the presumption of having access to absolute knowledge shows hubris, and it almost always leads to repugnant behavior. Absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely.

"in my opinion it's wrong to shoot a police officer", and "it's wrong to shoot a police officer" are very different statements ...
Just FYI, shooting a police officer might be the best option under some circumstances.

The previous was Philboid's frigging opinion.
EDIT: Added 'frigging' where appropriate. --P.S.

[Lurker]

The only statement I want to make about moral absolutes is that they don't exist.
Of course that's just your friggin opinion (just couldn't resist)

Questions:
If no moral absolutes then why do we humans strive to do what is morally good if there is no good to strive for? Even a man doing evil deeds will try to justify his actions by appealing to another area of right/wrong thereby demonstrating that he was really doing something good, not bad. Why don't we continually strive to do what is bad? The fact that we are striving to get somewhere (good) and avoid the other (bad) seem to indicate these destinations exist. If they don't exist then we can't be making any moral progress, but we know we have. It's like saying we're getting closer to the city of Jumlinkg, Idaho when no city exists.

[ocmpoma]

thomas -
"I think what you've written is that a person should do certain things except for when they don't."
Sounds good to me...
"Do unto others, including non-humans (if you think they are equal, which you don't have to of course), that which causes the least harm (in your opinion), both physical, emotional and mental (only if you agree that these are moral acts in your opinion), to all (providing you think people are equal), if possible (providing you agree that people should act in such a way), with certain unspecified exceptions (although of course you could feel that exceptions aren't warranted, and that's ok too), in the most efficient manner possible (or other manner as you feel) which retains an empathic understanding of the human condition ( by which we mean whatever understanding of the human condition you feel like agreeing with )."
No problems here. Not the version I prefer, but hey, whatever floats your boat. You did notice that in my original post I stated the my GR was the version I prefered, right? Nothing absolute, just a personal preference.
"If you don't do this you are assuming moral absolutes regarding..."
Unless, of course, the version is just my personal preference... (See what I mean, Phil? I even said it and still get attacked as if it were an absolute statement.)
"It's like saying that the objective mathematician must hold that 2+2=4 even if deep down in their heart they know the answer is 5."
Except that '2 + 2 = 4' is objective (quantifiable) and 'sex before marriage is wrong' isn't.
Other than that, you're right. No matter what an objectivist feels is truly moral, they must ignore their feelings and do what they are told. In short, morality for an objectivist is nothing more than 'because so-and-so said so.'
"And I don't see your clarification at all."
Oh. I'm sorry, perhaps some boldface, italics, and underlining would help:
The phrase "...even when you know..." is spoken by an objectivist, which means your assertion that the speaker can't claim absolute knowledge is wrong, since the speaker is an objectivist and believes in absolute knowledge of absolute morality.
Better? If not, I can try some CAPITALIZATION.
But I do agree that
"in my opinion it's wrong to shoot a police officer", and "it's wrong to shoot a police officer" are very different statements with very difference consequences for how a person thinks about the world.
The latter statement is an assertion that the speaker thinks their opinion is the only valid opinion in the world, as belies either the extreme arrogance of the speaker, or their inability to grasp relativism.

lurker -
I will respond to your points in order:
1. An absence of moral absolutes is not an absence of 'good' or 'bad', just an absence of absolute good or bad. Your example of the 'evil' man justifying his actions lends credence to moral relativism. People often do things they consider moral that others consider immoral.
2. Because most people do what they think is morally good. The destinations of 'good' and 'bad' do exist - they're just different destinations for different people. Some people like sunshine and warm weather all year. Other people like four seasons.
3. How do we know we've made progress morally? It's like saying we're getting closer to our (single) destination, when everyone is going to separate places.

[Philboid Studge]

If no moral absolutes then why do we humans strive to do what is morally good if there is no good to strive for?
I like this question. Under other circumstances I might have said, 'This is a good question,' but that would have required a laborious treatise on the nature of 'good.' How do I know it's 'good'? On what authority do I have it that its 'goodness' is valid? et cetera. But I like it. I feel it is a 'good' question.

Before answering it, I feel that a few disclaimers are in order. First, the opinions expressed here are my own. They are derived from a combination of my genetic makeup and my education/experience; that is, my nature + my nurture. I can't think of another source of my opinions than these. I feel that all my actions spring from these as well. I feel that other people form opinions and actions based on their natures and nurtures too. I understand that some people believe that there is a third source. When I communicate with these people, I feel have to be particularly aware of their belief, which I do not share.

Second, I feel I am bound by a language developed largely by people who feel there is an absolute morality. Thus when I use a term like 'good,' some people might feel that I am evoking an eternal, fixed truth. I feel that I am not. I feel that I am expressing an opinion which, as has been stated, is informed by my nature and nurture. The same can be said of the word 'morally.' My opinions about what is moral are just that: my opinions.

Previously I said 'I like this question.' I feel that this question can be separated into three parts to illustrate key aspects of moral relativism.

If no moral absolutes
I feel this is true. I feel there are no moral absolutes.

then why do we humans strive to do what is morally good
I feel that most people strive to do what they feel is morally good. Often their motivations, methods, and objectives are at odds with what other people feel is morally good. I feel that across cultures, time, and circumstances, there is little agreement among peoples about what it morally good. I feel these conflicts result from the lack of moral absolutes. As was pointed out in part one, I feel there are no moral absolutes.

if there is no good to strive for?
I feel there is good to strive for, and each person decides -- based on his nature and nurture -- what that good is. I feel that when I communicate with people who feel that a third source informs their morality, I am baffled by their assumption that 'because there is no absolute good, there is no good.' Similarly, these people feel that without absolute morality, there are no morals. I feel this is 'wrong.' I feel that the opposite may be true: that people who believe they are privy to knowledge of absolute good will eventually act in ways I feel are 'evil' or 'wrong.' I feel the historical record supports my belief. I feel that, even though I do not believe in absolute morality, I have the right to hold opinions about what is 'evil' or 'wrong.' I feel that these terms express what I feel.

[Rhinoqulous]

The only statement I want to make about moral absolutes is that they don't exist.
Of course that's just your friggin opinion (just couldn't resist)

Questions:
If no moral absolutes then why do we humans strive to do what is morally good if there is no good to strive for? Even a man doing evil deeds will try to justify his actions by appealing to another area of right/wrong thereby demonstrating that he was really doing something good, not bad. Why don't we continually strive to do what is bad? The fact that we are striving to get somewhere (good) and avoid the other (bad) seem to indicate these destinations exist. If they don't exist then we can't be making any moral progress, but we know we have. It's like saying we're getting closer to the city of Jumlinkg, Idaho when no city exists.
Someone's been reading Lewis. Can't talk now, I'll post what I think about this next week, Lurker.

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

Someone's been reading Lewis. Can't talk now, I'll post what I think about this next week, Lurker.
Yep. I liked what he said and thought I'd borrow his ideas.

[Lurker]

Before answering it, I feel that a few disclaimers are in order. First, the opinions expressed here are my own....
Second, I feel....
...I feel that I am not. I feel that I am ....
...I feel that this question can...
I feel this is true. I feel there are no moral absolutes.
I feel that most people strive...
I feel there is good to strive for, and...
I feel that these terms express what I feel.
I feel sick.
I feel you are sick too.
I feel for you man.

[Philboid Studge]

I feel sick.
Good. I mean 'good.' You frigging asked for it.

[calpurnpiso]

Hmm....CS Lewis was delusional. The man was highly superstitious and couldn't differentiate between myths and reality. Though he was a master in English literature and expresive fantasies. Perhaps it was due to his mental imbalance, and schizoaffective disorder he was so good at writting.

One must realize that many people that suffer from schizophrenia and temporal lobe epilepsy become great poets and writers, since the visions expressed by their defective brain are so vivid...that is till their mental illness is diagnosed and they are placed in mental health clinics. CS Lewis, IMHO, was a demented fool plagued by intermitent faith triggers which interrupted the healthy atheism he thought to have. He simply had "mere Christ-psychosis"!


His contemporary Freud who had the fortune to be born into Judaism, knew better, and hit the nail in the head when he define religious beliefs for the delusion they truly are. Many do not realize that another contemporary of these men was Tolkien, who by also been infected with Christ-psychosis transformed the absurd tales of this puerile anachronism, due to his faith triggers induced neurological imbalance, into the fantastic world of the Hobbitt and later the good (jesus) vs Evil ( satan) defined in the Lord of the Rings...:)

[Lurker]

2. Because most people do what they think is morally good. The destinations of 'good' and 'bad' do exist - they're just different destinations for different people. Some people like sunshine and warm weather all year. Other people like four seasons.
I don't think the destinations are really all that different. As Lewis says, we all seem to be headed in same general direction even though we move about individually so in that sense there appears to be a destination - or at least a direction. Just as there is no final destination known as "east", there is a direction called east that is clearly different than southeast or north. I think we all know when we're headed "east" from a moral perspective, and we know when we're off course.

3. How do we know we've made progress morally? It's like saying we're getting closer to our (single) destination, when everyone is going to separate places.
Do you think we are able to look back in history and see if we are making moral progress? I think so. We have some idea what the ultimate goal is (no killing/starvation/stealing/corruption/etc) so there seems to be a "final destination". We call it "utopia". You don't see humanity working toward frequent killing, massive corruption, etc.

[snap crafter]

If I look back in history, and gauge moral progress... I doubt I would see anything as 'we're headin' in ta right direection boeeysss' More, it would be a valley of bumps and ditchs. Remember that holocaust thingy, Hitler thought it was the ultimate good didn't he? wasn't that not too long ago? And, hmm, we're striving to erradicate what we don't want happened to us... woah there must be a god huh? Though in africa you hear about these murders being taken place to rid a zone of a certain people don' t you? Massive corruption, like what we have in america? etc.

I'm still waiting for that evidence lurker, which I think your ignoring.

[Metman07]

I never said it or implied it. The only person implying things here is you.
"This is one instance where humanists trying to steal the best from Christianity and matching it up with relativist morality end up with nonsense"

In the above statement, by saying that humanists are stealing this concept from Christianity (and Christianity alone), you have implied that the concept of the Golden Rule is unique to Christianity, which it isn't. Why did you not say that they are stealing from Hinduism, or Islam or Confucianism?

I never said his modification was nonsense.
If you weren't saying that Philboid's modificaiton was nonsense, then what other "instance" were you referring to?

I'm sure you're right about other religions having the Golden Rule earlier than Christianity. Can you supply any proof of your claim ? I know of many examples of the Golden Rule that are negative ( Don't do to other people what you don't want them to do do to you ). Do you know of any positive versions of the Golden Rule (Do to other people what you want them to do to you ) that pre-date Christianity?
There can be hundreds of examples found of the Golden Rule being stated in the negative (which is in fact the better way of putting it). But if you'd like examples of the Golden Rule in the positive:

Look up information about the Hitopadesa a Hindu text written around 3200 BC. In the Hitopadesa, you will find the quote, "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."

Also, in the "Tale of Eloquent Peasant" a story from Ancient Egyptian times dated between 1970 BC and 1640 BC, one line is quoted as ""Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."

Wouldn't you want her to consider your feelings and ways you would be offended before consoling her ?
But if my hypothetical friend really was a conservative Muslim, she -like you- would be a moral absolutist. So, regardless of my feelings or my system of morals, from her point of view I would be wrong in initiating physical contact with her.

[Metman07]

Would the resident theists like to show how one can objectively arrive at what is right and what is wrong?

[thomas]

I think the answer to that question is somewhat complex. Often I find that people think Christians believe that there is a complete list of absolute moral commands that cover all situations to be followed. This isn't the case. When I say that I think morality is absolute I don't claim to know what that absolute morality is for every given situation. What I mean is that for any choice of actions each of those actions can be classified as absolutely morally right, absolutely morally wrong or absolutely morally neutral.

The Bible gives some absolute moral commands which I think gain their authority from God the creator and sustainer of the universe, and are inspired by Him. It also gives moral guidance ( e.g. the Golden Rule ) which don't give specific moral commands but do help work out which actions are moral and which are immoral. Again, I think these get their authority from God. And then there are the gaps, actions for which there is no specific guidance or rule.

I also believe that morality is a priori knowledge, it just is. I believe that mankind has been 'discovering' that knowledge over time. I would subscribe to the opinion that humans are making moral progress and that there is something to progress towards. In this respect it is much like logic or math. Logic has always 'been' since the universe was created. It wasn't 'discovered' by humans until Socrates came along. That doesn't mean that logic didn't hold prior to that discovery.

So, I think there is no objective method to arrive at what is right or wrong, but that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong.

[thomas]

In the above statement, by saying that humanists are stealing this concept from Christianity (and Christianity alone), you have implied that the concept of the Golden Rule is unique to Christianity, which it isn't. Why did you not say that they are stealing from Hinduism, or Islam or Confucianism?
Granted. I could have chosen other religions that believed in absolute morality. The key point wasn't the stealing it was the application of moral relativism to a statement made in the context of moral absolutism that created the nonsense.

There can be hundreds of examples found of the Golden Rule being stated in the negative (which is in fact the better way of putting it). But if you'd like examples of the Golden Rule in the positive:
I already acknowledged the presence of version of the GR in the negative, and I've not claimed that Christianity was the first to claim it in the positive, just that I'd not seen evidence for it.

Look up information about the Hitopadesa a Hindu text written around 3200 BC. In the Hitopadesa, you will find the quote, "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."
OK, I've looked it up (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/hitopadesha_arnold/) and searched for that quote and it isn't there. Can you be more precise in the reference ( which fable is it in, exactly what words are used, which translation are you using etc ? )

Also, in the "Tale of Eloquent Peasant" a story from Ancient Egyptian times dated between 1970 BC and 1640 BC, one line is quoted as ""Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."
OK, I've looked this up (http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/the_eloquent_peasant.htm) too and I don't find the quoted line in here either ? Are you just cutting and pasting stuff off of other sites, or do you actually look this stuff up ? Apologies in advance if I've just missed the quoted lines

[Metman07]

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson

At the momen I can't find where it says that in the Hitopadesa, but I have read this quote in a few books and articles. I have never read it myself. I'll see if I can find another reference. If you Google it, you can find it quoted at several websites.

However, a similar quote can be found in the Mahabaharata: "Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat
others as they themselves wish to be treated." (Mahabharata 13.115.22)

[thomas]

Help me out a little here. Do you have a pointer to where I can find the R.B. Parkinson translation online ? The Barton translation and one other translation I've found don't have the words that you claim ?

Also, where did you source the Mahabarata quote ? I can't find a version that is split into the numbering scheme you've given ?

Thanks for these pointers.

[Metman07]

Help me out a little here. Do you have a pointer to where I can find the R.B. Parkinson translation online ? The Barton translation and one other translation I've found don't have the words that you claim ?

Also, where did you source the Mahabarata quote ? I can't find a version that is split into the numbering scheme you've given ?

Thanks for these pointers.
I don't think the Parkinson translation is available online. You might be able to find it at your local library if you're that interested. I have seen it for myself (yes I am a geek). I'll see where I can find the Hitopadesa quotes when I have the time. As for tha Mahabharata quote, you might also need a book. The book (actually books....many books) that I have is written in that numbering scheme. It's a HUGE epic, so you might not be able to find it online. Most of the ones that I have seen on the net are abridged versions that omit many parts of the stories. I've never read the whole epic, and I don't think I ever will, but I did find that specific quote.

[ocmpoma]

"I feel sick.
I feel you are sick too.
I feel for you man."

You're not disparaging emotions, are you, lurk?

[ocmpoma]

On to lurker's reply to my post:
"I don't think the destinations are really all that different."
I never said they were. Similarities (such as a more or less common idea of 'east' in your analogy) are owed to our common descent.

"Do you think we are able to look back in history and see if we are making moral progress?"
No. We feel that our society is more moral than, say, that of England around 1600. Englishmen from 1600, however, would look at the pluralistic, tolerant society of the US today and declare it almost completely immoral.

[Lurker]

On to lurker's reply to my post:
"I don't think the destinations are really all that different."
I never said they were. Similarities (such as a more or less common idea of 'east' in your analogy) are owed to our common descent.

"Do you think we are able to look back in history and see if we are making moral progress?"
No. We feel that our society is more moral than, say, that of England around 1600. Englishmen from 1600, however, would look at the pluralistic, tolerant society of the US today and declare it almost completely immoral.
To paraphrase Lewis...

There may be moral differences between civilizations/cultures but nothing that has amounted to what could be called a total difference. Can you think of a civilization where people were admired for treating people badly or admired for raping/murdering innocent people?

To put it in east/west terms. One civilizations may think southeast is moral and another may think northeast is moral, but none will think due west is moral. Do you agree?

I used a movie analogy before. Take 1 million moviegoers (from the 1600's if you want) and ask them to catagorize the movie Scarface. I'm certain that almost everyone would say something like intense drama or action or horror, but nobody will say it's a comedy. I feel (today's magic word) that gives credence to the idea of objective emotions as well.

[Another brick in the wall]

OK, various cultures have remarkably similar rules of conduct. So why the big fuss if they're christian or not? This is one of the many reasons why I think religion is a joke. The rules needed to run a peaceful and orderly society are pretty much the same everywhere. There's no need for hocus-pocus stories about people rising from the dead or getting 72 virgins for blowing yourself up.

[ocmpoma]

I'll hit the movie analogy first - classification of a film into a genre has nothing to do with morality. However, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people (from any time period) would say that Scarface was a mostly immoral character.

I will agree that most people share a common sense of morality (northeast and southeast, but not west). I already covered this - similarities and overarching concepts of morality in humans are a result of our common descent (no, not Fall). The fact that the vast majority of people throughout history have thought that killing other people is usually wrong does not at all support objective morality. Humans are social animals; we survive in groups.

[Philboid Studge]

Can you think of a civilization where people were admired for treating people badly or admired for raping/murdering innocent people?
Admired by whom? Anyway there are plenty of examples where murdering innocent people is positively celebrated. Let's start with conquest of Canaan. You can't really blame the Hebrews for murdering every man, woman, and child though -- after all, God told them to do it. Since it pretty much launched the whole Judeo-Christian thing, what's not to admire? Can't make lemonade without breaking a few eggs!

[Lurker]

Can you think of a civilization where people were admired for treating people badly or admired for raping/murdering innocent people?
Admired by whom? Anyway there are plenty of examples where murdering innocent people is positively celebrated. Let's start with conquest of Canaan. You can't really blame the Hebrews for murdering every man, woman, and child though -- after all, God told them to do it. Since it pretty much launched the whole Judeo-Christian thing, what's not to admire? Can't make lemonade without breaking a few eggs!
Don't know about you, but I don't use eggs in lemonade. Next, I said admiration for murdering innocent people. They were not considered innocent by their killers so it doesn't apply.

[Philboid Studge]

They were not considered innocent by their killers so it doesn't apply.
That's plain silly. They killed everybody, babies included. If the Hebrews didn't think the babies were innocent, then the word 'innocent' has no meaning.

Edit -- question added: Do you think the babies were innocent?

[Lurker]

I will agree that most people share a common sense of morality (northeast and southeast, but not west). I already covered this - similarities and overarching concepts of morality in humans are a result of our common descent (no, not Fall). The fact that the vast majority of people throughout history have thought that killing other people is usually wrong does not at all support objective morality. Humans are social animals; we survive in groups.
Social evolution and teaching could explain some of it, but not the most important part of it. The part inside all of us that says we ought to do something. As Lewis explains, if we ask "Why ought I act this way?" and the reply is "Because it's good for society/family/others" then the next question is "Why shoud I care about those things?" which then brings you back to the beginning, "Because it's good for society/family/others". It explains nothing I think.

Why do you suppose we have that voice inside us?

[ocmpoma]

To paraphrase:
Why shoud I care about society/family/others?

We have evolved to do so. This is not really 'social evolution' - as animals that evolved to live in groups, we evolved a strategy of survival which relied upon the group as a whole working for the whole group's survival. An animal that didn't care about the group would be ostracized, and most likely die without producing offspring. The more the grouped worked together, the more likely it was to survive, and hence produce offspring more likely to work together, and so on. Our 'human-wide' sense that helping the group is thus explained. Ever notice that people usually care most about their immediate kin, follwed by their close friends, and then those they work with, then those they live near, etc? We don't necessarily care about what happens to people unless they are close to us in some way - the closer they are, the more we care (generally). This is a result of needing the group for survival - since we don't percieve strangers as necessary to our survival (generally), we care less about them than we do those whom we see as necessary.

[HMS Beagle]

I appreciate Philboid's argument -- that the Golden Rule errs in assuming that everyone wants to be treated the way you want to be treated. But is that really its message? I always liked its basic godlessness (many religions echo it, but no deity can be crammed into it without changing it): it's a social philosophy that's keyed to action ("do") but that doesn't specify a moral code of conduct, let alone endorse any commandments.
I defend it as an admonition to respect others the way you want to be respected; essentially, a message that encourages empathy and thoughtful tolerance.

[snap crafter]

I will agree that most people share a common sense of morality (northeast and southeast, but not west). I already covered this - similarities and overarching concepts of morality in humans are a result of our common descent (no, not Fall). The fact that the vast majority of people throughout history have thought that killing other people is usually wrong does not at all support objective morality. Humans are social animals; we survive in groups.
Social evolution and teaching could explain some of it, but not the most important part of it. The part inside all of us that says we ought to do something. As Lewis explains, if we ask "Why ought I act this way?" and the reply is "Because it's good for society/family/others" then the next question is "Why shoud I care about those things?" which then brings you back to the beginning, "Because it's good for society/family/others". It explains nothing I think.

Why do you suppose we have that voice inside us?
That's where I disagree with lewis boy, I have no inner voice, I do things because people outside my body have told me to do these things for years. The thing inside me tells me I should kill all these hicks around my house with a bloody knife, I don't because the law would get me and I would probably die in the attempt. You see, lewis assumes he understands people, and that's an awefully big assumption.

[Metman07]

I will agree that most people share a common sense of morality (northeast and southeast, but not west). I already covered this - similarities and overarching concepts of morality in humans are a result of our common descent (no, not Fall). The fact that the vast majority of people throughout history have thought that killing other people is usually wrong does not at all support objective morality. Humans are social animals; we survive in groups.
Social evolution and teaching could explain some of it, but not the most important part of it. The part inside all of us that says we ought to do something. As Lewis explains, if we ask "Why ought I act this way?" and the reply is "Because it's good for society/family/others" then the next question is "Why shoud I care about those things?" which then brings you back to the beginning, "Because it's good for society/family/others". It explains nothing I think.

Why do you suppose we have that voice inside us?
This "part" you refer to, is not the same among everybody. Different people feel guilty over different things. Maybe you've heard of Kenneth Regan: http://www.newcriminologist.co.uk/news.asp?id=1223944604. He killed a husband, wife, the wife's mother and their two infant sons so that he could take over the family's freight business and use it to smuggle drugs. He hasn't exhibted any remorse for his actions.

This "part" you speak of is not innate. I think that there are some innate instincts built into humans, just as they are built into many social animals. These enable animals to function socially. But when a child is born it is selfish, inconsiderate and self-centered and it has to learn that it is not the center of the world. A lot of it has to do with what one is taught. Most children are taught from a very young age that it is wrong to steal, to hurt others, to lie etc.

Most societies are on agreement on many morals because they are necessary for the society to function. You wouldn't have a very effective civilization if everyone felt free to murder, steal, rape and torture as they liked.

[Amazonis]

Can you think of a civilization where people were admired for treating people badly or admired for raping/murdering innocent people?
- The Aztecs and many other ancient civilisations made human sacrifices.
- The Romans enslaved, tortured, raped and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children when they invaded South America.
- The hunting of native tribes in South America was still a sport until fifty years ago.

I could go on forever listing hundreds of examples. Bassically every culture on earth has at one time or another admired abuse of humans. It would be extremely ignorant of you to think that it is rare for a society to admire the abuse of humans. People that once had slaves are still alive and working in your very own country.

[ocmpoma]

Not to mention the campaign of genocide against indigenous peoples carried out by the US in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

[calpurnpiso]

AHHH...and less not forget the greatest Drug pushers and fine Jewelry thief ever, the English!..sine qua non, in the drug dealing business and rapatious deceit. Hmmm...the poor Chinese and Hindus have not forgotten the Brittish "aid" in the "welfare of their countries". I do not think Christ-psychosis infected America can even surpass the feats of her mother country, but at least it posseses the two greatest virtues of Christianity inhereted from her, Intolerance and hipocresy!...:)

[thomas]

Been drinking again, cal ?

[Amazonis]

Go easy on him, He only said 'christ psychosis' once in the entire paraprah! He is getting there...

Anyway, other than the use of those words, everything he said was true.

[Lurker]

- The Aztecs and many other ancient civilisations made human sacrifices.
- The Romans enslaved, tortured, raped and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children when they invaded South America.
- The hunting of native tribes in South America was still a sport until fifty years ago.

I could go on forever listing hundreds of examples. Bassically every culture on earth has at one time or another admired abuse of humans. It would be extremely ignorant of you to think that it is rare for a society to admire the abuse of humans. People that once had slaves are still alive and working in your very own country.
Don't you think these people had an excuse for doing what they did? They rationalized their actions so in their mind they were acting morally. This is the difference. When I say people were admired for treating people badly, I mean admired for doing bad things because they knew fully well they were bad and didn't try to offer an excuse for their behavior. I can't think of a civilization that fits this description.

[Little Earth Stamper]

I will agree that most people share a common sense of morality (northeast and southeast, but not west). I already covered this - similarities and overarching concepts of morality in humans are a result of our common descent (no, not Fall). The fact that the vast majority of people throughout history have thought that killing other people is usually wrong does not at all support objective morality. Humans are social animals; we survive in groups.
Social evolution and teaching could explain some of it, but not the most important part of it. The part inside all of us that says we ought to do something. As Lewis explains, if we ask "Why ought I act this way?" and the reply is "Because it's good for society/family/others" then the next question is "Why shoud I care about those things?" which then brings you back to the beginning, "Because it's good for society/family/others". It explains nothing I think.

Why do you suppose we have that voice inside us?
I have other voices inside me too; There's a voice to tell me that I need more food, one to tell me that I need more sleep, one that tells me to take my hand off that lawnmower engine because it's still very hot.

These voices don't require any concious thought on my part; in fact, I often wish I could turn the pain off. Once I've put burn cream and a bandage on my burn, I don't need my body to keep telling me that I'm wounded; I've done all I can to fix things. A perfect pain voice would know when to shut up for a while, so I don't think this pain response was intelligently designed.

I think our moral sense is essentially the same as all these other senses; an evolved, imperfect response that allows us to survive better then those without these senses. In fact, another way that pain is like morality is that people are born without both senses. Some people are born without the ability to feel pain, and some are born without empathy. Why this would be if god designed us I truly can't imagine.

[Philboid Studge]

They rationalized their actions so in their mind they were acting morally. This is the difference. When I say people were admired for treating people badly, I mean admired for doing bad things because they knew fully well they were bad and didn't try to offer an excuse for their behavior. I can't think of a civilization that fits this description.
Lurker, I think you've twisted your parameters to the point where your question is meaningless, and unrecognizable from your original question. You first asked, "Can you think of a civilization where people were admired for treating people badly or admired for raping/murdering innocent people?"

You've been deluged with endless examples of that. Now you're saying it only counts if they knew they were bad/wrong, admitted it, made no explanation or rationale for treating other badly, and were then celebrated for behaving badly. Gosh, I wonder why it's hard to find a civilization that fits that bill.

The early Hebrews knew they were killing innocent Canaanite babies, but such an act was considered 'right' because of their magical access to a supernatural voice. We have no way of knowing, but I suspect that many in the tribe believed they were being righteous, while some (the leaders) manufactured the imprimatur of God as a rationale for overwhelming a rival tribe. The only 'right' or 'wrong' under consideration was whether or not they succeeded.

[Lurker]

You've been deluged with endless examples of that. Now you're saying it only counts if they knew they were bad/wrong, admitted it, made no explanation or rationale for treating other badly, and were then celebrated for behaving badly. Gosh, I wonder why it's hard to find a civilization that fits that bill.
I'm just trying to clarify and I think you've missed the intent of my post.

[snap crafter]

- The Aztecs and many other ancient civilisations made human sacrifices.
- The Romans enslaved, tortured, raped and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children when they invaded South America.
- The hunting of native tribes in South America was still a sport until fifty years ago.

I could go on forever listing hundreds of examples. Bassically every culture on earth has at one time or another admired abuse of humans. It would be extremely ignorant of you to think that it is rare for a society to admire the abuse of humans. People that once had slaves are still alive and working in your very own country.
Don't you think these people had an excuse for doing what they did? They rationalized their actions so in their mind they were acting morally. This is the difference. When I say people were admired for treating people badly, I mean admired for doing bad things because they knew fully well they were bad and didn't try to offer an excuse for their behavior. I can't think of a civilization that fits this description.
Ok, lurker hunny, I think you need to step back a bit. Think about this: You tell us to find a civilization that KNEW they were bad correct? But bad is subjective, they wouldn't have thought they were bad, there was no innervoice saying; 'that ain't good now'. Though, to answer your question, no I don't think any civilization does things bad that they think was bad and didn't rationalize it because it would be overthrown by the populous. But since this is about individual responses to individual actions, I can think of plenty of serial killers that, when asked why they do these horrible things, they say that they wanted to/made them feel good. Even though most had been raised to believe what they were doing was bad, they still did it because they wanted to, no innervoice tellin'm to be good.

[Philboid Studge]

You've been deluged with endless examples of that. Now you're saying it only counts if they knew they were bad/wrong, admitted it, made no explanation or rationale for treating other badly, and were then celebrated for behaving badly. Gosh, I wonder why it's hard to find a civilization that fits that bill.
I'm just trying to clarify and I think you've missed the intent of my post.
I think so, too. Sorry! Can you re-phrase?

(I was going to mention the recent terrorists' communique, in which the supposed London bombers said "rejoice at the good news! The time of revenge has come for the crusader, Zionist British government." Here is a group that knew it was doing something bad to innocent people (even by their standards: the underground station is in a Muslim neighborhood, so they must have known that not all the victims would have been 'infidels') and are rejoicing at their act. But of course, al Qaeda is not a 'civilization' so ...)

[ocmpoma]

Harping harping harping, here I go a-harping...

"When I say people were admired for treating people badly, I mean admired for doing bad things because they knew fully well they were bad and didn't try to offer an excuse for their behavior."

Re-phrasing this, you get:
When I say people were admired [by a society] for treating people badly, I mean admired for doing things the society (which is the one doing the admiring, remember) felt was wrong and not offering any excuse or rationalization for their behavior."

No wonder you can't think of a civilization like that - no one admires people for doing things that they (the admirers) feel is morally wrong.

[Lurker]

Ok, lurker hunny...
I hope you're female. If not then I request you stop using this tone.

[WITHTEETH]

Don't hide from your true feelings lurker! :P

[snap crafter]

Ok, lurker hunny...
I hope you're female. If not then I request you stop using this tone.
I hate to tell ya, but I aint no female ;)

[Another brick in the wall]

Don't know about you, but I don't use eggs in lemonade. Next, I said admiration for murdering innocent people. They were not considered innocent by their killers so it doesn't apply.
The Nazis didn't think the Jews were innocent when they were killing them. Genocide is just plain wrong. Strange how Yaweh neglected to mention that.

[thomas]

Just checking. Is genocide wrong in your opinion or is it absolutely morally wrong ?

[Another brick in the wall]

My opinion. Morality is basically a democracy; if enough people believe something to be right, it becomes right.

[thomas]

Well, then genocide would almost always be morally right, in your view, because it's almost always practiced by the majority on the minority.

[Another brick in the wall]

No, the Germans tried to wipe out the more numeous Slavs in WWII and the conquistadors were fighting against more numerous Aztecs and Incas.

[thomas]

So you think the Germans and Conquistadors were only morally wrong because there weren't enough of them ?

[Another brick in the wall]

What I meant was, it's not always large groups trying to exterminate small groups. More often. it's technologically advanced groups trying to wipe out less advanced ones.