|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
now, i'm not understanding why you want me to put 'morality' and 'doing the right thing' in order of importance. first explain to me the difference between morality and doing the right thing? isn't morality the act of doing what is right or just? 
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
however, where do YOU think we get our morals from? do you think we get them from our society? because if you read what i wrote up there, there are some major problems in believe that morals come from what society deems as moral and just.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
stephen C:
okay let's replace the world morality with 'doing the right thing' and bring up the idea that all societies make up their own morals. so if each society decides that what they are doing is the right thing. and there is a society that is created that thinks killing people is the right thing to do. so our society who thinks that killing people is the wrong thing to do goes in there and tries to stop them from killing people, we all of a sudden are doing the wrong thing. because if we believe that all societies create their own version of the 'right thing' than we have no basis on which to go in and stop them because our 'right thing' is different from theirs. what i was trying to suggest is that maybe there is a 'right thing' that is above all societies. that's the only way that we would be able to justify going in and stopping a country from killing people. Canada never says that their peace keeping troops are immoral because they go against the moral codes of another nation. that would sound silly. so obviously we don't believe that each society creates it's own moral views and we appealing to a moral view that is outside of our own nation.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
that's wut winston's been tryin 2 say 2 u. moriality not always = "doin the rite thing" reason i asked the question of importance is u can only argue from the point of view of wut u believe if u believe in god then take the point of view of the scriptures if u believe in ur brand of morality take that point of view and if u believe in "doin the right thing" then be tolerant cuz there's more than 1 way of doin the rite thing
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
we get our morals from a combination of society and the people around us(family).... people are influence by other people to do things in a certain way... but i think its our induvidual vales which deem something as wrong or right....(to a person) Last edited by Veni*C; Sep 21, 04 at 06:13 AM.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
wut the hell do you mean "'right thing that is above all societies" there's no such thing "right things" r determined by societies "right things" r hierarchically beneath societies there's no such thing as a "right thing" which governs all societies"
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
fuk morality, let the horoscope gods decide :)
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Ted Bundy the serial killer actually used the same theory that you did to explain his killings. he said that he believed it was moral and just to kill those woman. now, forget the law for a moment (because we're speaking philosophically). if we think that everyone develops their own individual values than it would be immoral for us to punish him for following something he deemed as a personal value to him. would you feel you were doing something immoral by stopping someone from killing someone if that's what they really believe to be their individual value. so this really doesn't make sense. in this view Hitler was just as moral as Mother Theresa, since they both did things that they held as invidivdual values. maybe there is some moral code that we all ought to adhere to, even if we don't already? like the no killing thing. perhaps not all societies adhere to this moral code, but they all ought to adhere to it. that would explain why we feel we can go in and stop killing and feel we are doing something moral. because we believe there is this moral code that everyone ought to adhere too, even if they don't already.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
do you believe it is immoral for our country to stop another country from killing even though it may be their own moral view of what's right? or do you think that we are moral in stopping this killing?
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
and i am gonna murder him how's that for morality!
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
another country from killing the innocent
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
okay, so if it's moral for canada to stop killing in another country, but we also believe that each country has it's own moral codes, then don't we become immoral when we stop another country from killing because we are infringing on their rights as a separate moral entity? or, does canada believe that our moral of not killing is right and their moral of killing people is wrong?
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
u have to decide which takes presidence in ur senario the need to protect the innocent vs. the need to respect the ways of another culture there's no win all in the above situtation 1 or the other rule will be broken ur tryin 2 find some hard rule to end all rules there's no such thing in the real world.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
what i am trying to understand is how we can feel justified in over-riding another countries morality because we believe ours is the more moral thing to do (protecting the innocent), if we believe that every country can create all their own moral views. it seems to me that when canada stops killing in another country we can justify this stopping of killing because we believe our morality is more right, than that of the offending country. i'm not trying to find a rule to end all rules, what i'm suggesting is perhaps it would make more sense to say that there are some moral rules that every nation OUGHT to adhere too. not saying that they do already, but ones that everything should follow. like the no killing people for example. i think the majority of nations would agree that killing people is not a good thing for your society. it seems counter-evolutionary to kill of members of your own population and doesn't seem to create a good society, right? so maybe we could say that 'no killing innocent people for no reason' is a moral rule that everyone of all societies should adhere too, even if they don't already. not all morality is going to apply to all nations. for example, issues of abortion and such and capital punishment are still being debated today. but it seems that the only way that canada can justify stopping killing in another country is if the majority of us agree that there is at least one moral law (the no killing one for example) that we should all adhere too. so yeah, there are differences in societies and different views on a lot of things, but it seems there is at least one moral law that the majority of people agree should be adhered to for the sake of all mankind to live together. that's the only way we would be able to be justified in going in and stopping killing.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whoaaa this is interestingggggggg, first off, yes i am Christian, and i'm not in any way an expert in this.....just wanting to clear some things up.
....The thing is, God isn't just someone who sits around high up in the clouds and sets out rules, and says whats right and wrong, and the bible isn't a rule book. Yes, God is a supreme being or watever, and yes, (i believe) he created earth and what not, but God in fact, wants to have a personal relationship with everyone. So, maybe (unless i am entirely confused), GOD doesn't have a purpose, it is US that have a purpose. i don't mean that we are all like "robots" that God made, and that we have a purpose to live, or something.....because we all have a free will, and we choose to believe him or not. And when you DO have a relationship with God, and put God first in your life, you discover life, and it's purpose.... .......whoaaa, i sound like a crazy church boy hahaha, oops hahaha
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i like this: "GOD doesn't have a purpose, it is US that have a purpose." do you think the only way to discover life and it's purpose is through god, though? or do you think there are different ways for everyone?
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
hermmm, i dunno if this answers the question, but i don't think we discover our purpose THROUGH god, but i think God is always involved...
....it's kinda hard to describe since God is almost a reality in my life, so i don't want to speak for other people, but in my opinion i think God is always involved in our ultimate "purpose" ........damnnnnnnnn, i gotta take this moral philosophy course! sounds interesting! lol
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
it's really interesting :) it's my favourite class i have right now.
yeah, that's basically what my other catholic friends said as well. that God is such a reality in their world, that it's hard to get in the mindset of someone who doesn't believe in god...just like it's hard for me to get in the mindset of believe that there is a god. just doesn't work for me. although religion is really fascinating.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
||||
|
||||
|
morals change from society to society. couldn't it also be possible that there are a small set of given rules, born within everyone, that different societies chose to elaborate on? when you look at different countries and their morals, and compare, you'll find similarities (such as the no killing people thing). but over time, that individual country or society has taken these original morals and simply expanded on them. thus you have the basic laws and rules by which a country is run.
you can break it down even further into personal morals. every person has their own set of morals, which has been shaped by their past. where they grew up (geographically), they're own household, previous experiences, etc. i had more to say, but i'm hungry and that distracted me.
|
