Does God really matter? (philosophical discussion)

[khandydav3]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

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.

yahhhhhh....i think that'd work the same way for someone who does believe in God...like trying to get God outta my mindset doesn't make sense! haha, i bet theres a huge philosophical explanaition as to the reasons behind that too....lol

yeaaaa, world religions...isn't there a course offered that at UBC/SFU?? that'd be interesting too.....

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

that's a really good point. and you know what, we are running almost on the same track of thinking now.

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.

i think ur lookin 4 a higher order/morality then just individual countries
that exists in the form of the United Nations
such decisions to intervene is by way of UN resolutions
so in the example u gave
Canada do not decide by itself to "stops killing in another country"
we participate only if there's a consensus

[charly]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

i think ur lookin 4 a higher order/morality then just individual countries
that exists in the form of the United Nations
such decisions to intervene is by way of UN resolutions
so in the example u gave
Canada do not decide by itself to "stops killing in another country"
we participate only if there's a consensus

but one could ask at the same time, where did the morals of the UN originate?

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by charly

but one could ask at the same time, where did the morals of the UN originate?

largely by consensus of richer nations within the assembly

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

i think ur lookin 4 a higher order/morality then just individual countries
that exists in the form of the United Nations
such decisions to intervene is by way of UN resolutions
so in the example u gave
Canada do not decide by itself to "stops killing in another country"
we participate only if there's a consensus

i think we're very close to agreeing with each other here :)

however, i wasn't really trying to get at a concrete political UN view, but more what canada thought was moral and what wasn't.

but yeah, politically we have to wait for everyone on the UN board to agree to something before it happens. or most of them to agree, i'm not too sure, but it's something like that.

but i was just trying to get at the root of canada's moral beliefs.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

i think ur lookin 4 a higher order/morality then just individual countries
that exists in the form of the United Nations
such decisions to intervene is by way of UN resolutions
so in the example u gave
Canada do not decide by itself to "stops killing in another country"
we participate only if there's a consensus

consensus is not morality.

united nations is a horrible example of morality or truth.

[charly]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

largely by consensus of richer nations within the assembly

and that bring it back to rules and morals of different societies and countries. it's these morals that make up the those of the UN. so who's to say they're right in the first place?

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by rawb

consensus is not morality.

united nations is a horrible example of morality or truth.

absolutely agree 100%
but unfortunately that's the real world rite now.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by charly

and that bring it back to rules and morals of different societies and countries. it's these morals that make up the those of the UN. so who's to say they're right in the first place?

they are not necessarily rite
there's no absolute rite
there's consensus and pov held by the majority or the richer nations or w/e
it's not perfect
it never was
and never will be
but that's the real world

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

but that's the real world

it's so dis-heartening to hear you say that so often.

it's like you've given up and just accept that because that's the way things are now, we can't do anything about it.

it's so final to always end your argument in that.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

i think we're very close to agreeing with each other here :)

however, i wasn't really trying to get at a concrete political UN view, but more what canada thought was moral and what wasn't.

but yeah, politically we have to wait for everyone on the UN board to agree to something before it happens. or most of them to agree, i'm not too sure, but it's something like that.

but i was just trying to get at the root of canada's moral beliefs.

i think Canada's believes are very clear
we have our own general moral standards which we adhere to
(or at least the major adhere to)
we are also a member of the UN
the consensus of the assembly may very well conflict w/ our own morality
but as a member of the assembly we have the obligation to uphold our duties
so then it becomes a conflict between our morality not to interfere with
another countries morality vs. our morality to uphold our duties as
a member of the UN assembly.
and as i stated in my other post, one rule must take presidence over another
it's quite simple to me
why make it any harder?

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

it's so dis-heartening to hear you say that so often.

it's like you've given up and just accept that because that's the way things are now, we can't do anything about it.

it's so final to always end your argument in that.

well it is the real world
u can't pretend it away
u can't debate it away

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

u can't debate it away

people debate matters all the time and change things.

people are constantly challenging the government and the way things are run and are changing things.

take gay marriage...if all the gay people had just said all those years ago "meh, that's just the way the world is, i guess we can't get married" than nothing would have changed, but since they are bringing it up as a public issue and debating with the government, they are bringing about changes.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

people debate matters all the time and change things.

people are constantly challenging the government and the way things are run and are changing things.

take gay marriage...if all the gay people had just said all those years ago "meh, that's just the way the world is, i guess we can't get married" than nothing would have changed, but since they are bringing it up as a public issue and debating with the government, they are bringing about changes.

people debate matters all the time and "think" they change things.

there's only 1 differentiation u need 2 kno when it comes to "changes".
and that is,
changes that effects "power, sex & money"
and changes that don't.
changes that don't, ppl don't give a rat's ass about.
changes that do effects power, sex & money are
motivated by exactly that "power, sex & money" and not by debate

ur lookin 4 some kind of morality level playing field?
the only way ur gonna get the "lesser" nations 2 join is 2 offer
them some of that "power, sex & money" (ok not the sex part in this case)
otherwise no amount of debate will make a difference.

that's the way the real world works

[khandydav3]

doesn't everything have to do with sex, power and money??? lol

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by khandydav3

doesn't everything have to do with sex, power and money??? lol

it's the root of all evil
and yes sidekick, that's the way the world is :)

[Custard]

so is morality as real as god?

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by Custard

so is morality as real as god?

if u can squeeze more power and money out of morality then it's probably more real than god.

[C_squared]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

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.

why would ted bundy be a subject in this debate... ted bundy was a mad man! so is robert pickton. these people are dellusional and have no grasp of what we call reality.

[Courtney]

Some people have morals from reading a bible and practicing a religion,others get them through means other than religion,maybe just by listening and observing people important in their lives.God doesn't matter but having a belief in SOMETHING does..a sister,a friend, a book can all be classed as a belief, Humans in the world always have SOMETHING to belive or SOMEONE to believe in, if this wasn't the case than no one would have or NEED morals. Because if you don't have a thing/person to look up to or belive in then WHY would you need morals, if there was never anyone/anything there to care about your morals,they wouldn't exist.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by C_squared

why would ted bundy be a subject in this debate... ted bundy was a mad man! so is robert pickton. these people are dellusional and have no grasp of what we call reality.

ted bundy is a perfect example of someone who believed that he shouldn't be judged because he believed what he was doing was moral. mad man or not.

i was using this as an example to refute the idea that morals are just our own personal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. if that's true, than we can all make up our own morals and they would all be just as moral as anyone elses. if you believe that all morals are just individual than ted bundy could believe that killing is moral, and even if you didn't you couldn't judge him for it because hey, that's his individual moral view. if you think individuals make up morals, then you have no basis for calling him a mad man, he could just as easily call you a mad man for thinking that killing is immoral.

there are a lot of serial killers out there that aren't insane, but just have skewed morals. to judge these poeple on whether what they're doing is moral or not we have to have some moral that binds all of humanity, otherwise it just becomes a matter of what the individual likes.

if morals are all individual than saying "i like the colour red" is the same as saying "i like killing". no one can tell you that you don't like the colour red because it is your individual view, and following this no one can say that you killing someone is wrong because it is your individual view.

that's why i brought up ted bundy. he used the argument of individual views and morals to try to defend his killings.

[FlorpIncarnate]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

if u can squeeze more power and money out of morality then it's probably more real than god.

^ That made me laugh so hard :)

I'll just post a short snippet from Ayn Rand, since it summarizes my view quite nicely:

"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy-- nor a social convention -- nor a dispensable, subjective luxury.... Ethics is an objective necessity of man's survival-- not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life."

That is, ethics is man's attempt at defining the optimal code of conduct for dealing with reality in order to satisfy certain goals (ex: continued survival, happiness, and for superstitious folk, eternal life).

A quick comment on the bible discussion above... if you really trust people from a barbaric society (by modern and Roman standards) in an ancient, much less civilized age to make most (if not all) of your ethical judgements for you, it may be time to start making use of that fascinating faculty of reason that you were born with! Of course, if you believe in magical fairies, gods, or invisible pink unicorns, ethics becomes much more complicated for you (have fun!).

-Dave

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by FlorpIncarnate

"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy-- nor a social convention -- nor a dispensable, subjective luxury.... Ethics is an objective necessity of man's survival-- not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life."

definitly sums it up very nicely.

[MC Hammered]

God is the person who is pointing a loaded gun at your head.

Morality is whether that person pulls the trigger.

I'm drunk.

[Undecided]

I tryed to read exctily what this thread was about then my A.D.D kicked in and it became a lost cause so here's my bit. If we were created in gods image and are true children of god why does he let us destroy ourselves and the home he created for us if god truly exestied and gave a shit about us he guide our decisions and help us to better ourselves and the world around us few parents in the world (excluding the ones hopped up on drugs) would let thier children destroy themselves in manner in which we are currently doing so. So what it comes down to is there is no god so screw him and whatever morals and what not he has to offer because he is not real. now I would like to apologise to anyone who's belives I may have damaged but thats the way I feel