|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does God really matter? (philosophical discussion)
This is some of the things that we have been discussing in my morals and ethics philosophy class. i wanted to hear some other people's views on this, so feel free to debate anything I say here :)
we have been discussing morality and how morality comes into being moral and who sets up these morals and decides what is moral and just. god is the religious answer to morality and so this is what we have been discussing. is morality moral because god says it is moral, or does god say a thing is moral because it is moral? let's take a look at the first claim and find the faults in that: if one believes that morality is moral because god says it is moral, then one is saying that god creates all morality and all basis for what is just and good. this view seems just fine, until you take into account the people that do not believe in god or believe in different gods than oneself. following the view that all morality is created by god than atheists don't have any basis for moral views. does this mean that all atheists are immoral? now the second option seems a little more appealing. if god says a thing is moral because it is moral, then god doesn't create morality, but adheres to an objectionable morality that already exists without god. so this is looking better for our friend the atheist because he can bypass god and appeal to that objectionable morality that exists even without god. so if morality exists even without god, then what is god's purpose? one could then argue that god's purpose is to judge people based on how just and good they are compared to those objectionable morality's that are already in place. god is shown to be the ultimate moral and just being that can do no wrong and only good, therefore he should be the best basis for which to judge other people's moral doings. however this is assuming god is infallible. if the bible is taken to be god's word (someone who knows more about religion can refute me on this point) then we can see that god is not an infallible entity. take the issue of homosexuality for example. the bible seems to deem homosexuality as an immoral practice. but most people today would say that this view is not correct; that homosexuality is not an immoral practice. so if the view today by the majority of people is that homosexuality is not an immoral practice than we could agree that the bible is wrong on this account. and if the bible is wrong on this account and we have said that the bible is taken to be god's words and views than we can therefore say that god is wrong on this account. if god is wrong on this account then we have shown him to be an entity capable of error and actually not infallible. so, if god is wrong on this view could it not be possible that he is wrong on other views as well? and since we have shown that god is capable of error than isn't he just as moral and good as the next person who is also capable of error in their views? so on what basis is god able to judge humanity on their morality? my views: if god doesn't create morality and god has just as much basis to judge morality than the next person, than what is god's true purpose? what does he exist for? how are we supposed to appeal to god if he is just as capable of error in moral judgements than the next person? if we are all appealing to the same objectionable moral views and we are all capable of making errors in our judgements than aren't we all just the same as god? so yeah, debate and argue and pick apart this as you please. i was interested to see other people's views on this subject. most of these arguments and ideas are put forth in Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, if you want to go and read it. 
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i have already written my paper on this subject (the argument of which is what i posted in this forum) i'm just interested to see if anyone has any other ideas or arguments or thoughts they want to put forward. it's just for interests sake.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
All I have to say is this:
Before you knew what an apple was... what did you think it was?
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Read it again, think about it and if you still don't get it I'll explain. :)
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting topic, that I don't have time to reply to thoroughly right now. Here's a funny, semi-related link, though: http://albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank.php
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am saying that society creates the morals and the standrards it wishes to abide by.
My example above was presented to us by a Physics instructor. It actually went like this "Why is an apple called an apple? We accept this to be true because it is what we are told and we have never questioned that fact. The day we stop questioning what we are told we become robots. Question everything for yourself and you decide what you wish to hold as truth." God, morals, my opinion even are all based on concepts and ideas that either I have chosen to hold true or we have been "brainwashed", for lack of better description, as to being true in some form as we grew up from a newborn child. For those first few months in life you have no understanding of language, vocabulary, right, wrong, god, war, hate, morals, etc. All these concepts one picks up as they grow, these concepts can then be skewed like crazy depending on the environment the infant is raised in. Example: Child born in the Middle East is raised and tought that their God is the one... takes part in a Holy War and believes that blowing up a tank with a vest of dynamite is what is right. Child born in a Westernized area who is taught other concepts of God wonder how this all can happen. Now I'm digressing but I need food...
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
okay mc hammered, what you were just talking about is called Conventional ethical relativism...or that there are no objective moral views that stand for all societies and that each society creates it's own morals which they adhere too.
here is the problem that lies in that: don't you find it a little disturbing (and you even said it yourself) that every society has the right to create their own moral views and beliefs on what is right and just in their doings? than we have no basis for punishing or criticizing other nations for anything that they do as long as it adheres to the moral code that that society has put forward. so if a nation somewhere goes and begins to kill everyone without blue eyes in their country because that is their belief of what is just and right, than no other nation or person who is a part of a different society can say that is wrong, since you said that all societies create their own moral views. so are we wrong to go in with our troops and stop killing and murders in countries? under your theory that each society puts forth it's own moral beliefs than, yes we are wrong to go in and stop them from doing that. that would be enforcing our moral beliefs on their culture and what right do we have to do that to them? how do we know that our morals are more right than their morals? and also, what constitutes a society or culture? couldn't i create my own society somewhere and decide that killing is the moral and right thing to do? no one would be able to criticize my society because all societies have their own moral views. so i could continue this for generation and generation each child growing up learning that it is moral to kill and tortue another human being, and who is there to judge my society?
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not debating with you on this topic. :)
In my opinion, God is just a myth and I do not believe such an entity exists. Everything you just stated in the above post is all based on the same line of thinking which I probably can't word very well right now. But one can do whatever they want, whenever they want but it is the "majority rule" that dictates what is perceived to be right and wrong. If you were the most powerful person of the group on the island you are stranded on you could pretty much dictate how you want life on that island to progress for the rest of the people. The next generation would know of nothing else and the 2nd generation would be completely devoid of knowing anything that you did set as the way life is to be lived is anything else but the way things should be. So go create your society somewhere and the US of A might come by one day and tell you that you are wrong. :c-tard:
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
regardin wut sidekick said 2 posts above.
well, it may very well be a problem but that's reality 4 as long as mankind nations n societies do create it's own morals which they adhere 2 n nations n societies also thrust their own moralities on 2 other societies
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
we play god all the time as humans
we genetically engineer live plants and im sure we've done it with animals too what's to say that our world just doesn't exit inside sombodies pietry dish? (known as god) it's usually best not to think about it as you will most likely never know. but yes i do believe that, if there is a god then it would not be perfect and totally capable of error.. this is probably the first thing we as people learn. that nothing is perfect and everything is unique in it's own way however i do not believe that there is a god.. though i do believe in spirituality and that this planet we live on is a living source and we are all connected in one way or another ~Mike
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
also.. i could go on and on about my opinion on this whole god thing.. but to make a long story short. i think religion and "god" ... are "there" as sort of a comfort to people.... like people all around the world have different religions and different gods.... who is to say which one is the "right" one?.... noone. but i think the god in whatever religion is there as a comfort to people... like noone knows what really happen after u die... is there really a heaven?...or afterlife?... worshipping a god seems like a way to ease peoples minds.. and also to "guide" them thru their life...some people need something like that to look up to.. others have it in themselves to be guided... im more of a spiritual person... i dont think i need a "god" to guide my life... i dont know.. just my opinion. Last edited by Veni*C; Sep 21, 04 at 05:22 AM.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
god doesnt matter, people had laws, morals ect way before god was in the picture, and im sure there are tribes and shit that dont know about god that have alot of the same morals we do, course they dont have a few we have too.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
even though i am catholic.. i don't believe in god..
i believe in jesus.. because he was a person.. but i do not believe in god.. for the mere fact where is the proof he is something or some one.. believe in god all you want.. but why believe in some one or something that isn't there.. in my opinion.. i'll jus stick to my own beliefs.. and not listen to my religion.. i mean why follow some thing you don't agree on.. also.. in my opinion.. cause i just ready the above statement.. i think that people just made up god.. to inforce laws.. because people were not following them or some shit like that.. but ye.. notice how in the past (and even now some places) religious belif's and law go hand in hand.. well.. think about it.. they needed to create some thing that would make people believe and listen to the law.. blah just me blabbing. Last edited by Ms.Chop; Sep 21, 04 at 05:30 AM.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
mc hammered and stephen C and Veni:
so do you all believe that by going in and stopping a country from killing off part of their population because it is their belief of what is right, that we are immoral in doing so? i don't think this is how the world really works. if we believe that all societies create their own morals, and when they go against what our own society believes to be moral we jump in and stop them and by doing so become immoral ourselves, then that doesn't seem to make much sense does it? it's a complete contradiction. we become immoral in trying to do something that we think is moral. also, according to this theory. canada could change it's moral views over time and decide that killing is the moral thing to do. now, one could say that 'yes, if canada wanted to do that then over the course of many generations you could teach the people in your society that that is the moral thing to do.' but that isn't my point. i'm not asking if it COULD be done, i know it COULD be done...what i'm asking is: would that then become MORAL? so arguing that this is just the way society is right now is not a good argument at all. of course all these things COULD be done, but because they COULD be done, does that make them moral and right? it seems to me that there has to be some objectionable moral code that lies outside of all societies. let's say for example that one of these objectionable moral codes is that: killing people because of their hair colour is immoral. i think the majority of people would agree that this is right and that killing because of hair colour is immoral. the thing is, our society doesn't seem to believe that every society makes up their own moral views. if it did then they wouldn't go out and stop other nations from killing, because they would become immoral themselves in doing so. it seems that our society is appealing to some higher moral code that trancends any society and this is how we justify our morality in stopping other nations from killing. do you see where i'm going now?
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
also, like i said up there, i'm not using this to help me pass a class. we have discussions in class as well, it's just part of discovering things about philosophy, debate it an important part of it.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
sorry, i thought you were agreeing with winston's theory that all societies create their own morality, that's why i included you in that post.
|
|
Sep 21, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
aack. confizzeled.
i was agreeing with winston. but i didnt give my whole opinion of morality. i personally dont think they go hand in hand... people make up bullshit morals(.ie. killing ect ect.) and blame it on "god"..... riiiiiiiiiight. 2 me religion and morals are diff. "god/religion" to me is like i said something people look to for comfort and guidance. people make decisions to do the wrong/right things... not "god" ps. in no way am i saying its not right for people to need guidance.. cause even i do sometimes...and thats what "god/buddah..whoever" is there for. Last edited by Veni*C; Sep 21, 04 at 05:59 AM.
|
