Morals

[Athena]

"The Little Red Hen", "The Emperor's New Clothes" , "The Lion and Mouse" are all moral stories. They teach both moral thinking and virtues. We would read these to children, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story?" The answer is an explanation of cause and effect. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one would help her make it. "This story shows us that when you work together, you can have fun, too. You also get to enjoy the rewards of your work."

 

"The Emperor's New Clothes" is about honesty. The little boy dared to say the king had no clothes, when everyone was tricked into in believing only ignorant people couldn't see the king's beautiful new clothes. "Sometimes being honest means telling people things they don't want to hear. It's not always easy, and somethings it's even scary to be honest. No matter how difficult it is, though, telling the truth is very important."

 

"The Lion and the Mouse" "Sometimes, it is hard to be friends. At first the lion was angry with the mouse and did not want to be friends. The mouse was afraid because the lion was mean and had laughed at her. In the end the lion and the mouse learn that it's better to be nice than to be mean. They find out that even though they are very different, they can still be good friends".

 

The quotes come from "Treasury of Virtues" Publications International, LTD. These stories have been told for hundred's of years. So you see, it is not just religion that teaches us morals. Greek plays taught morals. Folk songs teach morals. Our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment, because our understanding of morals laws comes from many sources, and they are tied to The Law, our best understanding of how the universe works.

 

Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works. This is not religion, because it is not the word of the God. It is our own observations and what we infer about God and how things work, and that is philosophy. This understanding is vitally important to our democracy and liberty. Before 1958 everyone was taught this, and since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, we have announced a national youth crisis, a crisis in our jail and prison system, a welfare crisis, a banking crisis, political crisis. Sure we had crisis before 1958, but we understood they are the result of not correctly know The Laws that regulate our lives. Today the crisis is, denial of any laws except the ones we make. We are smart by not wise, and will not resolve our problems as long as we deny the ancient Greek understanding of moral- to know The Law and good manners.

 

I am looking for reassurance that people understand, morals are not limited to religion, and talk of God can be philosophical and not just religion. Theology is believing we have the word of God. Philosophy is questioning what we think we know, and is the best way to deal with superstition. Just denying God reenforces the religious superstitions, so it is not a good thing to do. Isn't that what people in science forums want to do, end superstition so that we might better govern ourselves? We need to understand The Law and morals to do that, and our systems fail when we do not.

[doG]

Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works.

I disagree.

 

law (n.)

O.E. lagu (plural laga, comb. form lah-) "law, ordinance, rule, regulation; district governed by the same laws," from O.N. *lagu "law," collective plural of lag "layer, measure, stroke," lit. "something laid down or fixed," from P.Gmc. *lagan "put, lay" (see lay (v.)). Replaced O.E. æ and gesetnes, which had the same sense development as law. Cf. also statute, from L. statuere; Ger. Gesetz "law," from O.H.G. gisatzida; Lith. istatymas, from istatyti "set up, establish." In physics, from 1660s. Law and order have been coupled since 1796.

 

No where in the lineage of 'law' is the word god mentioned. Further, your assertion would imply that laws and morals did not exist before man developed the ideology of god to begin with. I can't wait to see your attempt to support this assertion.

[Xittenn]

I'm in an ethics class and I'm having a bit of a hard time with these sorts of questions, they aren't ideas that I process well, much like religion. Amazingly enough you just compiled both of them into one thread. Not only do I not believe in God, but I also do not accept that which others have created to be 'our' morals. I do feel that 'our' morals have done us great service until now, but ultimately our having dismissed certain aspects of animal nature is going to see our end--regardless of what you want or what you feel.

 

I am a more firm believer in a child's view of natural law, the law of the jungle. From an ethicist's point of view I've been told that the construct that I am alluding to is a moral egoist, as a moral nihilist wouldn't care much how things affect themselves as well as how their actions affect others. I firmly believe that all animals are born to feed, and this can include feeding on other animals. When the cycle is broken we move out of natural law and become unsustainable. In terms of people I don't mean that people should eat people, but this concept that all are constrained to the majority and born to serve the greater body is to me very wrong. Morals tell us that this point of view is unacceptable, but my gut tells me that breaking the natural cycle will only see a collapse of a system that is ultimately impossible to maintain.

 

From my perspective God will not save me. If I wish to live beyond the life that nature has given me I will have to do what I can to make that a reality. If I stand by idly or pursue this notion of a greater good I believe in the end the result will be a failure of a system that is impossible to maintain. If I want my life to be the best it can be I will have to take resources from everyone else. Granted I may find it useful to make friends along the way, but to have no enemies is unreasonable. To rely on a deity who does not interfere to my benefit is illogical. Power is not evil it is realistic, maintaining your power is something I recommend to anyone to do. This can include maintaining your moral position, but the end result may not be what you expect as far as I am concerned. Moralists and religious types put an awful lot of faith in what they believe to be true. Humorously enough, I am one of the most defenseless creatures on the planet.

[Athena]

I disagree.

 

 

 

No where in the lineage of 'law' is the word god mentioned. Further, your assertion would imply that laws and morals did not exist before man developed the ideology of god to begin with. I can't wait to see your attempt to support this assertion.

 

How do you think I implied that laws and morals did not exist before man developed the ideology of god? Isn't that like saying the big bang didn't happened before man developed the ideology of god? Man's knowledge does not come before creation.

 

I'm in an ethics class and I'm having a bit of a hard time with these sorts of questions, they aren't ideas that I process well, much like religion. Amazingly enough you just compiled both of them into one thread. Not only do I not believe in God, but I also do not accept that which others have created to be 'our' morals. I do feel that 'our' morals have done us great service until now, but ultimately our having dismissed certain aspects of animal nature is going to see our end--regardless of what you want or what you feel.

 

I am a more firm believer in a child's view of natural law, the law of the jungle. From an ethicist's point of view I've been told that the construct that I am alluding to is a moral egoist, as a moral nihilist wouldn't care much how things affect themselves as well as how their actions affect others. I firmly believe that all animals are born to feed, and this can include feeding on other animals. When the cycle is broken we move out of natural law and become unsustainable. In terms of people I don't mean that people should eat people, but this concept that all are constrained to the majority and born to serve the greater body is to me very wrong. Morals tell us that this point of view is unacceptable, but my gut tells me that breaking the natural cycle will only see a collapse of a system that is ultimately impossible to maintain.

 

From my perspective God will not save me. If I wish to live beyond the life that nature has given me I will have to do what I can to make that a reality. If I stand by idly or pursue this notion of a greater good I believe in the end the result will be a failure of a system that is impossible to maintain. If I want my life to be the best it can be I will have to take resources from everyone else. Granted I may find it useful to make friends along the way, but to have no enemies is unreasonable. To rely on a deity who does not interfere to my benefit is illogical. Power is not evil it is realistic, maintaining your power is something I recommend to anyone to do. This can include maintaining your moral position, but the end result may not be what you expect as far as I am concerned. Moralists and religious types put an awful lot of faith in what they believe to be true. Humorously enough, I am one of the most defenseless creatures on the planet.

 

How do you think natural law is different from morals? I gave a few examples of stories explaining morals. Do any of them violate a law of nature? Am I not saying a moral is understanding the law of nature?

 

I agree God will not save you. It would be so much nicer if we could have these discussions without awareness of Christian mythology. When I speak of God, it is not the God of Abraham, and I really feel frustrated when people base their arguments on that mythology, instead of on what I am saying. If you could rely on a God to save you, I suppose you wouldn't need to know morals, because there would be no bad consequences to what you do. As I understand God, if you set the house on fire, God, is not going to rush in and save you like a mommy or daddy. The consequence of what you do are what they are. I am very sure things are as Cicero said. Sacrificing animals, or saying prays and burning candles, to please a god, aren't going to the change the consequences of our thoughts and actions.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Athena

[Greg H.]

our understanding of morals laws comes from many sources, and they are tied to The Law, our best understanding of how the universe works.

 

Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works.

 

I disagree with part of what you're saying here. I agree that our understanding of morals can come from many sources. But morals are not necessarily laws, nor are all laws necessarily moral (just as an example, the Jim Crow laws of the post slavery period in the United States). Laws, in and of themselves, are a man-made construct which are only as moral as the people who write them.

 

Morals, on the other hand, are an underlying framework of beliefs espoused by individuals (or societies) that, in theory join them together and make them function in a unified fashion. However, there is nothing to suggest (or at least nothing I have yet seen) that indicates that morals are in any way universal.

 

Also, this idea that our best understanding of how the universe works can only come from a moral understanding of how god (or some other supernatural entity) works (I'll accept your premise that you're not discuss the God of the Bible - for now at least) is hard for me to swallow. The idea that we need to look for a supernatural source to understand the natural world presupposes the idea that scientific inquiry is doomed to failure unless it invokes this first cause that is both outside the realm of what we can observe and leaves behind no physical evidence of it's impact.

 

It may not be a specific religion you're discussing, but it still sounds a lot like religious faith to me. And as far as I can tell, such faith is required neither to live a moral life nor to understand the workings of the universe, mysterious as they may be.

[Joatmon]

This is only my idea of how a moral sense came into being and then had to develop. First of all it had to do with necessity if the human race was to survive. Mothers had to have an instinctive urge to protect and feed their young, who are so helpless that they need constant attention in their early life. This meant that it was helpful to survival if a partner who could not have children (i.e. male) helped with at least their protection and the aquisition of food. So the concepts of caring and sharing were needed in the early evolution of man. Without these instincts the human race may not have survived. We see these instincts taking their place in the animal kingdom (who presumably don't know of God).

As people gathered into larger communities these basic instincts had to be widened so that people felt they were part of a "larger family"- the tribe.

At this point if the group was to live in harmony then rules had to be made that would say (for instance) that even if hungry you must not steal your neighbours food. However, if you were hungry and your neighbour had plenty then he should share with you. But who makes the rules? Who insists that this is what you should do when most, but not all, members of the tribe agree on this? If at this point you invent a power greater than any individual in the tribe and call it God then problem solved. There is nobody that can be argued against. God is really the majority vote of the tribe and we would call people who follow this path moral and transgressors immoral. We would call the set of rules The Law.

I'm completely "out of my tree" really - so these are just some simple thoughts.

 

Later edit - Just googled "out of my tree" and it can have a different meaning to what I meant I meant "not in an area that I'm familiar with"!!

Edited May 21, 2012 by Joatmon

[Xittenn]

 

How do you think natural law is different from morals? I gave a few examples of stories explaining morals. Do any of them violate a law of nature? Am I not saying a moral is understanding the law of nature?

 

 

 

You very well could be saying that a proper moral understanding is founded on the laws of nature, but your inclusions of words such as 'God' can lend to some confusion when there are many ideas of what that might mean and where most of us tend to think on the most readily used definitions thereof. The term God also implies conscious and which also implies a judgment on moral actions, I don't believe natural law consciously judges our natural actions, it is very much a passive process from where I'm sitting. The morals you have chosen to include in your OP is suggestive of a certain point of view, one in where nature has a moral good. There is nothing morally good about nature, nature is and it does not discriminate based upon the morals of individuals. Ethics are a best fit case, and if entities within the universe choose to actively maintain a set of desired morals, that is a choice they make and one that will present consequences as will any other moral choice. I do appreciate the morals that we maintain I simply feel that some are taking them out of the context of reality, mostly because they are ignorant to how their actions are most likely going to affect their more immediate persons.

[doG]

Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works.

False. Please support this assertion or retract it.

[ewmon]

"The Little Red Hen", "The Emperor's New Clothes" , "The Lion and Mouse" are all moral stories. ... They teach both moral thinking and virtues. We would read these to children, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story?" The answer is an explanation of cause and effect. ...

 

I am looking for reassurance that people understand, morals are not limited to religion, and talk of God can be philosophical and not just religion

We don't need merely to suppose that ancient moral stories can affect our modern daily lives in important ways. Here's an actual example from a decision by the SCOTUS on Griggs v. Duke Power Co from Wikipedia:

 

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

 

The court ruled that the company's employment requirements did not pertain to applicants' ability to perform the job, and so was discriminating against African-American employees, even though the company had not intended it to do so. The judgment famously includes the line "Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox."

I even used this in a case in which I represented myself.

 

I was in a custody situation regarding my visitations with my children. The parties agreed to a visitation assessment, but the psychologist who was assigned started off very belligerent toward me. I repeatedly asked him to lighten his attitude, or I wouldn't meet with him. He remained belligerent, so as a last resort, I sent him a letter with a copy of the Aesop's Fable about the North Wind and the Sun and I asked him one last time to lighten up. He turned around and wrote a letter to the court and the parties and lawyers about how my inclusion of the fable showed that I wasn't taking him or the court seriously*, and then the parties and lawyers involved treated me with contempt and some even refused to communicate with me. (*On the contrary, I took his negative attitude very seriously!)

 

A couple months passed when, studying law on my own, I happened across Griggs v Duke (and I wasn't even looking for anything with a fable in it). I made a copy of the case and included it in my letter to the court and all the parties and lawyers. I stated in my letter that, if anyone had a problem with me using a fable as a moral lesson, then don't take the matter up with me or with the family court, but with the SCOTUS because they do the same thing. And then everyone began treating me with respect again, and the psychologist was dismissed.

 

And Athena, most assuredly, Biblical principles can be, and are, philosophical. For example: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12) is very simple and clear and well-accepted.

[Athena]

I disagree with part of what you're saying here. I agree that our understanding of morals can come from many sources. But morals are not necessarily laws, nor are all laws necessarily moral (just as an example, the Jim Crow laws of the post slavery period in the United States). Laws, in and of themselves, are a man-made construct which are only as moral as the people who write them.

 

Morals, on the other hand, are an underlying framework of beliefs espoused by individuals (or societies) that, in theory join them together and make them function in a unified fashion. However, there is nothing to suggest (or at least nothing I have yet seen) that indicates that morals are in any way universal.

 

Also, this idea that our best understanding of how the universe works can only come from a moral understanding of how god (or some other supernatural entity) works (I'll accept your premise that you're not discuss the God of the Bible - for now at least) is hard for me to swallow. The idea that we need to look for a supernatural source to understand the natural world presupposes the idea that scientific inquiry is doomed to failure unless it invokes this first cause that is both outside the realm of what we can observe and leaves behind no physical evidence of it's impact.

 

It may not be a specific religion you're discussing, but it still sounds a lot like religious faith to me. And as far as I can tell, such faith is required neither to live a moral life nor to understand the workings of the universe, mysterious as they may be.

 

Okay, why does have God have to be supernatural? How about the God Cicero speaks of, and Jefferson refers to in the US Declaration of Independence? This is the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". We are discussing this understanding of God in the Logos thread.

 

For sure not all laws are moral! That is why we have democracy, so no dictator can dictate our laws, and everyone of us has the responsibility of arguing against bad laws and in favor of good laws, even if everyone seems against us, and we might be killed or banned.

 

And for sure we don't even want to attempt putting every moral into a law, because that would destroy our liberty. Liberty is defended with education in The Law, not by making laws.

 

Our laws do not cover all morals, but all morals are based on The Law, which is logos, the controlling force of the universe, and it is universal. The saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse", does not mean ignorance of our local laws based on customs, which can vary from place to place. However, there are some acts considered intolerable by almost everyone, every where. We referred to these as acts that violate human decency. This is what we are arguing, when we argue we do need religion because it is our nature to have a conscience and judge right from wrong. Like there are some things, that no decent human being could consider acceptable, and this is what is meant by "ignorance of the law is no excuse". It is saying, what you have done is so completely unacceptable, there should be no need for a written law to prevent you from doing it. For example, when I was young, the news reported that a man raped a woman and also ate the flesh of her breast. I can not imagine any people, any where on earth, or in any time in history, thinking this is okay.

 

However, our moral judgment changes as we mature, and also emotions can effect our judgment, and both these facts play into our legal system. It seems to me, literacy in Greek and Roman classics is essential to this understanding and protecting our liberty and justice. The Greeks told stories of youthful folly that would be so helpful to us today. It is a fact of life that our judgment changes when we get older, so we need a degree of compassion for youth who can be forgiven their bad judgment, while determining their punishment, as is the case for the 21 year old who exposed his homosexual roommate, who later killed himself. It is so easy to see how the young man was thinking he would become popular by using the internet to expose his room mate, instead of thinking how harmful this act could be, while the judge might say in this case, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", because with his judgment, coming from greater maturity, exposing the roommate was so completely immoral. I am making sense?

 

What is moral doesn't change, but our understanding of it does. The Law does not change, but our understanding of it does. Here is a huge clash between religion, which holds our morality to a past standard, and democracy which makes moral judgments every day, and changes our written laws whenever new reasoning demands a change in our written law. In a democracy, it is not a God who gives man laws to live by, but a consensus on the best reasoning of the people.

 

We don't need merely to suppose that ancient moral stories can affect our modern daily lives in important ways. Here's an actual example from a decision by the SCOTUS on Griggs v. Duke Power Co from Wikipedia:

 

 

I even used this in a case in which I represented myself.

 

I was in a custody situation regarding my visitations with my children. The parties agreed to a visitation assessment, but the psychologist who was assigned started off very belligerent toward me. I repeatedly asked him to lighten his attitude, or I wouldn't meet with him. He remained belligerent, so as a last resort, I sent him a letter with a copy of the Aesop's Fable about the North Wind and the Sun and I asked him one last time to lighten up. He turned around and wrote a letter to the court and the parties and lawyers about how my inclusion of the fable showed that I wasn't taking him or the court seriously*, and then the parties and lawyers involved treated me with contempt and some even refused to communicate with me. (*On the contrary, I took his negative attitude very seriously!)

 

A couple months passed when, studying law on my own, I happened across Griggs v Duke (and I wasn't even looking for anything with a fable in it). I made a copy of the case and included it in my letter to the court and all the parties and lawyers. I stated in my letter that, if anyone had a problem with me using a fable as a moral lesson, then don't take the matter up with me or with the family court, but with the SCOTUS because they do the same thing. And then everyone began treating me with respect again, and the psychologist was dismissed.

 

And Athena, most assuredly, Biblical principles can be, and are, philosophical. For example: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12) is very simple and clear and well-accepted.

 

Wow, thank goodness you persevered and won your case! I am so sorry you had to face such an ordeal alone. This is the cultural crisis we are facing at this time. Our culture is founded on those old moral stories, but since we dropped education in the classics, most people are not aware of that. As individuals can need psycho analysis so can nations need psycho analysis. Occupy is so much about this conflict, but we can't even discuss this, because education for technology does not include the classics, so too much is lost in our subconsciousness. This is a mental breakdown, exactly like an individual can have a mental breakdown. The group is screaming counterdictions instead of counterbalance, and is not aware of the history that brought us to this. We are smart but without the wisdom essential to our newly discovered technological society, and we are as arrogant as the Germans we defended our democracy against, because we replaced our institutions with their institutions. This is causing our mental breakdown on a national level.

 

False. Please support this assertion or retract it.

 

 

Oh really. Mind giving us your argument? What makes what I have said false?

 

This is only my idea of how a moral sense came into being and then had to develop. First of all it had to do with necessity if the human race was to survive. Mothers had to have an instinctive urge to protect and feed their young, who are so helpless that they need constant attention in their early life. This meant that it was helpful to survival if a partner who could not have children (i.e. male) helped with at least their protection and the aquisition of food. So the concepts of caring and sharing were needed in the early evolution of man. Without these instincts the human race may not have survived. We see these instincts taking their place in the animal kingdom (who presumably don't know of God).

As people gathered into larger communities these basic instincts had to be widened so that people felt they were part of a "larger family"- the tribe.

At this point if the group was to live in harmony then rules had to be made that would say (for instance) that even if hungry you must not steal your neighbours food. However, if you were hungry and your neighbour had plenty then he should share with you. But who makes the rules? Who insists that this is what you should do when most, but not all, members of the tribe agree on this? If at this point you invent a power greater than any individual in the tribe and call it God then problem solved. There is nobody that can be argued against. God is really the majority vote of the tribe and we would call people who follow this path moral and transgressors immoral. We would call the set of rules The Law.

I'm completely "out of my tree" really - so these are just some simple thoughts.

 

Later edit - Just googled "out of my tree" and it can have a different meaning to what I meant I meant "not in an area that I'm familiar with"!!

 

Sure people can argue against God and always have. I think are mistaking The Law and the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, with religion. However, you are right about the impact of the majority. I had to fight to get my post to stay in the philosophy forum, instead of being transferred to forum for religion, and still feel like I am standing alone against the majority.

 

The Greeks, like everyone else, begin explaining why things are the way the are by telling stories about the gods, as you said. However, they discover mathematics, and reason through things like everything is made of atoms. I have already explained this evolution from believing in the gods, to determining even the gods are subject to logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. The Law is not God given however, it exist. As Imatfaal said in the logos thread. "The laws of physics do not govern the universe - they are merely a human attempt to model and formalise the underlying reality; they have no existence other than within the human pursuit of understanding." I do not agree with Imatfaal about The Law having no existence. I have to switch my attention to a grandchild at the moment, and I am floundering for the right words to express the thought. Maybe while I am gone someone can step in clarifying - oh, oh something just crashed on the floor

[ewmon]

Our culture is founded on those old moral stories

I think the morals came first and then the stories appeared as a learning tool.

[doG]

Oh really. Mind giving us your argument? What makes what I have said false?

Wrong answer. The rules here do not require anyone to prove your assertion wrong, they require you to support your assertion.

 

MODS????

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

To everybody, and especially doG and Athena:
This is a discussion forum. That means that you should attempt to understand the position of the other. What you are doing in this thread is called “fighting”. You have all dug yourselves in, and that makes any discussion impossible.

Get out of your trenches, shake hands, try to understand each other, be flexible with definitions (but make sure you all use the same one), and be more polite. That is an order.

And once again, this goes for everybody.

Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works.

Someone asked you to explain this statement further. The one given in the 5th paragraph of your opening post is apparently not good enough. Please do that when asked, or tell people that you can't, and agree to disagree, or stop the discussion altogether.

False. Please support this assertion or retract it.

You cannot order people around. Be more polite, or shut it. Take a good look at Greg H.'s post (post #5), which tries to say the same thing, but is a lot more polite and constructive.

Oh really. Mind giving us your argument? What makes what I have said false?

doG asked you the same question twice, albeit in a very blunt way. Please answer the question. Answering a question with a question is a way to avoid the answer... and that gets us nowhere.

MODS????

We are not here to win the discussion for you. There is a report button if you think a thread needs our attention.


I'm disappointed that you are discussing in this way. It is obvious that you disagree on a number of definitions which are vitally important for this discussion. Yet, you choose to start fighting, rather than figuring out what your definitions are first. In other words: you do not know what you're talking about, but you still choose to talk. And surprise, surprise, it doesn't work.

If you have any problems with my assessment of this thread, please take it up with me and other mods throught the report button.

[doG]

Sorry, not trying to fight. Just trying to get the point across that there's rules here and they're not just a decoration.

[Athena]

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

 

I really think this depends on how one defines god, and my opinion of those who do not understand this is extremely low.

 

I understand the bible as mythology and would argue this understanding of God is no better than Zeus, however, I very much respect the benefits of believing in this god, that seem so lacking in those who do not have religion, or a philosophy, or some kind of framework of principles to live by. Going through life basing our decisions on our feelings, is not a good way to go! I would say, the people who are broken are more apt to be those who do not have religion, or any other frame work of principles to live by.

 

If we returned to liberal education and education for good moral judgment and citizenship we would not have the problems that we have. Amoral education for a technological society with unknown values, means not only a lot of broken people, but possibly a very unpleasant future as well. Capitalism with morals is self destructive. Science without morals is very dangerous. I think we are head for big trouble and don't even have the concepts essential to reasoning our way out out this.

[MonDie]

Athena, I don't know of any evidence that religion causes morality or even well-being.

Also, as I realized while making posts prior to this, religion isn't all that easy to define. When religion starts to include otherwise secular concepts, such as helping others as valuable behavior, where is the boundary between religion and general culture?

 

EDIT: Furthermore, there is the issue of cause-and-effect because people who join religion-based community service groups might do it out of a desire to be helpful, not out of religiosity.

EDIT: However, that same idea can be applied to the evils committed in the name of religion. Do people who murder homosexuals truly do it out of religiosity?

Edited May 24, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Athena]

I think the morals came first and then the stories appeared as a learning tool.

 

Our culture is build on previous cultures. So for us, many of the moral stories came first. However, anything can be turned into a moral story. All that is needed is an understanding that a moral is matter of cause of effect. Now we can tell millions of moral stories that do become learning tools if our stories are good enough to be repeated. I like the moral stories of Athens very much and wish they were still used, especially in understanding the difference between youth and adulthood.

 

Joseph Campbell said the purpose of myth is to transition youth to adulthood.

 

 

Sorry, not trying to fight. Just trying to get the point across that there's rules here and they're not just a decoration.

 

If you are trying to get points across, seriously what are they? I present my reasoning and you present yours, right? Where is your reasoning?

 

Did you see the thread I opened to answer your question titled "The Law", and then I opened another one titled "Logos", because there is much philosophy and custom behind these terms. We need to understand all these concepts to understand democracy and I am doing my best to explain everything. May I suggest google? If I do not understand what someone is talking about, I google it.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Athena

[Phi for All]

Okay, why does have God have to be supernatural? How about the God Cicero speaks of, and Jefferson refers to in the US Declaration of Independence? This is the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God".

Anything that can't be observed or measured by scientific means is not considered "natural" by science. Even Cicero's and Jefferson's gods, since they choose not to manifest themselves in an observable way as gods, and thus avoid both experimentation and reliable prediction, are considered "supernatural", outside of the natural world.

 

Our culture is build on previous cultures. So for us, many of the moral stories came first.

I disagree. You're starting the stories in later cultures to make them primary. The stories, by definition, have to model the behavior, therefore the moral behavior had to come first. It seems farfetched that a storyteller in the earliest of times saw a need for moral behavior and told a fictional story of it that later became the blueprint for such behavior. It seems much more likely to me that storytellers saw the benefits of existing morality and told stories that further resonated with their audiences.

[doG]

If you are trying to get points across, seriously what are they? I present my reasoning and you present yours, right? Where is your reasoning?

 

Did you see the thread I opened to answer your question titled "The Law", and then I opened another one titled "Logos", because there is much philosophy and custom behind these terms. We need to understand all these concepts to understand democracy and I am doing my best to explain everything. May I suggest google? If I do not understand what someone is talking about, I google it.

Wow!!! Do you really want the rest of us to believe that you really believe your assertion that law=god is unchallengable? That we should all just take your word for it just because you say so? Google? Sorry, no thanks. I'm not dumb enough to go looking for any source that supports the assertion law=god. There aren't any. Looking for them would be like shopping for ocean front property in Arizona. It's a ludicrous assertion that no one can or will support.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

doG, Athena, you both totally failed to change your position in this discussion. You both also still use a style that, to me as an outsider, sounds like you're trying to insult each other.

doG, you said you weren't here to fight... and then 1 post later, you use a style which I think is insulting, and which shows that you have no interest to investigate the points Athena is making.

Athena, the same goes for you. The second part of your last post has a strong undertone of insult.

I propose you both just stop this thread. I don't wish to close this. But if you two cannot behave, you might as well stop it altogether.

You're still completely stuck in your trenches. If your primary goal in this discussion is to win it, then I propose we close this thread. Are you here to win, or to discuss and learn?

[doG]

!

Moderator Note

doG, Athena, you both totally failed to change your position in this discussion. You both also still use a style that, to me as an outsider, sounds like you're trying to insult each other.

 

doG, you said you weren't here to fight... and then 1 post later, you use a style which I think is insulting, and which shows that you have no interest to investigate the points Athena is making.

 

Athena, the same goes for you. The second part of your last post has a strong undertone of insult.

 

I propose you both just stop this thread. I don't wish to close this. But if you two cannot behave, you might as well stop it altogether.

 

You're still completely stuck in your trenches. If your primary goal in this discussion is to win it, then I propose we close this thread. Are you here to win, or to discuss and learn?

Why should I attempt to prove or disprove Athena's assertion? Is it not Athena's obligation to support it? BTW, I did investigate and posted the etymology of 'law' earlier in the thread even though I didn't feel it my obligation to do so. I've been waiting since for support which is still yet to come.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Another mod tip aimed at everybody (but nobody in particular). We have an etiquette on this forum. For your information, I have copy pasted two items from the etiquette which seem relevant here. Not for the topic, but certainly for the style of the discussion.

Don't be Mean
If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended.

I Hate You
Not everyone will agree with you, no matter how supergreat you are. Understand this, plus the difficulties involved in altering someone's deep-felt views over a text-only forum, and accept it. Don't try to force them into other beliefs.

doG, I am not going to answer questions related to moderation. Please use the PM, or the report button if you wish to learn more about our moderation. If any mod tips in this post are related to your question, that is purely coincidental (but hopefully useful too).

[doG]

!

Moderator Note

Another mod tip aimed at everybody (but nobody in particular). We have an etiquette on this forum. For your information, I have copy pasted two items from the etiquette which seem relevant here. Not for the topic, but certainly for the style of the discussion.

 

 

 

doG, I am not going to answer questions related to moderation. Please use the PM, or the report button if you wish to learn more about our moderation. If any mod tips in this post are related to your question, that is purely coincidental (but hopefully useful too).

Thank you. Sorry my expectation has been interpreted as hateful when all I've really tried to ask is compliance with this rule:

 

10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

Perhaps this thread belongs in Speculations. Sorry I didn't just ask for that in the first place.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

doG, this thread isn't in the main science forums, it's in the General Philosophy forum. These types of questions don't necessarilly have a right or wrong answer, nor do the terms used in them have standard definitions as you might see in science. As such, if you disagree with something or someone's definition of something, it would be wiser and much more conducive to actual discussion if you could summarise your reasons in a polite manner as opposed to simply telling someone that they're wrong.

CP has asked you to take any grievances you have with staff action or comments to private discussion away from this thread. I will repeat what he has already said and tell you that if you wish to question staff on our mod notes or our actions, please do so via the report feature or by contacting us via PM. If you continue to derail this thread with off topic discussion, your posts will simply be removed.

And as a further note, it might be a good idea in future to leave the moderating in threads to the moderators (that's what we're here for after all) and to simply report things you see to be in violation of the rules.

[Athena]

Anything that can't be observed or measured by scientific means is not considered "natural" by science. Even Cicero's and Jefferson's gods, since they choose not to manifest themselves in an observable way as gods, and thus avoid both experimentation and reliable prediction, are considered "supernatural", outside of the natural world.

 

 

I disagree. You're starting the stories in later cultures to make them primary. The stories, by definition, have to model the behavior, therefore the moral behavior had to come first. It seems farfetched that a storyteller in the earliest of times saw a need for moral behavior and told a fictional story of it that later became the blueprint for such behavior. It seems much more likely to me that storytellers saw the benefits of existing morality and told stories that further resonated with their audiences.

 

 

Well of course the cause and effect must be observed, before we can use language to state a moral, but is a moral a moral before we create it with language? I listened to a philosophy program last night that I am using to improve my explanations.

 

We are social animals and that means we are programmed like other social animals, and in last night's debate they were splitting hairs to argue is there a difference between our morality and animals morality? The difference is, because we have language we add a whole lot to nature. We add thoughts about rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities. We use language to construct our reality in away other animals have not done. This is not to say other animals do not communicate. Test have demonstrated chimps might even be capable of a degree of conceptualizing, but they do not organize themselves around concepts as humans do. So yes, the cause and effect is observed, before we use language to state a moral, but is it a moral before language? Are animals that are programmed to be social, just like us, being moral, or is it only when we apply language to what can be observed that we are moral and animals are not, because without language that represents our observations and thought, there can not be morals, nor the laws of physics. However, what talk about, does exist before we speak it.

 

Animals mate but they do not have marriage and divorce, property rights and taxes. Like the gods, we create our reality. Now what is a god? What is a moral? Both are concepts. When we realize a concept, our rationality sets restraints on us. We judge those who are not restrained as insane, and in troop of chimps these unrestrained individuals are driven away, just as humans drive away or kill unrestrained individuals. God=concepts and Moral=law. This is not different from science. Physics=concept and then we get the laws of physics. Because we can conceptualize we can create our own reality, however, the reality we create is limited to what we can conceptualize. So we want to teach our children morals, in moral stories, before they learn the hard way, what will hurt them and others. We want to take advantage of the benefits of language, right?

 

What we call western civilization, begins in Athens, and is the result of humans naming concepts, just like those who study quantum physics do, and then explaining these concepts. Such as the Greeks worked with a concept of justice, and Socrates questioned what did they mean by justice? What are the rules, the pattern of cause and effect? That is, each god and goddess is a concept, and mythology is stories built around these concepts, and from there a culture is manifest. Only Socrates pushed this envelop, breaking superstition and pushing us in the direction of science.

 

Democracy is a result of this conceptualizing, name a god and telling a story. Democracy begins with the idea that we are made in the image of the gods, because like them we can think in concepts and we can create. And as our scientist look for a unified theory so did these early philosophers, and the many gods became one. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. This is how Cicero and Jefferson understood God, and there is nothing supernatural about this concept of God. God is manifestation. To know of God we study nature. It is possible because we have language and use words as representations of our thoughts.

 

Thank you. Sorry my expectation has been interpreted as hateful when all I've really tried to ask is compliance with this rule:

 

 

 

Perhaps this thread belongs in Speculations. Sorry I didn't just ask for that in the first place.

 

Philosophy is speculation. It asks how does the universe works, and how should we live together. That is what is God and moral? I think if we treat God as a concept, we can correct false notions of God, without loosing the benefits of an unified theory. To clarify, philosophy asks the questions and religion provides the answers. However, because religion provides answers with myth, instead of science and on going debate, there is a problem with religion. On the other hand, there is also a problem with science, if there is no way to question how does it all work and what is our place in it?

Edited May 25, 2012 by Athena