Morality

[Baked Potato]

Please explain how one can derive Moral truth from physics, chemistry, or mathematics.

For those of us who are not religious, are we supposed to be constructing our values using one of those three things? I'm slightly confused.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Please explain how one can derive Moral truth from physics, chemistry, or mathematics.

Read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by R. Persig and then let's have a discussion.
And maybe a little E. Kant. on reason and the basis of moral philosophy.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I would say my morals come from my parents correcting me when I did things they deemed bad and as an adult my overwhelming desire to do what I want without impacting anyone else's ability do do what they want.
If you just don't hurt people, you kind of have the right and wrong thing down. I don't not do things because I am scared I am going to get in trouble (a.k.a my interpretation of most religion). I don't murder people, I do not litter and I damn sure make sure the shopping cart goes back into the cart return when I am done with it.

 

[Lindberg]

So morality is simply an undefinable term.

"Morality" has a very clear definition: a doctrine or system of moral conduct. But there is no single such doctrine or system for everyone. It is generally considered to be personal. But being "moral" does require some system that allows one to determine whether conduct is "good," i.e., desirable, or "bad," i.e., undesirable. I haven't listened to the podcast, but it seems that what the Father was talking about is amorality, or the lack of such a system, and the resulting nature of decision making. This thread seems to have diverged into what is the correct morality.

 

[RyanShort1]

"Morality" has a very clear definition: a doctrine or system of moral conduct. But there is no single such doctrine or system for everyone. It is generally considered to be personal. But being "moral" does require some system that allows one to determine whether conduct is "good," i.e., desirable, or "bad," i.e., undesirable. I haven't listened to the podcast, but it seems that what the Father was talking about is amorality, or the lack of such a system, and the resulting nature of decision making. This thread seems to have diverged into what is the correct morality.

You missed what he was trying to convey. @MauleSkinner doesn't think it's undefinable, he was replying to a post that implies that it is.

 

[JackL-3J]

Please explain how one can derive Moral truth from physics, chemistry, or mathematics.

By my personal definition, Morality is an agreed upon standard. Specifically, a religiously based standard. But, the moral standard of one religion is not any more universal than the law of one state is universal.

From a practical standpoint, I'm pretty sure that Ethical standards can be derived from Philosophy. Just ask Aristotle, Budda, or Confucious. (Not that they are universal either.)

 

[AV8R_87]

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Here's a good story about morality:

A couple years ago I was on a suburban train, returning home. Towards the end of the line, it was pretty empty and I noticed one elderly man (eatly 70s, I'd guess), bent over 90 degrees with back pain, telling the conductor he had to return home because his back issues had flared up. His house was a good 6 miles or so from the train station and he had no means (personal or finnancial) to get there. He mentioned he might just try to walk. The conductor didn't really offer any solutions, and the other three people in that car said nothing, pretty much looked the other way. It was a really cold and windy morning, no way I was going to let him do that. Told him I'd help him off the train, but he would have to wait 10 or so minutes in the station shelter while I walked home to get my car. He was so happy to see me when I returned, he probably thought I wouldn't come back for him. Gave him a ride home, noticed his apartment was up a pretty steep flight of stairs, so I decided to help him with that as well. The man was a vet, had to walk to VA once or twice a week (about 3 miles) to do physical therapy for his back. Uphill. Had no car or other forms of transportation available on a regular basis.

I didn't do that because a better life might be there for me after this one ends, or because of fear of a supreme being.
I did it because it was the right thing to do. Because it would've felt wrong not to help. That's my definition of morals.

Here's another example: even more years ago, Dec 31st in Times Square, I noticed a man rummaging through a trash can outside a McD, picking up a half-eaten burger and trying to eat it. While you see a lot of the beggers out there with more expensive phones than I have, things have to be pretty desperate to be willing to eat a burger from a trash can. I stopped him, went inside and got him a couple warm meals.
It was the right thing to do.

 

[mark.staggs]

If you need an omniscient and vengeful being threatening you in order to be good, you are not a good person. You are bad person on a leash. Aim higher. We can do better than that.

Very much this. If your only reason for being 'moral' is not being smitten by God, or getting into heaven, or getting your X virgins, or whatever each religion promises....then you're are not a moral person.

Religion/theism has no monopoly on morality. In fact, across history it can be easily demonstrated that those religions have been the source of much of the worlds' deaths, wars, and oppressions.

To the OP's point, I think people are intrinsically moral people (as adults anyway, kids can be cruel). The only thing that's changed is the language, but the understanding is still there.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

One of the findings was that 60% had no ability and no categories to make moral decisions. The meaning is that they have lost the language of "good" and "evil". They have lost the definitions of those concepts.

These young adults wouldn't say that something is "wrong" or that it's "bad". Instead, they say that it's "stupid". Or they might say that that person "sick" or "pathological"
Father's point as I understood it is basically they aren't seeing things in terms of right or wrong. These young adults aren't equipped to choose between good over evil.

Or maybe, we finally have a generation who realizes that not everything is black and white. In fact, very few things are. But "stupid" or "sick" or "pathological" might as well be synonyms for evil, so I don't know how he comes to the conclusion that they don't know right from wrong.

It’s interesting that nearly every generation says this. It seems, as we get older we “learn” things, then look at the younger generation and say, “kids these days…”

We also seem to forget that previous generations said things like this about us.

We AGAIN need compulsory military service, 2 years. It needs be part of our common experience.

I don't agree with military as the only method, but I do think that we largely need to get American kids out of their hometowns, out of the little shells we build for them, and out into the world. Whether it's military, peace corps, community service, or something.

"Travel is fatal to prejuidce, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime."

Without absolute truth, morality means nothing.

Yet today, our grasp of truth and reality is tenuous at best, with people who are seeking power doing their best to create their own reality via ownership of media.

Now, we can ask what happened to make instilling good morals by parents change? Well, you can look at people not being religious. Ok, then why is that? Quite possibly/probably from the very public moral failings of various clergy leaders.

Yes. Hypocrisy continues to push me farther and farther from organized religion, even though I think (hope) it is a minority of religious people who are causing it. Love thy neighbor, except if they're gay or immigrants or don't look like us? Sorry, no.

Parenting time. A significant increase in the number of either single-parent households or households where both parents need to work (sometimes multiple jobs) to make ends meet. That leaves TikTok and YouTube to fill the void. Maybe all those increases in worker productivity that lead to great stock market gains have a societal cost?

Yup. And I know this all too well as a parent who has to plop his kid in front of the TV more than I'd like. There are great resources on TV and we watch things together that we can both learn from. One proud moments was when my then-6 year old said out of the blue one day, "Daddy, I want to learn CAD!" On the other hand, certain content also caused him to start getting sneaky, so we went cold turkey for a while, whereupon after a few days without any screens he said how he felt much better about himself because of it.

I also see a lot of parents who don't understand the importance of setting an example for their kids. It is incredibly difficult to get Millennial/Gen Y parents to volunteer to support activities that benefit their own kids (sports, scouts, anything). This will result in another generation who don't understand personal sacrifice. I don't agree that we need a form of mandatory public service, but there should be ways to better incentivize volunteerism.

See the part above about both parents needing to work. There's also a lot more positive opportunities for kids these days... My school-age kid literally has activities happening after school every day of the week, and even the younger one has stuff going on. To make it all work, my wife and I literally have to switch kids at soccer practice.

If somehow an opportunity arises where I can contribute positively to something one of my kids is doing and it actually works with the crazy schedule of being a parent, I'll absolutely do it, but I'm not optimistic at this point!

 

[RyanShort1]

Religion/theism has no monopoly on morality. In fact, across history it can be easily demonstrated that those religions have been the source of much of the worlds' deaths, wars, and oppressions.

Would you even assert that about people like Anabaptists, Brethren, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers? Most of those wars and such are from people who do NOT follow the teachings of their own supposedly valued books. ie. Hypocrisy. Also, let's not overlook how many people were murdered in the 20th century by those who rejected a deity.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Fear isn't a good motivator for belief in kids? Explain Santa Clause. How many kids change their behavior every December because they believe in Santa clause and are fearful he won't come? How many kids believed they had to be well mannered in school because they feared being sent to the pr8ncipals office? Fear is very much a motivational factor in shaping kids and adults beliefs and behaviors.

The Santa Clause? That's a movie. I'm going to assume you meant Santa Claus.

That isn't fear. Santa Claus isn't a stick, he's a carrot. They behave because they think they'll get something good out of it, not because they fear Santa.

Though, my younger son sure wouldn't sit on his lap yesterday.

I regularly attend church and am a believer, and do believe Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man, but I also grapple greatly with this concept. To what degree are our sins really washed away?

Steal some sugar packets from the restaurant, your’re probably good. Cheat on your wife? Probably good as well although I think it’s a horrible thing to do. But rape, murder? I cannot think God will be good with that just because you profess to love Jesus.

For some reason, your post and this thread reminded me of this classic:

Also, let's not overlook how many people were murdered in the 20th century by those who rejected a deity.

Are you referring to specific event(s)? I don't think any religion or lack thereof has a monopoly on murder.

 

[wanttaja]

Are you referring to specific event(s)? I don't think any religion or lack thereof has a monopoly on murder.

Yup. Don't forget this famous invocation of a deity.

I'd also recommend the film, "Joyeux Noël", a fictionalization of the informal truce between the soldiers on Christmas Day, 1914. It starts with school children exclaiming how just and moral it is, to kill the soldiers of the other side.

John McCutcheon wrote "Christmas in the Trenches," telling the story of the Christmas Truce from the point of view of one of the British soldiers. Very moving, it's one of my favorite Christmas songs.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[MauleSkinner]

Religion/theism has no monopoly on morality. In fact, across history it can be easily demonstrated that those religions have been the source of much of the worlds' deaths, wars, and oppressions.

I don’t recall anyone in this conversation saying that having religion made one moral. In fact, the need for “religion” is based in human failings.

What “religion” provides is a documented framework for morality. Whether we choose to follow it or not has nothing to do with the source. That would be like saying that the only reason murder happens is because there are laws that forbid it.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Here's a good story about morality:

A couple years ago I was on a suburban train, returning home. Towards the end of the line, it was pretty empty and I noticed one elderly man (eatly 70s, I'd guess), bent over 90 degrees with back pain, telling the conductor he had to return home because his back issues had flared up. His house was a good 6 miles or so from the train station and he had no means (personal or finnancial) to get there. He mentioned he might just try to walk. The conductor didn't really offer any solutions, and the other three people in that car said nothing, pretty much looked the other way. It was a really cold and windy morning, no way I was going to let him do that. Told him I'd help him off the train, but he would have to wait 10 or so minutes in the station shelter while I walked home to get my car. He was so happy to see me when I returned, he probably thought I wouldn't come back for him. Gave him a ride home, noticed his apartment was up a pretty steep flight of stairs, so I decided to help him with that as well. The man was a vet, had to walk to VA once or twice a week (about 3 miles) to do physical therapy for his back. Uphill. Had no car or other forms of transportation available on a regular basis.

I didn't do that because a better life might be there for me after this one ends, or because of fear of a supreme being.
I did it because it was the right thing to do. Because it would've felt wrong not to help. That's my definition of morals.

Here's another example: even more years ago, Dec 31st in Times Square, I noticed a man rummaging through a trash can outside a McD, picking up a half-eaten burger and trying to eat it. While you see a lot of the beggers out there with more expensive phones than I have, things have to be pretty desperate to be willing to eat a burger from a trash can. I stopped him, went inside and got him a couple warm meals.
It was the right thing to do.

Is that being moral, or is that being empathetic to another's suffering and having the means to come to his aid? What if the others had no means, or were traveling to the aid a relative, or was on their way to an important appointment they couldn't miss? What if they couldn't help, but felt bad about it? Does that make them less moral?

You made a commendable decision to assist a fellow traveler. Maybe we're getting hung up on the semantic difference between morals, which have a strong religious dimension, and values which are a social construct with a lesser religious connotation.

 

[Daleandee]

I think it wise to point out that I don't obey the Almighty God because I fear He will smite me ... very much the opposite in that He loved me before I loved Him and sent His Son to the cross to prove that. I follow Him because He gives us the perfect understanding of what pure morality looks like. Read the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the mount and learn that morals are not just what a person does but also the intents of their hearts.

As I stated earlier if there is good in the world then there must be a way to know what is good and that supposes that what isn't good is evil. If there is evil then that proves there must be good as a measurement against it. If there is good & evil there must be a moral law to show where the dividing line is. This being true means there must be a moral law giver and there is. He gave us His guide book to follow.

Here is a short read with great information from C.S. Lewis: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2020/06/18/c-s-lewis-on-the-moral-law/

 

[Baked Potato]

This being true means there must be a moral law giver and there is. He gave us His guide book to follow.

Wolfgang Langewiesche?

 

[mark.staggs]

I don’t recall anyone in this conversation saying that having religion made one moral. In fact, the need for “religion” is based in human failings.

What “religion” provides is a documented framework for morality. Whether we choose to follow it or not has nothing to do with the source. That would be like saying that the only reason murder happens is because there are laws that forbid it.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that.

But some have implied that without religion one can't be moral. I'm, albeit poorly, trying to say that correlation != causation. You don't have to be religious to have morals, and, as you stated, just because you _are_ religious or theistic (or appear to be), doesn't mean you necessarily have or use a moral compass.

 

[mark.staggs]

Would you even assert that about people like Anabaptists, Brethren, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers? Most of those wars and such are from people who do NOT follow the teachings of their own supposedly valued books. ie. Hypocrisy. Also, let's not overlook how many people were murdered in the 20th century by those who rejected a deity.

Many wars were backed by the church/a religious institution! Sure, not ALL have caused wars (not what I'm saying). And, I get what you're saying, and I get that the church itself can be hypocritical. But it's a bad look for the particular institutions.

I don't get your last statement. Yeah, folks have been murdered by and for all kinds of reasons, religious and otherwise. Same as with any other "immoral" act.

Atheists and the pious can both be amoral and/or moral. It depends upon the person.

 

[AV8R_87]

Is that being moral, or is that being empathetic to another's suffering and having the means to come to his aid?

In my view of the world, morals and empathy go hand in hand.

What if the others had no means, or were traveling to the aid a relative, or was on their way to an important appointment they couldn't miss? What if they couldn't help, but felt bad about it? Does that make them less moral?

It was the last stop. It's quite difficult to assist someone in that situation out of a train, those platforms and train steps were not the easiest to navigate. Nobody even offered to lend a hand for a minute, they all got out and calmly walked to their cars in the parking lot. And actively looked the other way in the train. It wasn't a case of couldn't, it was just a case of didn't care.

Maybe we're getting hung up on the semantic difference between morals, which have a strong religious dimension,

I will disagree with this statement. Morality, while it can be exercised in a religious setting, should not be exclusively associated with religion.
Because then, by definition, anyone not sharing your religious beliefs becomes immoral, right? Isn't that how we get to "Death to the infidels"?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that.

But some have implied that without religion one can't be moral. I'm, albeit poorly, trying to say that correlation != causation. You don't have to be religious to have morals, and, as you stated, just because you _are_ religious or theistic (or appear to be), doesn't mean you necessarily have or use a moral compass.

I don’t think anyone implied that, either. The point of “religion” in the discussion is that morality is codified for people rather than people having to come up with a moral code. We can come up with all the laws we want to enforce what is essentially a moral code, but as a population we clearly can’t agree on the boundary between “moral” and “immoral.”

 

[Chip Sylverne]

By the classic definitions, values are personal while morals are societal. So, based on your experience you value empathy, but the group you were in didn't. Does not sharing your personal values make the rest of the group immoral? It may make them selfish, callous and uncaring, but immoral?

 

[hindsight2020]

Please explain how one can derive Moral truth from physics, chemistry, or mathematics.

Not interested in playing "youtube comment section debate lord" with ya. From your postings I already know where you stand, by my self-reporting in prior posts you already know where I stand, and this medium's format is not conducive for such a debate.

My only interest in this thread as flirted by on this forum, is the feigned coyness of one group when it comes to the macro question, not of "live and let live", but "who gets to set the rules for the public square?" That's what this kerfuffle is and has always been about. So far, folks have stayed away from spelling it out here, which is why I presume the thing hasn't been locked yet.

 

[Piperonca]

Not interested in playing "youtube comment section debate lord" with ya. From your postings I already know where you stand, by my self-reporting in prior posts you already know where I stand, and this medium's format is not conducive for such a debate.

My only interest in this thread as flirted by on this forum, is the feigned coyness of one group when it comes to the macro question, not of "live and let live", but "who gets to set the rules for the public square?" That's what this kerfuffle is and has always been about. So far, folks have stayed away from spelling it out here, which is why I presume the thing hasn't been locked yet.

God, that's funny!

 

[hindsight2020]

God, that's funny!

 

[Barrett50]

IIRC, John 3:16 says nothing about Hail Marys or dollars in a collection plate. It’s rather simple, really.

Well, I didn't quote bible verse because I'm far from an expert. However, out there in the real world, this is how the plan goes. Sinner asks forgiveness, and some negotiation goes on, then penance and absolution. I think I have that right?

“Sin on Saturday, forgive on Sunday” isn’t indicative of sincere belief, now, is it?

I would say that every penitent soul in the alter of their faith, and belief in their own system of absolution really is sincere. For those who have lost their faith, I'm of the opinion that they aren't attending and seeking forgiveness now are they? Might be a hen-pecked hubby out there that sleeps through the liturgy, and makes the cross, but after a while, the insincere are just going to stop playing games and watch football.

 

[wanttaja]

My only interest in this thread as flirted by on this forum, is the feigned coyness of one group when it comes to the macro question, not of "live and let live", but "who gets to set the rules for the public square?"

And as a nice strawman for this, let me suggest "public nudity." OK in many cultures, anathema in ours.

We've got a nice little example here in the Seattle area. There's a lake with a long-standing nude beach, but the county wants to put a kid's playground within sight of it....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Bill]

There's a lake with a long-standing nude beach, but the county wants to put a kid's playground within sight of it....

That would be unbearable.

 

[hindsight2020]

That would be unbearable.

That's...wait for it....in the eye of the beholder . I'm on a roll this week

 

[Stevel]

Not interested in playing "youtube comment section debate lord" with ya. From your postings I already know where you stand, by my self-reporting in prior posts you already know where I stand, and this medium's format is not conducive for such a debate.

My only interest in this thread as flirted by on this forum, is the feigned coyness of one group when it comes to the macro question, not of "live and let live", but "who gets to set the rules for the public square?" That's what this kerfuffle is and has always been about. So far, folks have stayed away from spelling it out here, which is why I presume the thing hasn't been locked yet.

ED ZACHARY!

 

[Half Fast]

However, out there in the real world, this is how the plan goes. Sinner asks forgiveness, and some negotiation goes on, then penance and absolution. I think I have that right?

No, you don’t, but the rules won’t allow elaboration. Would you be receptive to a PM? If not, I won’t bother you.

 

[Barrett50]

Seems to me a nude beach IS a kids playground. Volleyball anyone?

So, I have an aviation nude beach story that is just bad enough to share. For a short time, back a few centuries I got to tow ad banners in San Diego. During summer we would take off from SEE and fly down the valley to the coast and go up and down the coast advertising sunscreen, condos, and new movies. Blacks nude Beach is just north of La Jolla a few miles and we were supposed to turn around just after La Jolla where the population dropped off. I would stray a bit further north for some nude oogling. One Sat I was past Blacks and turned around and coming back about 600AGL(over water), I'm headed south looking down to the left at a nice rack and I glance up to see a SCREEN FULL OF CESSNA HEAD-ON! going north at 700AGL with him leaned over looking down and right.

I slammed the stick fwd and right and I counted the rivets on his dirty belly. He never even saw me. Then I peed myself a bit, and flew home and dropped the banner. After that I decided that no pair of nice tatas was worth that. Never flew past Blacks again, and stopped towing that fall.

 

[Half Fast]

That's...wait for it....in the eye of the beholder . I'm on a roll this week

Hmmm. I must be confused again. I thought beauty was in the eye of the beer holder.....

 

[Barrett50]

No, you don’t, but the rules won’t allow elaboration. Would you be receptive to a PM? If not, I won’t bother you.

I'll pass. I lived with a catholic Mexican girl for long enough to get a good sense of the deal. Consider me one of the great unwashed.

 

[Lindberg]

You missed what he was trying to convey. @MauleSkinner doesn't think it's undefinable, he was replying to a post that implies that it is.

I didn't miss anything. And the thread continues with posters equating moral systems that diverge from their own, immorality, and amorality.

 

[Zeldman]

So, I have an aviation nude beach story that is just bad enough to share.

in 1973 a group of us teenagers were doing a day canoe trip in Lake Travis, near Austin.

We ''accidentally'' went by hippie holler, a local nudist hangout. Saw some very slim, very attractive and unshaven young ladies baring all in front of strangers and fish.

Last summer a friend of mine was fishing on Lake Travis. He ''accidentally'' trolled by hippie holler. He reported the same ladies were still there...

 

[Llewtrah381]

Would you even assert that about people like Anabaptists, Brethren, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers? Most of those wars and such are from people who do NOT follow the teachings of their own supposedly valued books. ie. Hypocrisy. Also, let's not overlook how many people were murdered in the 20th century by those who rejected a deity.

No one group has killed more Christians - than other Christians. The Thirty Years War alone gave WWII a good run for the money with a much smaller world population. Add in a whole lot of others over the past five centuries - let alone Inquisitions, witch burnings, and the like and there’s just no comparison. Christians have been killing other Christians for being the wrong kind of Christians for centuries.

 

[JackL-3J]

I believe that it was the late, great, Ray Charles who once said that he sang to the same people on Sunday morning in church that he sang to Saturday night in the honky-tonk.

At a certain level this is a cute tale of people being people. A little excess perhaps, but also a desire to be solid and upstanding. Hypocrisy? Perhaps . . . I guess that would depend on the honky-tonk church goers attitude . . . are we all fallible and fall short of aspirations . . . or is thou holier than I?

I don't subscribe to any organized religion, but I see some common threads in most (and in most ethical philosophies).

 

[wanttaja]

I'll pass. I lived with a catholic Mexican girl for long enough to get a good sense of the deal. Consider me one of the great unwashed.

I'm the product of a mixed marriage...my mother was Catholic, my father was Lutheran (like any good Scandahoovian).

Wasn't there during the negotiations, but believe to get the Church's approval, my future father had to agree that all children would have to be brought up Catholic.

So skip forward about eight years. Every Sunday, my mother would take me and my brother to Mass. And every Sunday, my father would stay home.

Mind you, I was just four or five, and the situation did confuse me a lot. Mortal sin to miss church, but there's my dad kicking back and relaxing every time we got dressed up and left for church.

One of the neighbor kids asked me about the situation. Being just five or so, all *I* knew is that my dad didn't go to church on Sunday.

And the only other people I knew that didn't go to church on Sunday......so I gave what I thought at the time was a reasonable assumption.

It was soon hammered into me by both parents that my dad was NOT Jewish......

Ron Wanttaja

 

[AV8R_87]

I don't know, Rabbi Wanttaja sounds pretty legit to me.

 

[Pilots Of America Management]

This thread has strayed outside the bounds of the rules of conduct, specifically 'Political/Religious discussions are prohibited. This includes any language or discussion deemed to be political or politically charged in nature as well as any religious speech or text. This language is exceedingly destructive to the cohesion of the community and as such will not be tolerated.' It has remained mostly civil, and we respect that, but it has run its course and is now locked. Note that no posts have been deleted and no warnings issued, and the thread will remain visible unless it raises issues in the future.