|
Post by goz on Feb 11, 2018 4:56:19 GMT
Several posters have had some interesting insights on my other thread which leads me to post this extension.
I think it was Graham said
...and of course society is also evolving, which often accounts for disputes and wars, religious or not. The old guard vs the new, with moderates in between.
I would even post that religions are evolving. ( the new progressive Pope vs conservatives both in Catholicism and even more so in the battle between conservative fundamentalist Muslims and moderates)
What, in your personal worldview does this mean to you, your community, your nation and the wider word?
...or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality, and so any evolution is a retrograde step?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 11, 2018 9:56:50 GMT
There is no absolute objective morality. Humans evolve, therefore morals do too.
Berthold Brecht said: "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral". Which means roughly that people care about getting food before they care about morals.
So I believe that people having discussions about morals is a good thing. It proves that morals are not absolute or unchanging; and it also shows that more people have the time to talk about morals.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 11, 2018 13:22:52 GMT
Morals don't evolve since people can create as many moral codes as societies will accept.
Plus they're stackable so there's not much issue except for those we create.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 11, 2018 15:27:00 GMT
Morals don't evolve since people can create as many moral codes as societies will accept. Plus they're stackable so there's not much issue except for those we create. You don't think morals have evolved from centuries ago when slavery was considered perfectly acceptable, "witches" were burned, homosexuals could legally be murdered, and women didn't have the same rights as men?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 11, 2018 17:55:23 GMT
Morals don't evolve since people can create as many moral codes as societies will accept. Plus they're stackable so there's not much issue except for those we create. You don't think morals have evolved from centuries ago when slavery was considered perfectly acceptable, "witches" were burned, homosexuals could legally be murdered, and women didn't have the same rights as men? I think it's semantics. If you can create a million types of moral codes, then you can call it evolution if you want. I call it create a new code. That said, morality hasn't changed regarding a lot of stuff including slavery. Your focus is on actions which are merely a result of any particular moral code as opposed to people honoring it. For example, the slave trade is alive and well and just like in the past when most people didn;t own slaves but most people didn;t care about them either, the same thing is happening in the 21st century. the best one to live by is the one that works regardless of the injustices surrounding it.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 11, 2018 18:18:32 GMT
Moral codes do change, just like religions and languages. It should be possible to form cladograms of all of these things. Within those clades one will find many common and recurring features that suggest a certain universality, just as one can find apparent universal features in life forms (sex, DNA and proteins for example).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 11, 2018 20:50:58 GMT
Morals don't evolve since people can create as many moral codes as societies will accept. Plus they're stackable so there's not much issue except for those we create. Actually, that is the point. They can create them and they have. As Cham says further down though, there will be some things which are common and enduring butt the societies involved have to accept the changes, and they have. In another post you dismissed the slavey example rather off handedly. America is a very useful country to use for many examples of the evolution of morality and the fact that some Conservatives, especially fundamentalist Christians resist it. It is obvious that slavery was once considered acceptable therefore 'moral' within that society at that time and that now, it isn't. What has changed? The moral values of a society have moved on or evolved. It has nothing to do with 'semantics' unless you are changing the meaning of 'slavery' and even then the concept is problematic. You claiming that slavery exists in other countries does not get over the fact that the moral value of society has evolved in the USA to make slavery unacceptable and immoral. In the same way abortion has changed the morality due to advancement in modern scientific knowledge about the nature and viability of the foetus, and of course those who still cling to the notion of an objective morality are affronted.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 11, 2018 22:09:46 GMT
gozThe part I disagree with is the notion that parts of it go away by means of adaptation. It doesn't. Any morality that begin in the past still exists now. Granted the law, aka the new morality in a secular society, may try to get rid of the ones rooted in spirituality, but it doesn't really work too well. At best they can accommodate it which, as I've said before, is very easy considering how limited a list moral behaviors ones like Christianity have. On the contrary, I didn't dismiss slavery nearly as readily as you and others are doing. That's the problem. The US neither began nor ended slavery. Anyone who thinks there aren't more slaves now then there were during the time we most think of them is delusional. Regarding the other point of this, part of the problem is that Christians are under some kind of weird obligation to be the religion of poltics. So critics can easily intermingle stuff that is legal matters with stuff that is religious matters and not concern themselves one hoot with the fallacy of doing so. Fundamentalists are not evolving because their moral code has no reason to change except by force. As an obvious example, there will never be a time that there will be any reason for any Christian to accept gay marriage as some kind of Christian right. Some will due to societal pressure, but that just goes to show that a new moral code can be easily created without a need for changing existing ones. Flawed reasoning. Something that is allowed or condoned does not mean that it is a moral issue. That's like saying because pot is legal to smoke in California, it is moral to smoke it. Heck, even if we were to assume that slavery was directly tied to morals, as opposed to their treatment which most certainly could be considered a moral issue considering how they were treated by law in the South, then the premise is flawed since most people did not have slaves or even want slaves. So there were numerous moral codes existing even then. This is completely untrue. nothing has changed whatsoever scientifically regarding what happens in an abortion. In fact, science allows for viability of a fetus at ever earlier stages while killing the fetuses hasn't changed to reflect this advancement. What has happened is the advertisement & promotion of abortions as a good thing for some reason has caught on...Just not to the point that people are actually brave enough to admit to having one. Abortions are as horrible as they've always been and that is a moral code that doesn't even have to be tied to religion.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 11, 2018 22:21:37 GMT
We used to think it was moral to keep slaves, now (generally) we do not, how has the morality not changed?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 11, 2018 22:28:05 GMT
Several posters have had some interesting insights on my other thread which leads me to post this extension. I think it was Graham said ...and of course society is also evolving, which often accounts for disputes and wars, religious or not. The old guard vs the new, with moderates in between. I would even post that religions are evolving. ( the new progressive Pope vs conservatives both in Catholicism and even more so in the battle between conservative fundamentalist Muslims and moderates) What, in your personal worldview does this mean to you, your community, your nation and the wider word? ...or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality, and so any evolution is a retrograde step? All things evolve in as much as change and evolution are pretty much synonymous in the context you have presented. Is this good? Yes of course, in the case of religion (which I am sure would be the most contentious), if you think (not you, the universal you ) that we had everything correct 1800 years ago, then buddy you have another think coming. As evolving creatures we also are evolving our understanding of the universe around us, and that has to include our religious interpretation. No doubt that will offend the literalists, but it should not be any other way.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 11, 2018 22:36:30 GMT
We used to think it was moral to keep slaves, now (generally) we do not, how has the morality not changed? I don't understand why people keep saying "We"... There was never a time there was a societal morality to owning slaves. Of there isn't a duty or obigation to the standard, it is not a moral. Maybe if we are discussing particular regions...At best, the morality of slavery could be described as indifferent because oftentimes, there was never a concern for their treatment. It's worse now because much of society has no issues with hookers, child labor, indentured servitude, or conscripted troops, and any number of other examples of modern day slavery.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 11, 2018 22:42:12 GMT
We used to think it was moral to keep slaves, now (generally) we do not, how has the morality not changed? I don't understand why people keep saying "We"... There was never a time there was a societal morality to owning slaves. Of there isn't a duty or obigation to the standard, it is not a moral. Maybe if we are discussing particular regions...At best, the morality of slavery could be described as indifferent because oftentimes, there was never a concern for their treatment. It's worse now because much of society has no issues with hookers, child labor, indentured servitude, or conscripted troops, and any number of other examples of modern day slavery. ok let me be more specific, up until the emancipation, it was morally acceptable in the United States to keep slaves, it is not any more, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 11, 2018 22:50:38 GMT
We used to think it was moral to keep slaves, now (generally) we do not, how has the morality not changed? I don't understand why people keep saying "We"... There was never a time there was a societal morality to owning slaves. Of there isn't a duty or obigation to the standard, it is not a moral. Maybe if we are discussing particular regions...At best, the morality of slavery could be described as indifferent because oftentimes, there was never a concern for their treatment. It's worse now because much of society has no issues with hookers, child labor, indentured servitude, or conscripted troops, and any number of other examples of modern day slavery. Hookers aren't slaves, technically speaking neither is child labor (though I don't agree with it). Calling a draft "slavery" is a bit of a stretch, certainly not in the way southern plantations practiced it . Not to mention many countries have abolished it, so kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one. Indentured servitude is debatable, but again that goes back to my point about not being comparable to 18th century American slavery. Seems to me all your doing is trying to redefine "slavery" to fit your argument.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 12, 2018 2:16:33 GMT
You don't think morals have evolved from centuries ago when slavery was considered perfectly acceptable, "witches" were burned, homosexuals could legally be murdered, and women didn't have the same rights as men? I think it's semantics. If you can create a million types of moral codes, then you can call it evolution if you want. I call it create a new code. That said, morality hasn't changed regarding a lot of stuff including slavery. Your focus is on actions which are merely a result of any particular moral code as opposed to people honoring it. For example, the slave trade is alive and well and just like in the past when most people didn;t own slaves but most people didn;t care about them either, the same thing is happening in the 21st century. the best one to live by is the one that works regardless of the injustices surrounding it. You are so retarded; that’s probably the stupidest comparison I’ve heard. The African slave trade was LEGAL and so was owning slaves (despite the immorality of it). Today, owning slaves is ILLEGAL (as is human trafficking). No society or government today accepts it as a moral norm (as they did in the past with African American slaves), and it’s only done by circumventing the law and the collective will of society. People DO care about it, and they oftentimes do what they can to prevent and report it. But unlike back in the slave days, it’s a little harder to detect in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 12, 2018 3:14:53 GMT
I don't understand why people keep saying "We"... There was never a time there was a societal morality to owning slaves. Of there isn't a duty or obigation to the standard, it is not a moral. Maybe if we are discussing particular regions...At best, the morality of slavery could be described as indifferent because oftentimes, there was never a concern for their treatment. It's worse now because much of society has no issues with hookers, child labor, indentured servitude, or conscripted troops, and any number of other examples of modern day slavery. ok let me be more specific, up until the emancipation, it was morally acceptable in the United States to keep slaves, it is not any more, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation? Specificity isn't the problem as much as you ignoring what I'm saying. I'll be [more] specific too. Slavery did not end because some kind of moral light bulb came at the time of Emancipation.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 12, 2018 3:23:09 GMT
I don't understand why people keep saying "We"... There was never a time there was a societal morality to owning slaves. Of there isn't a duty or obigation to the standard, it is not a moral. Maybe if we are discussing particular regions...At best, the morality of slavery could be described as indifferent because oftentimes, there was never a concern for their treatment. It's worse now because much of society has no issues with hookers, child labor, indentured servitude, or conscripted troops, and any number of other examples of modern day slavery. Hookers aren't slaves, technically speaking neither is child labor (though I don't agree with it). Calling a draft "slavery" is a bit of a stretch, certainly not in the way southern plantations practiced it . Not to mention many countries have abolished it, so kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one. Indentured servitude is debatable, but again that goes back to my point about not being comparable to 18th century American slavery. Seems to me all your doing is trying to redefine "slavery" to fit your argument. Lol. I'm not the one comparing anything to Southern slavery. I'm discussing forcing people to do work they would not normally do. THAT IS SLAVERY. If you ever see me in a soldiers uniform, I guarantee you it was not by my choice. Let's leave that one off since technically their getting paid to be forced to die for their country's cause. That still leaves a lot of people. But this brings up the same point I've already brought up a few times. Slavery is viewed on the basis of their treatment which is why "we" refer to the worst of it & do not concern ourselves with modern forms of it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 12, 2018 3:29:20 GMT
I think it's semantics. If you can create a million types of moral codes, then you can call it evolution if you want. I call it create a new code. That said, morality hasn't changed regarding a lot of stuff including slavery. Your focus is on actions which are merely a result of any particular moral code as opposed to people honoring it. For example, the slave trade is alive and well and just like in the past when most people didn;t own slaves but most people didn;t care about them either, the same thing is happening in the 21st century. the best one to live by is the one that works regardless of the injustices surrounding it. You are so retarded; that’s probably the stupidest comparison I’ve heard. The African slave trade was LEGAL and so was owning slaves (despite the immorality of it). Today, owning slaves is ILLEGAL (as is human trafficking). No society or government today accepts it as a moral norm (as they did in the past with African American slaves), and it’s only done by circumventing the law and the collective will of society. People DO care about it, and they oftentimes do what they can to prevent and report it. But unlike back in the slave days, it’s a little harder to detect in this day and age. 1. I wasn't comparing anything was I? 2. Who was discussing legality. Moral standards can be tied to legality or not. If we don;t care about an illegal sex trade, then what does it matter regarding moral standards? 3. Of course people care about it just like abolitionists cared about the slave trade in the States. Heck, several religions outright banned it a hundred years earlier. That in no way means that caring about it alone stopped it from happening. Apathy always allows the worst to thrive and nothing describes that more than the sex industry and shiny iphone screens from China.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 12, 2018 3:39:26 GMT
Hookers aren't slaves, technically speaking neither is child labor (though I don't agree with it). Calling a draft "slavery" is a bit of a stretch, certainly not in the way southern plantations practiced it . Not to mention many countries have abolished it, so kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one. Indentured servitude is debatable, but again that goes back to my point about not being comparable to 18th century American slavery. Seems to me all your doing is trying to redefine "slavery" to fit your argument. Lol. I'm not the one comparing anything to Southern slavery. I'm discussing forcing people to do work they would not normally do. THAT IS SLAVERY. If you ever see me in a soldiers uniform, I guarantee you it was not by my choice. Let's leave that one off since technically their getting paid to be forced to die for their country's cause. That still leaves a lot of people. But this brings up the same point I've already brought up a few times. Slavery is viewed on the basis of their treatment which is why "we" refer to the worst of it & do not concern ourselves with modern forms of it. "I'm discussing forcing people to do work they would not normally do" That still doesn't fit the criteria for any of the examples you gave. Prostitutes generally aren't "forced", they consent to having sex for money. Child labor is a bit of a gray area (third world parents may force their child to get a job to support their family), but in itself isn't "slavery" since they're getting paid and can quit if they want. Identured servitude doesn't fit your criteria either, they're not being "forced", they consented to it, generally in exchange to live in a more developed nation. It's unethical sure, but it still doesn't meet your defintion of "slavery".
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Feb 12, 2018 4:23:41 GMT
Morals don't evolve since people can create as many moral codes as societies will accept. Plus they're stackable so there's not much issue except for those we create. You don't think morals have evolved from centuries ago when slavery was considered perfectly acceptable, "witches" were burned, homosexuals could legally be murdered, and women didn't have the same rights as men? At first glance I'd say yes and no. Most people agree that killing is wrong barring self defense and I suspect this has been in our DNA for at least 50k years, but this can be overcome with enough programming. This is why all genocides, mass killing, mass torture, etc in the modern era involve brainwashing folks to think that the genocidees (or those being tortured, enslaved, etc) are less than human. The two always go hand in hand.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Feb 12, 2018 5:03:10 GMT
You know, I don't give a flying fuck what anyone has said.
In my 67 years on this planet, I have watched morals and everything good in this world degrade into a world of very little conscience, with the goals now being power and greed.
Religion? The Catholic Church watches much of the world in abject poverty, yet is incredibly wealthy beyond all their needs, and spends millions (not sure if it's a billion yet) to pay off sexual abuse charges that their priests committed, but(t) not necessarily done time for, or even been defrocked.
And America, one of the world's last hopes, voted in a politically ignorant conman philanderer that cares about nothing but himself, and the Republicans, who are all damned to hell if there is one (but they know there isn't), are using Spanky's ignorance to play into their strengths, and making everything look like it's Spanky's decision.
I'm an emotional wreck that has lost his joy for life because I know this is what the world is today, and is not going to get better because the majority of people are fools (and greedy, want power, and have been taught to hate).
I anxiously await a painless death.
|
|