dragonfly June 7, 2007 Share dragonfly Member June 7, 2007 Well I'm happy that it was a at least a little clearer than mud then. I find it hard to word my thoughts when it comes to this stuff. Guess I should read more and expand my diction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaftiel June 7, 2007 Share shaftiel Member June 7, 2007 I have always thought of morality as nothing more than a set of rules created by those in a society trying to live together. Murder is/has always been morally wrong because murder = killing without cause, and no society can survive if that was exeptable. Likewise, other actions that would cause hurt and anger to others such as thievery, infidelity, assault have always been morally wrong because a society can not sustain itself if these actions are allowed. Our moral ideal has not changed in thousands of years, predating Cristianity. Morallity does ebb and flow though time and location, we look at the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, Celts, and inumerable other cultures and we tend to look down apon them as societies because that does not meet with our current societies idea of morallity. however, this ritualized killing was not concidered murder by these groups, if someone had just wandered the streets and slaughtered a citizen, they would have been just as shocked and outraged as we would be. Now I said we have had the same 'moral ideal' for thousands of years. We are in a very lucky time frame, we have most if not all of our needs met with little to no effert on our part. We do not have to worry about the rival tribe accross the watter raiding our property, or having our women raped or kidnaped by marauders. We have the lucky position of being able to maintain our moral ground without much effort. Imagine if you knew that in order to survive you had to go and raid your neighbors herds. Perhaps after another group had raided and taken all your women away while you were out hunting, in order for your group to survive you had to go and get some women from next tribe. So while within the tribal or societal group the moral ideal was upheld, the violence and danger inherant in that era resulted in decidedly immoral actions towords others or 'outsiders'. To combat this problem many societal groups created the idea of 'honour' and each person was honour bound to do their best to uphold the morals of the society. The honour system is nothing more than peer presure, but peer presure has a very powerful and dramatic effect on how people interact. Bottom line is that any society, no mater how advanced or primitive, needs to protect its citizens from each other to survive. To do this every society has created a moral code that says murder, theft, infidelity, and assault are all wrong, regardless of whether the group has a religion or not. Following the moral code = doing what is 'right/good', breaching the code and going against the society = doing what is 'wrong/bad'. Peer presure keeps the vast majority of society in line, but as with any group there are those who can not be swayed, and those who do not respond to the societal presure to comform. These are the people who have questionable moral values and have a tendancy to become the criminal element in a society. While I argue that their is no need for a higher power to create the idea of right and wrong, religion can definitly help to reinforce the societal presure to adopt a groups particular moral code. It adds the idea that your actions not only affect you in the here and now, but they reach beyond death. A very powerful idea to be sure, not required to form the idea of 'right' and 'wrong'. Shaftiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly June 7, 2007 Share dragonfly Member June 7, 2007 So if I murder, am I only wrong if I get caught? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaftiel June 8, 2007 Share shaftiel Member June 8, 2007 So if I murder, am I only wrong if I get caught? What? Thats ridicules, how in the world did you get that? Shaftiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly June 8, 2007 Share dragonfly Member June 8, 2007 (edited) Following the moral code = doing what is 'right/good', breaching the code and going against the society = doing what is 'wrong/bad'. Peer presure keeps the vast majority of society in line, but as with any group there are those who can not be swayed, and those who do not respond to the societal presure to comform. These are the people who have questionable moral values and have a tendancy to become the criminal element in a society. It may just have been my random thoughts going where you hadnt meant for them to go Anyway, my thought went something like this: If "breaching the code and going against the society = doing what is 'wrong/bad'", the code being created by society - then if no one in that society knows it's been broken then can me the murderer truly be shown to be "wrong"? If no one knows I've murdered except me, and I dont have a problem with it, then I'm actually not in the wrong yet because I'm not held accountable. On the other hand, if a higher being created the morals, then I'm held accountable even if no one ever finds out. I hope me trying to word my random thoughts works Feel free to just say "I dont follow" and I'll just drop it at that Edited June 8, 2007 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox June 8, 2007 Share appalachian_fox Member June 8, 2007 You know, that's a really good question, at least the way I understand it being asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaftiel June 8, 2007 Share shaftiel Member June 8, 2007 Following the moral code = doing what is 'right/good', breaching the code and going against the society = doing what is 'wrong/bad'. Peer presure keeps the vast majority of society in line, but as with any group there are those who can not be swayed, and those who do not respond to the societal presure to comform. These are the people who have questionable moral values and have a tendancy to become the criminal element in a society. It may just have been my random thoughts going where you hadnt meant for them to go Anyway, my thought went something like this: If "breaching the code and going against the society = doing what is 'wrong/bad'", the code being created by society - then if no one in that society knows it's been broken then can me the murderer truly be shown to be "wrong"? If no one knows I've murdered except me, and I dont have a problem with it, then I'm actually not in the wrong yet because I'm not held accountable. On the other hand, if a higher being created the morals, then I'm held accountable even if no one ever finds out. I hope me trying to word my random thoughts works Feel free to just say "I dont follow" and I'll just drop it at that A societal morallity is instilled and reinforced throughout a persons life. From when you are a baby, and your parents tell you, "you can't take that, its not yours", or, "don't hit, thats not nice" you are being taught what it takes to be apart of the society you live in. There is no moral vaccum in a society, it is drilled into our heads from birth and from every angle. By the time we start school we KNOW what is right and wrong. To address your specific comment, unless you are caught you can not be punished. So as far as the society knows, you did no wrong. That is true. However, nearly every person who has murdered (excepting those that are trully insane) has known that what they did was wrong. Religion, as I stated in my other post, has an amplifying effect on the societal moral code. Regardless of what God/Gods people worship, they are a reflection of the society that created it (We can argue whether God is real or not untill we both die and find out for sure, so I'm not trying to bait you with that comment .), and they reinforce the societal morals with the idea of rewards or retribution after death. Religion, in its endless forms, has been with humans nearly since we started walking upright, and so has been apart of every society there has ever been. Thinking about it, both arguments are right in a way. If you go with the argument that society creates the morallity, and molds the religion to reinforce it, or the argument that religion creates the morallity and molds society to reinforce it, its a difference without much distiction. Society and religion are so intermingled, and have been for essentially our entire history, that they are nearly indistiguishable. For me, since I'm a Deist, I believe that society created the moral code, and religion to reinforce it. For you, since you are a Christian, you believe that your God created the moral code, and society reinforces it. Shrug, I could argue that Hammurabi's Code (1800 B.C.E.) has nearly the same moral message as we have now, and that they did not worship the God of Abraham. At which point you could argue that while the name might be different, there is only one God, so their moral code came from the same God as you. As with any question related to religion we just end up in an endless loop heh . Don't think I answered anything in all that mess above, but I had fun thinking about ithe problem:). Shaftiel P.S. forgive the misspellings, I lack the time today to spell check heh . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly June 8, 2007 Share dragonfly Member June 8, 2007 (edited) Good post Shaftiel. I agree that it really depends on our perspective of "the beginning", like which came first: God or the moral code? If it's God, then he created the moral code. If it's the moral code, then God was created as an extension of it, and I will agree to not argue that topic with you! I am still seeing a sort of 'moral vaccuum' though. You say we KNOW it's wrong only because we're told it's wrong from birth, not because it IS wrong. I think that the moral code extends beyond what we're taught from birth into the fabric of who we really are. We know it's wrong not because we're told it is, but because we're people and we have a concience to show us right from wrong. TOTAL side note: I personally do think that I worship the same God as Abraham, but I also believe I worship the same God that Adam did too (~6000 BCE). I truly believe that Adam was a literal person just like you and I are. There, if you didn't think I was crazy before, maybe now you do! And no worries about the spelling mistakes. I probably have some too, and I never ever use the spell-chequer. Now I feel lazy! Side note #2: what does "shaftiel" mean? I know "el" usually means God (Israel, Raphael, Michael, etc) but what does shaftiel mean? Edited June 8, 2007 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaftiel June 8, 2007 Share shaftiel Member June 8, 2007 (edited) Shaftiel was an angel before The Fall. He was the Judge of God, and the Keeper of the Angel of Death. Then he made a bad career choice and sided with the Morning Lord against God. At least according to those silly monks in the 1200's anyway heh . Shaftiel Edited June 8, 2007 by shaftiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly June 8, 2007 Share dragonfly Member June 8, 2007 Sweet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy June 8, 2007 Share auggybendoggy Member June 8, 2007 (edited) I think I agree with dark that it is a "chicken or the egg" type of argument. I favor we would know simply because I feel "nature" is a real beast to dissolve if you believe we are only taught morals. It seems (note I say seems) that "nature" or "natural instincts" can be sharpened or dulled but not created; like energy. If you had no mother or father to teach you what is right and what is wrong, would you be capable of being hurt or edefied? I think you could, you may be ignorant that you do wrong to others (believing you are doing well) but if you are hurt then it's a moral code against your system which was devoloped lacking any teachers. Thus I feel we are all ingrained with a life giving ability to learn w/o teachers (influences). perhaps I'm just crazy, I think I am cause I know NOTHING on this stuff : ) aug Edited June 8, 2007 by auggybendoggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly June 9, 2007 Share dragonfly Member June 9, 2007 (edited) lol! Well if you think you know nothing, all the stuff I posted some would claim I pulled out of my head, but it's probably more accurate that I pulled it out of my butt! jk But I agree that the moral code exists in us without any outside influences (havent thought about if God would be considerred an "outside influence" on this topic, but I'll just leave it where it is). Anyways, this is my last post here for a while I think. I'm gone for most of the summer - have a great one guys! Edited June 9, 2007 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox June 10, 2007 Share appalachian_fox Member June 10, 2007 Have a good summer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.