Morality Defined

Dixie said:
There is no trust without faith, sorry. In your example, you said yourself, you observed behaviors, and your trust was earned. This means, you eventually had faith that you could trust. You believed (had faith) that the person was worthy of your trust. Now, maybe you mean you deceived someone into thinking you trusted them when you really didn't. But that would be a bit immoral, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Faith is trust despite any observable reason to trust. Here we have reasons.
 
You've been completely routed in this discussion and can't even see it.
Click to expand...

No, I really can't see it, when I am presenting logical arguments and facts, and your refutation amounts to "no, it's not!" I would go through your last post and respond, but to what? All you basically said is, "no, you're wrong and I'm right!" and I can't do anything except make the same points again. It seems to be a pointless objective, so I will decline. You have been bested in this debate because you have failed to answer the fundamental questions I have posed, and you can't answer them without acknowledging trust and faith, which you refuse to do.

So, our discussion is officially over, and you lose. If you want to act like an ass and continue to post victory speeches, that is fine with me, I don't care. People can read the thread and make their own determinations.

Morality originated with mankind's ability to rationalize trust and faith in one another. Spiritual belief and later, religions, have been the catalyst by which this faith and trust is exhibited. Within your own simplistic fantasies about how mankind came to discover morality, you admit that men 'realized' it was better to behave morally, but you have no explanation for what would prompt this realization. Perhaps the trust began with the observations of people who exhibited moral behavior through their spiritual beliefs? Man observed the rituals and customs of another group, and they earned his trust and faith, maybe he even began observing their same spiritual customs, and practicing their same moral code? We don't have concrete answers on any of this, and anything we come up with is mere speculation, but we can evaluate the likelihood of things happening certain ways, because logic and laws of nature, even Darwin's theory (if it's correct) dictate this.
 
Your original statement:

Morality is behaviors which facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation between individuals.

Street gangs also behave this way, but then you say:

But street gangs are not moral because victimizing others is not benefiicial to those others, hence the benefit is not mutual, hence it is not moral.

So what I gather you originally meant was, Morality is behaviors which facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation between all individuals. Aside from the fact that not many things are mutually beneficial to all individuals, isn't this the fundamental objective and purpose of most religious beliefs?

I actually think Morality is much deeper than some one-line idiotic statement you thunk up while you masturbated. One aspect of this topic we have not ventured into, is the sheer range of Moralities. There are things that you may think are Immoral, which I believe are very Moral, and visa versa. Morality is not some simplistic notion or easily defined behavioral condition. It is widely varied between individuals, and all but a hand-full are not universal at all. Probably the most obviously universal morality is respect for other human life, it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, yet in this country, 1 million lives a year are sucked down a tube for the sake of vanity and convenience.

A non-religious person can be moral, we can all be moral! Hitler thought he was being moral! When alQaeda sawed off the head of Nick Berg, they were screaming "praise God, God is Great!" they believed they were doing a moral thing, they believed it was moral behavior. So, yes... non-religious heathens can certainly claim morality, no doubt about that!
 
Dixie said:
Your original statement:

Morality is behaviors which facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation between individuals.

Street gangs also behave this way, but then you say:

But street gangs are not moral because victimizing others is not benefiicial to those others, hence the benefit is not mutual, hence it is not moral.
Click to expand...
Right. NO conflict so far.
So what I gather you originally meant was, Morality is behaviors which facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation between all individuals. Aside from the fact that not many things are mutually beneficial to all individuals, isn't this the fundamental objective and purpose of most religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
No. The goal of some religions is bring people under submission to some fictitious god thing, despite the impact on their lives.
I actually think Morality is much deeper than some one-line idiotic statement you thunk up while you masturbated.
Click to expand...
For some it's a way to convince others to do what they say despite the impact on their lives.
One aspect of this topic we have not ventured into, is the sheer range of Moralities. There are things that you may think are Immoral, which I believe are very Moral, and visa versa. Morality is not some simplistic notion or easily defined behavioral condition.
Click to expand...
It is for me.
It is widely varied between individuals, and all but a hand-full are not universal at all.
Click to expand...
Some people are more or less moral. It's not that morality changes.
Probably the most obviously universal morality is respect for other human life, it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, yet in this country, 1 million lives a year are sucked down a tube for the sake of vanity and convenience.
Click to expand...
No argument from me on that one.
A non-religious person can be moral, we can all be moral! Hitler thought he was being moral!
Click to expand...
But i do not believe he was.
When alQaeda sawed off the head of Nick Berg, they were screaming "praise God, God is Great!" they believed they were doing a moral thing, they believed it was moral behavior. So, yes... non-religious heathens can certainly claim morality, no doubt about that!
Click to expand...

Hence, why morality based on religion is fucked up. Anything else, coagulated menstruate-head?
 
Dixie said:
No, I really can't see it, when I am presenting logical arguments and facts, and your refutation amounts to "no, it's not!" I would go through your last post and respond, but to what? All you basically said is, "no, you're wrong and I'm right!" and I can't do anything except make the same points again. It seems to be a pointless objective, so I will decline. You have been bested in this debate because you have failed to answer the fundamental questions I have posed, and you can't answer them without acknowledging trust and faith, which you refuse to do.

So, our discussion is officially over, and you lose. If you want to act like an ass and continue to post victory speeches, that is fine with me, I don't care. People can read the thread and make their own determinations.

Morality originated with mankind's ability to rationalize trust and faith in one another. Spiritual belief and later, religions, have been the catalyst by which this faith and trust is exhibited. Within your own simplistic fantasies about how mankind came to discover morality, you admit that men 'realized' it was better to behave morally, but you have no explanation for what would prompt this realization. Perhaps the trust began with the observations of people who exhibited moral behavior through their spiritual beliefs? Man observed the rituals and customs of another group, and they earned his trust and faith, maybe he even began observing their same spiritual customs, and practicing their same moral code? We don't have concrete answers on any of this, and anything we come up with is mere speculation, but we can evaluate the likelihood of things happening certain ways, because logic and laws of nature, even Darwin's theory (if it's correct) dictate this.
Click to expand...

You just keep insisting that morality has no physical benefit and therefore must be spiritual. That's demonstrably idiotic.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Faith is trust despite any observable reason to trust. Here we have reasons.
Click to expand...

Now you want to twist the argument around and state what "faith" is, and that wasn't what we were talking about. Faith and Trust are synonyms, they essentially mean the same thing. Faith is indeed trust without observable reason to trust, but trust requires faith. If you trust, you also have faith.
 
Dixie said:
Now you want to twist the argument around and state what "faith" is, and that wasn't what we were talking about. Faith and Trust are synonyms, they essentially mean the same thing. Faith is indeed trust without observable reason to trust, but trust requires faith. If you trust, you also have faith.
Click to expand...

I don't like bickering about definitions anyway. You started that. Morality is behaviors which facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. The difference between faith and trust is really not relevant anyway. I was just playing your stupid little irrelevant word game with you.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You just keep insisting that morality has no physical benefit and therefore must be spiritual. That's demonstrably idiotic.
Click to expand...

Okay... go back to a time when there was no trust, faith, or morality. Explain to me how mankind assumed the attribute of moral behavior because of anything physiological. Keep in mind, all man had to go by was what he observed in the nature around him. Not many creatures exhibit human morality, in fact, most animals are absolutely devoid of morals. Some species do cooperate with each other, but the mere act of cooperation with others in your group is a flimsy definition of Morality.

Morality, regardless of how idiotic you believe it to be, has no physical benefit to us as a species. It is an emotional response, a behavioral characteristic, it has no fundamental physical purpose related to the propagation of the species. According to Darwin, this can not be an attribute acquired through evolution or natural selection. You can explain how we obtained the tools to rationalize morality, but it is obvious we have done that. It doesn't explain why.

That question is still out there to be pondered. I think it has something to do with spirituality and the rituals surrounding these beliefs. Groups of individuals were inclined to trust or distrust, based on the observations practiced in the spiritual worship rituals of others. The faith and trust were insured by the observations of others and the example they set, thus enabling morality to emerge as a byproduct. I understand you don't want to accept this, because it defeats your whole anti-religious message, but there is no other plausible explanation. You certainly haven't given us one.
 
Dixie said:
Okay... go back to a time when there was no trust, faith, or morality. Explain to me how mankind assumed the attribute of moral behavior because of anything physiological.
Click to expand...
Social cooperation existed even when before we were human. As we were packs of foraging primates we had a form of it. So I can't really go back that far. Moral behavior is facilitated by a brain complex enough to run scenarios from a point of view of others.
Keep in mind, all man had to go by was what he observed in the nature around him. Not many creatures exhibit human morality, in fact, most animals are absolutely devoid of morals. Some species do cooperate with each other, but the mere act of cooperation with others in your group is a flimsy definition of Morality.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's rock solid.
Morality, regardless of how idiotic you believe it to be, has no physical benefit to us as a species.
Click to expand...
I do not think morality is idiotic, I think religious based morality is subject to manipulation by elitists, serving their own interests.
It is an emotional response, a behavioral characteristic, it has no fundamental physical purpose related to the propagation of the species.
Click to expand...
it most certainly does. Those who can cooperate on hunts have more meat. Those who can cooperate on shelters live in the best neighborhoods. Moving on up, to the east side.
According to Darwin, this can not be an attribute acquired through evolution or natural selection.
Click to expand...
Fuck darwin.
You can explain how we obtained the tools to rationalize morality, but it is obvious we have done that. It doesn't explain why.
Click to expand...
It does explain why. Those who cooperated succeeded better, thus replacing those who could only spend time raiding each others campsites all damn day.
That question is still out there to be pondered. I think it has something to do with spirituality and the rituals surrounding these beliefs. Groups of individuals were inclined to trust or distrust, based on the observations practiced in the spiritual worship rituals of others. The faith and trust were insured by the observations of others and the example they set, thus enabling morality to emerge as a byproduct. I understand you don't want to accept this, because it defeats your whole anti-religious message, but there is no other plausible explanation. You certainly haven't given us one.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.
 
LMAO... You won the debate over whether you actually have morals and it was established those morals are like those of a wolf pack. That's the only point I see that you have made in this thread.
 
Dixie said:
LMAO... You won the debate over whether you actually have morals and it was established those morals are like those of a wolf pack. That's the only point I see that you have made in this thread.
Click to expand...

THat's merely a reflection of how stupid you are, not indicative of anything I said.
 
Dixie said:
Separator? You mean something makes us different from all other creatures which evolved? I thought we gained all of our attributes from evolution. Apparently you have some explanation for this, because it doesn't make sense. How can we be separate from the rest of the animal kingdom in this regard, yet we came from the same animal kingdom? Oh, and by the way, other species have the "ability to reason", namely chimpanzees and mice.
Click to expand...

It's called a "figure of speech".

Look it up Dix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top