If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

Freddy Figbottom said:
morality is objectively determined.
Click to expand...
What is the unit of measurement for 'morality'?
Freddy Figbottom said:
morality is a set of behaviors and attitudes that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
Click to expand...
Redefinition fallacy.
Freddy Figbottom said:
in christianity it's effectively the golden rule.
Click to expand...
It's more than that!
Freddy Figbottom said:
if something doesn't meet that it's a defacto immoral standard.
Click to expand...
To you. Not to someone else.
Freddy Figbottom said:
yes, you're a moral relativist. I am not.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as an absolute morality.
 
Into the Night said:
What is the unit of measurement for 'morality'?

Redefinition fallacy.

It's more than that!

To you. Not to someone else.

There is no such thing as an absolute morality.
Click to expand...
not doing your idiot games.

morality is the set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.

of course, immoral people hate this definition.
 
Apostle_Frank said:
I would be very interested to learn the source of this definition. I am not familiar.
Click to expand...
He made it up himself.

The term 'morality' has not changed since it first entered the English lexicon around the 1300's. Stemming from Latin 'moralis', which essentially means 'rules of conduct'. Everyone has their own set of moral standards. It is as unique to them as a fingerprint. Most consider their moral standards to be 'absolute', but there is no such thing as an 'absolute' morality.

If one does not conform to another's concept of 'morality', that person is labelled 'immoral'. You can see this right here in this thread.

Criminal gangs have their own set of morals. Breaking them will result in expulsion from the gang (and quite possibly a lethal result!).

NoName (currently Freddy Figbottom), has his own set of morals just as you have your own set of morals and just as I have my own set of morals. They are not the same. Each of us has unique characteristics about what we consider 'moral'.

'Morals' are closely associated with 'reality', which again, is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. There is no absolute reality either. This is simply because 'reality' is based on what we observe and what we build as a world model for ourselves from our experiences. Observations, however, must be interpreted. How we interpret it is depending on our own personal model of the world.

A branch of philosophy known as phenomenology discusses and defines these terms, and gives the reasoning for that definition.
Philosophy (not phenomenology) defines terms like 'science' and 'religion' as well, and gives the reasoning for those definitions.

For example: Today, through the arguments put forth by Karl Popper and others, science is defined simply as a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion is defined as a central circular argument, with argument extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith. In other words, all religion is based on faith, and faith alone. This is not a fallacy, and is completely rational.

The circular argument fallacy occurs when one tries to prove the initial circular True or False, which cannot be done. This is what a fundamentalist does.
 
Apostle_Frank said:
Is that the real indicator of "morality"? That it has to include charitable offerings?




Why can't morality be self-interest? So many things about life are purely self-interest. Why wouldn't morality be just another item that works like that?

It certainly is to my self-interest to get along with everyone around me, right? And that's true for any animal that lives in a group.



I would be very interested to learn the source of this definition. I am not familiar.
Click to expand...
You're not fooling me, Perry PhD.

When you start answering the questions other posters ask you, then you can expect others to read and answer your questions.
 
Cypress said:
Chimpanzee societies have been monitored by researches for decades.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and you were not on those teams of researchers, and you do not speak for them.

Cypress said:
They will cooperate within family units and their local troop.
Click to expand...
They vary in their individual behaviors, just as humans.

Cypress said:
But they are not bringing meat and bananas to other groups of chimps, let alone to rivals, as a charitable offering
Click to expand...
Humans don't regularly do that either.

Cypress said:
We have the same instincts of mutual cooperation and mutual defense as chimps. That's self interest, not morality.
Click to expand...
Great, so focus on morality.

Cypress said:
Morality is based on selfless self sacrifice without the expectation of being repaid in kind
Click to expand...
OK. You assert that chimps don't ever do this, and you cannot support your assertion, yet you expect it to be assumed as true.

Cypress said:
You atheists can't be reasoned with
Click to expand...
... says the guy who is too stupid to learn what an atheist is, even when he is told multiple times.

Correct grammar would be "One cannot reason with you atheists." Don't end sentences in prepositions.

Cypress said:
if you're going to cling to the claim that zebras and apes are moral beings with moral agency
Click to expand...
You continue to be a dishonest moron who never even attempts to support his frequent omniscient fallacies.
 
I think there's a morality that all humans share. Not sure if that means that morality is universal or not but certainly all humans converge on the same moral rules give or take.

Not sure that means there's a God or if it just means that humans made up the rules. I think the rules are more instinct so I can see why all humans would veer that way. But it could be something else. Something that binds all people together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top