Morality

[Blueberry]

The general body of members of the peer group of influence are the moral arbitors over the time and territory wherein they exist.

This could be referred to as two different things:

1. Democracy.
2. Mob Rules.

All depends on context I suppose?

My contention is that morals (what behaviors are right or wrong) are almost ENTIRELY subjective. Factors such as time period, culture, religious beliefs, species, and vested interests all play a role in the subjectivity of morals.

This sounds more like social 'mores'. (mor-rays)

It seems the big ones are fairly objective. There is a large consensus that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong. Lying and adultery have become acceptable in mainstream society. They still cause a good deal of harm to other people. I am not certain covetousness was ever all that unpopular? But it rarely motivates people to higher-living charitable acts. Children obeying their parents is generally a good thing. Unless the parents are amoral/immoral.

The standards do vary among societies and over time. Which basically guarantees all but one of them at the most is getting some of it wrong. Or can something actually be right at one time and place but then wrong at another (murder??) really be the case? Are you willing to forgive acts against you that you believe you should be able to perform without moral guilt? Surely a code of morality should be consistent and fair to all.

The basis for morals developing is coexistance and in essence, what morals are are rules for living together.

Laws are good for this. Mostly needed because too many people lack morals.

Peace

 

[Truth OT]

It seems the big ones are fairly objective. There is a large consensus that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong. Lying and adultery have become acceptable in mainstream society. They still cause a good deal of harm to other people. I am not certain covetousness was ever all that unpopular? But it rarely motivates people to higher-living charitable acts. Children obeying their parents is generally a good thing. Unless the parents are amoral/immoral.

The standards do vary among societies and over time. Which basically guarantees all but one of them at the most is getting some of it wrong. Or can something actually be right at one time and place but then wrong at another (murder??) really be the case? Are you willing to forgive acts against you that you believe you should be able to perform without moral guilt? Surely a code of morality should be consistent and fair to all.

Peace

The subjective nature of right and wrong coincides with the subjectivity of morality. What is right and what is wrong are far from immutable and have proven to be quite malleable. Though we desire an objective standard, none exists. The standards the "collective we" abide by are the standards that have been dictated to us by the collective US over time.
Saying one group's or one generation's morals are wrong missed this. Morals are neither objectively right nor wrong. We judge the quality of morals not based on their innate objectivity, but rather their positive/negative impact on us both individually and collectively.

Even morality as it relates murder and stealing are subject to loads of subjectivity based on things ranging from species, religious beliefs, manifest destiny, laws, etc.

Example 1 Species
- Humans can go on premeditated hunts to kill other species for sport (morally acceptable)
- Humans can't go on premeditated hunts to kill their fellow countrymen (morally repulsive)

Example 2 National Conflicts
- Humans can go on premeditated hunts to kill other humans that are fighting to defend an ideology or interest that opposes those of the other set of humans. (morally acceptable)
- Those "other humans" kill those fighting on "our side". (not okay)

Example 3 Religious
- A father could set his virgin daughter aside as a sacrife to his people's deity and be willing to kill her on an alter (immoral)
- Abraham can bind and attempt to stab his son Isaac on an alter to prove his obedience to his God (Acceptable)

 

[Blueberry]

Though we desire an objective standard, none exists.

The Ten Commandments never change. Those are what I quoted sans the commandments (1-4) of man toward God. I just referenced the ones (5-10) pertaining to how humans are to treat each other.

The species thing seems irrelevant as no 'species' other than human will be judged. See, much of the choices we make in this life pertain to being judged in the next life. Not everybody agrees that it is okay to hunt animals for sport. There was a time when that was essential to survival. The Bible, which you should expect I use as my moral guidelines permits the human 'harvesting' of animals for human's benefits. I know this line has been blurred between Man and animals in recent times.

So do you morally absolve one animal from killing other animals to survive? Or do you only hold Man morally accountable?

Does a bear get a pass, but a Bears fan does not?

Example 2. This is a nasty fallen hating and God hating world. These wars are over covetousness and stealing. Murder. Lust. All the things that I said that God said we should not do in my last post. Ever. Though without it, you and I would have no means with which to put forth your ideas. Men have fought and died for you and I to be able to enjoy this simply privilege. Look out over history. Look out around the world today. There are people being killed for saying less about this stuff than you and I have already.

I am not sure whose moral code permits this? Its just with fallen Man and his lack of morals. That's just it. God promises us a day and a place where none of this garbage will exist. And that will be forever. No more wars. No more killing. No more sickness and disease. No more lying or cheating or any of that. Sounds like Heaven, huh?

Abraham was a special case. That potential act was never an accepted moral code in that society at that time. Nor was God ever going to permit it to occur. It was a test. Like we are under right now. That was, in fact, the time when God selected a people based on Abraham's (over the top!) faithful obedience. A time when God pulled a nation of people out of such wicked and lawless practices of those immoral pagans living all around them.

I can't defend every act I have read of in the OT. I don't fully understand all of that. I know that every time the Hebrews got into such practices, God warned and then punished them if they failed to cease. When the Hebrews exited Egypt, many of the people that were cleared out of the promise land were practicing the horrid things you mention.

Some cultures practiced/practice child sacrifice and many other things. We're not like that. We're much better than that. Much more efficient. We modern 'sophisticated types' who shun old thinking and superstitions kill them babies before they get out of the womb!

A daily human sacrifice for our convenient lives. At least the old ignorant cultures thought they were creating a situation were one may die and the rest be saved through a good harvest. That's something... at least.

 

[Truth OT]

@Blueberry The Words of the Covenant (aka 10 commandments), are subjective aas they were given to a specific people as part of a specific covenent that was part of 619 or so covenant laws. The Covenant these words are a part of is one that has been replaced by a new covenant, so yeah it was subject to a time and cultural relavance. Additionally, much of the commandments weren't centered around what was moral. They were simply part of covenant LAWS. Though the law and morality can have overlaps, they are generally mutually exclusive.

The species reference is paramount in the point about subjectivity. Moral codes are about human behavior and human rights and priviledges because they were developed by and for humans! Humans value human life, especially similar human life more than humans value animal life. Because of our subjective human perspective, we have behavioral allowances for what we can do to the beings that we do NOT consider our peers. This is even reflected in how we've treated our fellow humans and it opened doors for attrocities like slavery. In the eyes of the culture of people with the power to enforce their values, enslaving others who were in their estimation somehow different and 'less than' those they considered peers was morally acceptable while enslaving a peer was not. This was a factor in the transatlantic slave trade as well as slavery in ancient Israel as they were permitted to treat slave that were not of Israel in a manner they could not treat Jews.

Just because behavior is written in codified law doesn't mean it takes the subjectivity out of morality.

 

[Truth OT]

I can't defend every act I have read of in the OT. I don't fully understand all of that.

I'm not here to say a god does or does not exist. But what I can say is that the writings that comprise the Bible do a poor job of promoting the idea that the god it exhaults is morally wholesome. That's not the god's fault, it's the fault of those who wrote about him and claimed to speak for him. They look like charlatans.

We gotta get to a point of consistancy where we stop special pleading for our personal beliefs.

 

[Blueberry]

The Words of the Covenant (aka 10 commandments), are subjective aas they were given to a specific people as part of a specific covenent that was part of 619 or so covenant laws.

The word that I would use here is "conditional", not "subjective". Maybe even "situational"?

No, there were Ten (moral) Commandments. Then some ceremonial was added later. Some other general societal laws and then finally rabbi's over the year added in the most trivial little things to be judgmental about. That's where a large chunk of that originated. With Man. That's where the nitpicky got injected.

Jesus rectified that. Took those burdensome laws and tossed most of them, but also reinforced and even made more strict some laws. This is when 'mere' hate became equivalent to murder. That's the GodMan looking out for us little guys. But this is how we got up to the 619 or so 'laws' by that time.

The Ten Commandments are God's moral standards. Our current laws are based on them still to a degree.

I am really not following your main point here. Or you saying that there should be no moral code/laws? That the majority should rule and make the laws? Of the majority elects legislators to do this representing on their behalf? You should make them up? Or that whatever the authorities insist you do that you don't have to follow the laws because they are arbitrary and capricious? Which is it?

 

[Blueberry]

The species reference is paramount in the point about subjectivity. Moral codes are about human behavior and human rights and priviledges because they were developed by and for humans! Humans value human life, especially similar human life more than humans value animal life.

I am trying to not put words in your mouth, but are you saying that you think humans are equal to the rest of the species? I know that is much more common nowadays as I watched the very recent (last 30 years) shift take place. Even expected it as it is prophesized in the Bible.

Because of our subjective human perspective

Huh? ...'OUR' "subjective human perspective"?? Are we, or are we not, equal the other species equal? This is sounds like a very exclusive perspective to me.

we have behavioral allowances for what we can do to the beings that we do NOT consider our peers.

Our "peers" being the other species who lack our subjective perspective?? Just to be clear, all non-human species? Just mammals? Or insects too? Bacteria? Where do you draw the line? And what did you mean by "peers" if not one of these?

This is even reflected in how we've treated our fellow humans and it opened doors for attrocities like slavery

Take it easy on the 'we' stuff. I've never owned any slaves.

Yes, Mankind inherently lacks moral guidance left to themselves. Absolutely. I think we are agreeing on this point?

In the eyes of the culture of people with the power to enforce their values, enslaving others who were in their estimation somehow different and 'less than' those they considered peers was morally acceptable while enslaving a peer was not. This was a factor in the transatlantic slave trade as well as slavery in ancient Israel as they were permitted to treat slave that were not of Israel in a manner they could not treat Jews.

This was never universally accepted by the American culture. It was God fearing white people who did the most and even including sacrificed their lives to help correct this wrong. That's just history. Might not fit the narrative, but it can be fact checked.

Ay no point in any society does 100% of the people agree with the standards and social mores. Or the codified laws. So are you saying that having a truly inclusive equitable moral code is impossible due to people's differences or just what? It is really more a case that the morally depraved men don't behave as they should.

Just because behavior is written in codified law doesn't mean it takes the subjectivity out of morality.

NO, if anything, whatever subjectively may be part of it would get locked in at that point.

So if something is for the good of all, like don't steal, then that is somehow subjective?? Is it not an objective truth that it is wrong to steal? Does anyone think stealing is okay? If they do, are they equally gracious when somebody nicks their prized possessions. Well, the best and only absolutely reliable solution to that problem, is to follow the Bible's admonition to not covet and to not get too attached to earthly material things. Then, in theory, even being robbed shouldn't be a big deal. (luxuries, not necessities) Going after the thieves is a huge waste of time. They're not going anywhere. For now.

Which culture, subjectively or not, ever said it was okay to steal? Ever?

If you tell me that humans because of their 'species peer-like' yet unique (and self-serving) moral perspective are not qualified to set moral standards, then how can YOU tell ME this (or anything)? You're uniquely qualified as a human individually?

I'm all for consistency.

 

[Blueberry]

In a sense, I am completely agreeing with what I think is at least partially what you are saying.

'We' cannot legislate morality. That is a fact. Individuals will not all 100% universally agree with, and abide by, those rules. (laws, codes, whatever)

Trying to do it wholesale like that is impossible. It all ultimately comes down to the individual. If most people were suddenly to be more loyal to their own stated moral codes then the world would be unrecognizable overnight!

If we all, or the VAST majority, agree that some things are wrong, I actually think this is the definition of being objective about it.

God designed and built-in a safeguard to this problem you correctly point out. It is our conscience. All humans have one. Other species, I am not as certain? But even the conscience can become warped. And there is hardly anything more influential in damaging a good conscience as peer pressure and mob rule. Social media! Consciences can become 'seered' and deadened. Mostly inactive. Then what controls behavior?

The societal ills are an aggregate of corrupted individuals 'flying in formation'. People on top tend to sling pooh downward and downwind. That's a fact regarding fallen Mankind human nature. The God given moral codes are meant to restrict and punish that. Even Jesus warned to not mistreat those below you "like the Gentiles do". Lording things over the oppressed.

If we would all just do our own part then things would be very sweet indeed. But it is not going to happen. People are self-centered in their nature. So are critters. I'm all for nature. But 3.5 years ago this did not stop a pack of (morally justified??) coyotes from coming into my yard and making a real time meal of my pet cat. Tell me about more about the 'codes of the species'.

Ever heard 'an eye for an eye'? Everyone seems to think that this primarily means that you GET to put out the offenders eye. Well, it does, but ONLY the eye! That's what that's about. Because most folks would take that and then some. Yes? I know that if someone poked my momma's eye then they would die. Right? Is just me? But since I am a God fearing Man, I am just going to poke out their eye, mm-kay? And, in fact, after decades, I would not do that and I would find a way to forgive. At least I hope that I could!

Speaking of that, why can't I just go around poking out people's eyes? Who's subjective rule is this that I am supposed to follow?

Well, I am not going to go around poking out eyes. I can't promise anymore 'stink eye', but I'm working on it. For various reasons. I fear how God would respond. I also simply view it as wrong subjectively in my own spirit/mind/conscience. And, also, I fear what Man could do to me with 'his' laws. Finally, some global conglomerate would stop doing business with me. Ah... the 21st century.

Hope this helps.

 

[Blueberry]

I clearly don't know the difference between the Torah, the Talmud and a hole in the ground. If you can glean anything from the rest of it then fantastic. Good luck with your quest.

 

[Truth OT]

No, there were Ten (moral) Commandments. Then some ceremonial was added later. Some other general societal laws and then finally rabbi's over the year added in the most trivial little things to be judgmental about. That's where a large chunk of that originated. With Man. That's where the nitpicky got injected................................

The Ten Commandments are God's moral standards. Our current laws are based on them still to a degree.

The Bible does not identify them as the 10 moral commandments so why do you? What we do see in the texts were that these rules were tied to a covenant between Israel and their God. As for our laws being based on the 10 commandments; huh? Laws of the land will almost always address the common good as it pertains to life and possessions no matter if a faith is involved or not. Adding sabbath keeping, the prohibition of coveting and graven image making, along with a restriction on religious freedom are NOT in any way affiliated with our nation's laws or founding principles.

I am really not following your main point here. Or you saying that there should be no moral code/laws? That the majority should rule and make the laws? Of the majority elects legislators to do this representing on their behalf? You should make them up? Or that whatever the authorities insist you do that you don't have to follow the laws because they are arbitrary and capricious? Which is it?

No you certainly don't seem to be. Do I think there should be moral codes; ABSOLUTELY! Should they be based on mobb rule; NOPE! Do I like the type of government that can best be described as a representative republic; YES. Do I believe the society in which one resides can compell and even to a degree force residents to abide by the codes of morality the society espouses; YES I do. Is that always best or always right? NOPE, but that's how it is.

My point in this thread is that morality is a product of living together amongst those considered as peers, period.

 

[Truth OT]

I am trying to not put words in your mouth, but are you saying that you think humans are equal to the rest of the species?

Huh? ...'OUR' "subjective human perspective"?? Are we, or are we not, equal the other species equal? This is sounds like a very exclusive perspective to me.

Our "peers" being the other species who lack our subjective perspective?? Just to be clear, all non-human species? Just mammals? Or insects too? Bacteria? Where do you draw the line? And what did you mean by "peers" if not one of these?

We definately do not and have not considered other species as being our peers throughout history, so no, I do not consider other species our equals. I am admittedly biased for after all, I am a human being and I place humans interests above those of nonhuman life forms. This should be expected as my subjective perspective is based on my human point of view.
The other species that we share this planet with likely have a subjective perspective of their own, but to us it generally doesn't matter because they are not one of us. Because we see ourselves as somehow more valuable than other species, we have determined it our right to deal with those creatures as we see fit and in that, WE DETERMINE what human treatment of those creatures is moral or not moral. In other words, we have made ourselves the moral arbitors of this planet.

Take it easy on the 'we' stuff. I've never owned any slaves.

This was never universally accepted by the American culture. It was God fearing white people who did the most and even including sacrificed their lives to help correct this wrong. That's just history. Might not fit the narrative, but it can be fact checked.

It was universally accepted enough for it to be legal to buy, sell, own, and abuse PEOPLE OF WEST AFRICAN DESCENT and THEIR DECENDENTS FOR 400 YEARS!
Very little credit should be given for reluctantly helping to put an end to a vile practice you, (you = god-fearing whites) initiated, participated in, benefited from, and passed on for generations.

Ay no point in any society does 100% of the people agree with the standards and social mores. Or the codified laws. So are you saying that having a truly inclusive equitable moral code is impossible due to people's differences or just what? It is really more a case that the morally depraved men don't behave as they should.

Having a robust moral code that is 100% agreed upon is very unlikely the bigger a society becomes, however, a shortened version for a smaller number could have a virtual concensus perhaps.
[/QUOTE]

So if something is for the good of all, like don't steal, then that is somehow subjective?? Is it not an objective truth that it is wrong to steal? Does anyone think stealing is okay? If they do, are they equally gracious when somebody nicks their prized possessions. Well, the best and only absolutely reliable solution to that problem, is to follow the Bible's admonition to not covet and to not get too attached to earthly material things. Then, in theory, even being robbed shouldn't be a big deal. (luxuries, not necessities) Going after the thieves is a huge waste of time. They're not going anywhere. For now.

Do to the inequalities that exist in life, asserting that something is for the good of all is an overstatement. Laws are made for the good of the collective whole, not 100% of everyone. What's right or what's wrong lives in a whelm of subjectivity as well. As for stealing and it is ever justifiable to steal? Yes, it can be in certain circumstances where access to something restricted is needed to save or better lives for example.

Which culture, subjectively or not, ever said it was okay to steal? Ever?

Harsh truth moment.......
Almost ALL CULTURES HAVE! Cultures have generally restricted individuals within their culture from stealing from one another, but for some strange reason have made taking from other cultures that are not "one of us" acceptable. It all comes back to who is considered a peer that is deserving of the same moral considerations as those within the "us" group.

 

[Blueberry]

Having a robust moral code that is 100% agreed upon is very unlikely the bigger a society becomes, however, a shortened version for a smaller number could have a virtual concensus perhaps.

The problems usually start when the population reaches 2.

 

[Blueberry]

It was universally accepted enough for it to be legal to buy, sell, own, and abuse PEOPLE OF WEST AFRICAN DESCENT and THEIR DECENDENTS FOR 400 YEARS!
Very little credit should be given for reluctantly helping to put an end to a vile practice you, (you = god-fearing whites) initiated, participated in, benefited from, and passed on for generations.

Wow! I missed this before. Later.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Wow! I missed this before. Later.

Truth OT must think that he/she has never done anything immoral. That's the problem with some people. They can see the wrong others have done, but they think that they could never do the unspeakable. But ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[Truth OT]

Truth OT must think that he/she has never done anything immoral. That's the problem with some people. They can see the wrong others have done, but they think that they could never do the unspeakable. But ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Never said or implied that. You're creating a false enemy by asserting a narrative for me that YOU are creating. Let's not waste time disagreeing about something we don't actually disagree on.

The point I have asserted is that we (human beings) have made ourselves the moral arbitrators of this planet and those morals we ascribe to are not 'from above', but are instead totally human-centric.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

It was universally accepted enough for it to be legal to buy, sell, own, and abuse PEOPLE OF WEST AFRICAN DESCENT and THEIR DECENDENTS FOR 400 YEARS!
Very little credit should be given for reluctantly helping to put an end to a vile practice you, (you = god-fearing whites) initiated, participated in, benefited from, and passed on for generations.

Never said or implied that. You're creating a false enemy by asserting a narrative for me that YOU are creating. Let's not waste time disagreeing about something we don't actually disagree on.

The point I have asserted is that we (human beings) have made ourselves the moral arbitrators of this planet and those morals we ascribe to are not 'from above', but are instead totally human-centric.

It sounded to me like you made yourself the moral arbitrator in that first post. I mean, blaming a contemporary with white skin (or someone you assume has white skin) for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?? One reason this evil practice thrived is because Africans sold one another to slave traders. Or did you not know this? So, there's plenty of blame to go around without being racist. Slavery really knows no racial boundaries. It is an evil that affects people today (mostly girls and women) from every ethnic group.
.

 

[Truth OT]

It sounded to me like you made yourself the moral arbitrator in that first post. I mean, blaming a contemporary with white skin (or someone you assume has white skin) for the trans-Atlantic slave trade?? One reason this evil practice thrived is because Africans sold one another to slave traders. Or did you not know this? So, there's plenty of blame to go around without being racist. Slavery really knows no racial boundaries. It is an evil that affects people today (mostly girls and women) from every ethnic group.
.

I didn't blame Blueberry at all. Are you actually reading the discourse or have you come to a faulty conclusion based on cherry-picking dialogue from its context so you can point accusatory fingers and name call? My quote was directed at a specific statement by my "contemporary." Let me rehash the dialogue so you can respond to the context as opposed to these ghosts of your own creation.

I said the following:
"In the eyes of the culture of people with the power to enforce their values, enslaving others who were in their estimation somehow different and 'less than' those they considered peers was morally acceptable while enslaving a peer was not. This was a factor in the transatlantic slave trade as well as slavery in ancient Israel as they were permitted to treat slave that were not of Israel in a manner they could not treat Jews."

Part of Blueberry's response was:
"This was never universally accepted by the American culture. It was God fearing white people who did the most and even including sacrificed their lives to help correct this wrong. That's just history. Might not fit the narrative, but it can be fact checked."

I responded to his comment (no personal attack or personal blame at ALL) by pointing out the fact from history that "It was universally accepted enough for it to be legal to buy, sell, own, and abuse PEOPLE OF WEST AFRICAN DESCENT and THEIR DECEDENTS FOR 400 YEARS."

Now I will again restate the non tangential subject and point that I am asserting and that is that we (human beings) have made ourselves the moral arbitrators of this planet and those morals we ascribe to are not 'from above', but are instead totally human-centric.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I didn't blame Blueberry at all. Are you actually reading the discourse or have you come to a faulty conclusion based on cherry-picking dialogue from its context so you can point accusatory fingers and name call? My quote was directed at a specific statement by my "contemporary." Let me rehash the dialogue so you can respond to the context as opposed to these ghosts of your own creation.

The following statement of yours is the one I was objecting to:

Very little credit should be given for reluctantly helping to put an end to a vile practice you, (you = god-fearing whites) initiated, participated in, benefited from, and passed on for generations.

The reason that I reacted to this is because my children can't be on social media without seeing some form of white shaming going on. I taught them not to look at the outside of the person, but to look at each person as an individual created in God's image and loved by Him. Would you blame them for the vile practice of the trans-Atlantic slave trade?? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
.

 

[Truth OT]

The following statement of yours is the one I was objecting to:



The reason that I reacted to this is because my children can't be on social media without seeing some form of white shaming going on. I taught them not to look at the outside of the person, but to look at each person as an individual created in God's image and loved by Him. Would you blame them for the vile practice of the trans-Atlantic slave trade?? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
.

Wow, just wow. You are clinging to the hope of taking this discussion from that of morality to one of racial-something.
If you insist, I will indulge what you say and specifically address your statements without adding any conjecture.

1. White shaming is not the intent of this thread. Pointing out the facts of what EARLY AMERICANS of CAUCASIAN DECENT participated in, prospered from, and perpetuated for generations is not white shaming, its relevant to the point brought up that I recanted in the previous post and it's fact.

2. Each person is an individual and should be viewed and judged on their individual merits and circumstances.

3. I am persuaded by the realities of the world we live in that the more likely scenario is that men formulated gods after their own ideals, customs, and likenesses as opposed to a Sovereign God creating men in its image.

4. I would not blame you, your children, or anyone born after slavery was practiced for slavery.

All that said, the stain of slavery is forever embedded into the tapestry of what America was and is. We can't act like if didn't happen and hasn't had far reaching effects generations afterwards. We must acknowledge it, learn from it, and strive to grow together so that the divides that help make it possible are minimized.
Now, can we get back to the focus of this thread please?