Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I agree with you in a certain sense, but your characterization is problematic. I do think that morals are simply tools for survival that run through the same evolutionary gauntlet that every human trait must survive. But most people, when they hear the term 'moral relativism', hear something more like a sociopathic creed, and that's not the way I see it at all.

Regardless of how morals have developed, or what their source utlimately is, they're very concrete and need to be to properly fulfill their societal function. So, while I do see some truth in 'moral relativism', I also think that some moral systems are better than others. History will tell us which ones were the best, or which ones were failures.

Also, your statement that morals don't exist 'outside our heads' seems unjustifiably dismissive. Ideas are powerful and longlived. They last far beyond their original conception and are, in fact, much more permanent and expansive than our bodies or individual minds.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverman:
P.S. thank you for not snarking/flaming.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverman:
Also, if your argument is a religious one, please dont bother posting. We should be arguing facts, not faith.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jmb9039:
...Also, religion, because it has played such an important role in the development of humankind shouldn't be shoo shooed away.

---

Quote:

---

...How can anyone believe that morals or ethics are anything but an internalization of survival techniques without entertaining an outside source (i.e. religious/spiritual)?

---

Quote:

---

"..When "right" and "wrong" become a matter of state and religious enforcement, you can almost always bet that it's the average person's ox that's getting gored and the power structure that benefits."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't see any reasons to keep religion out of it. I think maybe reaverman was just trying to avoid the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" arguments as they aren't very interesting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I've always considered that morals developed as a pro-survival learned behavior, just like knapping flint, language, etc. Take care of the kids, you got someone to work later. Don't steal, and you both cut down on strife within the tribe, and everybody doesn't have to spend valuable surviving time just guarding their stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

As far as I can tell, religion is just another tool in the "social control" toolbox, along with armed law-enforcers and economic rewards and punishments. And god? He, she, or they are the ultimate enforcers 'cause they can get you even AFTER you're dead.

---

Quote:

---

"Exactly. What better way to control folks than fear of eternal retribution?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
...Religious doctrine which may be accepted by large social groups, I think, takes on the role of laws and legal systems. I believe this separates it from Morality and makes it a question of Legality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Reaverman,

You said,

Quote:

---

"Exactly. What better way to control folks than fear of eternal retribution?"

---

As I mentioned to Signym in an earlier post, I think again that we are drifting into the conflict between Laws enacted by people (in this case church canon designed to "control folks") and Morals practiced by individuals. Granted, some people may look to church canon to form their Morality, but in the end their own moral beliefs are personal ones. Religious doctrine which may be accepted by large social groups, I think, takes on the role of laws and legal systems. I believe this separates it from Morality and makes it a question of Legality. These two notions are separate in my mind, though I recognize that many might disagree with that view.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RiveR6213:
...They are into life for themselves...they are the perfect survivors. If nuclear war happened, these people would survive. I would not, could not because I seemed to have the empathy, a conscious that rule my life.

---

Quote:

---

" In more recent times, religious morality and secular legality have been seperated, but for most of recorded history, religion has run rampant as the final judge of ones actions. What does the world have to show for it? Inquisition, Crusades, Jihad, massacre, war, genocide, etc, etc..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Reaverman,

I submit that these are not moral codes which I believe are individualistic traits, but rather represent social ones. I think religion is certainly a determining factor to an individual's formation of Morality, but not the sole factor. Would you agree with that general premise?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

---

Quote:

---

"..We create morality to define right and wrong for the individuals within social context."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not sure it makes sense to speak in terms of an innate morality. Instinct and morals are mutually exclusive. If something is instinctively driven to kill, then is it really morally wrong? Is a lion morally wrong for killing a gazelle? Is my cat morally driven to chase the laser point? The concept of morality implies an understanding of right and wrong. Instinct on the other hand implies impulse or thoughtless action. The two are really polar opposites. A truly instinctive action is always an amoral action. So I don’t believe that there is any such thing as inbuilt morals or genetic morals.

---

Quote:

---

That does not mean that I subscribe to moral relativism, which I think is just a euphemism for immorality. Moral relativism is a word used to justify acts that a person knows to be wrong but wishes to do anyway and without judgment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Since we're dealing with philisophical questions, can I indulge in a hypothetical? Suppose we have a person who is completely isolated from society. Do they no longer practice morality?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Now I would stress up on you, that not being moral doesn’t mean the same thing as being immoral. So a person, such as a feral child, that may lack morality, would not necessarily be cruel to anything without cause, but that doesn’t mean that it understands that cruelty is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not sure it makes sense to speak in terms of an innate morality. Instinct and morals are mutually exclusive.

---

Quote:

---

If something is instinctively driven to kill, then is it really morally wrong? Is a lion morally wrong for killing a gazelle? Is my cat morally driven to chase the laser point?

---

Quote:

---

So I don’t believe that there is any such thing as inbuilt morals or genetic morals.

---

Quote:

---

That does not mean that I subscribe to moral relativism, which I think is just a euphemism for immorality. Moral relativism is a word used to justify acts that a person knows to be wrong but wishes to do anyway and without judgment. An example in which this is used is statutory rape of young boys and sometimes girls. The most noticeable entity that advocates this kind of stuff is NAMBLA, but moral relativism of one thing or another is a justification by many, usually, Left-wing groups.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, there could be no society without it. From a purely natural standpoint, humans are too feeble to compete individually with animals half their size. We are a social species and to survive we have to be a social species... If there is anything innate to morals at all, it is that humans seem to be predisposed to a social lifestyle and therefore we must create mores by which we can prosper in social contact.

---

Quote:

---

No, thats exactly the point of Moral Relativity. It isn't a creed for sociopaths, but a term applying to recognizing that all morals are relative (as the name implies), not universal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabikum:
The problem with morals IS their relativity. That´s why the 911 terrorists might have been thinking, they were acting morally, and we definitely don´t... it´s no longer a question of right or wrong, it´s a question of the social context.

---

Quote:

---

Moral relativism does not equate to moral pluralism, or value pluralism (which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not require that they be equally valid). Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth-value, and that no preferred standard of reference exists by which to judge them ... To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist. This caused some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs

---

Quote:

---

So I'm going to assume that our BASIC moral principle is "the greatest good for the greatest number".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Social Darwinism is at it's heart the same thing as the old idea that it's easier for a poor man to get into heaven -- a mechanism that supports the status quo by discouraging the numberous "have nots" from overthrowing the "haves" by force of numbers.

In the religious case you have a shitty life while others live in luxury but you will be rewarded after you die. In the case of Social Darwinism it's the idea that you should accept uneven distribution of wealth in the hope that someday you yourself will be wealthy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverman:
I apologise ahead of time if there has already been a thread about this, but I thought it was worth discussing.

I personally believe that in the grand universal scheme of things, that 'right' and 'wrong' simply dont exist. They are illusions created by our culture and biology. Things like 'killing is wrong'() and 'nurturing children is right'() are examples of morals that exist because during our evolution, those that didn't have these instincts died out by killing each other off or letting their young starve. I choose to follow certain morals because its easier that way (it's what I've been taught through my upbringing and genetics), but I don't believe that those concepts exist outside our heads.

I want this to be a calm, reasoned, honest discussion of what ya'll think. Lets try not to have any flame wars or snarkin' please(no matter how fun they may be ). Also, if your argument is a religious one, please dont bother posting. We should be arguing facts, not faith.

So, what are your thoughts?

P.S. If your user name happens to be 'Piratenews', please just move on to the next thread. This isn't a discussion of how British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews are ruining America.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jmb9039:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Social Darwinism is at it's heart the same thing as the old idea that it's easier for a poor man to get into heaven -- a mechanism that supports the status quo by discouraging the numberous "have nots" from overthrowing the "haves" by force of numbers.

In the religious case you have a shitty life while others live in luxury but you will be rewarded after you die. In the case of Social Darwinism it's the idea that you should accept uneven distribution of wealth in the hope that someday you yourself will be wealthy.

---

I'm not sure if you have that right. The "poor man gets to heaven" issue is a call to socialism (to an extent) saying that personal wealth at the expense of others is a sin. It argues that we all must take care of each other equally. Social Darwinism is basically to take care of yourself. I don't think the religious doctorine calls for you to accept a "shitty life" but rather for those with wealth to take care of those who have none and for those who have none to worry about their moral and physical life rather than material goods.

---

Quote:

---

I see your point, but that comes from other religious aspects like the importance of charity. Looking specifically at church teachings through most of the middle ages the message seems clear. Your king rules because God says he should and the holy church is used to legitimise that authority. Do as the church says and you'll get into heaven, a shiny happy place, when you die.

In effect it's "play the game our way now and you'll be rewarded after you die." I think this aspect of political/religious control is why Marx saw religion as the opium of the people.

Moving on to the American brand of social Darwinism and we see a similar secular game being played that can be translated as"the system favours a rich minority but YOU have the opertunity to join them, in which case the system will work for you."

In both cases the masses are encouraged to support systems that benefit a few with the promise that if they dont rock the boat they too will be rewarded, if not in this life then the next.

---

Quote:

---

Although moral systems have different specifics, they have certain nearly-universal features. They:

1) control behavior of the members of society
2) define "good" primarily in positive materialistic terms or material-analog terms
3) argue that the system's purpose is for "good"
4) must benefit at least the more powerful members of society
5) rest on propaganda, production, and force of arms.

---