Our morals suck in this country

[Lao Tzu]

Yeah thats right, im takin the high road.

First off, even though people bitch about south park or beavis & butthead, the true moral criminals go unpunished.

For one thing, this culture respects bullies. Judge shows, TV political shows (hannity & colmes, O'reilly factor, Savage nation), the assholes on 'whatever the fuck engineering show is popular on the discovery channel this month', and the bullies on reality TV are the most obvious. How the hell can you say to your kids 'don't bully people, its not nice' then laugh your ass off when Paul Sr. bullies his son?

Secondly, Seinfeld. Julia Louis Dreyfuss won't allow her kids to watch seinfeld because its a bad influence. i can't blame her, a show about 4 people who can't form a meaningful personal bond with a member of the opposite sex and whose only friendships are superficial and filled with backstabbing. good for you Julia.

Thirdly, the objectification of everything has gotten out of hand. Everyone is an object. when did 11 year old girls start wearing shorts that stopped 2" below their vaginas? They never had that when i was a kid. Think of all the eating disorders and mental roughage these girls are going to have, they haven't hit puberty and they are competiting to be something perfect. Its starting to affect men too with all the ads about beautiful men, men are developing eating disorder too. But it doesn't stop with looks. It kinda ties into the marriage thread on this board and about how divorce rates are higher. probably in part because people view others as servants/things to entertain/fulfill them rather than people, all anyone seems to care about sometimes is 'whats in it for me' now. No sticking through the hard stuff, just use people and throw them out.

Yeah these are all exaggerations, but i have no where else to bitch about them.

 

[Lao Tzu]

PS: the fact that i bully and insult people on EF doesn't count, its ok when i do it.

 

[IwouldSlamU]

I think the relgious influnce on the american society sucks....

 

[Ulcasterdropout]

Now I know what Seinfeld was about......( I don't watch TV)
I think morals are changing all over, not just the US.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I think the relgious influnce on the american society sucks....

So do i

 

[Lao Tzu]

Now I know what Seinfeld was about......( I don't watch TV)
I think morals are changing all over, not just the US.

Howso. More towards western values?

 

[OMEGA]

Nord that last part is right ON

Oblectification of all brakcets of our population

also our culture is cultureless and is made bythe media

 

[Lao Tzu]

Nord that last part is right ON

Oblectification of all brakcets of our population

also our culture is cultureless and is made bythe media

exactly. arrogance and objectification seem to be the only attributes of US culture. well, oversensitivity too. "were the best at everything hands down, people are objects, all that matters is the market and money"

Its better than historical culture though which was usually nationalistic, inhumane, sexist and racist. I'll take objectification over that anyday, but it still sucks. Maybe there never has been a such a thing as a good culture except the samarians culture and i only have an overview of theirs.

 

[Ulcasterdropout]

Howso. More towards western values?

Yes....Americanized

 

[jerseyart]

It's somewhat ironic that in the same thread complaining about objectification, selfishness,declining morals, and relativism,people complain about the religious influence in our culture. Is there some other significant counterweight to those problems outlined in the initial post besides religion currently operating in our society.

When you secualrized the culture, thereby making all moral opinion relative, you opened the door to the very vices you complain of on this thread.

 

[SoreArms]

I'm perfectly fine with the imorality of my morals

 

[Lao Tzu]

It's somewhat ironic that in the same thread complaining about objectification, selfishness,declining morals, and relativism,people complain about the religious influence in our culture. Is there some other significant counterweight to those problems outlined in the initial post besides religion currently operating in our society.

When you secualrized the culture, thereby making all moral opinion relative, you opened the door to the very vices you complain of on this thread.

nah. religious morals are just backwards relics. Secondly, there is more to morality than just fearful obedience to religion. a person can be moral for cultural reasons or because of his/her own personal philosophy. Not only that but the idea that religion = morality is not true in my opinion. Each subculture takes religion and has its own morality. the morality of Syria and Saudi Arabia are not the same but they are both religion based. US morality is slightly based on christian views but we are nothing like Saudi Arabia.

I dont think it takes religion to oppose objectifying people as objects to be fucked, exploited or bullied. Not only that but even when religion did control morality in the world (and still does all over the world) the world was far from a paradise.

 

[OMEGA]

good for you Nord the way your writing reminds me of someone with convictions


that too has sadly been cast to the way side in these times


you got to commit to something and go with It all the way

 

[jerseyart]

nordsrom wrote

nah. religious morals are just backwards relics.

Wow. All the greatest minds in hsitory have debated these issues in vain. They should have simply waited till you were born to enlighten the world.

Secondly, there is more to morality than just fearful obedience to religion.

A truly immature portrayal of religion and its adherents. Why not discuss the issue on more than just a prepubescent level, or really what's the point.

a person can be moral for cultural reasons or because of his/her own personal philosophy. Not only that but the idea that religion = morality is not true in my opinion.

Theoretically that is true, but where has it ever been practically applied successfully? I agree that not everyone who worships is moral, that is self evident. At the same time what morally relativistic or secualr system qualifies to take the place of traditional judeo/christian values in this country?

The inate dilemna is that once you say there is no God, and that existence is nothing more than a cosmic accident, there is no longer such a thing as universal morality. As a Christian I might feel the need to avoid sleeping with your wife. Why would I absent religion, aside from the fear of physical retribution. It's a silly example, but it makes a point. There is a common sense value to religious morals that when examined make them ideal for the smooth functioning of a society. When they are ignored, society works less well. Look at the demonstrated pathologies inherent to single parent households to evidence that claim (and before every single parent starts complaining, we are discussing general numbers, not broad brushing every particular person)

I dont think it takes religion to oppose objectifying people as objects to be fucked, exploited or bullied. Not only that but even when religion did control morality in the world (and still does all over the world) the world was far from a paradise.

Not a paradise, but it evolved closer to one, western culture in particular. Absolutes are a poor judge of success in human endeavor. There are more accurate ways to measure progress. Slavery for example existed long before the founding of Christianity, but it was only successfully ended first by Christians. That doesn't excuse the interim years when it was allowed, but places the example in a more realistic and accurate assessment.

 

[The Red Dragon]

People are ignorant and stupid, they ignore the larger problem and pick at the small insignificant shit

 

[OMEGA]

ps I am religiuos and believe in ONE GOD

all the answers I have in my meager mind have been found through my belief

i urge you to go on your own and try to seek answers

TURST ME

 

[Deleted member 33117]

Excellent post Nordstrom. Our culture has clearly lost sight of what is right and wrong. Not in the sense of morality from a religious perspective, but in the manner in which we view other people. We truely do live in a society where people are viewed as nothing more than objects, or resource to be exploited.

Most employers treat you as a source of labor, to be exploited, paid as little as they think they can get away with, and unless you possess an irreplacable skill, something that can be casts aside on a whim.

People are often treated as nothing more than sex objects, and this does not apply to men treating women as such. Alot of the guys on here, myself included, know that women will use you and lie to use for a piece of dick if they find you attractive enough.

We are judged not by who we are, but how we look and what we own... and what those observing us think they can gain from us... and you are right.... this is the morality that is taught my the media which has become our culture.

We are a nation of people that does not know who we are. Most of us are nothing more than shells of human beings... empty and dead on the inside.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Excellent post Nordstrom. Our culture has clearly lost sight of what is right and wrong. Not in the sense of morality from a religious perspective, but in the manner in which we view other people. We truely do live in a society where people are viewed as nothing more than objects, or resource to be exploited.

Most employers treat you as a source of labor, to be exploited, paid as little as they think they can get away with, and unless you possess an irreplacable skill, something that can be casts aside on a whim.

People are often treated as nothing more than sex objects, and this does not apply to men treating women as such. Alot of the guys on here, myself included, know that women will use you and lie to use for a piece of dick if they find you attractive enough.

We are judged not by who we are, but how we look and what we own... and what those observing us think they can gain from us... and you are right.... this is the morality that is taught my the media which has become our culture.

We are a nation of people that does not know who we are. Most of us are nothing more than shells of human beings... empty and dead on the inside.

I'd give you karma for that if i could but i have to pass it around first. LOL

I agree completely. everyone is an object now.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Wow. All the greatest minds in hsitory have debated these issues in vain. They should have simply waited till you were born to enlighten the world.

I'm sawwy, did my opinions contradict yours? I will try better next time to shut down all parts of life that don't eventually give me the same views you ended up with.

A truly immature portrayal of religion and its adherents. Why not discuss the issue on more than just a prepubescent level, or really what's the point.

In part yeah. But i knew religious people growing up, they were not any more moral than anyone else. Religious people i know now are not more moral than anyone else i know. The ones that are moral would probably be moral even if they weren't religious. I honestly see little connection on a personal level between religion and morality. Maybe you do, but when i look at religion both internationally (islam, hinduism, roman catholicism in south america) and historically (which may not matter since this is 2004, not 1004) i don't see a connection between morality and religion.

Theoretically that is true, but where has it ever been practically applied successfully? I agree that not everyone who worships is moral, that is self evident. At the same time what morally relativistic or secualr system qualifies to take the place of traditional judeo/christian values in this country?

The inate dilemna is that once you say there is no God, and that existence is nothing more than a cosmic accident, there is no longer such a thing as universal morality. As a Christian I might feel the need to avoid sleeping with your wife. Why would I absent religion, aside from the fear of physical retribution. It's a silly example, but it makes a point. There is a common sense value to religious morals that when examined make them ideal for the smooth functioning of a society. When they are ignored, society works less well. Look at the demonstrated pathologies inherent to single parent households to evidence that claim (and before every single parent starts complaining, we are discussing general numbers, not broad brushing every particular person).

Well i dont know 'which' secular system is best, but a system based on shame for the trauma inflicted on others seems to create a moral society. Look at germany post ww2. Hell alot of social advances seem to be based on shame for what a country did in the past. A value system based on trying to make amends for past wrongs is more moral than judeo/christian values. A value system that values everyone as an individual would be too. Can i think of any that do this on a national scale? No. Can you think of nations which are religious where all the people are moral? in my experience the religious people are no more moral than anyone else.

Secondly, i would not sleep with someone's wife and i am an agnostic/athiest. I have enough empathy (which is built into all of us) to not want to cause suffering in others sometimes. You assume people can't feel empathy. Empathy for the pain you cause others is just as powerful as fear of punishment. In fact trying to get criminals to empathize with their victims is a police interrogation tactic, they try to build guilt by showing the criminal what he did to the victim and his family. A few weeks ago an article was out showing that if you show kids the negative side effects of violence they become less violent.

Aspects that can affect 'morality'
-showing the human suffering consequences to your actions before you act/empathy
-group thinking
-fear of social retribution
-fear of legal retribution
-about 20 other things

You missed the point about saudi arabia vs. syria. Both are muslim countries but values are different.

I'll agree that single parent homes have more problems. However to be fair i think some of those problems are due to poverty and all the problems being poor creates rather than universal morality.

Not a paradise, but it evolved closer to one, western culture in particular. Absolutes are a poor judge of success in human endeavor. There are more accurate ways to measure progress. Slavery for example existed long before the founding of Christianity, but it was only successfully ended first by Christians. That doesn't excuse the interim years when it was allowed, but places the example in a more realistic and accurate assessment.

Slavery still exists. Go to the Sudan or India. Its a fact, it never 'ended', just ended in the US. If you include forced labor camps slavery is rampant in some parts of the world.

Im not going to pretend abolitionists didnt play a role in ending slavery, or that they haven't played major roles in 3rd world charities or providing healthcare/food/shelter, because they have. I just do not think a person needs religion to do these things. You have taken a very select issue and tried to put all beneficial views of it squarely on the shoulders of christians. I won't deny the played a commendable role, but this is one issue and it doesn't justify implementing judeo-christian values.

how do you explain all the groups like amnesty international, human rights watch, the world food bank, prisoners rights, etc? Are they all judeo/christian? No, judeo/christian views play a large role in them but there are still alot of non chrisitians in these groups who dont go to church or subscribe to their belief systems.

 

[jerseyart]

I'm sawwy, did my opinions contradict yours? I will try better next time to shut down all parts of life that don't eventually give me the same views you ended up with.

Contradictory opinions are not only fine, they are welcome. But if all you have to offer is religion=superstitious fear of damnation then there really isn't anything to discuss. Juvenille generalizations and hyperbole do not constitute intelligent discourse. I'm actually beginning to recognize a pattern in your threads, evidencing a rather broad brush view of the world based on little more than your personal likes or dislikes. It goes along the lines of "I hate religion, so all religious people are ignorant" or "women hate me, so they're all all money grubbing whores."

In part yeah. But i knew religious people growing up, they were not any more moral than anyone else.Religious people i know now are not more moral than anyone else i know. The ones that are moral would probably be moral even if they weren't religious.

Personal anecdotes, while charming, also don't add much to the discussion. In your case they're also besides the point, because no one on this thread has contended that religious people are "more moral." Read again for clarity.

Well i dont know 'which' secular system is best, but a system based on shame for the trauma inflicted on others seems to create a moral society.

I truncated the quote because it is more or less encapsulated in the above. The point which was made is that in a universe of chaos and chance there is no such thing as morality. What you call "morality" is nothing more than a set of personal preferences you choose to adhere to, no more or less valid than any other. In your "morality " it may be worng to kill someone, but the moral code of another might allow otherwise. There is nothing inherently superior to yours, unless you can build a case that the other person would be best served by adhering to your particular view.

For that reason among others religion is never "outdated." It provides a common source of reference, generally accepted by most, and whose precepts further the objectives of society. To dismiss it as "done" is to ignore the fact that you have nothing with which to replace it. The irony is that you chose to state such in a thread complaining about the moral decline of our nation.

Secondly, i would not sleep with someone's wife and i am an agnostic/athiest. I have enough empathy (which is built into all of us) to not want to cause suffering in others sometimes. You assume people can't feel empathy. Empathy for the pain you cause others is just as powerful as fear of punishment.

If that were even remotely true then our entire legal system would be redundant. The fact that it isn't close to being so belies your argument.

You missed the point about saudi arabia vs. syria. Both are muslim countries but values are different.

I didn't miss it, I ignored it. The topic is the moral decline of our society.

I'll agree that single parent homes have more problems. However to be fair i think some of those problems are due to poverty and all the problems being poor creates rather than universal morality.

The poverty is the direct result overwhelmingly of the fact that it is a single parent home. You're arguing in circles. Ignore the "morality" since that appears to be confusing you. The point was that Judeo/Christian morality serves a valid societal fucntion in that adherence to its precepts encourages actions which are in societies best interests

Slavery still exists. Go to the Sudan or India. Its a fact, it never 'ended', just ended in the US. If you include forced labor camps slavery is rampant in some parts of the world.

Once again you are missing the point. I admonished the use of absolutes. The point stated was that society has progressed, not that it has been perfect. The suggestion that only perfection would justify continued adherence is inane in as much as it ignores the reality of human development.

 

[Lao Tzu]

You sure are a pompous asshole for a religious person. what happened to humility and brotherly love?

When the lakers game is over i'll reply

 

[Lao Tzu]

In retrospect what i said above was mean. But to say but statements like:

Once again you are missing the point.

If that were even remotely true

Juvenille generalizations and hyperbole do not constitute intelligent discourse. I'm actually beginning to recognize a pattern in your threads, evidencing a rather broad brush view of the world based on little more than your personal likes or dislikes.

All the greatest minds in hsitory have debated these issues in vain. They should have simply waited till you were born to enlighten the world.

Why not discuss the issue on more than just a prepubescent level,



Are all rather pompous and insulting, especially coming from someone talking about 'morality'. What would be your idealized society? Would your morals (and they are your morals, whether you agknowledge this or not) run the earth?

 

[jackangel]

nordstrom, he does come across like that, but his points are valid. the points in your original post have merit (even though they're uninteresting and one-sided). but when you later on seem to completely dismiss the value of religion in society...then your position becomes tenuous at best. it's easy to attack because it's too strong...too close to being an absolute statement.

 

[jerseyart]

Nordstrom,

There was no intentional provocation. I write as my train of thought takes me and rarely if ever spell check, never mind read, the nonsense I write. What comes across as arrogance is simply my attempt at communicating my thoughts quickly and with little embelishment.

Jackangel said it best. The absoulte nature of youre contentions leaves you open to an easy dismantling in the discussion. More importantly though, it is a poor way of viewing the world in as much as it is too skewed to offer you any real insight.

I'm not proselytizing on this thread. I have no desire to convert the heathens

I'm simply pointing out that your complaints and your remarks about religion tie together in ways you may not have considered. Someone once said paraphrased "If there was no such thing as religion, we'd have to invent one."

Religion plays a useful role in society that is no less necessary because you don't personally adhere to its beliefs. It lays the foundation upon which all the rest can be built, and in which even non believers are pressured or convinced (have your choice) to adhere to the religious principles being espoused.

 

[CFZB]

i heard a story once to never invite a baptist to go fishing with you because he'll drink all your beer...invite 2 baptist and niether one will drink.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

i heard a story once to never invite a baptist to go fishing with you because he'll drink all your beer...invite 2 baptist and niether one will drink.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Nordstrom,

There was no intentional provocation. I write as my train of thought takes me and rarely if ever spell check, never mind read, the nonsense I write. What comes across as arrogance is simply my attempt at communicating my thoughts quickly and with little embelishment.

Jackangel said it best. The absoulte nature of youre contentions leaves you open to an easy dismantling in the discussion. More importantly though, it is a poor way of viewing the world in as much as it is too skewed to offer you any real insight.

I'm not proselytizing on this thread. I have no desire to convert the heathens

I'm simply pointing out that your complaints and your remarks about religion tie together in ways you may not have considered. Someone once said paraphrased "If there was no such thing as religion, we'd have to invent one."

Religion plays a useful role in society that is no less necessary because you don't personally adhere to its beliefs. It lays the foundation upon which all the rest can be built, and in which even non believers are pressured or convinced (have your choice) to adhere to the religious principles being espoused.

Alright, its half time so i can post.

I for one find it pretty funny that a thread about morality ended up turning into an insult match. LOL. I was a dick now that i've reread my earlier posts, sorry. hopefully we can go on to a mature dialogue.

So let me assume this is what you are getting at:

Religion is necessary for order, and religious morality, when internalized, can promote overall morality by having a central cultural morality. The fact that certain countries or individuals subscribe to a religion does not mean that they have internalized those doctrines.



I still don't agree with this because i think biology builds morality into us, and so does personal experience. Evolution has built into us a 'tribal' morality, which says that you can do what you want to others, but not those in your tribe. People still try to build tribes today (along the lines of race, sex, nationality, religion, species, etc) and they treat those inside the tribe different. So there are other factors than religion when it comes to morality.

Also religious morality seems to take away free will by giving people no other option but to take the (religious) morality offered to them. I would rather live in a more amoral (but still restrained by biological, person and legal morality), but more free willed world.

You made an example about morality and killing and how a central religious morality would be needed. Religious morality is varied on this issue too. You have to take things into consideration

1. what is being killed (human, goat, plant, etc). each religion has different views
2. Why is it being killed
3. how is it being killed.

Islamic fundamentalists have no problem with killing infidels, chrisitian fundamentalists have no problem with US soliders killing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Neither has a problem with killing animals but buddhists are strongly opposed to this. Religion is not universal, to pick one viewpoint on one religion (this is what my syria vs saudi post about, how the same religion has different interpretations) and try to say 'this' is universal morality doesn't seem like it'll work in the modern age of global communication and global ideas.

I personally still do not think religion has a role, at least in my life. But you can believe what you want.

Also your view (with single mothers) that religious morality benefits society at large. i can partially agree with (when it comes to issues of stealing, or murder, or families staying together or being a good samaritan). However i don't think that religious morality is always in societies best interest. What about the fact that the pope (as an example) opposes birth control in an overpopulated world. Many radical muslim morals are very destructive by western standards. Hinduism has a brutal caste system. Buddhists reject society as a whole, if we rejected society as a whole there would be no technology, etc. So religion can be either beneficial or destructive, depending on which culture is experiencing which brand of which religion.

 

[BradG]

Jerseyart, I completely agree with you.

To me it all comes down to what you said earlier about there being no true morality without an absolute moral standard (God, or creator, or what have you), (a rough paraphrase).

In my mind, if there is no God (Creator) then we are just animals, and when it comes to animals there is no real morality just survival of the fittest. There may be cultural/social morality but where did it originate? I pose it originated from religions.
Who cares, in the end, what suffering one causes if everything is meaningless anyway? If one simply is born, exists, and dies, and that is the end, then the only thing that truly matters is making oneself the happiest one can be without regard for others. Dos this sound a bit like our culture to you too? And with that as the goal (self-eddification) there can be little or no morality.

Just my two cents.

 

[plornive]

I'm simply pointing out that your complaints and your remarks about religion tie together in ways you may not have considered. Someone once said paraphrased "If there was no such thing as religion, we'd have to invent one."

Religion plays a useful role in society that is no less necessary because you don't personally adhere to its beliefs. It lays the foundation upon which all the rest can be built, and in which even non believers are pressured or convinced (have your choice) to adhere to the religious principles being espoused.

I'm going to go at this from a more opposing direction.

You propose that the correlations between true belief in God and morality demonstrate a significant amount of causation.

That is right!

However, now we are seeing corruption - a loss of morality. Thus, God is dead. As people attempt to re-instill true belief in God corruption only increases. The same idea, 'God', doesn't seem to be sustainable in individuals, and this is demonstrated by the corruption of society.

Without a more rational set of reasons supporting morality, this corruption will only grow further. We need something that isn't corruptible.

 

[plornive]

In part yeah. But i knew religious people growing up, they were not any more moral than anyone else. Religious people i know now are not more moral than anyone else i know. The ones that are moral would probably be moral even if they weren't religious. I honestly see little connection on a personal level between religion and morality. Maybe you do, but when i look at religion both internationally (islam, hinduism, roman catholicism in south america) and historically (which may not matter since this is 2004, not 1004) i don't see a connection between morality and religion.

I see a correlation between true belief and morality. If someone truly believes the ideas supporting his/her morality, he/she will act accordingly. That is true belief, which hardly exists at all anymore. In retrospect, many nearly true believers of religion have been immoral by our standards today, but social order has been maintained because of the relative stability of belief enjoyed by Christianity throughout much of history.

Ebbing the tide of this stability for during the last several hundred years, God has been partially replaced by money, government, rational ideas, and.... nothing perhaps. There is a spiritual gap inside of many peoples' "souls". We need something more. 'God' doesn't work anymore, so we need something different.

 

[plornive]

Religion is necessary for order, and religious morality, when internalized, can promote overall morality by having a central cultural morality. The fact that certain countries or individuals subscribe to a religion does not mean that they have internalized those doctrines.

Right. And Christianity is no longer internallized in society. Nor will it ever be again on any permanent basis.

I still don't agree with this because i think biology builds morality into us, and so does personal experience. Evolution has built into us a 'tribal' morality, which says that you can do what you want to others, but not those in your tribe. People still try to build tribes today (along the lines of race, sex, nationality, religion, species, etc) and they treat those inside the tribe different. So there are other factors than religion when it comes to morality.

Perhaps rrelevant, but worth noting I guess.

Many items including feelings of empathy, sexual attraction and some basic tenets of communication were probably evolved in the 90,000 years preceding society.

However, society requires much much more than this. Meme-plexes such as Christianity, "freedom", democracy, "freedom of will", marriage... these were all very historically necessary.

Also religious morality seems to take away free will by giving people no other option but to take the (religious) morality offered to them. I would rather live in a more amoral (but still restrained by biological, person and legal morality), but more free willed world.

This is very relative. Christianity takes away our options more than does correct rational thought only if our ideas of "truth" are those of correct rational thought. See my post on "free will": http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3750273&postcount=14

You made an example about morality and killing and how a central religious morality would be needed. Religious morality is varied on this issue too. You have to take things into consideration

1. what is being killed (human, goat, plant, etc). each religion has different views
2. Why is it being killed
3. how is it being killed.

Islamic fundamentalists have no problem with killing infidels, chrisitian fundamentalists have no problem with US soliders killing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Neither has a problem with killing animals but buddhists are strongly opposed to this. Religion is not universal, to pick one viewpoint on one religion (this is what my syria vs saudi post about, how the same religion has different interpretations) and try to say 'this' is universal morality doesn't seem like it'll work in the modern age of global communication and global ideas.

I personally still do not think religion has a role, at least in my life. But you can believe what you want.

Also your view (with single mothers) that religious morality benefits society at large. i can partially agree with (when it comes to issues of stealing, or murder, or families staying together or being a good samaritan). However i don't think that religious morality is always in societies best interest. What about the fact that the pope (as an example) opposes birth control in an overpopulated world. Many radical muslim morals are very destructive by western standards. Hinduism has a brutal caste system. Buddhists reject society as a whole, if we rejected society as a whole there would be no technology, etc. So religion can be either beneficial or destructive, depending on which culture is experiencing which brand of which religion.

Yep. The "relative morality" argument is silly. Because we don't subscribe to their objective (easily corrupted) system of morality, we are the "relative moralists".

Quite incorrect.

We are the historians seeing the objective truth, while objective truth doesn't seem to be what true Christians value. That's fine for them, and I have no problem with it, but it precludes productive debate.

 

[plornive]

good for you Nord the way your writing reminds me of someone with convictions


that too has sadly been cast to the way side in these times


you got to commit to something and go with It all the way

Good for Nordy.

But not for you.

People of true character don't admit that the reason supporting their beliefs might as well have washed away years ago.

 

[jerseyart]

Alright, its half time so i can post.

I for one find it pretty funny that a thread about morality ended up turning into an insult match. LOL. I was a dick now that i've reread my earlier posts, sorry. hopefully we can go on to a mature dialogue.

Agree,let's move on.

So let me assume this is what you are getting at:

Religion is necessary for order, and religious morality, when internalized, can promote overall morality by having a central cultural morality. The fact that certain countries or individuals subscribe to a religion does not mean that they have internalized those doctrines.

Not exactly,but close. I would state rather that order is necessary for society to function. There are few proven ways to establish that order. In the end it comes down to either excessive force and control, or some standard which is widely accepted and generally adhered to by most. I say most because it doesn't have to be everyone, since the majority even without physical violence generally coerce the miniority into behaving within the norms established.

I'm uncertain what you mean by "internalized." Perhaps mistakenly I am taking it to mean one who lives his life according to all the precepts of that faith unerringly. That isn't necessary either. It is only necessary that the precepts of that shared morality are accepted as true. That becomes the basis upon which to build. One of those things that are built is a legal system which reflects the values of that society.

The problem with secular morality is that inherently it's bull, it's made up, and everyone knows that to be so by definition. Therefore it is coercive, and requires greater force to achieve compliance. I think it's important here to recognize something about yourself. That is that you have grown up in a Judeo Christian society and largely, however unwillingly or unconciously, been formed by its values. You assume these values to be inate to you, because you don't accept the religion. But that's because you lack historical perspective. You assume they are the "natural" to man in a secular sense., and history has demonstrated anything but that being the case.

I think you assume therefore that were religion to be removed, those same values you now share would continue to propser. I suggest you are incorrectly analyzing cause and effect. Atheists in this country like to point out that "we are as moral as anyone else." And in the sense that they can adhere to those judeo christian values implanted on them by society that is the case. But it is counter intuitive to imagine that those values stem from somewhere other than where they originated. It's why I wrote earlier it isn't necessary for everyone to believe. Because like you they are pressured by society to conform, till it becomes just as much a part of them, faith or no faith.

I still don't agree with this because i think biology builds morality into us, and so does personal experience. Evolution has built into us a 'tribal' morality, which says that you can do what you want to others, but not those in your tribe. People still try to build tribes today (along the lines of race, sex, nationality, religion, species, etc) and they treat those inside the tribe different. So there are other factors than religion when it comes to morality.

Religious will speak of a natural law built into the heart of man. I personally believe that to be true. I think we do inherently know right from wrong, but that is a religious concept, not a secular one. Biology has never been enough to sway the masses to do "what's right." All of human history demonstrates the falseness of this claim. You are simply incredibly mistaken if you imagine natural empathy and sympathy are sufficient motivators to keep men in line. Ironically they also contradict your tribal theory. Think about it.

Also religious morality seems to take away free will by giving people no other option but to take the (religious) morality offered to them. I would rather live in a more amoral (but still restrained by biological, person and legal morality), but more free willed world.

Free will is simply the ability to choose, not the right to do whatever one desires. I have the ability to choose to strangle you for your earlier comments. That is a choice I can make. But I will be prosecuted, and either incarcerated or killed by the state should I choose to exercise that option. I am free to make responsible or irresponsible choices. That isn't "restrained" by religion.

You made an example about morality and killing and how a central religious morality would be needed. Religious morality is varied on this issue too. You have to take things into consideration

Refer back to what we discussed earlier about the need for a unified and generally accepted moral code. This is somewhat off topic.

Also your view (with single mothers) that religious morality benefits society at large. i can partially agree with (when it comes to issues of stealing, or murder, or families staying together or being a good samaritan). However i don't think that religious morality is always in societies best interest. What about the fact that the pope (as an example) opposes birth control in an overpopulated world....

You've inadvertently hit the core of the discussion re: religion, and opened a topic which we could disucss ad nauseum without resolution. I am inclined to avoid addressing it, but it is a good question.

Back in the early 50's when the issue of birth control was first being discussed seriously as an impending reality with the general population, Catholic and other religious leaders spoke out against the introduction. I recall seeing (in repeats of his telecasts from the time) Archbishop Sheen in particular warning that the general acceptance of birth control would lead to a crisis in society. It would cause a widespread rise in out of wedlock births,teen pregnancy, broken marriages, faithless marriages, sexual promiscuity, single parent homes etc etc etc (you get the idea) He was ignored by the intellectual elites, and his warnings dismissed as religious hyperbole. Yet here we are, 50 years later, and everything has come to pass as he predicted.

Ignore the religious component for now, as that will simply cause unnecessary bickering and sidetrack the issue. Human behavior is what is important. You earlier sugested that religious restrictions are too restrictive. You mentioned this as such an example. I submit that to the contrary they are necessary for the proper functioning of society (I would even argue the individual). On the surface an issue like birth control appears self evidently positive. Have sex, no consequences for the individual or society (ie out of wedlock births). But it is only superficially true if you ignore human nature, and the reality of unintended consequences. I won't attempt to delineate the self evident, I think recent history has already demonstrated my point to be correct. The "elites" continue to argue for "more education" because they realize how screwed up it has all become. You would have to be clinically an imbecile not to know about birth control by this time. The problem isn't eductaion, it's human nature. The Church was right on this one

Recall "proper functioning of society" we discussed. I would add the following as well. The successful continuation of that society. Western society is on the precipice of collapse. I believe it will collapse, at this point it is nearly unavoidable absent divine influence. Religious principles are followed because they work. One of the offshoots of our secualrization has been declining population trends, coupled with an increase in broken families. No one will have to conquer us, we will simply be swamped and replaced. The US and Europe are now forced to take in increasing numbers simply to survive. They have kids, we don't. Within 50 years you will have become the miniority, and your secular views will have been replaced with a more coherent and prosperous system. It's inevitable, because if there is one thing that has been demonstrated ad nauseum, it is that secualr belief systems, however well intentioned, cannot reproduce themselves effectively.

 

[jerseyart]

I'm going to go at this from a more opposing direction.

You propose that the correlations between true belief in God and morality demonstrate a significant amount of causation.

I did!!! I missed that

Actually I have attempted, not all together sucessfully, to argue my point of view from a secular perspective. What I have been attempting to communicate is that society in general needs a moral order that is widely accepted as inately valid. religion provides that order. It does not make everyone who claims to be religious a saint.

However, now we are seeing corruption - a loss of morality. Thus, God is dead. As people attempt to re-instill true belief in God corruption only increases. The same idea, 'God', doesn't seem to be sustainable in individuals, and this is demonstrated by the corruption of society.

I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate

Without a more rational set of reasons supporting morality, this corruption will only grow further. We need something that isn't corruptible.

I don't want to get into which belief is more rational. Personally I believe that belief in a scenario where all matter just miraculously came into existence is inane. That strikes me as incredibly irrational, as well as violating current known laws of physics. There is no "scientific" evidence to justify atheism. Certainly an atheist can claim "we just don't yet understand" but that more or less leaves us where we started.

 

[plornive]

I did!!! I missed that

Actually I have attempted, not all together sucessfully, to argue my point of view from a secular perspective. What I have been attempting to communicate is that society in general needs a moral order that is widely accepted as inately valid. religion provides that order. It does not make everyone who claims to be religious a saint.



I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate



I don't want to get into which belief is more rational. Personally I believe that belief in a scenario where all matter just miraculously came into existence is inane. That strikes me as incredibly irrational, as well as violating current known laws of physics. There is no "scientific" evidence to justify atheism. Certainly an atheist can claim "we just don't yet understand" but that more or less leaves us where we started.

I have found your responses to mine and nordstrom's posts be presumptuous and insulting. You did not attempt to understand what I was saying.

 

[jerseyart]

Plornlive,

I responded to what was written. I acknowledged in my last post where I had no idea what you were attempting to communicate, thereby offering you the opportunity to clarify. It may be clear to you, it wasn't to me.

The rest I responded to without insult. If you imagine disagreement with your views constitutes presumption, then I don't know what to tell you. I note however that the majority of my comments addressed to you were corrections of misattributions made by you involving me. So how is that presumptious?

 

[plornive]

Plornlive,

I responded to what was written. I acknowledged in my last post where I had no idea what you were attempting to communicate, thereby offering you the opportunity to clarify. It may be clear to you, it wasn't to me.

The rest I responded to without insult. If you imagine disagreement with your views constitutes presumption, then I don't know what to tell you. I note however that the majority of my comments addressed to you were corrections of misattributions made by you involving me. So how is that presumptious?

My comment on your presumtuousness stands.

You indeed propose that belief in God causes moral behavior and thought. This was not a misrepresentation of your posts - I was stating some of your ideas in a different syntax from a different angle.

I will clarify the part you did not understand:

We are seeing a corruption of our morals, which are indeed upheld by belief in God in our society. If society believed in God, we would not be seeing a corruption of our morals.

Thus, as Nietzsche said, "God is dead."

Belief in God doesn't seem to "work" anymore, and this is demonstrated by the corruption of society.

 

[plornive]

I don't want to get into which belief is more rational. Personally I believe that belief in a scenario where all matter just miraculously came into existence is inane. That strikes me as incredibly irrational, as well as violating current known laws of physics. There is no "scientific" evidence to justify atheism. Certainly an atheist can claim "we just don't yet understand" but that more or less leaves us where we started.

It is admitted by Christians that their beliefs come from faith. Faith is not rational.

Furthermore, we do not need an explanation of "why" or how we are here in order to have a system of morality. The question "What created us?" is not a question deserving of an answer - instead, it should be obliterated. This is my opinion. The main point, however, is that a belief regarding the creation of the universe is not necessary in order to maintain a system of morals in society.

As I said before, let's not limit our imaginations by assuming that reason cannot be used to create morals.

 

[jerseyart]

My comment on your presumtuousness stands.

But I'm sitting.

You indeed propose that belief in God causes moral behavior and thought. This was not a misrepresentation of your posts - I was stating some of your ideas in a different syntax from a different angle.

Show me where. You may have interpreted it as such, no doubt because it is a far easier statement to counter, or perhaps because a personal bias leads you to imagine that religious all think that way. What I actually stated is that religion can form the basis of a common belief system which can be generally adhered to and readily accepted by most. That's far different than your butchered interpretation of my statements.

I will clarify the part you did not understand:

Thank you

We are seeing a corruption of our morals, which are indeed upheld by belief in God in our society. If society believed in God, we would not be seeing a corruption of our morals.

Thus, as Nietzsche said, "God is dead."

That's absurd. If I wanted to be a prick I could simply state that the corruption can be largely attributed to the secularists in our society. I don't believe that to be true, but so long as we're trading inane generalizations.....

As I stated to nordstrom earlier, arguing from a position of absolutes is flawed. If our society was truly "corrupted" we would be living in absolute anarchy. We are debating relative degrees of corruption along with cause and effect. Humans are inherently....well...human. We are flawed. What we are not is static. So that the same 18 year old who is currently living a rather flawed existence may one day grow up to be a responsible adult who positively contributes to society.

Belief in God doesn't seem to "work" anymore, and this is demonstrated by the corruption of society.

Again, you confuse cause and effect, and attempt to make a flawed conclusion.

 

[plornive]

One more time, just to make sure I fully clarify the portion you did not understand:

Morals are upheld by beliefs. If the morals are corrupted, then the beliefs are not held. If the morals were held, they would be followed. Overall.

Thus, as Nietzsche said, "God is dead." We no longer believe in God as a society, yet we still hold the morals justified by a belief in God.

Belief in God is no longer sustainable - Christianity is no longer enjoying a stability of belief by society - and this is demonstrated by the corruption of society.

Without God, we still have money, the media, the government, nationalism, patriotism, family... but as you may agree, we still have a gaping hole in the soul of society, as is illustrated by nordstrom's post. Judging by the values of society (largely shaped by Christinity), our society lacks virtue. The morals people supposedly believe in are placed low in priority.

We need less corruptible beliefs for society to use in order to maintain a system of morals. This could not be God, because God is demonstrably dead.

 

[plornive]

Show me where. You may have interpreted it as such, no doubt because it is a far easier statement to counter, or perhaps because a personal bias leads you to imagine that religious all think that way. What I actually stated is that religion can form the basis of a common belief system which can be generally adhered to and readily accepted by most. That's far different than your butchered interpretation of my statements.

You are the one arguing that a belief system supports morals. This is cause. Can you accept that?

That's absurd. If I wanted to be a prick I could simply state that the corruption can be largely attributed to the secularists in our society. I don't believe that to be true, but so long as we're trading inane generalizations.....

As I stated to nordstrom earlier, arguing from a position of absolutes is flawed. If our society was truly "corrupted" we would be living in absolute anarchy. We are debating relative degrees of corruption along with cause and effect. Humans are inherently....well...human. We are flawed. What we are not is static. So that the same 18 year old who is currently living a rather flawed existence may one day grow up to be a responsible adult who positively contributes to society.

We are speaking of relative corruption. My point still stands.

Again, your responses are presumptuous, insulting, and dare I say... ignorant.

By the way, although you may consider my opinions to be absurd, they are held among many academics and historians.

I'm done wasting my time. Good bye.

 

[jerseyart]

It is admitted by Christians that their beliefs come from faith. Faith is not rational.

That is incorrect, or at best debatable. Many theologians and philosophers would argue that God can be reasoned. Therefore faith isn't irrational, it is simply unprovable.

Furthermore, we do not need an explanation of "why" or how we are here in order to have a system of morality. The question "What created us?" is not a question deserving of an answer - instead, it should be obliterated. This is my opinion. The main point, however, is that a belief regarding the creation of the universe is not necessary in order to maintain a system of morals in society.

The question of "what is the meaning of life" is not deserving of an answer. LOL, I'm sorry, but that is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

As a purely practical consideration, it is the very reason that religion is the best historically proven method of imprinting a common moral code on society. Precisely because it is attached to a larger purpose, whether you accept the purpose or not is a personal consideration. Most people do, and that's the point.

As I said before, let's not limit our imaginations by assuming that reason cannot be used to create morals.

We can no doubt reason value to certain types of behavior. I can reason that it isn't a good thing to cheat on my wife, abandon my children etc etc etc. Some people can actually adhere to those beliefs on reason alone. I suggest most can't, or at least that has never been demonstrated historicaly. Also, I imagine it would be rather difficult to establish a reasoned statement of morality that would be generally accepted by most.

 

[plornive]

That is incorrect, or at best debatable. Many theologians and philosophers would argue that God can be reasoned. Therefore faith isn't irrational, it is simply unprovable.



The question of "what is the meaning of life" is not deserving of an answer. LOL, I'm sorry, but that is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

As a purely practical consideration, it is the very reason that religion is the best historically proven method of imprinting a common moral code on society. Precisely because it is attached to a larger purpose, whether you accept the purpose or not is a personal consideration. Most people do, and that's the point.



We can no doubt reason value to certain types of behavior. I can reason that it isn't a good thing to cheat on my wife, abandon my children etc etc etc. Some people can actually adhere to those beliefs on reason alone. I suggest most can't, or at least that has never been demonstrated historicaly. Also, I imagine it would be rather difficult to establish a reasoned statement of morality that would be generally accepted by most.

Here's some red k.

 

[jerseyart]

One more time, just to make sure I fully clarify the portion you did not understand

Morals are upheld by beliefs. If the morals are corrupted, then the beliefs are not held. If the morals were held, they would be followed. Overall.

Are you certain you wish to state the above. Or more likey did you inadvertently switch the order.

Thus, as Nietzsche said, "God is dead." We no longer believe in God as a society, yet we still hold the morals justified by a belief in God.

Is that what he said?

Belief in God is no longer sustainable - Christianity is no longer enjoying a stability of belief by society - and this is demonstrated by the corruption of society.

Without God, we still have money, the media, the government, nationalism, patriotism, family... but as you may agree, we still have a gaping hole in the soul of society, as is illustrated by nordstrom's post. Judging by the values of society (largely shaped by Christinity), our society lacks virtue. The morals people supposedly believe in are placed low in priority.

Again you are confusing cause and effect. Rather I would suggest what we are seeing is a relativism being introduced into our moral beliefs that suggests there are no inately correct precepts of right and wrong. You propose the problem as the solution.

 

[the nature boy]

Secondly, Seinfeld. Julia Louis Dreyfuss won't allow her kids to watch seinfeld because its a bad influence. i can't blame her, a show about 4 people who can't form a meaningful personal bond with a member of the opposite sex and whose only friendships are superficial and filled with backstabbing. good for you Julia.

No you didn't.

 

[jerseyart]

Listen, you're obviously taking this discussion far too personally, and frankly it's beginning to annoy me. I simply pointed out the erros as I perceive them in your reasoning. I also don't appreciate your restatement of my posts incorrectly.

Let's just leave it at that. The red ink thing is just childish.

 

[plornive]

Are you certain you wish to state the above. Or more likey did you inadvertently switch the order.

Here is how it should read: "Morals are upheld by beliefs. If the morals are corrupted, then the beliefs are not held. If the beliefs were held, they would be followed. Overall."

Is that what he said?

That is what he said... in German through dialogue in Thus spoke Zarathustra, of course...

Rather I would suggest what we are seeing is a relativism being introduced into our moral beliefs that suggests there are no inately correct precepts of right and wrong.

No, you misunderstood my points. We are seeing "relativism" being introduced into our moral beliefs. This means our moral beliefs are being corrupted.

I guess you believe "relativism" is a cause of the corruption of Christianity. So do I.

I go further, and say that "relativism" (whatever that means) is a historical necessity.

I'm really done now. I only responded because of your dismissive response to my second to last post.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Agree,let's move on.



Not exactly,but close. I would state rather that order is necessary for society to function. There are few proven ways to establish that order. In the end it comes down to either excessive force and control, or some standard which is widely accepted and generally adhered to by most. I say most because it doesn't have to be everyone, since the majority even without physical violence generally coerce the miniority into behaving within the norms established.

I'm uncertain what you mean by "internalized." Perhaps mistakenly I am taking it to mean one who lives his life according to all the precepts of that faith unerringly. That isn't necessary either. It is only necessary that the precepts of that shared morality are accepted as true. That becomes the basis upon which to build. One of those things that are built is a legal system which reflects the values of that society.

The problem with secular morality is that inherently it's bull, it's made up, and everyone knows that to be so by definition. Therefore it is coercive, and requires greater force to achieve compliance. I think it's important here to recognize something about yourself. That is that you have grown up in a Judeo Christian society and largely, however unwillingly or unconciously, been formed by its values. You assume these values to be inate to you, because you don't accept the religion. But that's because you lack historical perspective. You assume they are the "natural" to man in a secular sense., and history has demonstrated anything but that being the case.

I think you assume therefore that were religion to be removed, those same values you now share would continue to propser. I suggest you are incorrectly analyzing cause and effect. Atheists in this country like to point out that "we are as moral as anyone else." And in the sense that they can adhere to those judeo christian values implanted on them by society that is the case. But it is counter intuitive to imagine that those values stem from somewhere other than where they originated. It's why I wrote earlier it isn't necessary for everyone to believe. Because like you they are pressured by society to conform, till it becomes just as much a part of them, faith or no faith.





Religious will speak of a natural law built into the heart of man. I personally believe that to be true. I think we do inherently know right from wrong, but that is a religious concept, not a secular one. Biology has never been enough to sway the masses to do "what's right." All of human history demonstrates the falseness of this claim. You are simply incredibly mistaken if you imagine natural empathy and sympathy are sufficient motivators to keep men in line. Ironically they also contradict your tribal theory. Think about it.



Free will is simply the ability to choose, not the right to do whatever one desires. I have the ability to choose to strangle you for your earlier comments. That is a choice I can make. But I will be prosecuted, and either incarcerated or killed by the state should I choose to exercise that option. I am free to make responsible or irresponsible choices. That isn't "restrained" by religion.



Refer back to what we discussed earlier about the need for a unified and generally accepted moral code. This is somewhat off topic.




You've inadvertently hit the core of the discussion re: religion, and opened a topic which we could disucss ad nauseum without resolution. I am inclined to avoid addressing it, but it is a good question.

Back in the early 50's when the issue of birth control was first being discussed seriously as an impending reality with the general population, Catholic and other religious leaders spoke out against the introduction. I recall seeing (in repeats of his telecasts from the time) Archbishop Sheen in particular warning that the general acceptance of birth control would lead to a crisis in society. It would cause a widespread rise in out of wedlock births,teen pregnancy, broken marriages, faithless marriages, sexual promiscuity, single parent homes etc etc etc (you get the idea) He was ignored by the intellectual elites, and his warnings dismissed as religious hyperbole. Yet here we are, 50 years later, and everything has come to pass as he predicted.

Ignore the religious component for now, as that will simply cause unnecessary bickering and sidetrack the issue. Human behavior is what is important. You earlier sugested that religious restrictions are too restrictive. You mentioned this as such an example. I submit that to the contrary they are necessary for the proper functioning of society (I would even argue the individual). On the surface an issue like birth control appears self evidently positive. Have sex, no consequences for the individual or society (ie out of wedlock births). But it is only superficially true if you ignore human nature, and the reality of unintended consequences. I won't attempt to delineate the self evident, I think recent history has already demonstrated my point to be correct. The "elites" continue to argue for "more education" because they realize how screwed up it has all become. You would have to be clinically an imbecile not to know about birth control by this time. The problem isn't eductaion, it's human nature. The Church was right on this one

Recall "proper functioning of society" we discussed. I would add the following as well. The successful continuation of that society. Western society is on the precipice of collapse. I believe it will collapse, at this point it is nearly unavoidable absent divine influence. Religious principles are followed because they work. One of the offshoots of our secualrization has been declining population trends, coupled with an increase in broken families. No one will have to conquer us, we will simply be swamped and replaced. The US and Europe are now forced to take in increasing numbers simply to survive. They have kids, we don't. Within 50 years you will have become the miniority, and your secular views will have been replaced with a more coherent and prosperous system. It's inevitable, because if there is one thing that has been demonstrated ad nauseum, it is that secualr belief systems, however well intentioned, cannot reproduce themselves effectively.

The universal declaration of human rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Was written on an international level, by people from all different types of cultures. The views in it seem to support the idea of hedonism and autonomy. pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the most important factors and freedom is important too. These are the central core philosophies of the Universal declaration of human rights, and it is not based on any religion, its based on western philosophy. You can make the same argument about the bill of rights and probably many other less well known rights treaties. They are based on philosophies that the individual is dignified, autonomous, and that values should be hedonistic.

Philosophy can create morals just like religion. The philosophy of individual autonomy and hedonism (which are the core of western philosophy) can be just as productive as religion in structuring society. If you look at western domestic and international policy i'd bet 80% of it is based on autonomy and hedonism. our police are restrained if they cause 'too much' pain or violate peoples rights (autonomy). same for the government.

Religion, at its core, it not based on hedonism and autonomy. it is based on the opposite, pleasing god (as opposed to pleasing yourself) and authortarianism (as opposed to autonomy). I don't like these views and neither do most people given the option of choosing something else.

You stated secular morality was bull but how many people in western countries would abandon hedonism and autonomy or not fight to protect them? Protecting freedom and hedonism is a major propaganda tool used when fighting wars. I have read alot about war propaganda and what i've discovered is 80-90% of the time promoting human rights (hedonism) or self defense against an aggressor (freedom) are the 'reasons' given to the public. Even the US did this. Gulf wars 1 & 2, the war in panama, grenada, vietnam, the cold war, world wars 1 & 2 & the american revolution all used one of these excuses (i dont know enough about the mexican/american war). I dont think this excuse was used in the civil war, except on the southern side. In fact if you read WW2 propaganda ALL sides said they were fighting in self defense and to promote human rights. Japan, the USSR, Germany and the western allies all said this. How do you explain that so many different cultures used the same excuse? Maybe it is cultural since imperialism isn't allowed anymore, but imperialism/nationalism is just a form of 'tribal morality' which i mentioned earlier.

We enjoy hedonism very much, to many of us we view these philosophies as the best value system in a world that has tried alot of value systems.

I understand what you mean that this culture is loosely based on judeo-christian values, but only slightly. well over 95% of the commandments of strict judeo-christian teachings are ignored in the modern world. What im saying is that the desire for freedom and hedonism are ingrained in us. Look at history, look at all the revolutions and movements and inventions to make life easier and more painless. you can't say that there aren't biological reasons why we want these things because we do want them across all cultures. Whether it was the jews fighting to free themselves from teh egyptians or the modern communists fighting to free themselves from imperialism people want to be free. People also want an easier life. I don't see anything wrong with our central morals being based on these principals. The desire to have as much freedom and as pleasurable and easy a life as possible seem fine to me.

 

[jerseyart]

Nordstrom,

At the risk of being presumed presumptous or dismissed as dismissive, you missed the point of my posts.

It isn't that a secualr moral code can't be invented. Hell, a class of first graders can accomplish as much.

I also don't want to debate the relative worth of hedonism,self indulgence, or group masturbation theories

The point is simply that for any moral code to be relevant, it must be generally accepted and adhered to by the vast majority. Do you honestly imagine that the majority in this country would get behind a moral code which preaches self indulgence and personal pleasure in any meaningful way? And are you honestly telling me that you see no adverse societal consequences to such a moral philosophy?

 

[Lao Tzu]

So what you're saying is that no central philosophy that is not religious will have the ability to convert everyone to follow it?

You missed the point of my post too. What I was saying was that hedonism and freedom and tribal mentality are ingrained in us and apply to almost all/all cultures. That is what i meant by my statement about war propaganda. People want to be free and to live easier, more fulfilling/pleasurable lives. This applies across the board, thats why all sides in a war have, at the core, the same 2 propaganda messages. human rights and self defense.

If a non-religious code doesn't sway people how do you explain the war propaganda statement? War is one of the most sacraficial things a nation can do. True, countries invoke religion in war. But as i said they also invoke hedonism and freedom too. Across the board. Japan did it when they invaded china, china did it when they fought back, and the communists did it when they overthrew china, and the US did it when it fought communism.

Also, ask anyone if they would not fight to protect our freedoms, secularism and human rights in america.

I am open to the idea that i'm not looking at events from any perspective than from a western perspective though.

 

[jerseyart]

So what you're saying is that no central philosophy that is not religious will have the ability to convert everyone to follow it?

I'm not saying it can't happen, rather that it never has happened. Look at communism as a perfect modern day example. And I'm also stating that if you intend on replacing one system, it's likely a good idea to have something else ready to take its place.

You missed the point of my post too. What I was saying was that hedonism and freedom and tribal mentality are ingrained in us and apply to almost all/all cultures. That is what i meant by my statement about war propaganda. People want to be free and to live easier, more fulfilling/pleasurable lives. This applies across the board, thats why all sides in a war have, at the core, the same 2 propaganda messages. human rights and self defense.

I read where someone was quoted as saying that "if men didn't want to sleep with teenage girls, there wouldn't need to be a law against the activity." It's a crass example, and somewhat overstated, but it communicates the point. If we all acted in a societally constructive manner by nature, there wouldn't be a need for laws or defined moral codes. It's precisely because we don't that they exist. What you preach is akin to anarchy, which is self defeating.

Moral codes don't exist because the other guys has one, so we should as well. They form a foundation for a society to thrive. If they are chosen wisely, society flourishes. If they are not, they cease to exist. The idea of a society based on self indulgence isn't a new one. It's been done ad nauseum (see end of Roman Empire) . They only appear novel because none of them have survived to act as a witness or an example. Basically the point is that people are F'd up, and they require direction. A society of people following their personal pleasure is doomed to failure.

I suggest your "hedonistic " philosophy is counter productive to a well functioning society.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I'm not saying it can't happen, rather that it never has happened. Look at communism as a perfect modern day example. And I'm also stating that if you intend on replacing one system, it's likely a good idea to have something else ready to take its place.



I read where someone was quoted as saying that "if men didn't want to sleep with teenage girls, there wouldn't need to be a law against the activity." It's a crass example, and somewhat overstated, but it communicates the point. If we all acted in a societally constructive manner by nature, there wouldn't be a need for laws or defined moral codes. It's precisely because we don't that they exist. What you preach is akin to anarchy, which is self defeating.

Moral codes don't exist because the other guys has one, so we should as well. They form a foundation for a society to thrive. If they are chosen wisely, society flourishes. If they are not, they cease to exist. The idea of a society based on self indulgence isn't a new one. It's been done ad nauseum (see end of Roman Empire) . They only appear novel because none of them have survived to act as a witness or an example. Basically the point is that people are F'd up, and they require direction. A society of people following their personal pleasure is doomed to failure.

I suggest your "hedonistic " philosophy is counter productive to a well functioning society.

i think you're looking at 'self indulgence' and 'hedonism' differently than i am. I will admit that those of us in western cultures are empty as we have nothing larger than ourselves to join. But you are biased against these things.

When i think of hedonism (a desire to avoid pain and get pleasure) i think of things like treating cancer so families can stay together, not eating 4 bags of potato chips while watching tv.

The world today is in better shape than its ever been, no matter what people may say. For the first time in human history, more people are obese than are starving. Endless billions of lives have been saved with medicine and agriculture. 1/3 of the worlds governments are liberal democracies that subscribe to the universal declaration of human rights. Global communication and global travel are both possible for the first time in existence. Even the 'worst' human rights violations of 2004 were normal just 100 years ago. Take Cuba, there was alot of uproar over them giving 27 year prison sentences to anti-communist activists and for using physical beatings on prisoners. the US also gave 20 year prison terms to anti-war activists in WW1 and physical beatings on prisoners were common until the 60s.

True life is empty with hedonism as our core philosophy. but i think the trade off is worth it.

 

[jerseyart]

nordstrom

hedon·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hdn-zm)
n.
Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

If it means something else other than the above, then perhaps you need to find a different word to express what it is you are intending to communicate.

The rest of the post is unclear to me. I have no idea what you are trying to express. Are you claiming hedonism is responsible for the relative prosperity in todays world?

 

[Lao Tzu]

nordstrom

hedon·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hdn-zm)
n.
Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

If it means something else other than the above, then perhaps you need to find a different word to express what it is you are intending to communicate.

The rest of the post is unclear to me. I have no idea what you are trying to express. Are you claiming hedonism is responsible for the relative prosperity in todays world?

What i'm saying is that devotion to a persons fulfillment and pleasures and avoidance of suffering is a major factor in individual life and overall culture. Always has been. Hedonism to me doesn't mean immediate pleasure, it means doing things that help others have 'good' lives and avoid 'bad' lives. You may take it to mean eating until you puke, i take it to mean promoting liberal democracy and an end to starvation and cancer.

I think hedonism and secularism are both responsible for modern prosperity. It was my understanding that with the discovery of natural laws and a rational universe that scientists realized they had to fend for themselves, god couldn't protect them. In about 200 years we've come pretty far with that philosophy.

I am trying to express that there are innate 'desires' that all cultures have. Tribal mentalities and hedonism (as i define the word) are universal, that is why so many different cultures use the same excuses when they go to war. I also think you are wrong when you say that non-religious cultures are false and only enforcable with military power. In most/all western countries people will fight hard to defend their way of life which to me is not tied into judeo-christian values nearly as much as it is tied into the philosophy that individuals are dignified, autonomous and deserve 'good' lives and to avoid 'bad' lives.