Philosophy

[Millane]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, I keep trying to start a thread called "why you believe what you believe" where I wanted to explain this in detail, but I keep getting sidetracked - and I have to get off the Moot in 5 mintues and can't get back on till prob. Tuesday , but I'll give it a quick whirl ...

hahaha interesting thread idea, please do start it, and thanks for the response (you can type pretty well in a short space of time )

From what I observe and read, people all over the world are "pious", or "moral", in the most basic sense of people everywhere acknowledge that there is a "right" and a "wrong". Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, whatever - people are MORAL beings. They look at a behavior and make a judgement about whether it is right or wrong (or sometimes just neutral, such as reading a book).

i agree with this part of your post, i think it is natural for ALL humans to pass judgement, and right and wrong make this very conveniant...

And what's really quite amazing is the astounding similarity of what is considered right and wrong. Take killing people, for example. Now people might disagree as to what type of killing is right and what type of killing is wrong - but ALL people, from what we read and observe, think that some level of killing is wrong - usually killing solely for selfish personal gain.

this is leaning towards moral absolutism which id also like to talk about but ill leave it for now. Well i disagree that ALL people think that killing for selfish personal gain is wrong. Charles Manson talked about how although he didnt gain enjoyment from killing, he would have no objections to killing if something was in his way, would you agree that he does not find killing for selfish personal gain wrong, it would be like me pushing a log out of my way, there is nothing enjoyable about it but i do it, i dont pass judgement (as in right or wrong) at all. Now to me it sounds like your proof of God as the source of Morality lies on the foundation of humans ALL having a similar opinion on a moral issue (such as this or your lying examples) and as i think that Manson is an exception to your rule, so i also think that this undermines your reason for God being the source of morality...
Your christian and atheism paragraphs seem to be an explanation of the source of all morality, and while i may not necassarily believe in this counterposition i think that i could plausably say that Instinct could easily tear down your arguments, who is to say that morality isnt the by-product of some physico-chemical process in our bodies, and that the similar structure of our bodies explains the similarities in our views on morality...
i will throw another Philosopher's opinion in who would also counteract your "source of morality". In a discussion between Socrates and Callicles (i forget the book sorry), Callicles prescribes a naturalistic view of Morality, simply that we should observe what happens in nature to find out how we should act (very heavily into the opinion Might is Right), now we all know that morality isnt simply as animals live because our morals are so different, these morals Callicles calls Conventional Morality, and what is the source of conventional morality? he explains that conventional morality was created by the weak members of society to suppress the stronger members of society...

. If you tell me "don't murder my friend, it's wrong!" I could easily answer "I don't care what you think is wrong, I disagree, and I want to murder your friend!" And what's more, neither one of us should feel bad about it - after all, why should we? My opinion is just as important (or unimportant) as yours.

yes but couldnt the murderer to be, simply threaten the friend with being killed next, do you think neither could persuade the other one to accept his morals?