tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post6547684328565916662..comments2023-10-28T08:21:03.400-07:00Comments on ATHEIST HAVEN: Morals, Part I: Separating Morals and ReligionBEAST FCDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-28136608926787124832007-07-30T09:04:00.000-07:002007-07-30T09:04:00.000-07:00I HIGHLY recommend you post this on your blog =)ht...I HIGHLY recommend you post this on your blog =)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaZ4u-kY9yESaileshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17494987301312460868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-15279658064827485272007-07-29T21:04:00.000-07:002007-07-29T21:04:00.000-07:00Morality or ethics or whatever you choose to call ...Morality or ethics or whatever you choose to call it, can be simplified thus :<BR/><BR/> Is a moral act appropriate in a given situation? Is it designed to do the most good?<BR/><BR/> Is conforming to a moral act absolutely necessary?<BR/><BR/> If, by not conforming to the moral act in question, leads to more liberation and personal freedom at the expense of pragmatic concerns, is such an act justified?<BR/><BR/> If ethics are to be abolished, what would take its place? Overthrowing established values will mean another set will take its place. Then, the values formerly rejected by conventionality becomes the establishment, an universal yardstick in which 'lesser values' are weighed, judged and found wanting. A cycle thus ensues.<BR/><BR/> Ethics is a gray area. Is there such a thing as objective and subjective in this murkiness? Or is the interpretation of wrong and right validated by authority and not necessarily the judgment of the individual?<BR/><BR/> For instance, murder and rape are outlawed in civilizations, but the same restrictions are waived when some authority sanctioned such violent acts in the name of god, king and country.<BR/><BR/> What may accepted as the norm to someone may be anathema to another.<BR/> The homosexual community view restrictions of gay unions a blatant infringement of their human rights. Yet many others, also justify their objections by pointing out the problems the gay population may bring to their culture.<BR/><BR/> I believe that morals and ethics, with regards of being viable or not, simply transcend with merely being a matter of subjectivity or objectivity. Certain yardsticks must be in place to provide a stable framework in which society can thrive, but on the other hand, leeways must be granted because humankind are creatures of free will.<BR/><BR/>Ethics and morality? It's all about balance.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>PervAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-749163813384819692007-07-29T21:02:00.000-07:002007-07-29T21:02:00.000-07:00Morality or ethics or whatever you choose to call ...Morality or ethics or whatever you choose to call it, can be simplified thus :<BR/><BR/>Is a moral act appropriate in a given situation? Is it designed to do the most good?<BR/><BR/>Is conforming to a moral act absolutely necessary?<BR/><BR/>If, by not conforming to the moral act in question, leads to more liberation and personal freedom at the expense of pragmatic concerns, is such an act justified?<BR/><BR/>If ethics are to be abolished, what would take its place? Overthrowing established values will mean another set will take its place. Then, the values formerly rejected by conventionality becomes the establishment, an universal yardstick in which 'lesser values' are weighed, judged and found wanting. A cycle thus ensues.<BR/><BR/>Ethics is a gray area. Is there such a thing as objective and subjective in this murkiness? Or is the interpretation of wrong and right validated by authority and not necessarily the judgment of the individual?<BR/><BR/>For instance, murder and rape are outlawed in civilizations, but the same restrictions are waived when some authority sanctioned such violent acts in the name of god, king and country. <BR/><BR/>What may accepted as the norm to someone may be anathema to another.<BR/>The homosexual community view restrictions of gay unions a blatant infringement of their human rights. Yet many others, also justify their objections by pointing out the problems the gay population may bring to their culture.<BR/><BR/>I believe that morals and ethics, with regards of being viable or not, simply transcend with merely being a matter of subjectivity or objectivity. Certain yardsticks must be in place to provide a stable framework in which society can thrive, but on the other hand, leeways must be granted because humankind are creatures of free will.<BR/><BR/>Ethics and morality? It's all about balance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-30950045046224306772007-07-28T23:16:00.000-07:002007-07-28T23:16:00.000-07:00Breakerslion:I have often argued the fact that "mo...Breakerslion:<BR/><BR/>I have often argued the fact that "morals", or ethics in your opinion, must always be compared with two polemic, diametrically opposed qualities.<BR/><BR/>In the case you have mentioned, when you need to choose between the lives of your own soldiers and the children involved, it would definitely help if a third moral factor is taken into account (whether the truck can be reversed, or steps taken to check whether it is an ambush, etc). Of course, it is very easy for me to say this, since wars are far more complicated, but again, wars are basically unethical in the first place,if you know what I mean.<BR/><BR/>I>T:<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't have been writing this subject if my friends haven't kept pestering me for a take on this. I hope they read this and stop bothering me.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-73089748433956364092007-07-28T17:53:00.000-07:002007-07-28T17:53:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-86747202789972526232007-07-28T17:41:00.000-07:002007-07-28T17:41:00.000-07:00That's a good take on Christian morals. I'm lookin...That's a good take on Christian morals. I'm looking forward to part IIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-13997987816968483192007-07-28T14:52:00.000-07:002007-07-28T14:52:00.000-07:00I think that the term "morality" is hopelessly tai...I think that the term "morality" is hopelessly tainted. I think we should discard it in favor of "ethics". The US Army used to, and probably still does, offer up "moral dilemmas” to determine if troops had the right attitude. The most famous one deals with driving a truck full of soldiers toward a bridge that is obstructed by a child playing in the roadway. You honk, but the child won’t move. Do you stop? The “correct” answer is “no”. This could be an ambush, and you are responsible for the lives of the soldiers in the truck. This is not a moral dilemma. You have committed an immoral act by running over the child. Somebody (the child) got screwed. You can lay it on the heads of the hypothetical ambushers, the US Army for putting you there, or on an inattentive parent, but the fact is, you did the right thing, and the right thing to do was immoral. Morality is not the only, or the ultimate consideration in every decision. The trick is to live with the decision and not spend the rest of your life second-guessing. I think one of the most harmful aspects of religion is that it trains one to live in the past.breakerslionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14327290369084118043noreply@blogger.com