Debate:Immutable morals

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Eira.

"Immutable Morals" Sane Disputatimus[edit]

Webster's dictionary defines "moral" as follows: "of or concerned with the principles of right and wrong in relation to human action and character." Where does "right and wrong" come from? If not from God, our Creator, then who? Do we each have our own standard of "right and wrong?" If so, what happens when you and I disagree? Who decides what is the standard? The dilemma is clear. Growing numbers of people see morality as relative and subjective with little regard to absolute standards as outlined by God. This idea of moral tolerance is eroding the family unit and consequently society.

There is no way for you to develop a moral sense in your children without God because God clearly lays out an absolute standard of right and wrong that doesn't change with the times. It is the solid footing every parent needs to raise morally responsible children. You do not need an established religion; through prayer, Bible study and fellowship with other believers, you will be successful in attaining your goal to develop a moral sense in your children.

Kim W.

Panama City Beach, Florida

From here: http://familyandhome.org/ps/morals.htm I'd like to really point out that if God clearly lays out an absolute standard of right and wrong that doesn't change with the times, it's interesting to note that Jesus noted that divorce was wrong in all cases, even though God had allowed it before, and God showed Peter that he should be allowed to eat all things of this earth, under the logic that "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". Gentiles can now be saved rather than only Jews, and a number of other changes throughout the entire ages. If God's law is immutable, then we must consider redefining "immutable".

Last, if you're Christian yourself, remember this for all the times a Christian challenges the choices you have made in life: "Acts 11:16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.' 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God? 18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life. " If anyone believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, then even Peter had no right to stand between them and God. So, if they feel that they may stand between you and God, who do they presume they are, if they presume themselves to be greater than Peter? --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 13:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Agree[edit]

To follow on from the above, it seems clear that the Christian Church's morality changes with the times. At one time good Christians were happy to burn others at the stake with the church's approval. Or torture them with the church's approval during the Spanish inquisition. Before (or in case) a good friend of mine accuses me of judging the actions of the past by using the standards of the present I should point out that that is what I am not doing. I am pointing out that standards of morality within the Christian church obviously change and that they are consequently not immutable.--Bobbing up 13:27, 9 January 2008 (EST)

That's actually a lot of the reason why I present my argument on the basis of content specifically in the Bible. A fundamentalist Christian cannot question the Bible, so if the Bible shows that morality changed within its own context, then Christian morals are undeniably not immutable.
Argument based entirely on Biblical Material + Logic = an Argument that a fundamentalist Christian cannot deny without compromising his own beliefs. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 13:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Like all other fields of human endeavor, morality (as the study of morals) has changed over time. As we've expanded the idea of who constitutes a "person" deserving of rights, so have the moral injunctions on us changed. Researcher 13:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I differentiate the moral teachings of religion, specifically Christianity, with the moral principles of society, philosophy, or personal conscience. Richard Dawkins argues that the moral teachings of religion are sort of a combination of those three moral authorities rather than a creator, and so yes, I think we all agree that morality has changed over time and that by proxy religious moral teaching has as well. Religion acts as though it plays a genuine part in morality; the Catholic church believes that prior to Christianity, we were all godless sodomites, but the same moral teachings they have been preaching for 1700 years have existed for over 20,000 years.
Not totally, however. There are things which form the foundation of morality that, unless we genetically change as a species, are unlikely to change at all: agape, self-interest, empathy, and sympathy (there are probably some more). These all, of course, stem from the fact that we are social creatures. And so really, morality comes from our desire to interact positively or negatively with others. This sort of anthropocentric morality is a large part of what I believe is the lack of equilibrium between human beings and nature, but that's another argument for another day.
But in summation, to attribute any genuine, moral principles to Christianity or any religion is, in my opinion, ludicrous. --e|m|c [TALK] 16:10, 17 February 2008 (EST)
I definitely agree with your position... morality came about from our social interactions with others. Seeking to promote positive effects upon those we interact with, and seeking to make negative effects less tempting for an individual to use. If there is one truth in this world about morality, it's that violence and force are extremely effective tools. The easiest way to gain in the world is by making others lose... The problem is the Prisoner's Dilemma though... we gain the most from making others lose, but everyone as a whole loses more that way. It's part of the reason why I am so skeptical of capitalism. Communism failed because it assumed that people would be entirely selfless, which we are just developmentally unable to do... capitalism though insists that doing what is best for you personally will always result in the best results over all... Communism is the theory that one should never collaborate with the jailers as both of you will recognize that non-collaboration will always work out for the best, (should everyone follow the rules) but Capitalism is just the opposite. It's the statement that one should always collaborate with the jailers, as it is what is in your own self-interest. Thus, this invisible hand of self interest results in the worst result for everyone.
I've been thinking about it lately, and think I will start another Essay about it... but the idea is that morality should be established on a consequence system. Cause (your action) produces a consequence, either positive negative or neither. Thus each action that we make should be weighed upon by consequences, rather than a dictatorial declaration that only one action or the other is right. All actions can be right, if the consequences for that action outweigh the consequences for that inaction. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 06:23, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Absolute morals from God?[edit]

Really? I would like to know specific details when the religion has both "Thou shalt not kill" and "People with Heretic ideas are to be executed upon discovery." (The golden bull, perhaps? Or taking the land of the infidels and killing all of them in other occasions?). Obviously the ones who agree immutable morals are from God can't be of that religion. Thieh 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. IMO Rape seems to justify a lot when there is only one potential rapist and one potential rapee left on earth (no other compatible species left, and yes, I am holding a grudge with women who says "Even if you are the last man on earth..." when there are better ways of rephrasing it). What the rapist has to plan for, before actually doing the act, is to prevent the rapee from commiting suicide afterwards.

well-being for all[edit]

Everyone wants well-being, therefore the universal desire must be "well-being for all".

Instead of promoting personal 'happiness' or individual well-being, we should promote well-being for all.

Any action taken on that path, is immutable. Selfreasoning4all (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)