Your Moral Compass

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm not sure what your original question was.

I dont think there is anything to fear from a shared morality providing that
morality does not discriminate. That morality would be in a state of constant
flux as it bent and swayed with public opinion but would be generally
consistent. (eg I can envisage a future where the whole population would think
capital punishment morally wrong)

Indeed. One might consider slavery for example, which we all know is condoned by biblical scripture, and yet is now considered by nearly all to be morally reprehensible and proscribed by law virtually everywhere in the world.

Would you advocate a return to slavery KellyJay?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Morality can be judged objectively in the form of statistics, just compare the rate of violent death per person or rape per person, whatever you want to measure where the difference is in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Then ask yourself, is there some major difference between morality practiced by majorly religious cou ...[text shortened]... e in the pudding.

I have not done such an analysis but I bet someone has, who I don't know.

What various groups view to be proper “oughts” can be so determined. But that helps no one in deciding what they ought to believe or do.

I think Rank Outsider’s points are generally correct. The choice of any “standard” cannot be justified by appeal to that standard, certainly, without reasoning in a vicious circle. The meta-question is why some putatively exogenous standard of “oughts” ought itself to be universally recognized.

Suppose I were to proffer some version of the four-fold Bodhisattva vow. When questioned, I point perhaps to the Buddha. But why ought the Buddha to be accepted as a standard? I speak of bodhi (“enlightenment”, wakeful/aware mind) and the Buddha as the tathagata. I might quote from various sutras or the Dhammapada, or . . . . But why ought those scriptures be accepted as justifying the Bodhisattva vows as a standard?

What standard justifies the standard? And how is that standard justified? Round and round . . . .

In the end, I might give some account of my own personal views, based on my studies, personal experience and practice, etc., etc. The charge “subjective!” then rears its head. So maybe I respond with a version of what seems to be a somewhat favorite fall-back in these discussions: “You just can’t understand, because you have not realized your Buddha-Nature!”—or some such.

Then, of course, we’re just shouting at each other, making basically the same kind of claims, but insisting that they’re different.

I refrain. (Though, personally, I tend toward the Buddha. 😉 )*

________________________________________________________

* ToO does have a point, though: Once you stop insisting on this or that formulation, the basic concept of the so-called Golden Rule has a lot of traction both historically and cross-culturally. I would also include the “negative” versions of, e.g., Lao Tzu and Hillel: What you dislike done to yourself, do not do to others. The way that he has put it here seems to escape at least from any notions that it is a “simple” rule to follow without regard to circumstantial complexities, presenting it as a practical general concept that seems to have evolved in the collective consciousness (to put words in his mouth). I would treat the Bodhisattva vows in the same way, which likely makes me a heretic among some Buddhists—but then, I’m a Zennist, so I’m used to being heretic nearly eveywhere (even among dogmatic Zen Buddhists).

Originally posted by vistesd
What various groups view to be proper “oughts” can be so determined. But that helps no one in deciding what they ought to believe or do.

I think Rank Outsider’s points are generally correct. The choice of any “standard” cannot be justified by appeal to that standard, certainly, without reasoning in a vicious circle. The meta-question i ...[text shortened]... ’m a Zennist, so I’m used to being heretic nearly eveywhere (even among dogmatic Zen Buddhists).

Anything that comes from a religion is hogwash to sonhouse.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm not sure what your original question was.

I dont think there is anything to fear from a shared morality providing that
morality does not discriminate. That morality would be in a state of constant
flux as it bent and swayed with public opinion but would be generally
consistent. (eg I can envisage a future where the whole population would think
capital punishment morally wrong)

"does not discriminate."

This is a loaded statement, where one could claim not getting their way was a
means of discrimination, so where or how do the lines be laid down without some
person not getting their way and who is the judge that says this one is wrong and
that one is right? If it is just another human or group of them, than by what power
or authority do they get this right?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"does not discriminate."

This is a loaded statement, where one could claim not getting their way was a
means of discrimination, so where or how do the lines be laid down without some
person not getting their way and who is the judge that says this one is wrong and
that one is right? If it is just another human or group of them, than by what power
or authority do they get this right?
Kelly

What is your alternative?

By what authority would you claim that we should follow your interpretation of morality stemming from your particular chosen religious text of your particular branch of religion of your particular god, which would not be the choice of the majority of this planet?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Indeed. One might consider slavery for example, which we all know is condoned by biblical scripture, and yet is now considered by nearly all to be morally reprehensible and proscribed by law virtually everywhere in the world.

Would you advocate a return to slavery KellyJay?

A return, you mean we have left it?
Kelly

Originally posted by Rank outsider
What is your alternative?

By what authority would you claim that we should follow your interpretation of morality stemming from your particular chosen religious text of your particular branch of religion of your particular god, which would not be the choice of the majority of this planet?

An alternative to an unworkable term, as I pointed out no matter who gets to say
this is right that is wrong, someone else maybe saying that is wrong and this is
right....between them and those who is right and who is wrong? I'm not attempting
to get you or anyone else to pick a side on any topic, but the fact that there are
sides puts up the question how do we know don't you think?
Kelly

Originally posted by josephw
There is only ONE Creator/God. All others are either impostors or counterfeits.

The same logic applies to the existence of a moral code.

That is your subjective view impersonating God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
An alternative to an unworkable term, as I pointed out no matter who gets to say
this is right that is wrong, someone else maybe saying that is wrong and this is
right....between them and those who is right and who is wrong? I'm not attempting
to get you or anyone else to pick a side on any topic, but the fact that there are
sides puts up the question how do we know don't you think?
Kelly

Why do you think you need someone to say who is right or wrong on morality questions?

Are you saying that, if you cannot conclusively say 'this is moral', 'that is immoral', then a debate over morality is valueless?

Originally posted by KellyJay
A return, you mean we have left it?
Kelly

You dodged the question.

The Bible accepts the practice of slavery. Every civilised nation on earth now outlaws it.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

Originally posted by KellyJay
A return, you mean we have left it?
Kelly

You could just consider the question and answer it rather than trying to dodge, but I appreciate you'd find that difficult. It does rather shred your argument, doesn't it?

Originally posted by kd2acz
What drives that 'universal morality', that you say is based on the golden rule? For you? Is it upbringing, intuition, etc., what is it for you?

We are all born with a moral compuss, however, morality can further be skewed depending upon what authority figures you look up to. These authority figures can come in the image of the state, parents, society at large, or your religious upbringing etc.

For example, back in the 1800's slavery was seen as OK, simply because it was legal. Granted, most seemed to feel that it was suboptimal, but tolerable. However, after centuries of being made illegal slavery is seen as pure evil and under no circumstances to be tolerated. That is the power of authority figures in skewing our morality. So what of our internal compuss? To violate the Golden Rule, it was first necessary to dehumanize the slave. As long as the slave is not our equal, we are free to violate the Golden Rule. And so it goes, the slave was seen as a mere beast of burden and inferior to his white master. These types of mental gymnastics are necessary in order to help silence our inner innate conscience. Today we see this as people are labelled infidels and the unborn a "fetus". In fact, before abortion was allowed by law the general consensus was that it was immoral, but after years of being legal the consensus is that it is suboptimal, but is OK, just like slavery was in the 1800's!

In a way, it is humbling to know we are lemmings.

Originally posted by whodey
We are all born with a moral compuss, however, morality can further be skewed depending upon what authority figures you look up to. These authority figures can come in the image of the state, parents, society at large, or your religious upbringing etc.

For example, back in the 1800's slavery was seen as OK, simply because it was legal. Granted, most see ...[text shortened]... K, just like slavery was in the 1800's!

In a way, it is humbling to know we are lemmings.

In fact Whodey there's plenty of documentary evidence to show that slavery was abhorred by many, if not most people back in the 1800s, and even back in ancient times. It doesn't take a 'skewed' morality to see that ownership of human beings by other human beings is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You dodged the question.

The Bible accepts the practice of slavery. Every civilised nation on earth now outlaws it.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?[/b]

You dodged the question.

I don't know what question you say was dodged but I'll comment on your post.

The Bible accepts the practice of slavery.

A full discussion of "slavery" in the Bible will involve more than a few posts in a discussion medium like this. I hope you appreciate that.

We've been through this before.

Do you think that the "slavery" as practiced by the Atlantic Slave trade would have been possible if these Levitical laws had been adhered to ?

Anti -Kidnapping Law - "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be out to death." (Exodus 21:16)

Does the Bible mention slavery? Yes. Do you think this law of punishing the kidnapper with the death penalty encourages or discourages the KIND of slavery practiced in the Atlantic Slave Trade ?

I think the stealing of people and the selling of people to be slaves is here, commanded by Moses as a crime punishable by death.

See also Deutoernony 24:7 and see Paul New Testament reference to "kidnappers" being contrary to "healthy teaching" - (1 Tim. 1:10) [/b]

Now what about the Mosiac laws concerning runaway slaves?

Slave Refuge Laws - "You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you; He shall dwell with you, [even] in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns, wherever he pleases; you shall not oppress him. (Deut. 23:15,16)

Yes the Bible mentions slavery. Do you think the Southern slave owners would be happy to comply with this law ? Do the fugitive slave laws enacted by the Confederate States tend to mirror Deut. 23:15,16 or say something opposite to it?

No kidnapping and no returning runaway slaves to their masters.
Include these biblical facts also in your proposal to understand the subject of slavery in the Bible.

Every civilised nation on earth now outlaws it.

And in every case in the Western world, Abolitionists armed with Christian theology were a intergal part of the abolition of slavery.

In the England and in the US, the Mennonites, the Quakers, and the Methodists under John Wesley all strongly opposed slavery. They based their opposition on Judeo / Christian concepts.

Please include also this historical fact in your discussion of slavery and the Bible.

In fact the EARLIEST record of an utterance of social justice for slaves is in the book of Job. This is the oldest book in the Bible. And here the patriarch Job utters his concern that he is before God with his servants or slaves as an EQUAL. And this fact reins in his temptation to oppress them -

Job 31:13-15 - "If I have despised the cause of my servant or my maid when they contended with me, What then will I do when God rises up?

And when He visits me, what will I answer Him? Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb? "

Here is an early record of a rich man fearing God for God has created him with the same status as His maid or servant. He fears that his injustice will be examined by God.

Can you find me another ancient writing going back this far which indicates a master's concern not to abuse his servant or maid ? This is the earliest such statement of equality of master and slave that I know of.

Compare it also with Gen 1:26-27 declaring all men made in the image of God or with Deut. 15:1-18. It is Bible teaching like this that equiped the abolitionists in opposing slavery.

I stop here.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You dodged the question.

The Bible accepts the practice of slavery. Every civilised nation on earth now outlaws it.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.

In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?

You seem to saying that we should all know about this correct over-arching view. I agree with both your points, but don't you see it is subjective?