Concerning morality

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Orc#5063 » Thu Sep 21, 2000 6:04 pm

If you had bothered to read my message, you would see that I had said:<BR><BR>"(Note that it is not specifically Hitler, I would have no problem murdering all of the savages involved in the carrying out of the Holocaust.)"<BR><BR>I have no problem eliminating (through killing or, if possible, another means) the people that caused the Holocaust. I only say Hitler most of the time because he is the most recognizable. I would eliminate Goebbels and the SS leadership if it meant preventing the Holocaust. The Germans didn't HAVE to kill all those people, it wasn't fate. The leadership, lead by one VERY charismatic man, convinced them that murder was a good solution. And don't try to second guess anything. Another COULD have taken his place, but by killing Hitler, I would be doing all that I COULD DO to prevent the murders of millions. If another rises to take his place, I would try to stop him. Just because I am afraid another may rise up doesn't mean I shouldn't try to stop it. <BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
Orc#5063
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 9:34 pm
Top

Postby Thengel » Thu Sep 21, 2000 6:29 pm

This is starting to remind me of the debates I used to have with my fellow Star Trek fans about the dangers of time travel.<BR><BR>Tempest, your point is not without merit. When I said I would kill someone to prevent him from killing others I guess I was thinking of more direct situations than running into Hitler in 1922. Unless I was somehow traveling back through time, there is no way I could know his intent. And even if I was traveling back through time, I think Gandalf and Elrond were right when they talked of the difficulty of forseeing the future. Maybe killing him would have made it worse (Considering the horror that was Nazi Germany, it's hard to see it being worse, but who knows).<BR><BR>I think, in the end, if I were armed with the knowledge of the future, I would pull the trigger in 1922 and risk the consequences. <BR>Hitler's personality and speaking skills played a large role in the rise of the Nazi's to power. I don't think it would have happened without him.<BR><BR>Of course, all of this is a fair distance away from my original point. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Regards
User avatar
Thengel
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2000 1:58 am
Top

Postby Tempest » Thu Sep 21, 2000 6:38 pm

Sorry, Orc, I don't want to be patronizing.<BR><BR><BR>So, basically what everyone is saying is that murder is okay in certain circumstances, as long as it benefits the majority. Hmmm...now I see how atrocities happen.
User avatar
Tempest
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:12 am
Location: Wandering in the wilds
Top

Postby Thengel » Thu Sep 21, 2000 7:03 pm

Tempest, what I am saying is more of an extension of the principle of self-defence.<BR><BR>Most people (other than pacifists) would find it morally acceptable to use lethal force to save their own life if there was no other way. Equally, I think most people would extend that principle to the protection of others who are <i>about to be killed </i>. The only thing I am saying is in the hypothetical situation where you can have knowledge of the future, I would extend the right to protect others beyond the realm of imminent danger. Of course, this kind of knowledge is impossible in the real world.<BR><BR>For the record, if you Tempest or for that matter anyone else reading this thread is a pacifist, it not my intention to in any way disparage that belief. I just don't share it.<BR><BR><BR>Regards<BR><BR>"So, basically what everyone is saying is that murder is okay in certain circumstances, as long as it benefits the majority. Hmmm...now I see how atrocities happen."<BR>Actually, if you look at my original post on this thread, you will find that is exactly what I am not saying. <BR><BR>
User avatar
Thengel
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2000 1:58 am
Top

Postby Orc#5063 » Thu Sep 21, 2000 7:12 pm

Exactly, if I had no idea what Hitler was going to do, of course I would not kill him. It isn't a "benefit the majority" type situation here. If a bunch of Nazi's were beating a man to death, and the only way to stop them was to kill them, then I would to it to save the ONE innocent. One innocent guy versus several murderers. Not a majority. I know I sound REALLY callous, but all of these are hypotheticals. I would try to solve ALL of these situations in a non-lethal manner. I am just proving my point of justifiable homicide. I don't want to go around killing people, even if they are attempting murder. Killing is AlWAYS something to be done as a last resort, and then only when the circumstances demand it: Protection of life.
User avatar
Orc#5063
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 9:34 pm
Top

Postby Tempest » Thu Sep 21, 2000 7:33 pm

Just to clarify, I'm not a pacifist, in that I believe in using force. However, when it comes to homicide, I don't know if it's ever completely justifiable, even in self defense, because the truth is, you never really know what would happen. For example, if someone was about to shoot someone I love, I may try to stop the person, maybe even kill him. But maybe the gun would have misfired, or the bullet missed, or the injury would not be life threatening. How could you ever know for certain? In that moment, you become the judge and take justice into your own hands. But you're not omnisicent and you would never know what was going on in the other person's heart.
User avatar
Tempest
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:12 am
Location: Wandering in the wilds
Top

Postby Orc#5063 » Thu Sep 21, 2000 7:49 pm

Yeah I agree. You can't really know what's going to happen, that's why the time-travel scenario doesn't have a great impact on us. In that case, you KNOW what is going to happen. In real life, you can't, so when do take action in defense, minial force is always the best approach.
User avatar
Orc#5063
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 9:34 pm
Top

Postby asaris » Thu Sep 21, 2000 9:04 pm

Oddly enough, I think that killing is sometimes justified but not in self-defense...
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Thengel » Thu Sep 21, 2000 9:08 pm

OK, I'll bite. Asaris, what do you see as a reasonable justification for killing?<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR><BR>PS And why not in self-defense?
User avatar
Thengel
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2000 1:58 am
Top

Postby asaris » Thu Sep 21, 2000 9:14 pm

Killing is essentially judging that one life is less valuable than another, right? I don't think we should make that judgement on our own when it involves our own life. We should think of our life as less valuable than that of others. However, when somebody is attempting to take another person's life, we are justified in killing them to save the other person's life. Likewise, capital punishment is, in theory, ok. Just wars are another thing altogether. I admit, it's not entirely consistent, but I'd rather go with what seems right than to strive for a foolish consistency.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby mandos » Thu Sep 21, 2000 11:04 pm

Transmogrification aside, morality boils down to how poeple treat one another.<BR>In the real world, no one can predict who the murderer of millions is going to be, so to run around shooting people who...<BR>Well that ain't real.<BR>Real folks have to deal with on another every day.<BR>How well you do at it determines how many friends you get to keep.<BR>Why does it take a superbeing to see this?
User avatar
mandos
Mariner

 
Posts: 7816
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 6:34 pm
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:48 am

Asaris - my two cents ...<BR><BR>'Killing is essentially judging that one life is less valuable than another, right? I don't think we should make that judgement on our own when it involves our own life'. <BR>- Agree with your first statement. But if we cannot make that judgement on our own life, then God most certainly does. Read below:<BR><BR>'We should think of our life as less valuable than that of others'. <BR>- Why? God doesn't. To Him all lives are equally valuable.<BR><BR>'However, when somebody is attempting to take another person's life, we are justified in killing them to save the other person's life'. <BR>- I think that acting in self-defence, even if it results in your attacker's death, is an entirely reasonable course of action. Regrettable, but else can you do?<BR><BR>'Likewise, capital punishment is, in theory, ok'. <BR>- Why is it, in theory, OK? <BR><BR>'Just wars are another thing altogether'<BR>- Since when has there ever been a JUST war? The supreme example is the war against the monstrous evil of the Third Reich. But even that war had its highly murky areas. All wars do. The 'just war' is largely a myth. <BR><BR>'I admit, it's not entirely consistent, but I'd rather go with what seems right than to strive for a foolish consistency.'<BR>- I agree this is a right old moral minefield. As a Christian, I take the 10 Commandments seriously. So when the Bible says 'you shall not kill', I apply that to abortion, capital punishment and warfare, as well as premeditated murder. And yet I am not a pacifist. In this fallen world, that just seems totally unworkable to me. But I do hate war, which is a horrible waste of human life. I too find it hard to be consistent. I think we should be striving for a wise consistency ... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby asaris » Fri Sep 22, 2000 10:54 pm

'Killing is essentially judging that one life is less valuable than another, right? I don't think we should make that judgement on our own when it involves our own life'. <BR>- Agree with your first statement. But if we cannot make that judgement on our own life, then God most certainly does. Read below:<BR><BR>'We should think of our life as less valuable than that of others'. <BR>- Why? God doesn't. To Him all lives are equally valuable.<BR><BR> Yes, but there are probably quite a few things God thinks that we<BR> aren't really supposed to think. For example, God thinks that<BR> certain people are going to hell. That doesn't mean that WE get<BR> to think that certain people are going to hell. The principle<BR> here comes from Phillipians, "In humility consider others better<BR> than yourself."<BR><BR>'However, when somebody is attempting to take another person's life, we are justified in killing them to save the other person's life'. <BR>- I think that acting in self-defence, even if it results in your attacker's death, is an entirely reasonable course of action. Regrettable, but else can you do?<BR><BR> Well, I would have a hard time blaming someone for killing in<BR> defense. Likewise, I'm not sure <i>I</i> wouldn't kill in self-<BR> defense. But I still think it's wrong. Does that make sense?<BR><BR>'Likewise, capital punishment is, in theory, ok'. <BR>- Why is it, in theory, OK? <BR><BR> It's not ending an innocent life, it's ending a guilty life, and<BR> the state has such rights. It's akin to the right of a state to<BR> initiate a just war, and based on the theory that the <BR> appropriate penalty for taking a life is death. However, I do <BR> think that the death penalty is so badly applied in today's <BR> society, it should not be used.<BR><BR>'Just wars are another thing altogether'<BR>- Since when has there ever been a JUST war? The supreme example is the war against the monstrous evil of the Third Reich. But even that war had its highly murky areas. All wars do. The 'just war' is largely a myth. <BR><BR> I'm not so sure about that. But just war theory is long, compli-<BR> cated, and something I don't know much about.<BR><BR>'I admit, it's not entirely consistent, but I'd rather go with what seems right than to strive for a foolish consistency.'<BR>- I agree this is a right old moral minefield. As a Christian, I take the 10 Commandments seriously. So when the Bible says 'you shall not kill', I apply that to abortion, capital punishment and warfare, as well as premeditated murder. And yet I am not a pacifist. In this fallen world, that just seems totally unworkable to me. But I do hate war, which is a horrible waste of human life. I too find it hard to be consistent. I think we should be striving for a wise consistency ... <BR><BR> Yeah, that's the goal. But I'm young yet, I have time. I am <BR> actually taking an ethics class right now, and hoping to use it<BR> to improve the way I think about these things. Anyway, nobody<BR> LIKES war (well, ok, no rational agent likes war). Sometimes,<BR> however, it seems necessary to prevent an even greater evil. And<BR> as far as "Don't Kill" goes, what about the case of Abraham?<BR><BR>-------------------------<BR>'I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no.' <BR><BR>Thanks <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0><BR>
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Grey_Elf » Sat Sep 23, 2000 12:19 am

Morals are the whole basis of life. without moral, there is little point in living. Chaos leads to suffering, war, and death. It is against human nature to cause pain to others. Morals keep the world running. And doing good feels good because it is our instinct to make others happy! Hatred is acceptable- if it towards the right things. this may sound very much like what your pre-school teacher tells you but it is essentially true. Humans need to work as a team, it is better for everyone.
User avatar
Grey_Elf
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 8:20 am
Top

Postby asaris » Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:43 am

In a sense that only begs the question...I mean, why should I care about whether or not everyone's happy? Plato tells a story about a guy, Gyges, who finds a ring that makes him invisible. He goes on to use it to be immoral. Since no one can ever find him out, there are no negative consequences for him. The question is then, why should a person in this situation be moral?
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby plunge » Sat Sep 23, 2000 11:00 am

My answer would be that morality is a judgement one lays first upon themselves. <BR><BR>Someone raised McIntyre, and I'd just like to talk a bit about how I think he misreads Nietzsche.<BR>Nietzsche wasn't for returning to what he called the morality of the strong- i.e. the morality that measures goodness by strength (I win = I'm good) - and that seems to be how McI interprets him. It's a common misconception, due in part to the work of his own sister after he went insane, to rew-rite all his works to please Germany. But Nietzsche wasn't a Nazi, and in fact he despised the very idea of a nation, of political power over anyone. He hated patriotism, and considered it a disease rampant in Germany.<BR><BR>His reading of morality is that of an evolution. It starts out in the animal kingdom, with predator/prey. Each creature has it's nature, and it imposes itself upon the world according to that nature. In his famous example, there are hawks and lambs. The hawks eat the sheep, the sheep get eaten. There is no good and evil- only strong and weak. The rudimentary moral sense that develops out of this is that of "good vs. bad" It's good to be strong, and bad to be weak. The weak aren't considerd evil per se- the hawks don't hate the lambs- in fact they love them because they taste so good. And the lambs can't fault the hawks for being hawks. They just are, and lambs know to run and hide. In fact the lambs dearly wish they were hawks, because like every living thing, they too have a will to power, and being a hawk is the pinacle acheivement of that. This moral sense still persists in human civilizations- the nobles are moral and high, while the commoners are rabble. While it aint nice for the weak, everything is at least acting in harmony with its nature. Yhere is very little internal dialogue at this stage- creatures acting in this way really dont have much of an internal life. They simply impose their will on the world according to their abilities. If they are weak, they fail, if strong, they succeed. The end.<BR><BR>But then something new is developed- called the "slave revolt." Essentially, it is the lambs claiming that they are weak because they CHOOSE to be weak- and that the hawks have the same choice. Nietizsche thinks that this argument is despicable- it's the ultimate in sour grapes. And it's not even true. But it is based on there being "good vs evil"- and evil is something no longer rooted to a weakness of will. This is morality has most people understand it today, and it was cheifly born out of the Buddist/Jewish/Christian tradition. When Christ declared that "blessed are the weak"- the idea came into it's full being. For Nietzsche it has it's upsides and downsides. On the one hand, it creates things like guilt and shame- which are essentially a turning inwards of the will to power. Their effect upon creatures is to make them lowly and pathetic, because essentially this morality is born out of a feeling or resentment for the strong- and thinks "since I am too weak and cowardly to assert my will, I will convince everyone to be as cowardly as I am." The "good" in good & evil is really just a pale reflection of evil- I'm good because I am weak- before God- I don't assert my will. Thus mankind starts acting like herd animals, giving into any strong willed idea. We become sheep that are sheparded around by whatever shepard we can find that we think can help us be strong without actually having to do anything. But there is an upside to all this, because this turning of the will to power inwards give us an inner life we lacked before. We actually think and worry about ourselves and others- we are no longer simply creatures that act according to our nature- we can re-envision ourselves. <BR><BR>And this is the path to the moral sense Nietzsche was actually interested in- the superman. The self-overcoming. After casting off the fixed game of "good v. evil", one can actually assert their will and not feel shameful about it- they can be proud in their declarations. But niether are they strong in the sense that they need to assert their power over anything external in the world. Their power is over themselves, because they now have that inner life to guide them, to be the forgery for their creativity. Thus, Nietzsche's supermen weren't supposed to be conquerors or reborn hawks- they were supposed to be artists, men of philosophy and vision. Their morality serves to enoble them- they are capable of living by ethos that they themselves create and abide by. True strength is not violent because it does not need to be- because nothing, not even death, can threaten it's beauty. They don't want to join together as rulers because that too is a show of weakness and conformity- supermen feel no need to band together against others, or lord their status over others, because they by their very nature they seek to be different and gracious- even to awake what they have in others as well. In a sense, Christ is also an example of this as well- his death was the ultimate exprssion of a will to power, because it showed that the idea he created was one he was willing to die for- because the idea would live on after him. <BR><BR>And this final stage is appearing all over. Though I'm sure people like Beleg and Kel will denigrate it as just another pleasureseeking morality, that's not viewing it for what it is. Surprisingly, it quite well describes THEIR moral sense. Their faith in God, a neo-nietzschian might reason, is something they forged themselves, whether they'll admit to it or not- it's a work of titanic creativity synthesized from all over. They have abosulte faith in it, even beyond death. While it's trammeled by the fact that they feel the need to alienate this faith out of themselves to a distant "god," that doesn't diminish the sheer power of it.<BR><BR>Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but THAT'S a real reading of Neitzsche, not this "totalitarian Nazi" crap. Nietzsche's main problem is that he totally ignores society's role in people's lives- that people aren't just isolated totally self-sufficient wonder beings, and that we do have to rely upon others sometimes, and figure out mechanisms for doing so. But this weakness shows him to be exactly the opposite of those who fear the spread of his morality would lead to war or domination of one group over another. That's anathema to his description of superman.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby Orc#5063 » Sat Sep 23, 2000 11:27 am

*Sigh* Poor, misguided Plunge. Okay, I realize you don't agree with Neitzshe's tripe, but I'm going to demonstrate why he was wrong. What he failed to see is that NO ONE can rise above the Good/Evil conflict. Not me, not you, not even Neitzsche's uber-man. We all have a responsibility to each other, whether we realize it or not. Now, Nietzsche thought a man could transcend his fellows by "will to power". He would go beyond petty good vs. evil and become something more, something that would be a gigantic, force for creativity. Or something like that. Did he ever explain what uber-man would do once he was uber-man? Make heaven on earth? Kill all non uber-men? Why not? What if our amoral Uber-Man decides that the world can be a more constructive place if only Uber-Men are allowed to exist in it. Well guess what? Even if Uber-Man says he has transcended good and evil, it's really just and excuse to do what he wants to. If good and evil exist for a person, then he probably feels that killing is wrong. However, if good and evil do not exist for Uber-Man, he can kill if it means making the world a better place in his eyes. Well, I don't want Uber-Man killing me because I'm not desirable.<BR><BR>Wait a second, this is starting to sound like Nazism huh? Okay, maybe the Nazi weren't Neitzsche's superman. However, who is going to decide when he has become uber-man and can go beyond good and evil? Who's to judge that? Have you ever seen <i> Rope </i>, by Alfred Hitchcock? My ethos is that killing is a sport, and that only uber-men may engage in it. Okay, I have decided that I am an uber-man, so let's start killing people. In the end, Neitzchism (sic?) is just an excuse to cause chaos and pain.
User avatar
Orc#5063
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 9:34 pm
Top

Postby plunge » Sat Sep 23, 2000 1:40 pm

I'm misled for offering a reading of a philosopher? <BR><BR>You misread Nietzsche if you think domination of others is a concern of an uberman, or that they are by design "amoral." I've already given a description of uberman might look like: a passionate religious person. An ultimate pascifist like Ghandi. What exactly is the point of killing? How does that fit into the "internal life" developed by Christian thought? It doesn't. Killing is the domain of the animal. The truly strong exhibit compassion, because they can do so without fear of this being a weakness towards others- THAT says Nietzsche, is a true display of nobility. And it enobles not only them, but also the person they are compassionate towards (unlike pity, which denigrates both the pitied and the pitier). It's not about pleasure- it's about living in accordance with an idea. <BR><BR>Nietzsche's base assumption is that morality is an idea created by human beings, and it evolves over time. You can disagree with that, and of course then you'd be working in an entirely different paradigm- Nietzsche's arguments are of no interest there. But don't try to accept his assumption that there is no external morality and then refute it by claiming that people following their own moral systems will be evil! That's ridiculous! Because under his assumptions, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE. Coming up with your own moral code is the best one can do- and how can you call is chaos when it's the very OPPOSITE of chaos- it's man the best sort of imposing order on himself that he can. Sure, if you assume there IS and external standard, then that's better- and you obviously do. But when arguing under the assumption that there isn't, you can't fault his idea that morality should be something that enobles humankind rather than denigrates it, which is his central argument. Nietzsche doesn't ask "what is moral" but rather "what is the purpose of a morality, and what sort of morality best suits that purpose."
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby asaris » Sat Sep 23, 2000 5:01 pm

Well, I don't think that any philosopher alive today, Alasdair included, would want to say that Nietzsche would have liked Nazism. In fact, the evidence suggests that he would have loathed Nazism; among other things, because he loathed anti-semitism. That's why he ended his friendship with Wagner. But to say that Nietzsche would support a compassionate morality seems to be just as deep a misreading. His theory might support that, but Nietzsche wouldn't. Nietzsche was deeply conflicted on this. At places he wants to say that the strong shouldn't despise the weak, but at other places, he <i>clearly</i> despises the weak. The problem with Nietzsche's theory, like other forms of subjectivism, is that it's simply not the case that we can invent morality. Moral judgements are prescriptive; they not only state how we think we should act, they also state how we think others should act. And that is impossible along a strictly subjectivist view like that of Nietzsche's.<BR><BR>Also, it seem like most people want to be able to say that some things other people do are wrong/evil/bad. Nietzsche's view does not allow us to say this.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Orc#5063 » Sat Sep 23, 2000 5:25 pm

I had a big reply, but my computer froze up. So, the thrust was this: Nietzche did NOT like organized religion, in fact he loathed it. The people who practiced Will to Power for religious reasons were, he felt, vastly removed (and inferior) to someone who practiced like, say, a starving artist who denies himself a good wage, a house, etc. in order to paint. Nietzche felt organized reliogion was obsolete and could no longer move people. Remember <i> God is dead.</i>?
User avatar
Orc#5063
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 9:34 pm
Top

Postby plunge » Sat Sep 23, 2000 6:05 pm

That was because organized religion was considered to be built on resnetment, not affirmation. I'd say that many religious people today ARE quite into affirmation. Nietzsche might have considered them blind, but he couldn't deny that they fit his own definition of self-affirmation. He says that God is dead because God is based upon a set of moral ideas that degrade humanity, and eventaully degrade god. <BR><BR>Despising the weak in his philosophy isn't a moral condemantion (since it's his very project to expunge moral condemantion as a political tool)- it's frustration with laziness and herd mentality. It isn't a call to oppression. Ubermench compassion isn't immediately recognizeable because it isn't based upon pity, which is how modern day liberals and envangelicals see it. <BR><BR>Nietzsche despired prescriptive morality- his entire purpose was to get rid of it, because it was the primary tool of oppression. For him, God was nothing more than a tool of the nobles to keep the weak weak.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby asaris » Sat Sep 23, 2000 11:30 pm

I don't know about that, Plunge. It seems like often in his writing N seems to be making moral objections about weak people.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby The_Grey_Pilgrim » Sun Sep 24, 2000 4:54 am

I would like to know, if in fact evolution is true, when morality came into being. I mean when was it that morality began to seperate us from the animals? They follow the rules of survival, but nothing even close to what we would describe as Morals.<BR><BR>What was it that triggered one species to stop dead in its tracks and think, "Me should not kill Ug even though he more ugly than the wooly butt of a mastadon. Me should not make nookie upon She-Ra without her permission. Me should share delicious bone marrow with little, more weak tribe mates."<BR><BR>When did this happen, if in fact evolution is true?
User avatar
The_Grey_Pilgrim
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4620
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:03 am
Top

Postby asaris » Sun Sep 24, 2000 7:13 am

She-Ra? Someone just dated himself...<BR><BR>Well, there was evidently some point along the evolutionary chain where humans developed a form of sentience qualitatively different from that of other animals. They began to use signs to refer to things, to form community, etc. This is probably where most evolutionists would locate it.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Dk_Strider » Sun Sep 24, 2000 9:35 am

Why be moral?<BR><BR>I dont see much point in still asking questions like this to people who dont believe in the Bible. Just about everyone has read a post about the Bible, and have had their chance to look it over. They have had the choice to reject God, or accept him. They will be judged, and let them spend forever in a place where there is no God. It is not our choice to choose for them. Many of them dont accept the Bible as the authority because it then stops them from doing many things in life, that they have already turned into a habbit. They will not admit it, but this is the main reason. If they become a "Christian", they will be looked down on by many people, rejected, not treated very kindly by most people. Basicly, the "Christian Life" is harder. If then, we only live for a few years, why take the narrow path? The wide one is easier, less bumps in the road, and who knows what happens when its over? Who cares?<BR><BR>I challange you to look at yourself, and can you really see yourself coming to an utter end? Where you just stop living, period. Does it look possible to you? And if so, when having a bad day, just shoot yourself! You wont have to put up with anything anymore. Nothing matters when your dead. Good or bad, its over, and no more pain. Why live, you ask, well, simple, to enjoy life while it lasts. They just dont get that life is short. I would take the chance of living forever in bliss, than living for 100 years in bliss, and hoping agenst hope, that you have no spirit, and that everything just "happend", and that we humans understand everything, and a creator is out of the question, even though nothing then could creat all this.
User avatar
Dk_Strider
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 2:39 pm
Top

Postby asaris » Sun Sep 24, 2000 10:44 am

Uh, Dk_Strider, that's quite beside the point. Many people who are non-Christian or even arreligion believe that people should be moral. In fact, there is nothing unique about Christianity's moral teachings, outside of the concern for the Other.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby mandos » Sun Sep 24, 2000 10:49 am

The Easy Road?<BR>One who doesn not take responsibility for their own actions and the results takes the Easy Road.<BR>One who relies on something besides their own judgement to guide their lives takes the Easy Road.<BR>Someone who thinks for themselves and makes the hard choice anyway, to do good rather than evil, who shoulders the entire responsibility for themselves without crutch, does not take the Easy Road.<BR><BR>Good grief, do any of you think that every single person on the planet that is not christian is out to commit heinous evil?<BR>That anyone doing good is automaticly of your chosen faith. That your special superbieing is the utmost and only source of good here?<BR><BR>I utterly reject the idea of a superbeing.<BR>I do not seriously believe that mankind is lucky enough to have an omnipitent and benvolent protector that will someday re-appear and cure all the ills and evils that mankind has created.<BR>Yet, I go out of my way to do good for those I meet.<BR>To help where ever I can.<BR>Is it your postulation that even though I spit in your superbeing's eye, he still drives me to do good.<BR>I don't think so.<BR><BR>I have a mind, and a heart.<BR>I use them both to be able to live a decent life.
User avatar
mandos
Mariner

 
Posts: 7816
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 6:34 pm
Top

Postby The_Grey_Pilgrim » Sun Sep 24, 2000 1:39 pm

asaris,<BR><BR>Thanks for your attempt at answering my question, but it is not really an answer at all. It is an attempt to connect an theory of the past to the reality of the present, and in so doing you are taking a pretty big leap. Just because people could paint on walls does not point to a code of morality.<BR><BR>History points us to the Code of Hammurabi, but certainly there had to be morals and morality before then, afterall is this not what evolution dictates?<BR><BR><BR><BR>Sorry about the She-Ra inference, but I could not think of any good cavewoman (or is that cavewomyn?) names.
User avatar
The_Grey_Pilgrim
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4620
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:03 am
Top

Postby asaris » Sun Sep 24, 2000 2:00 pm

Hmmm...you might be right, TGP. I'm just trying to guess how it might work. I think evolution is the best theory out there, but there are certainly flaws with it, especially for the Christian. There are possible answers though, and I think that the answer I gave is reasonable, even if there's not much to back it up.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Altariel » Sun Sep 24, 2000 2:32 pm

Mandos, I really agree with you, and I have often felt that people who consciously reject "GOD" tend to be more moral than the average Christian.<BR><BR>Which I think was the original point of this thread, why do non-believers choose to act morally. What is our motivation if not salvation? I think it's a very good question and I don't have a strong answer even for myself.
User avatar
Altariel
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:48 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests