Seraphim

"The definition of morality that makes the most sense to me is "the conformity to ideals of right human conduct."

My reply : Right human conduct? Based on what? Some leaders said is right or wrong? Or maybe some religious "wise" men and their attempt to show others how to live? Both sound same to me.

How about my defination of morale? Morale is acceptable conducts of individues in a society where the society choose which is moral and which is not?

'I can see immediately that my question of a "universal" morality is thrown right out the window by one word: ideals, plural, no room for a single statement."

My reply : No idea what you talking about, but since you accept such idea as universal morality will be thrown out, I will go with you.

"What I am feebly attempting to prove is that it is not necessary to reference the bible to have morality."

My reply : And since when Bible or any other holy book used as reference to show what is morale and what is not?

"If we can't agree on what it means to possess morality, how are we any different from theists arguing over the correct interpretation of the bible? "

My reply : Good, at least you accepted your problem which you face now.

Celsus

Hi Seraphim,

Don't read into his post what isn't there. There are tools for deducing morality, and there are people who wish to use the argument from authority for their source of morality. All theists ultimately use the "authority" of their god as the final word. They just don't agree on who's interpretation is correct.

Morale is not morality. And clear up that sentence structure if you want people to figure out what you are saying.

Since the <insert religion's holy book> was deemed to be the Truth™ by <insert adherents to said religion>.

x-xian,

A better starting point is to ask if you can derive a general method at deducing morality which may be acceptable for all. Then you can ask if that method always leads to the same conclusion. I would deem morality to be a social construct (and a good one), but that means, that as products of human minds, there can be little ontological commonality between all systems of morality (unless generalised to the point of uselessness). If there were an objective aspect to morality then we would have found it by now.

Joel

Seraphim

"Don't read into his post what isn't there. There are tools for deducing morality, and there are people who wish to use the argument from authority for their source of morality. All theists ultimately use the "authority" of their god as the final word. They just don't agree on who's interpretation is correct."

My reply : And what is this tool? Logic? Voice of "great' leaders? Do tell ...

Let not go into religion and morale here. We can see what interpretation is correct and which is not later, once we deal with a simple question - "What is Morale?"

So far, the explaination of Right Human conduct falls short since one can discuss in lenght what the "Right" conduct is.

"Morale is not morality. And clear up that sentence structure if you want people to figure out what you are saying."

My reply : Stop making excuses. Give an acceptable defination of Morale if mine is not suitable.

"Since the <insert religion's holy book> was deemed to be the Truth™ by <insert adherents to said religion>."

My question : If that is your answer, then "Universal" concept of morality is unreachable.

Celsus

I understand that english isn't your first language. Hence I will forgive you for not understanding what "deduce" means. Anyway, yes, logic.

Morale: Confidence or disposition (has precious little to do with morals and morality - i.e. morale of the troops in war, or the morale of a sports team)

Perhaps you're talking about these two:
Moral: To do with disposition/conduct of what is "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong"
Morality: The study of morals

Don't you have access to a dictionary? What is "good" and "bad" is subjective of course. I don't think defining what is "good" or "bad" is within the scope of this thread. What (I presume) x-xian is trying to get at is, what are the most fundamental aspects of human systems of determining right from wrong?

Hmm... I think I'm going to ignore you after this reply.

Why do I owe you an explanation of anything? I'm not here to give you the laws of morality, I'm here to ask (hopefully the right) questions. I could have been horribly pedantic and defined only "morale" for you.

That was exactly my point. Do you actually understand what I posted? However, the thrust of my posts is to ask x-xians questions to assist dialogue. There are no easy answers, and I'm certainly not one to presume I know all the answers.

Corgan Sow

Seraphim, I do not think you're some authoritian in English from Oxford, so why not pick a source?

from <a href="http://www.dictionary.com;" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com;</a>

From Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus (1995):

from <a href="http://www.dictionary.com:" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com:</a>

From Websters:

Isn't that simple enough? No need to patronize each other. Any other definitions?

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Corgan Sow ]</p>

Carlos

Yes, I was implying that there is no such thing as universal morality, and that I find it highly unlikely we will ever find one. I agree with pretty much everything joe3 said and try to take the same approach - posing questions and not just stating my conclusions.

A lot of people struggle with what it means to be "good" or "bad." This is true for both theists and atheists alike. As I see it, the difference is that to some degree the theist abstains from the struggle over right and wrong. The churchgoer accepts the priest or minister as an authority. In turn, the minister has accepted the teachings of religious scholars further up the hierarchy. Eventually someone appeals to God as the source of morality. The trick, as you say, is in interpreting what God meant.

The atheist has more freedom and is not limited to interpreting someone else's views. I may read what atheists or humanists have written and agree with it today. I may even try to follow the morality suggested by someone else. But, unlike the theist, I do this not through an appeal to a higher power or a higher intellect. I do it because I have thought it over and decided I agree with it. Tomorrow I might decide I disagree with this morality. I will dump it and search for a new one. Could a theist do the same?

Is the atheist's way of finding morality (little or no guidance) any better than the theist's (interpreting someone else's guidance)? I think it is. It makes the struggle personal. As you pointed out, "[t]he details of morality do seem to vary dependent on the individual." How could I accept someone else's morality unilaterally when I recognize there is no universal morality? The theists are able to avoid this by believing their version of morality is the universal one.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Carlos ]</p>

Carlos

Hrm. That didn't come out right. I didn't mean that christians or muslims or ... believe the rest of us accept their version of God as the source of morality.

What I meant to say was:

The theists are able to avoid this by believing that morality is objective, and that their version of morality is the correct one. They believe their morality should be the universal one, and some of them try to impose that on others - by proselytizing, lobbying the lawmakers, etc.

Vicar Philip

I do see that a universal morality is meaningless.

In fact, one might even say the two terms are mutually exclusive.

It seems to follow that leading a moral life is more difficult for an atheist than a theist, since we have a more dynamic structure to keep track of and adjust to. i.e., where do we stand on cloning humans? I can see the benefits, certainly, but I can also see the potential for abuse, which we all know humans are wont to do.

I have discarded my notion of a universal morality, and instead would like to define the question posed by joe3:

This approach leaves enough room to include individual notions of morality, while at the same time allows us to ascribe multiple "systems" to the concept. These systems could be defined for people grouped geographically, historically, or as a function of one's upbringing.

I was going to start with something that seems very obvious, taking someone else's life as being wrong. Even this basic "rule" soon becomes increasingly complex as we take into account other reasons for killing someone: execution carried out from a sentence of law, self-defense, abortion, etc.

Is it possible we could be guided by a "gut feeling" as to the morality of a situation? Or am I, again, being too simplistic?

99Percent

The atheists in fact chooses to think about where he stands in moral issues. The theists merely has to obey commandments, no thinking required.

Gurdur

Wrong as stated !
Plenty of atheists don't think about their morality - they simply accept peer consensus, or Atlas Shrugged, or the Red Book Of Chairman Mao.

Codswallop. If you paid attention to the real world rather than sermonizing, you would see that most of public and social theism is in fact efforts to decide what moral to draw from their various scriptures.
Really, this kind of false generalization advances the discussion not at all.

Odd; I never thought I'ld see Seraphim so emphatically correct.

Now just how do you get logically from "no universal concept of morality" to "morality doesn't exist" ????

And just what do you mean by "exist" ? Be accurate in reply !