User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 95

  1. #71
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Bad choice of examples. When the West did away with slavery, communities of faith spearheaded the efforts on both sides of the Atlantic, often to the annoyance of the secular majority.
    What secular majority? most people were self-described Christians at that point. so it seems that the 'communities of faith' had a different interpretation of the bible. Once again, this is not ethically consistent. You can't argue that religion is the sine qua non of morality, and also say that morality is open to interpretation.

  2. #72
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    The reason I ask is because morality as it is commonly understood in the West will often require us to perform acts of self-sacrifice, which is patently does not contribute to survival. So you think I should ditch all that and just look out for me, then?
    Are you more important than that which is neglected? There are two survivals, there is the survival of the individual, and there is the survival of the species.

  3. #73
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stigmata View Post
    ...whereas the religious basis for morality tends to merely be a strict set of rules that must not be questioned and adhered to out of fear of some form of divine judgement.
    Absence of belief doesn't imply absence of a personal ethic; it just calls into question the basis of the personal ethic. As I've shown, morality-as-survival-strategy has its weak points.

    With regard to your quote above, here's the best answer I can come up with:

    Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
    -Matthew 22:34-40

    Now those two principles have countless implications, but I think you'll agree that they don't amount to a lengthy list of rules. People who have a solid track record of even following these two are awfully rare. Basically what Jesus did here was to boil down the entire Torah and all the books of the prophets to two short sentences. He was definitely working within a theistic framework.

  4. #74
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    What secular majority? most people were self-described Christians at that point. so it seems that the 'communities of faith' had a different interpretation of the bible. Once again, this is not ethically consistent. You can't argue that religion is the sine qua non of morality, and also say that morality is open to interpretation.
    The same thing could apply to the Civil Rights movement. MLK Jr.'s "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" is addressed to clergy (or rather, cowards among the clergy). Nobody else.

  5. #75
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Are you more important than that which is neglected? There are two survivals, there is the survival of the individual, and there is the survival of the species.
    Does not the species also survive if I survive?

  6. #76
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stigmata View Post
    I don't see the two as being synonymous at all, which I think is a large misconception amongst most fundamentalists that equate the absence of belief as the absence of a personal ethic. Without the constraints of a religion, we're free to develop our own code of morality which tends to hold a little bit more personal meaning given at it's the culmination of values that we've reached through our own interpretation and follow on our own volition, whereas the religious basis for morality tends to merely be a strict set of rules that must not be questioned and adhered to out of fear of some form of divine judgement.


    This is the part where the problem is, when people turn to religion because they cannot imagine the possibility of morality without some outside source dictating what the objective morality that started the universe is. People do not believe in themselves and their own experiences enough (as far as morality goes).

  7. #77
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Does not the species also survive if I survive?
    No, because you do not survive. You will die.

  8. #78
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Even 'evil' people have morals; they are just uncommon.
    To expand on this, couldn't you also say that anyone can be ethical, if the underlying morals are "what I want or feel like, at this moment"?

  9. #79
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    To expand on this, couldn't you also say that anyone can be ethical, if the underlying morals are "what I want or feel like, at this moment"?
    Yes.

  10. #80
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    What secular majority? most people were self-described Christians at that point. so it seems that the 'communities of faith' had a different interpretation of the bible. Once again, this is not ethically consistent. You can't argue that religion is the sine qua non of morality, and also say that morality is open to interpretation.
    I've gone back over my posts in some detail, and failed to find where I actually said the words you so conveniently put in my mouth.

    However, I will stand by my premise that it was Quakers in both England and the US that let the Abolitionist effort, specifically because the impetus to do so came from their religous faith.

Similar Threads

  1. [SP] Do you think you can be too ugly to have friends?
    By lunareclipze in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-30-2013, 10:43 AM
  2. "If you don't have the balls to be hated...
    By Udog in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 10:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO