Where does your morality come from, and who sanctions it?

Well legalities come from an agreement between mankind, what works, what doesn’t, consequences scientifically as well as morally. Now, personally, I do believe in God, but I’ve been blessed with a large dosage of common sense. Morals come from observations that have gone wrong, and have been written about to explore the cause and effects of such situations.

“If morality is stand alone, whose morality is it?”

It’s ours.

As far as sanctioning morality is concerned (this is the only other part of the question I can understand—I’m not going ad hominem, I genuinely can’t understand most of your question), this is a sticky issue.

If by sanction you mean provide an official seal of approval to or enforcement of a moral code, then you’re talking about law, which is separate from morality. As far as the morals of a minority being less valid than the morals of a majority, there’s no absolute demonstration that this is the case.

Personally, I don’t believe that morality is a stand-alone product of the mind, it is a process of the mind – our morality changes over time, influenced by our experiences in our peer groups and society as a whole, and our own reflections.

There do, however, seem to be a few basic precepts that inform moral thinking – the Golden Principle for a start – which appear in many of the world’s religions, including Christianity. This does not mean, however, that morality requires a religious foundation. Quite the opposite; religion requires a moral foundation.

My morality is my own. It arises from the totality of what I have learned through my life, whatever has influenced my thoughts on right and wrong over the years. And it has evolved over the years; what I thought was immoral when I was twenty I may now fully endorse; what i endorsed I may now realize is immoral.

@the100thmonkey If by sanction you mean provide an official seal of approval to or enforcement of a moral code, then you’re talking about law, which is separate from morality. Really? I can cheat a poker, or ping pong, and I would not be breaking the law, but some would say it was immoral. I could lie on a coworker and get them passed up for a promotion, that might not be illegal either. A woman who is attractive can glom onto a wealthy man to try and knee hook her way into his estate when he died. Not against the law, some would say immoral. There is a lot of things deemed immoral by many people that is as legal as sneezing.

Personally, I don’t believe that morality is a stand-alone product of the mind, it is a process of the mind – our morality changes over time, influenced by our experiences in our peer groups and society as a whole, and our own reflections. The part you didn’t understand, you just validated. All morality is by that description is basically mob rule, just very organized. What is moral today, can be immoral tomorrow because a collective of people deemed it to be. If I were part of a society that thought it right to purge the land of the indigenous people that lived there, whose to say I was wrong? The majority I live among believe it is OK, so my peer group or society as a whole, made my morality correct, and those indigenous people wrong.

@Hypocrisy_Central – you didn’t explain what you mean by sanction. As I said, morality and legality are two different things. The moral code is not enforced in the situations you list, which demonstrates my point.

You also fail to see the nuance in what I wrote; I used the verb influence rather than determine, and also noted that personal reflections and experiences add to it. You might wish to call it ‘mob rule’, but that is misleading – perhaps you deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote?

My morality is my own, informed by my life and our society as a whole. It needs no sanction, it just is. I don’t think it’s that hard, actually, to figure out what is moral and what is not. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s moral. If it does hurt someone else, it may still be moral, but the harm has to be weighed against the good.

Chuck Norris.

@the100thmonkey you didn’t explain what you mean by sanction. As I said, morality and legality are two different things. When you have a law, some agency or branch of government say T, F, and H are illegal; L, Q, Z, are legal. Q could be immoral, it might even harm someone’s spirit, but there is no penalty if you did it. H might be illegal even though is shouldn’t be, like some dude sitting in his own house smoking a fat blunt. Or he was growing his own hemp, maybe he tipped off his brother to sell his stock because there is going to be a hostile takeover. In short, who gave the official word that the morality you follow is right? What makes them right? If you can do something immoral but there is no penalty, fine, or loss of freedom, how potent is that morality?

@augustlan it just is. I don’t think it’s that hard, actually, to figure out what is moral and what is not. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s moral. Who set the standard? Does that morality go for everyone on the planet no matter which nation? What if another nation doesn’t share your same outlook on morality, that would make them immoral? If siblings wanted to get married, they are not hurting anyone, would that pass the ”moral” muster in your book?

@Hypocrisy_Central I set the standard for myself. Who else would? To me, personally, any person, in any nation – including the US – who condones practices which harm people more than they help people is acting immorally in those instances. I have no moral issue with siblings marrying, even though I personally find it icky.

Lisa.

But only on Fluther.

By my own code of ethics fashioned from things I learned from my parents, cultural norms, and my own ideas.

As to what gives it authority, some morality is codified by society into laws (though shalt not steal; thou shalt not kill) and some is simply enforced by my will.

@Hypocrisy_Central – There have been a few threads fairly recently about this here.

Imagine for a second that you did not have the bible to refer to for moral guidance (just humor me for a second). Are you telling me that you would incapable of determining what is ethical? I’m not talking about the hot issues that often get muddled by issues of religion. I’m asking you if there is any way that you would be able to find any criteria to use in working out your ethics. Maybe you would start with a simple goal as to minimize human suffering.

I propose that it is possible that you and I derive much of our morality from the same place. Many theists I talk to will point out decent things from the bible and talk about how good it is. By what criteria can you even evaluate how good the bible is unless you are using some standard that is not dependent on the bible?

Take the commandment, “you shall not kill”. What if one of the commandments was, “you shall not place 2 rocks on top of each other as the sun is setting”. An honest theist will look at those and be able to identify that there is a real difference. Many theists (that I have met) come to the bible because they already find some of the things to be consistent with what they know/believe to be good.

Modern “spiritual” or religious people are very fond of picking and choosing from the bible what they feel is right or moral, while ignoring the bad stuff. This shows me that those people are more moral than their book. There are Christians on this site that don’t believe homosexuality is an abomination. This is an example, from what I can determine, that these are good people who have a developed moral code that is distinct from the holy book. This inconsistency or apparently hypocrisy is welcome as far as I am concerned. It’s why the Christianity today looks very different from its brutal past. Progress. Did that progress happen because the god happen to change its mind? No. Our human understanding of suffering and our connection to everyone is improving. It might be slow improvement, but there is progress.

So, to answer your question: My morality comes from the same place your morality comes from.

I open my jewel box and pick out one of at least twenty answers I have given in the past.

Morality is practical. It is about the agreements we make to live together as best we can.

A common question that I’ve had to answer is, “if you don’t believe in God, what’s keeping you from killing somebody?” or “if you don’t believe in God, where do your ideas of right and wrong come from?”

The answer, which other people could probably explain more eloquently than I, is that following a moral code is an agreement of sorts in a society. I don’t hurt you, and you don’t hurt me. It’s essentially the Golden Rule. What is “right” in my book is treating people how I’d like to be treated – in doing so, I uphold our society’s mutual agreement that people will not harm each other, so all of us can go about our lives without constant fear of attack.

What is this morality you speak of? I just do what I want, fortunately I am a fairly subdued individual most of the time. I see morals as abstract thus unnecessary.

Morality is not a real thing. It does not exist in the natural world, but is simply a concept developed by mankind. This is why you will find different and sometimes mutually exclusive versions of it where ever you look.

Whether there is any such thing as absolute morality is a subject philosophers and religious leaders have debated for millenia.

In my personal opinion, there is no such thing as morality, but rather a set of actions that are either socially acceptable, or not. Behavior is sanctioned, if you will, by society.

It is easy to observe that morality is flexible and changeable, just like language.

Morality is based off a need for survival and companionship. Humans are gregarious creatures and the survival of individuals depends on the co-operation of the whole community. This was even more so in primitive soiciety. It is human instinct to be “moral” because moral actions are the ones that gain you support from those on whom you depend for survival. Individuals who lack a sense of morality end up pissing off everyone else, getting ostracised from the tribe and no doubt finding survival as a loner very difficult.

I’ll just follow the question and take a look over the replies later and I’ll post my own too but I believe mine is obvious.

@Hibernate: “but I believe mine is obvious.”

Not so sure.

@Blackberry: GA – best laugh I’ve had all day!

@tom_g Imagine for a second that you did not have the bible to refer to for moral guidance (just humor me for a second). Are you telling me that you would incapable of determining what is ethical? I do not need to humor you, that was the position I took to ask the question. I mused what would I be like if I had no Bible as a compass? I am sure I would have a code of ethics or some form of morality, but it would be whose morality I happened to like, if I knew of more then one. Or just the morality of my parents and those I grew up around. Whatever their morality was, so would be mine.

Children who grew up with slave owning parents I would suspect rarely thought caging, whipping, raping African slaves, and using them as intelligent chattel was wrong. If the kids of slave owners could conjure up the thought that ”taking that boy from his mother and selling her off is not right”, “I want to get my Jones lose but I can’t take the virginity of Alice Town Socialite, so I best mosey over to the slave’s quarters and find me a cute fresh one”. Slavery continued for more than a century because the people doing it did not see it as heinous and immoral. The only way they were shown to be wrong was because the North who thought it was, won the Civil War. Had the South won, slavery would have continued unabated until mechanization and industrialization made it too costly to have humans doing what a few cheaper to maintain machines.

I’m asking you if there is any way that you would be able to find any criteria to use in working out your ethics. Maybe you would start with a simple goal as to minimize human suffering. As I just pointed out, that is not a given. What I came to believe is what someone else believes, either I have no other option, or I choose to believe theirs. If there morality says those people are not as good as us, or they are unfit to live, THAT would be my morality.

I propose that it is possible that you and I derive much of our morality from the same place. The logic we and everyone else uses do come from the same place, the difference is we have different beliefs on where that place is.

Take the commandment, “you shall not kill”. What if one of the commandments was, “you shall not place 2 rocks on top of each other as the sun is setting”. An honest theist will look at those and be able to identify that there is a real difference. I am sure any Christian of any persuasion should be able to see the differences in the many commandments and rules. Many, which non-believers, and a few unknowing Christians love to get going back to, were strictly for the Nation of Israel, not us non-Jewish mooks. After the New Testament, many of the old rules carried over, but many became irrelevant. People love to buffet chose fact that they like, be it religion, science, gender issues, evolution, the Constitution, etc.

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m struggling to understand this line “What I came to believe is what someone else believes, either I have no other option, or I choose to believe theirs.” Do you really feel that you have no inner sense of morality? That it would be necessary to either adopt another’s moral code or have none at all? I just can’t grasp this concept.

Also: [mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

@Hypocrisy_Central: “I am sure I would have a code of ethics or some form of morality, but it would be whose morality I happened to like, if I knew of more then one. Or just the morality of my parents and those I grew up around. Whatever their morality was, so would be mine.”

First of all, I am asking you to humor me and imagine right now that there is no book. There is no god. Do you have any idea how you would go about determining what is right and what is wrong?

Of course, the reason I am asking this is that I believe you (or many people who believe that their morals are derived from their religion or holy book) use similar methods for determining what is right and wrong. The only way you can determine that you are following a book that contains “good” rules about morality is that you already have a moral compass that you use to evaluate the morality laid out in the bible. Otherwise, you might be following a false god or satan or some other thing that you feel is not good.

Let me try this: What if the bible contained the following commandments like this:
– Though shall not eat chicken wrapped in crispy deep-fried coating.
– Though shall not breathe more rapidly than 15 breaths per minute.

You would not look at these and say that since it is written as god’s word, this is what is moral. You do look at “Though shall not kill” and say that is a moral commandment because you have an internal moral compass that knows this is right.

And of course, culture has tons to do with morality. I am not a moral relativist, however. Some cultures are just wrong. Period. Global morality has improved (slowly) over time. There are some cultures which are lagging behind, but it is my hope that they will eventually catch up.
got to run. write more later…

For me, it comes from logic and reason.

To put it simply, my morality is that whatever occurs alone or between consenting adults is perfectly moral and ethical. And thus, is immoral and unethical to impose force or coercion against unwilling participants.

The main factor in how I judge whether a thing is moral or not is whether or not it intentionally brings harm to someone else.

That’s not always the only deciding factor, but I think it’s a pretty good general rule to go by.

@augustlan *@Hypocrisy_Central I’m struggling to understand this line “What I came to believe is what someone else believes, either I have no other option, or I choose to believe theirs.” Do you really feel that you have no inner sense of morality? Let me attempt to take you on a journey of the thought process. If there _was a way, which I know can never be tested, to have a child birthed and cared for, totally by automation; no human contact. They interact with machines that only do enough to keep them fed and clothes, nothing the child ever does is questioned or labeled as wrong or right, moral or not. If they were given a pet and they mistreated it, abused it, nothing is ever said. They are taught language, math and such, but never what is right and wrong. Then, at age 12 another child who is 8 years of age is introduced to that environment. At mealtime, how much sharing do you think will happen? Would the older stronger child automatically have empathy for the smaller child and split the meal up evenly or take what they wanted first, leaving the smaller child what is left. If there were any toys, etc, do you imagine the older child would share and not hoard them all to him/herself? If they didn’t choose something but later wanted it, do you believe the older child would ask politely and wait until the younger child got done with it, or just take it because they physically can?

When I see children between 18 months and three years many seem innately self-centered. They don’t want to share, they want it all for themselves. Their parents are always pointing out to them that they need to share or they can’t have it all. This is their parent’s morality they are being taught, not any morality they spontaneously came upon themselves.

If as @tom_g alludes, there is no gods, God, or spiritual entities directing man’s actions whatsoever, the morality man would use would have to come from somewhere. That somewhere would be a man, woman, or a group of people that had a concept they propagated on the group or people they lived among, who would have taken it upon themselves to follow it because they liked and/or respected. The only way that morality sticks is if those who are following have a way to enforce it, or make people adhere to it. In times past if you didn’t adhere to the rules and morals of the community, you were banished, sent away. In modern times laws have been made to assure that morals are followed, you break them, you lose money, and maybe freedom as well. What if in another land they had a different set of morals, whose to say theirs was not right? If the clashes of ideology led to war, whoever was the victor get to name the policy, enforce their morals. The loser will have to capitulate or suffer the penalty for not doing so.

If there were nothing but man, no entities then the morals are man-made by a group of humans. Then it gets passed down to my grandparents, who passed it to my parents, who passed it to me, but at the crux, it is the morals of whichever man, woman or group that started it, who is to know if they got it right? Who was there to vet them out?

@tom_g First of all, I am asking you to humor me and imagine right now that there is no book. There is no god. Do you have any idea how you would go about determining what is right and what is wrong? Basically, aside from what I told Auggie, if there were no Book, no God, or gods what I thought moral would be if it made me happy. If it made me sad, or angry then it was immoral.

The only way you can determine that you are following a book that contains “good” rules about morality is that you already have a moral compass that you use to evaluate the morality laid out in the bible. I think that is one of our greatest philosophical differences. I think could not follow any “good” rules if there were not the “good” Spirit, to give you discernment to understand it or the concept. As I said before, there is no way to really test how much of morals would spontaneously well up in a child if they had no external influences, because there is no way to have that clinical situation in enough measure to make the hypothesis. I wish I knew the name of the study or the author of the piece, but a couple of years ago read an online article about children and fears, superstitions, etc. The study found that if the parents were afraid of dog, boat and water, etc, the child was more than likely to be afraid too, because kids growing up are always looking at their parent for cues on what to do and how stuff works. That is the reason why bigots and racist are made and not just born that way; they learn it from their parent.

I have a different view, HC. In your child raised by machines scenario, I believe the two children would figure it out between themselves, eventually. At first, I think it would be quite like you describe. However, I think they would very quickly learn which actions bring them pleasure, and which actions bring them pain. If the older hogs all the food, the younger will respond in some negative way, perhaps hogging all the toys. Eventually, they’ll come to an agreement on how to behave toward one another because it benefits themselves.

I’m pretty certain that’s how morality developed in the first place, among the earliest people. Survival pretty much demands a common morality. People have existed since long before the bible ever came into being. Do you really think all the people who lived before that time were immoral?

@augustlan At first, I think it would be quite like you describe. However, I think they would very quickly learn which actions bring them pleasure, and which actions bring them pain. If the older hogs all the food, the younger will respond in some negative way, perhaps hogging all the toys. I think how quick they came to some concordant would be how close they had to be in proximity of each other. If they were in a place where they could physically separate most of the time, I believe it would be a long time coming. I agree at some point they will come up with certain protocol, be it just to keep from fighting, but they would. Maybe the younger, weaker child will just capitulate and accept the minor roll, and work around the desires and whims of the older child. If the younger one wanted to hog the toys, because the older one hogged the food, the older one and just beat the younger one and take them. Why would she/he have to be diplomatic when they have the superior might?

Eventually, they’ll come to an agreement on how to behave toward one another because it benefits themselves. I think any working relationship would come at the expense of the weaker child, they do not have the might to influence policy so they will have to work not to agitate the stronger child. If the food came in such a way that only the smaller child’s hands would fit into the container to open it, then the smaller child has a chip to play. The older child will have to give some because he/she needs the younger child to eat. Or it happens that the older child has a game that takes two to play and needs to work with the smaller child in order to use those toys. The older child might just get to like the company of the younger child and help them even if they had nothing to bring to the table. Because they are doing something that is mutually beneficial for their own aim, if that is morality or raises up to that bar, I can’t say.

People have existed since long before the bible ever came into being. Do you really think all the people who lived before that time were immoral? I totally believe morality was here before the Bible was penned. However, that is the crux of the biscuit, how it came to be here, even before the Bible, is the debate. How I believe it came that man had it, is different from what many people who think it came from another place, or source.

Would you mind telling us your theory of how man came to have morals?

Sorry, @Hypocrisy_Central, but I am going to have to bow out of this one and agree to disagree. I don’t think we’re even speaking the same language, so the conversation doesn’t seem worthwhile.

@tom_g No hard feels or disrespect taken. I still admire your logic in other areas. :)

@augustlan Would you mind telling us your theory of how man came to have morals? I would love to give you that theory, and I might pm it to you, here in the open would make your job harder. What will logically happen if I will tell you, I would then end up having to battle 6/8 of the Collective because some, who already said they have no capacity to merely disagree with it, without going to the gutter or mocking it, will say something dumb rather than stick to the merits of the debate. Then I will have to put them in their place, and doing so, someone else will feel offended because they think I am directing it towards them too, or they will identify so close with it, they will feel attacked. Then it will descend into some fiery verbal food fight of Biblical proportions with you and the other mods, extracting near half of it to the “Corn Field”. I would love to have a civil discussion and tell you, but I already know, from some recent threads, the potential for all hell no pun intended to break lose is like a match strike away in the dynamite locker.

Be sure to post me a message with that theory too.

@tom_g I’ll still for some more replies and I will share.

I really am curious, @Hypocrisy_Central. I gather that you have a religious theory, but are you thinking that God made man with his morality instilled from birth? Seeing as how man was around long before the bible was around to teach its morality, that’s what I’m assuming. But, if you look at it that way, then A) All morality really does come from the same place (instilled by God), so why is it so variable? and B) Those kids we were discussing up there ^^ would already be moral, even if raised by machines, right?

That’s what’s confusing me.

@augustlan @Hibernate Let me get my flame retardant cloak on

Let see if I can say this without offending thin-skinned people. How and where I believe morality came from is, lets say a divine entity, call Him what you wish. Imagine he is a very intelligent alien or whatever. This divine entity had the ability or the means to instill man into a prefect environment, in every way. Man did not have to do anything of real labor. Man did not have clothes because embarrassment or modesty was not known. Another malevolent entity who wanted to destroy all that the divine entity created came upon man, and his mate. Seeing man’s mate did not have the intimate close connection with the divine entity the malevolent one figured she would be easier to dupe. In this perfect region was a tree, be it literal or metaphysical, we will just go with the literal because it is easier to follow. It had properties that would alter and expand mans understanding, be it a chemical process, who knows, but it had that ability. Man was told not to touch it. The malevolent entity tricked the women into eating and she then presented it to her mate.

As so many men fall to the whims and wishes of a woman, more so their own, he ate when he was not suppose to. The properties if that fruit heighten mans awareness to shame and modesty, etc. Because when the entity approached them, knowing fully what they had done, The man and his mate hid, because they were now aware they were unclothed. It, in my mind, was not a total loss for man but when asked, man tried to place the blame on the woman, he blamed his shortcomings on the woman the divine entity had placed their for him. When the woman was asked she blamed it on being tricked by the malevolent entity. Had they ‘fessed up and apologized I think there would have been some penalty but things would have gone alone much as it had before. Because man could not capitulate and apologize, we all stood doomed.

From that point on, I feel what man did have innately wired was arrogance, jealousy, anger, bitterness, self-centeredness, etc. Man is basically a creature of survival of the fittest. That is why children have to be taught to share, and not be selfish because that is the natural nature of man, inherited through the centuries. It was the teaching, and the residual affects of it that survived all these centuries that even gave man a chance not to destroy himself. The ones who are the vanguard of those teachings are those who are spiritual, in the sense of following the ambassador sent by the divine entity.

For those who are not religious, or believe anything that can’t be felt, touched, seen, measured, or tested cannot be plausible, that is the most non-religious way I can explain it. Still some will get annoyed all over it.

@Hypocrisy_Central: When you have a law, some agency or branch of government say T, F, and H are illegal; L, Q, Z, are legal. Q could be immoral, it might even harm someone’s spirit, but there is no penalty if you did it. H might be illegal even though is shouldn’t be, like some dude sitting in his own house smoking a fat blunt. Or he was growing his own hemp, maybe he tipped off his brother to sell his stock because there is going to be a hostile takeover. In short, who gave the official word that the morality you follow is right? What makes them right? If you can do something immoral but there is no penalty, fine, or loss of freedom, how potent is that morality?

Given your argument in the post above (which doesn’t make me angry, by the way; I just think you’re about as wrong as one can get on the issue) why should it be God who sets the moral code? Who/what gave God Its moral code? The basic problem with your position is that it cannot escape vicious infinite regress. If you can identify the being that gave us the moral code we fail to follow, what reason is there to suppose that it developed morality on Its own? By your previous responses to questions in this thread, it’s clear that you doubt the morality of individuals in a limited group context. Why should a full individual – i.e. one that has no peers – be moral in any way at all?

To come back to the point you make in the text I have quoted:

”If you can do something immoral but there is no penalty, fine, or loss of freedom, how potent is that morality?”

If there is no victim, there is no immorality.

If there is a victim, a “penalty, fine or loss of freedom” is incurred, in some way, by the victim , and therefore that act is immoral.

In short, your implied, and later explicit, position on this issue is logically inconsistent, and therefore invalid. It is hypocritical.

QED.

@tom_g I’ll reply now since it seems not many will reply. The obvious response was Gog. I’;m sorry but your “not so sure” is just a speculation. Picture whatever you want but I’m not gonna assume anything else except His existence. Why? I felt His presence more than once. And if He weren’t to reveal His presence to me I’d be a person with no morality at all. I’m not saying other can be moral without God but I can’t. Without Him I’d just seize the day and do only things that suit me or benefit only me [no family/ no friends/nothing].

And to the other part of the question. I let others sanctionate mine when it is wrong or goes outside boundaries. I can’t be anything else. When I had no plan I just toked everything I wanted “for free” but in the end when i saw I had no meaning He “forced” me to a place where now I make sense.

@Hibernate – I suspect you’d answer differently if you had a family of your own. I find the negative arguments of theists to be the most hollow.

@Hypocrisy_Central To summarize, pre-fall, there was no need for morality because the Edenic world was perfect. Post fall, with knowledge came the need for morality, because the perfection was gone. So in turning to the light, man needed to develop a morality, with divine guidance, but imperfect man needs help to distinguish the divine from the appearance of divine coming from the evil one.

That morality is developed in man. And that morality by your description is a learned process, implying an evolving morality as man grows in wisdom. Man therefore develops morality individually, and without agreement on what is moral.

A great example of evolving morality is the question of same sex marriage. Fifty years ago homosexuality was illegal just about everywhere, even in San Francisco where gay nightclubs would get shut down and the patrons arrested. The overwhelming view was that being gay was immoral.

Now we are at the point where same sex marriage is considered moral by close to half the population (I don’t know the exact percentage) and a strong majority supports LGBTQ freedom and pride.

Morality is not static, not conferred on man at the beginning, but developed by man.

To me, the whole “God’s law” is in question, because there is zero evidence that the laws that are given to us by one man after another through the ages actually came from any so-called God. If this God really wanted us to know what It’s laws are, It would tell us in person.

@the100thmonkey who said I don’t have it? And if I were to start it before knowing God I wouldn’t care that much for them [but this is not the point].,

@the100thmonkey First off, I answered the people who were open to taking a look. I surely did not do it for your amusement because it would be like a plumber trying to explain to a brain surgeon why the water spot appeared many feet from there the actual drip was. You can’t explain something to anyone with a dispensation not to listen, even if they have no better hypothesis to give. Who/what gave God Its moral code? If you create something, you can do as you please with it. You do most of what you want with your pet, it eats when you let it eat. I doesn’t go in any part of the house you don’t let it go. Why do you have the authority do control the meals and movements of your pet? For one, you are way smarter, and the pet is your possession not you being possessed by your pet; that is why.

In short, your implied, and later explicit, position on this issue is logically inconsistent, and therefore invalid. It is hypocritical. There is no hypocrisy at all, and my position has not changed. For me, I know where my morality comes from, I know where the morality many use by default came from. You should examine the ideology where you believe morality originated, the legs it is standing on are as strong as pretzels.

@zenvelo That morality is developed in man. And that morality by your description is a learned process, implying an evolving morality as man grows in wisdom. You are a little off. What I alluded to, was that the first man learned morality, as well as many other things, by his disobedience. That morality was then handed down to buffer and counter the imperfection the first man also handed down. What the first man handed down was not his but He who created and guided him.

A great example of evolving morality is the question of same sex marriage. Fifty years ago homosexuality was illegal just about everywhere, even in San Francisco where gay nightclubs would get shut down and the patrons arrested. The overwhelming view was that being gay was immoral.

Now we are at the point where same sex marriage is considered moral by close to half the population (I don’t know the exact percentage) and a strong majority supports LGBTQ freedom and pride. I will say only this, as not to piss anyone off. That criteria speaks to what I have said before, elsewhere, is that morality is merely a popularity contest which means nothing. One could say the settlers who were stealing the land from the Native Americans were moral. They were getting rid of those heathanous savages, who didn’t have to good sense to know profit, the value of land, greed or anything like that. The settlers had more might, and then they had more numbers, so what they said went. Even if they razed whole villages laying waste the young, old and everyone in between they were right, and just, because those savages where holding up progress.

@YARNLADY To me, the whole “God’s law” is in question, because there is zero evidence that the laws that are given to us by one man after another through the ages actually came from any so-called God. And zero evidence man came about his morality, which you can’t pin down in a stand-alone fashion, came by serendipity. Then I can only guess your logic came from men, since women were pretty silent back then, or a group of men who were your ancestors, who handed it down through the ages. It made its way to your grandparents, then your parents, then to you. Guess those men must have been very smart, and certainly more worthy that they should make up rules what is and isn’t and you follow it. They thought the same of a man named Jim Jones until they found themselves drinking the grape Kool-aid, then it was too late.

If this God really wanted us to know what It’s laws are, It would tell us in person. He has, you just chose not to listen. Second, if He did tell you to your face you would try to use some science to explain it as some slick trick from Industrial Light and Magic, and that you will not be tricked by some slight of hand parlor trick or illusion, telling you in person would be pointless.

@Hypocrisy_Central came by serendipity To the contrary, the preponderance of evidence is that is the only way the laws did come about. The mere fact that the so-called “morality laws” are so flexible and variable is proof they weren’t formulated by some God who “speaks” to a few chosen people.

those men must have been very smart, and certainly more worthy that they should make up rules Leaders in every society emerge through their abilities, whatever they may be, intelligence or fear.

He has, you just chose not to listen NO, I have never been spoken to by any God through any means what so ever. Any real God who actually cared about his creations would be fully accessible in person, not through any slick tricks.

@YARNLADY came by serendipity To the contrary, the preponderance of evidence is that is the only way the laws did come about. Law and morality is not the same deal. It is not immoral for me to dump my trash in the forest, but it is illegal. It is not immoral for me to stalk a woman or man, but it is illegal. There are many things that are illegal that has nothing to do with morality.

NO, I have never been spoken to by any God through any means what so ever. Any real God who actually cared about his creations would be fully accessible in person, not through any slick tricks. Are you trying to say the only way you would or could believe is if you heard the words directly to your ear? Guess you best toss out every book in your house. Since you have not heard the person directly their words could have been watered-down, altered, changed, etc. If you did not hear it directly you could be hearing or reading just what someone wants you to read and see.

@Hypocrisy_Central I beg to differ… dumping trash in the forest or stalking is immoral. They both cause harm.

@augustlan I beg to differ… dumping trash in the forest or stalking is immoral. They both cause harm. Where did people dump their trash before there were landfills? They dumped them out in nature somewhere if they didn’t burn it. Even burning it would be illegal in many areas. Where is the specific harm made? To have it dumped in nature or burned where the smoke pollutes the air? Even if the fire pill was large enough that smoke drifted to near by people and bothered then, Boorish behavior is not in itself immoral. If the woman or guy liked the person who shadowed them, they would not feel injured by the exact same act. Some people like that another shadow them. The same act, but two different outlooks. Which one is right if none can enforce the other to go along with theirs?

“Stalking” implies unwanted behavior. It scares the shit out of people. That’s immoral, in my book. Dumping trash in the forest when there are better options (as there certainly are today) is immoral, to me.

@Hypocrisy_Central Per your previous comments, I was referring to so-called God’s laws, not legal laws. As far as hearing or reading just what someone wants you to read and see., yes, that is always the case, which is why it is important not to base one’s beliefs and actions on one source, but rather a wide base of information.

@augustlan I beg to differ… dumping trash in the forest or stalking is immoral. They both cause harm. Where did people dump their trash before there were landfills? They dumped them out in nature somewhere if they didn’t burn it. Even burning it would be illegal in many areas. Where is the specific harm made? To have it dumped in nature or burned where the smoke pollutes the air? Even if the fire pill was large enough that smoke drifted to near by people and bothered then, Boorish behavior is not in itself immoral. If the woman or guy liked the person who shadowed them, they would not feel injured by the exact same act. Some people like that another shadow them. The same act, but two different outlooks. Which one is right if none can enforce the other to go along with theirs?

@@YARNLADY which is why it is important not to base one’s beliefs and actions on one source, but rather a wide base of information. That is what makes a faith a faith, that you need not have all the hard evidence. In many ways it is no different than science, the difference being how to get to the believing part. Scientist point instruments to the skies and off what they can gather way down here, believe certain things exist that they never have been to and can never reach. They do so because they believe what they gathered is accurate when there is always the plausibility it could be read wrong because of phenomena still unknown.

@Hypocrisy_Central Yes, there are many kinds of faith, just as there are many kinds of love. I simply don’t have the kind required to believe in a God-type being.

@YARNLADY That again leads me to wonder, whose morality are you using because you are not using that which came by way of the Word? Did you develop it on your own as you grew? Did it come mainly from your parents, and if so, where did they get it? Did it come by way of the media? Just as you did not invent English but it is your language, it was what you heard everyday as a baby and was taught by your parents. If the nation was overthrown and the new rulers were saying Yiddish is not the official and correct language, unless they had the might to make everyone speak Yiddish, would you simply abandon English and embrace Yiddish full throttle just because someone told you?

@Hypocrisy_Central Please pay attention to my previous comments. Read carefully, the answers have already been stated.

@YARNLADY Ah, sorry, forgot that. From a stand-alone view point, I would have to say I agree with that. Yes I can agree with people who do not think 100% as I do. ;-P