I understand what you're saying, but, to play devil's advocate, how do I tell the difference between someone to whom God has spoken and someone who is just a zealot or insane? For instance, people fly planes into buildings to kill civilians, blow up abortion clinics, commit genocide, and countless other atrocities in the name of God. Are we to assume that they prayed and what they did was right because God told them to do it?

My point is that anyone can say that God has provided them the answers, and some will even believe it. But, does that make it true?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

No need to apologize.What "doesn't impede" as a rule of thumb aren't basing your morals on something. It sounds more like you have a fear of morals.Your morals are based merely on the elimination of a supposed 'impediment' that shall remain nameless for whatever reason you can come up with, seemingly. That isn't very 'to the point' but evasive, vague and indiscernible.A definition of right and wrong that is based non impediment on legitimate rights doesn't offer moral clarity.I comprehend your answer completely. Non impediment is what you base your 'supposed' morality on.If moral based on something was defined as non-impediment, yours would be tops.So your moral values based on non-impediment makes you an authority, right?You don't care. I have heard that before from others with similar views.Where you come up with force feeding as a complaint is anyone's guess. I would suggest spoon-feeding.

__________________
United We Stand.

Dodge, your stock would go way up if you would just man-up and admit that you will readily dismiss any response which does not coincide with your personal opinions.

Otherwise, it's ridiculously unlikely that anyone here would have the stomach for taking you seriously...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

My personal opinions aside, we are talking about what moral values are based on. I already know your values.What can't be taken seriously are values like "that which doesn't impede on the legitimate rights" which doesn't say anything. If it did, you could have told me where I was wrong instead of relying only on personal attacks.

I am discussing your answers (if you provide any) and the other contributor's answers to learn and assertain what morality is based on but seem to be coming up short on substance.

__________________
United We Stand.

I engaged in pornography last night; you did not seem to mind.
Suicide is not a victimless crime. It devastates those left behind. Your family must clean up and mourn.

Do you understand, yet? Here is a hint: if it feels good, do it.

Well mr kinetic,

As long as you insist on putting words in my mouth, we won't have anything to discuss, will we? Since you already know all of the answers to every possible question, I'm surprised that you waste your time with us mere mortals. I think you have a fairly clear idea of where I think you can place your entire philosophy. Enjoy.

You've been given answers. Lots of them.

Each and every time one has been offered, you argue it. Every time. That would clearly indicate that you don't want to know where someone gets their morals from. You ask, they answer, end of exchange. Instead, you insist on taking issue with where someone says their morals come from.

You have been intellectually dishonest throughout this entire thread, simply because you don't have the balls to admit the truth of why you asked the question. You don't want replies, you want arguments.

Well, Sport, you've got that in spades...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

i was wondering about this... people say you can do what you want to do as long as its not hurting anyone else...


What if it offends someone else....like gay sex in public.. I think most people would find that offensive.. but lol..... its not hurting anyone... but there are lesser things that offend people too.. like mentioning a bad word....forcing people to accept bad words is not right, its better just to be polite to general society and when with your friends do whatever the hell you want if they all approve of dirty words and gay sex. ..

neways this topic is very diffucult to define.. so abstract What exactly are "Moral Values" those words are usually applied to some religious construct. are morals values just what we say and do in polite society and avoiding criminal activity?

Sex in public, be it a gay couple or straight, is already illegal, so your point is, I think, moot.

That notwithstanding, nowhere are you guaranteed the right to not be offended...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Religions generally come with a morality, but we've seen countless time that even when there is a sacred text, the morality can be drastically changed over time without people thinking they're going against their religion (christian morals weren't the same in years 50, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000). Sure, there is a minority of people, essentially new converts, who try to base their live strictly on the sacred text, but they typically will need a teacher who will tell them what is the current interpretation... For exemple, the "islamic veil" is only mentionned briefly in one sentence in the whole Koran !

I don't see how anyone could base moral values on science; science can help people achieve goals. It doesn't tell people what goals they should pursue.

Biology and history are certainly not things on which one can base (justify) his morality on. They are however the source of morality for most people. The role played by biology and history are very difficult to determine, this is why I talk of both as one.


I think pretty much everybody "goes with the flow", ie accepts and uses as his own the values transmitted by parents, teachers and friends. As for a basis, I guess religious people pretend their basis is religion (which isn't a very good basis, because they're just saying they have faith in their moral code - that's no proof). Non-religious people most of the time have trouble finding on what they can base their morality on, and most of them actually are like religious people: they have "faith" in the morality code they were taught.


(so I'm with drgoodtrips and all those who expressed similar views in this thread).

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if, just as often, it went the other way: people pick their religion based on their pre-existing morality. For example, someone might reject some Islam because they percieve it as violent or Christianity because they percieve it has hypocritcal. In that case, they already have a moral system (one that says that violence and hypocrisy is necessarily wrong) and are using it to decide which religions they feel to be acceptable. Simililarly someone who already had the moral belief that all people and lifestyles should be accepted equally might, based (partially) on that belief, become a unitarian.
Just a thought. (my apologies to unitarians for the simplistic and stereotypical treatment of their doctrine...)

Well said!

It's an interesting view, but very hard to tell from what I proposed - does religion produce morality, or does morality produce religion? And how much does each thing really forces itself on the other - it is possible that in the end, religion and morality are relatively independant?
We have interesting specimens here : some christians advocate universal love while others advocating nuking the whole middle east...


As for my own moral beliefs... I'm struggling to find how one could justify morality, and while I'm at this, I think the best thing to do is to "go with the flow". If the moral values my parents transmitted to me weren't too fucked up, I probably will have an easier time finding "internal peace" by obeying to them, rather than by trying to change them. In other words, I don't have faith anymore in my moral values, but I can't really "throw them away". If I'm convinced there's something better and that it's worth changing myself, I guess I'd try.

In a way, it's like being white, or black: regardless of whether you like it or not, you have this color. You can try to put a reasonning behind it in order to be proud of it, often by denigrating others (ie white supremacists, black panthers...), even though in the end it's arbitrary, and you didn't really choose it. It is possible to change it, through a long and often painful process (cf Mickael Jackson). But it is impossible to have absolutely no color: you wouldn't be human any more.

I haven't read a better post on this forum in a long time

Again, very well said (you're on a roll IIIX!).

I think morality is something that is probably impossible to "justify". Or perhaps a better way to say it would be that morality is inherrently self-justifying. After all, doesn't saying something is "just" or "right" require the use of an accept moral standard? Your struggle is, or should be, common to everyone.

Kinetic, I was so hoping you'd reply to post #44. Did you miss it?

EDITED:
After re-reading this I realized that it sounded smug, which was not my intention; I honestly want your thoughts on that post and, since it was at the end of a page, thought you might have overlooked it.