Choice?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

My question is, if society accepted it, was it "a good thing" back then when society accepted it?

From the point of view of the people who made up the society, yes.  From the point of view that we have now, no.  But we are members of a different society, one that considers such things to be bad.  I consider such things to be bad, but if I were a member of a society that did not consider these things bad, I would likely feel differently about them.

all

[Acumen]

From the point of view of the people who made up the society, yes.  From the point of view that we have now, no.  But we are members of a different society, one that considers such things to be bad.  I consider such things to be bad, but if I were a member of a society that did not consider these things bad, I would likely feel differently about them.

Why do you believe that moral standards are only determined by society?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Why do you believe that moral standards are only determined by society?

What else would I believe determined them?

all

[Acumen]

How about individuals?  Or perhaps clans or family units?  What about church organizations?  In other words, why does the standard have to be set by society?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

How about individuals?  Or perhaps clans or family units?  What about church organizations?  In other words, why does the standard have to be set by society?

Individuals, clans, and family units make up society, as do church organizations made up of individuals, clans and family units.  As such they all have a part in making up the standards, and they all have a part in changing them over time. 

all

[Acumen]

All,

Individuals, clans, and family units make up society, as do church organizations made up of individuals, clans and family units.  As such they all have a part in making up the standards, and they all have a part in changing them over time.

Right, but an individual alone doesn't make up society.  Can an individual alone determine a system of morals, or is this something that society alone can do?  And if only society can determine morality, then why?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

Individuals, clans, and family units make up society, as do church organizations made up of individuals, clans and family units.  As such they all have a part in making up the standards, and they all have a part in changing them over time.

Right, but an individual alone doesn't make up society.  Can an individual alone determine a system of morals, or is this something that society alone can do?  And if only society can determine morality, then why?

An individual can determine what they feel is right, but a system of morals can only be determined by a societal group. 

That group is the only one that can determine morality, because they are the only ones who are capable of looking at the actions and determining if those actions fit with the expected behavior of the group.  An individual can look at the actions as well, and determine if they would be judged by the group as consistent with the standards placed by the group, but only the group can set the standards by which the others are judged. 

all

[Acumen]

All,

That group is the only one that can determine morality, because they are the only ones who are capable of looking at the actions and determining if those actions fit with the expected behavior of the group.

Why do actions have to "fit" within the setting of a societal group?  Why can't an individual determine what actions are appropriate for individuals?

An individual can look at the actions as well, and determine if they would be judged by the group as consistent with the standards placed by the group, but only the group can set the standards by which the others are judged.

If society, or the leaders of society determined that my brother was a criminal, and they sought to imprison him, would my family be morally wrong to aid in his escape?  What makes the society's determination of right or wrong any superior to the mini-society (family)?

-Acumen

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

That group is the only one that can determine morality, because they are the only ones who are capable of looking at the actions and determining if those actions fit with the expected behavior of the group.

Why do actions have to "fit" within the setting of a societal group?  Why can't an individual determine what actions are appropriate for individuals?

Individuals do determine what actions are appropriate for themselves, then society determines whether or not those actions are appropriate for society.  The actions only have to fit within the setting of a societal group if one expects to be a member of that societal group. 

An individual can look at the actions as well, and determine if they would be judged by the group as consistent with the standards placed by the group, but only the group can set the standards by which the others are judged.

If society, or the leaders of society determined that my brother was a criminal, and they sought to imprison him, would my family be morally wrong to aid in his escape?

Wrong according to the decree of the society.  Right according to the standards of the family.  If the family is part of the society, then it is bound by the rules of the society. 

What makes the society's determination of right or wrong any superior to the mini-society (family)?

The force with which to enforce the rules, and the greater number of people who agree with those rules.  Take care not to confuse "society" with "government".

all

[Acumen]

So might makes right?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

So might makes right?

No.  Right and wrong are judgment calls based of of cultural ideas of what is right and what is wrong.  You asked me what makes it superior, which I took to mean above, above, greater rank or station.  The societies ideas of right and wrong supercedes the ideas of right and wrong of the individuals that make up the society if those individuals are in the minority and the ideas are in conflict.  Might does not make right, but it allows the ability to enforce what the mighty think is right.

all

[Acumen]

All,


No.  Right and wrong are judgment calls based of of cultural ideas of what is right and what is wrong.  You asked me what makes it superior, which I took to mean above, above, greater rank or station.  The societies ideas of right and wrong supercedes the ideas of right and wrong of the individuals that make up the society if those individuals are in the minority and the ideas are in conflict.  Might does not make right, but it allows the ability to enforce what the mighty think is right.

So are you saying that the majority makes it right?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I'm saying that the majority decides what is right for the society at the given moment.

all

[Acumen]

I take it that they only decide what is right because they have the majority and power do to so.  This is an understandable concept, but does this make their conception of right and wrong any more legitimate than a clan's concept of right or wrong?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I take it that they only decide what is right because they have the majority and power do to so.  This is an understandable concept, but does this make their conception of right and wrong any more legitimate than a clan's concept of right or wrong?

Nope.

all

[jacknky]

Speaking for myself, I don't think I had a choice other than to be skeptical of the existence of supernatural beings like gods, angels and devils. I tried to believe in God growing up because it was expected in my family and by others around me but I couldn't. I just didn't SEE the supernatural. I live in a natural world. It was as though the Bible says the sky is red but I only see blue.

[Thorolf]

Nobody can force you to see the sky a different color than you do... at some point, you will either receive a revelation and understand it to be red, or you will always be skeptical.

I don't have a problem with skepticism. I was agnostic for most of my life until my early 20s. I had been to many churches, wanting to understand what my friends believed. I've been to quite a few Catholic churches, Lutheran churches, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, etc.... and attended Unitarian churches myself for a while. I can honestly say that I was seeking for answers - I was not an atheist, I was agnostic (atheism is a belief system in and of itself and is akin to godless religion). But I never had an experience in any of them that suggested that God was real (or that the sky was red).

When I did (in a Pentecostal church at the age of 23), I was THEN forced to make my decision, or be forever a hypocrite in my own mind. I could not be an agnostic or a skeptic if, when faced with sufficient material to make a decision, I tried to pretend that I still did not know or doubted.

Nobody could have forced me, though... although several tried.

Anyway, welcome to the site, jack! Hope you enjoy it.

[jacknky]

Thank you, Thorolf. It sounds like we had similar experiences only reversed. I too have been a searcher but never fit in with believers. Now my spiritual needs are satisfied with Buddhist meditation, a path based on experience and reason, and my needs for fellowship are met through the local UU Fellowship, a group of caring and accepting individuals.

[jacknky]

"do you believe that Christianity is not based on eperience and reason?"

Not my experience and reason. I believe Christianity and any other theistic religion is based on faith and that faith is based on very human needs, not the least of which is fear of death. I wonder how popular Christianity would be if it didn't offer the hope of living forever.

[Thorolf]

"do you believe that Christianity is not based on eperience and reason?"

Not my experience and reason. I believe Christianity and any other theistic religion is based on faith and that faith is based on very human needs, not the least of which is fear of death. I wonder how popular Christianity would be if it didn't offer the hope of living forever.

I don't know... that's a good question - although I think it would apply to nearly any theistic system, not just Christianity.

Quite frankly, if nothing else, then Christianity does teach a method of living that is actually an excellent code of conduct. I readily acknowledge that Christians often have trouble adhering to that code... but it's most certainly there. Would it be popular if it didn't offer the hope of living forever? I suppose, if not for that, it would still be rather popular because, in addition to the code of conduct it teaches that each of us can have a personal relationship with God, that He loves us, and that He will do things for us (even though we often don't realize that He is the one doing it!)