Communications via reason seems in short supply

Is morality reasonable?

We (society) believe that it is.

What is reasonable about subduing our being?

Subduing our being? Reasonable? Probably not.

However, we need some kind of reference point when we state our opinions on something (or when we act, etc.). That's why we need morality. It sounds more reasonable, doesn't it?

It is the way of life we are acustom too.

Yeah, but there are moral standards now everyone adheres to that debilitate the individual. Look at our code on sexuality. There is still a stigma attached to women who are very sexually active. Even in the back of their non-judgemental minds men everywhere think "hmmm, not the marrying/mother of my children kind". We'll also have to stick to western society because most of the world has set their reference point to 'screw women, children and minorities'.

More accurate of a statement than alluded to there also.

I agree with the majority of every one's perspective on this. They are all correct in my eyes. But there is more to it of course. But when it comes to homosexuality, it is not illegal for same sex relationships. When it comes to sodomy, i think they are concerned about public displays. Now a days it really isnt illegal. And if it is illegal in the books, i doubt they reinforce it.

As for society's morality and the individual, it really does not matter. Unless it is murder or something, but I dont think that is the issue. Every one has different morals, depending on culture or family ties. Society is not going to accept every ones morals or agree with everything, but that never should stop the individual from being an individual. Individuals make up the society, but they are all still individuals in themselves.

What inccident happened to make you inquire about this? Maybe we could be more specific in our arguements if we knew what you were pondering about.

~Angel~

I think this thread questions utiliterianism, where the sacrifices of the few for the benefit for the whole is the assumed "correct" conduct. However, in some cases the sacrifice of a few may end up hurting society more than helping society.

Who is it that judges the value of an individual anyway?

The world is in moral decay, say the theists, because of "moral relativism." Only a divine power makes possible an absolute standard of right and wrong, they say. And yet, entirely aside from the evil that men (and women) do, there is much that is terrible and unjust in the world, so that if there be a God, we realize, He can not be both all-good and all-powerful. Because if He were, He would put an end to such things.

But I'm afraid the situation is much, much worse even than that. Four hundred years before Jesus Christ is supposed to have been born, Socrates asked "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." Socrates also observed that the gods--plural-- argued and disagreed about right and wrong as much as human beings. He got around this by supposing that that which all the gods approved was the good, and that which they all objected to was the evil, and that all else was neither good nor evil. He might just as well have considered the problem of a single god-- like that of the Christian Bible--who's inconsistent about what is beloved. But, as we know only too well, there simply is no honest way out of contradictions like that.

So let's just consider a strictly theoretical situation. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose there's a God, and that He, She, or It is the absolute standard of morality. Is right and wrong then simply no more than this God's say-so? Or is what is right loved by this God and what is wrong hated by this God because of what right and wrong are in themselves?

In the first instance, if good and evil are no more than the product of the will of a divine power, and if that will is truly free, then such a God could, with a thought, cause what we consider to be the most repugnant and heinous criminal act to become the highest virtue. Now the further question would arise, of course, as to whether if this happened we would know it. Why? Because of "the moral law within us," as the philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, or "the work of the law written in our hearts," as "Saint Paul" acknowledged ( Romans 2: 15). If morality is the say-so of a God, then presumably, like the gravitational effects of a massive body, any change in His (or Her or Its) will would cause our own consciences to be instantaneously altered. I've never heard of this happening, though.

At any rate, if there is a God, and if this God's will determines what is right and wrong, then this supposed God's being all-good is no more than His (or Her or Its) being all-powerful. Is that an absolute morality? I don't think so. Rather, it's a morality that's completely relative to His (or Her or Its) desire. In a word--well, three actually--it's *might makes right*. It's another version of the law of the jungle. How's that for an admirable system of morality?

The only uncertainty remaining is whether it's more or less pathetic than the alternative situation of a God who is Himself (or Herself or Itself) subject to a logically anterior or prior standard of morality. That would be the case in the second instance of things that are good being beloved by God because they're good, because, of course, that puts God on the same level with human beings. It makes Him (or Her or It) irrelevant.

Well, we know He--or She or It--is irrelevant. That's why we're revolted by such Biblical stories as that of Yahweh asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering--as if an all-good God could be pleased by a criminal act. Did Abraham really think he was flattering Yahweh to agree to do such a thing? It's curious that this same God is also supposed to have issued orders of mass extermination, orders that "The Good Book" tells us were actually carried out with less hesitation than Abraham had in preparing to kill his own son.

Well, so much for theistic "absolute morality." It's anything but.

Watch out, it's the racist, bigoted, narrow-minded anti-religious freaks

Let me start with a question: If Christians are the hateful bunch, how come I'm the one being called names instead of the other way around? I have yet to insult any group of people or individual. And all of the responses to my letters contain comments implying my stupidity and closed mind. You want to talk about hypocrisy?

Let me apologize for being "obsessed" with Christ instead of myself. And please, if you want to talk "seperation of church and state," why don't you find it in the Constitution first. You won't be able to because it ain't there. anything you find in Mohammed's or Buddah's teachings that are universal truth will be so only because they are taken from Jesus Christ's.)

I oppose abortion because "pro-choice" people ignore infant humans' rights. I oppose homosexuality because we were made male and female, and who is the clay to tell the potter what to do? I sound angry because I am. This world is changing fast into something not many people recognize.

Where has the idea gone that people can be wrong? Is something to be accepted because a person likes it? If there wasn't an absolute truth then the words "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist. Obviously, they do. So stop trying to make wrong right.

First, let's look at right and wrong. It seems to be a main point for discussion.

It is true that being more like God would make you a better person. God being the appex upon being, however, you must consider that while people are in God's likeness, it is not a perfect human-being's ability to be God. People have sex and bodily fluids. We are not all seeing, but we must still act, react and be proactive to survive. The most we can do is try to follow some order and question other's in order to see more than we are capable of seeing.

In the Great Enlightenment, it was depicted that a soul's destiny to go to Heaven or Hell is determined before they were born. The wealthy would feel blessed because God gave them money. The poor would feel blessed because God gave them humility. The religious would feel blessed because God gave them insight and leadership. Scientists blessed because God gave them knowledge. So on and so forth. However, the initial statement is vain. How would a human be so bold as to say they know God's plan.

That brings us back to individual challenges. Is an executionor of a tried and convicted murder the same as a murderer? In fact, is a soldier a serial killer? In both case there is need for defense, however, many other stories of a soldier's activities are associated. Such as; having sex with locals, abusing their rank and since we're in another country, do those rules apply to us.

The line between right and wrong is a hazy line. It is never totally black or white, but still has more obvious tributes towards one or the other. If a person lives a good life and calculates everything, I think grey is the most common color. You really have to go over-board to go light grey or dark grey.

In conclusion, try to be more proactive and think before reacting. However, no one is really better than anyone else.

Whoa, a little sensitive there dude, I dont think many people on this forum condemn anyone for their beliefs, unless they just wanna play with your head, and you've just gotta learn to handle that. They will debate issues with you maybe, but that's what it's here for. I'm sure you're not insulting to people who are either gay or have had an abortion. Hate the sin, eh, that's cool, but don't expect people to always agree with you.

I actually see the point in your post NMaries; it worries me.