Morality
 

We here at Revscene are going to have a serious discussion. If you don't have anything to add, please don't participate. We'll be issuing points for anyone who decides to be disruptive.



A street preacher has a discussion with a man about morality, evolution vs theology, and personal opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5LG4vLOpk

Lets not talk about the obnoxious way he packages his sermon but the content itself.

Opinions?

That guy is retarded
fuck his voice is annoying
He's really an embarrassment to the catholic community

Why not rape?
Because it's disrespectful? it has nothing to do with religion or science...

Wow, that guy's voice is supremely annoying.

It's hard to say this because of his attitude, but I do agree with him.

Here is someone with possibly a bit more education, who presents their view in a much more civilized manner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ

Both sides can make convincing arguments regarding morality as a social construct. In this case neither person is able to make a very good argument because of the circumstances (random guy vs. prepared "sermon"). I didn't watch the second posted video as I can't be bother to listen to an hour of what I've likely heard a million times before.

From an evolutionary stand point you could probably justify every moral "code of conduct" as a factor promoting natural selection. From their point of view morals are socially constructed over time as a way to propagate the human race. On the other hand I've heard many good arguments from theologists reasoning that there is a higher moral code that leads evolution rather than stemming from it.

interesting thread! I gotta return when I have my answer thought out. Looking forward to hear what you guys think... such a big subject. Thanks freakshow for the youtube vid.

can someone cliffnote the thing? a thesis would be nice

dont want to watch a guy ramble on for 9 minutes

A lot of people believe in objective morals. I do not.

Cultural Relativism is the idea that something can be wrong for one person and right for another. Time and location can change what is right or wrong for different people.

2000 years ago, it may have been accepted by everyone in a society (ie, a village) that if a baby is born with 3 arms, it should be killed. They may have believed that the "right" thing to do. Now we would obviously not believe that. We would try to help the baby live. A Cultural Relativist would say this is okay, as morals/ideas on right vs. wrong can change over time and in different places.

The more common view is Utilitarianism, which says that even if they thought it to be right at the time, it was wrong, and they themselves were wrong.

The guy just chose rape as an example because most people's first instinct is "SHIT RAPE, I CAN'T BE SEEN ON THE SAME SIDE AS RAPE, THEREFORE RAPE IS WRONG AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN WRONG". Some cultures may have preached rape was right, so all the people then thought it is the "right" thing to do. Is it really, or do they just believe it? The Cultural Relativist would say, yes, it was the right thing to do at the time for them. The Utilitarian would say no (or yes), it's wrong (or right) no matter what, for everyone, always, in all cultures.

He just applies this all to religion and how Utilitarianism is the right thing (always has and always will be according to him).


/serious post

the 2nd video was a lot better than the first, but it was like an hour...

One of the points he talks about is where does morality come from? He gives some options. I'll mesh my own opinions into his examples. I recommend that you watch it if you have time one day.

Nature. We are just smarter animals right? But then, if morality came from nature it doesn't make too much sense since it's survival of the fittest out there for the most part. Sure some animals care for the sick but never to the extent of humans i would say. If we followed nature's example we should just aim to keep the strong and leave the weak behind...but there's something about us in our conscience that would give us guilt if we did. So where is that from?

Society. We aim to have morals because it benefits society as a whole. When we care for each other and keep everyone healthy our society is stronger and therefore our gene pool can win out others. The problem is that while I am helping society there is no further benefit to me unless I push its limits. What good is it to help others replicate and spread their genes while I am wasting my resources to help them? You see, I am also individualistic and secretly also want to stand out. And if life's whole purpose is to propagate my genes...so while I'm tricking everyone that I am a good guy, I will secretly do things outside of society's norm if I can get away from it to gain the upper advantage. Also, if society decided what is moral then it would just be a voting process. In the video Tim uses this example: Genocide is wrong then only because we say so right now. In the future if majority votes otherwise, then it is right? Somehow even if 90% of the population can think it is right...doesn't make it right. So I don't think society can also give an absolute answer as to what is acceptable. It's plausible that our morals and conscience can come from society, but it is just as probable as...

A higher being/God. There was someone responsible for causing our existence and our sense of right and wrong and our conscience descends from that. Tim argues that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in God as to not believe in him. If there was a God, then it makes sense to not commit crime even when I can get away with it; because of punishment later on. Also, it makes sense that we feel guilt from doing something bad even when we are not caught. Tim says that you can't prove the existence of God with morality, but you cannot disprove it also. It's about intellectual, personal experience and social reasons that compel someone to choose to believe. Right now obviously he is only discussing intellect. Frankly, you cannot persuade someone to change sides based only on intellectual arguments alone because you cannot prove either way whether God exists or doesn't. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you have to believe in God to be a morally outstanding citizen. Believers can be cruel, and so can non-believers. That is not the point of this discussion though. I would be interested in questioning the altruist his motives though, because it would seem to go against my natural instincts and evolution theory. On the other hand, if this person was a believer, then it would readily make sense since he expects accountability for his life after death. Again, nothing proves or disproves objective morality or God. Tim just makes a point that things seem to be less complicated and make more sense when you have a higher being in the picture.

There were a lot more other points in the video that are worth watching that I don't have time to write about.

Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. Morality describes the principles that govern our behavior. Without these principles in place, societies cannot survive for long. In today's world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of view, but by definition, we see that this is not the case.

Seriously, do you have any original thoughts or do you just randomly Google topics and regurgitate what you read?

First and second paragraph:

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm