-
Posts
-
This conversation started up on another thread, and some people weren’t happy on it being there. At least a couple of people – Linda and Mooosey – seemed to think the conversation as worth having, so I’m setting up a new thread on the Getting Serious board.
I won’t be able to answer much, really, especially after tomorrow, as I’m away for a few days. back next week.
I’m re-posting the originals (5 posts) next, in case anyone interested wants to see where we’re coming from. no need to read them again if you’ve already read them.
Feel free to comment, or, if you don’t feel the conversation can go any further, then…..
it won’t go any further
These are the original posts:
I can’t comment on this ridiculous film , but I read a post a couple of weeks back possibly from scep about the concept of ” right and wrong ” and given if someone is an atheist with no possible retribution in a non existent afterlife, what motive or reason bar obvious legal superficiality would anyone have to remain within this boundary of “right and wrong”. It’s something which plays on my mind more as I get older and given the belief there is only one life with no discernable purpose, I can see how many may get immersed into a dark mode of thought regarding actions. We are all programmed from a young age to follow the template set out by society … school up to 16 , possible higher education till early 20s , dead end/ semi worthwhile job to mid 60s whilst you have a mortgage, kids, pottering round in old age decaying nearing death watering the daffodils entering F3 ( gods waiting room). If you don’t follow that design and adopt a rogue spirit , it’d be very likely complete chaos would ensue , no real law and order and true darwinism in survival of the fittest in every sense would materialise. We have this flimsy shell of a ” purpose to life” but step away from that , it gets very dark indeed.
I thought that was a very serious post, Norfolk, to be taken seriously. It may not be totally relevant to the thread, but neither have been quite a lot of the posts, and it was more serious than a lot of them. I had said that if there were no God, then why should we do what is right as opposed to what is wrong. If there were no God, then everything is permitted. It is even permitted to be good and to think of others; but it is equally legitimate to be self-serving and cruel, insensitive to others. I think what you set out are the reasons why people set up laws and obey them, not the reason for people being good. Without such rules, life would be ‘nasty, mean, brutish and short’ as someone once put it. but the civilizations we have built up for our security have never prevented people from being cruel or self-serving. Think in the past of regimes like Inca Peru with its child sacrifices or Nazi Germany. In the public sector of our own country – health, education – there is a lot of back-biting and scheming and bullying and lying to advance or defend personal interests – I’ve seen it. There is what in the Nazi Civil Service was called a bicycle pedal culture. You lift the bike pedal to lick the backside of your superior, then bring the pedal down hard on the head of your inferior, then lift the pedal up again to lick bottom, then down again hard, the wheel spinning faster and faster until you achieved promotion. Obeying the rules keeps a sort of security but something horrible is going on behind the curtain. Eichmann, the aspiring Nazi, didn’t hate Jews; he cultivated friendships with the Jewish elders to help make the system run more efficiently, his diaries are full of dinner dates to suck up to his superiors in order to achieve promotion; at the bottom a footnotes were timetables for the running of train taking men, women and children to Auschwitz and Buchenwald; these little things weren’t really of importance to him compared with climbing the ladder. It’s what one woman called the banality of evil. People use the rules of a society in order to advance themselves. They ar preapred to be very cruel in doing so, a lot of them,. not all. But many. What you are setting out is a reason for obedience. That isn’t necessarily the same thing as why we should be good or bad. In a novel called Brighton Rock, a woman says she knows all about right and wrong, about obeying and disobeying laws, but compared with Good and Evil, such things as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ on the laws don’t mean very much. If there isn’t a God, you can be good, you can obey the rules, you can help others. People do. But there’s no fundamental reason why you can’t use the rules to hurt people and advance your own interests. Yes? no?
Scep, how would you define what is ” good or bad” as this is a term which isn’t set in stone and would vary from one society to the next. Assuming we take universal evil as indiscriminate murder as one example, it’s fair to say practically every worldwide government or monarchy directly /indirectly murders its native through either draconian regimes, wars or issues of poverty which could be addressed. The reason we have laws is to prevent complete anarchy , but it doesn’t mean they should be respected – just adhered to for self preservation to avoid prison etc. As a species, Myra hindley and Ian bradey will have the same fate in the afterlife ( a worms belly) as mother teresa so the only thing regulating behaviour is pc plod and our own moral compass. There are no rewards for behaving in a certain manner despite the selfish behaviour of bible bashers doing ” selfless acts ” purely for some kind of vindication in a perceived afterlife… it’s narcissism at it’s finest. As though some “creator ” is looking down saying ” There goes Mr Smith, he helped an old lady across the road and reads hymns at church so he is coming to heaven after his worthless existence on a tiny ball of rock situated in a vast vacuum of space has expired for being …. good”
‘Good and ‘evil’ aren’t set in stone? Well, that’s precisely what we’re discussing; whether obedience to law, no matter how evil, as long as we are secure and protected from anarchy If ‘good’ and evil’ are relative terms, then child sacrifice is good if you’re living in Inca Peru, because it keeps the Sun God satisfied (jc experts on Inca Peru may correct me here on the type of God etc). If you’re living in Nazi Germany, then ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are defined by that regime. Himmler told officers at one of the camps (I can find the quote if needed) that if Germany were defeated, they would be reviled for ever, but if Germany won, their extermination of the Jews and others who didn’t fit in would be seen as one of the greatest and heroic acts in humanity. In other words, power defines what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ if there is no God. Is this what you’re saying, Norfolk? It does follow from the absence of God. I’m trying not to put words in your mouth. I’m not commenting on what kind of God – there may well be no God – and I’m not commenting on Heaven and Hell, reward and punishment for obeying God. I have my own views on all that, and they don’t conform with yours or with most Christians.. The only point I’m making is that without a God, how can we avoid the Himmler view of what can be done and not done? I’m not assuming a God. This chilling approach to morality may be right, though I hope not (and I believe not)
How is sacrificing a child ever good even if it follows a certain law? You are confusing morality and legality. We are talking about moral compasses when people often think if they don’t conform with laws then they must be wrong. If I found a burglar in my house, I would quite possibly kill the person.. the law would say that I have committed murder as it goes beyond reasonable force but many would argue it was justified. I have no respect for laws, only a fool would have as they are continually changing so why respect something which is forever fluctuating open to interpretation ? I keep within them for selfish reasons like any sane person would. laws are completely irrelevant in determining my moral compass as they should for any sane person .. in times gone by “lords” could execute lower classes on a whim. It doesn’t make it any less barbaric and neither does child sacrifice because the law says so. On the other side of the coin you get drivers coming to an emergency stop on a road as a sign suddenly changes from 50 MPH to 40MPH as this in the minds of many sheep is an absolute rather than using common sense . Anyone doing 45 is deemed reckless by police on a summer road with no traffic yet in icy conditions with someone doing 40 when a safe speed is 30 its perfectly fine. Good and evil have no relevance to law, it’s about common sense which is subjective and whatever silly laws are set by politicians is irrelevant although cultural behaviour often stem from them
1 member liked this post.
“How is sacrificing a child ever good even if it follows a certain law? You are confusing morality and legality” asks Norfolk.
Well I’m sure that we both find the killing of a child to be horrifying.
But if we were living in Inca Peru or Nazi Germany, then the killing of children would be a good both legally and morally, either because it appeases the gods or because they are Jewish.
That’s because laws reflect the morality of a particular culture. There are many silly laws, but there are also fundamental laws – such as on murder – which reflect the morality of our society and not just some bureaucrat’s whim.
Our society kills children – many children – but it’s usually hidden away in obscure news stories about Iraq or Libya or, in my youth, Vietnam. We kill children in war, but we deny it publicly as much as we can because the killing of children affects us fundamentally.
Now id there’s no God, then morality is made by the culture we live in – it’s culturally determined. That means that it’s relative; It’s bad to kill children in modern Western society, but good to kill Jewish children in Nazi Germany or if you’re in the US Cavalry (Every good Injun is a dead Injun, and nits breed lice said General Sheridan).
if the moral rules are built into us, though, (usually that means part of our DNA, written into us by whatever created us), then we regard the killing of children as wrong whatever society we live in. You create a resistance movement to stop the killing in Vietnam and advertise it when kids are killed (eg the My Lai massacre, or the famous photograph of a naked girl running screaming, her back on fire). or you try to hide your kid or help hide someone else’s kid in Inca Peru (we have no idea of whether this happened). Or you try to hide Jewish kids in Nazi Europe (we do know that this happened).
This has nothing to do with people being rewarded for being good or punished for being bad. We know that isn’t what happens in our own society, where people hurt and crush in order to get promotion or higher status.
It’s to do with human nature. Do we have an inherent sense of what is good, or is it all conditioned by our society? I say that if there is no god, then everything and anything is permitted – even a decision to care for others, even that is allowed. The only thing whihc stops rape, murder etc is the fear of being caught. I don’t accept that,. but if there’s no god then it follows. Yes? No??
Scep……
Thinking on the words or concepts of right and wrong. …
Always comes to my mind
Expressions hear.2 rights, don’t make it wrong
2 wrongs do not make it right.
What may be right, for me, wrong for you.
Wrong for you, may be right for me….
And then think…do opposites really attrack, or to attrack we have to be opposites…
What is good for the goose not for good for the gander…
Not sure if people here will understood expressions heard most of my life here in the States,
Bottom line is we do live together, we manage, that is what life is all about. How we do it as a whole or individual tends to make life interesting, not boring.
1 member liked this post.
oh shut the fuck up !!! Linda.. they even moved things to suit serious debates.. Ya do NOT have to answer EVERY thread.
sake !
2 members liked this post.
Ruby,
Believe serious thread here offered up.. u again with filthy mouth have taken decency and respect away from it upsetting apple cart. If put on ur specs, put your booze away, take the time to read, maybe the intelligent woman u are will get better understanding of the thread intent..
Good evening, Ms. Ruby….
linda, Ruby’s ll right. Just ignore it when you find her offensive.
You keep posting on this thread, Linda. You are making a serious point.
We also have those sayings in this country. It’s a sign of a healthy attitude to vengeance.
1 member liked this post.
Sorry scep..thank you
Linda! Ruby’s not right….no one has a right to talk to you like that. If Rubys alright as Sceptical Guy says then why is Sceptical Guy making excuses for her own bullying attitude as she was keen to lick orsons other minions ass yesterday(Moosey) about bullying. In fact, The day you came on the boards here you were bullied by moosey and ruby. Don’t be too keen to listen to Sceptical Guy either. You got to stand up for your self linda.
In my opinion…vengeance is not a healthy attitude. Linda was never vengeful and never will be.I will agree with Sceptical Guy however…….keep posting here as he says. Just never be sorry. You don’t need to be sorry. They ought to be!
1 member liked this post.
“How is sacrificing a child ever good even if it follows a certain law? You are confusing morality and legality” asks Norfolk. Well I’m sure that we both find the killing of a child to be horrifying. But if we were living in Inca Peru or Nazi Germany, then the killing of children would be a good both legally and morally, either because it appeases the gods or because they are Jewish. That’s because laws reflect the morality of a particular culture. There are many silly laws, but there are also fundamental laws – such as on murder – which reflect the morality of our society and not just some bureaucrat’s whim. Our society kills children – many children – but it’s usually hidden away in obscure news stories about Iraq or Libya or, in my youth, Vietnam. We kill children in war, but we deny it publicly as much as we can because the killing of children affects us fundamentally. Now id there’s no God, then morality is made by the culture we live in – it’s culturally determined. That means that it’s relative; It’s bad to kill children in modern Western society, but good to kill Jewish children in Nazi Germany or if you’re in the US Cavalry (Every good Injun is a dead Injun, and nits breed lice said General Sheridan). if the moral rules are built into us, though, (usually that means part of our DNA, written into us by whatever created us), then we regard the killing of children as wrong whatever society we live in. You create a resistance movement to stop the killing in Vietnam and advertise it when kids are killed (eg the My Lai massacre, or the famous photograph of a naked girl running screaming, her back on fire). or you try to hide your kid or help hide someone else’s kid in Inca Peru (we have no idea of whether this happened). Or you try to hide Jewish kids in Nazi Europe (we do know that this happened). This has nothing to do with people being rewarded for being good or punished for being bad. We know that isn’t what happens in our own society, where people hurt and crush in order to get promotion or higher status. It’s to do with human nature. Do we have an inherent sense of what is good, or is it all conditioned by our society? I say that if there is no god, then everything and anything is permitted – even a decision to care for others, even that is allowed. The only thing whihc stops rape, murder etc is the fear of being caught. I don’t accept that,. but if there’s no god then it follows. Yes? No??
Once again you are confusing legality and morality by implying simply because a culture finds something acceptable, it is therefore morally justified. Certain cultures have values within them which are deemed to be ” acceptable ” and legal but this doesn’t make them acceptable if we are using any sensible moral compass. You state “morality is made from the culture we live in ” which is inaccurate … lets use an eg in modern day Britain for something which is legal and fits within the laws of a certain “culture”.
In the Uk it is legal for a 75 year old man to marry and impregnate a consenting 16 year old- because it’s legal would you view that as “morally acceptable”? Most would use common sense and realise it represents a fairly revolting act of seediness and immorality yet it is still legal. Decades ago Savile indecently touched numerous underage girls but in that era although not truly accepted , it was deemed the way it was and no one acted upon it despite high ranking people knowing about his sordid activities. Does it suddenly become less acceptable/moral in 2017 because we have new laws , a new culture so therefore more morally viable ?
Less than a hundred years ago , black people weren’t allowed to sit next to white people on public transport, this was approved and considered “moral behaviour ” from all sorts of so called upstanding citizens from police to various dignitaries in respected professions. Morality and culture are linked but not to the extent where one defines the other to the extent you believe – simply because the majority of one culture accept something as morally acceptable doesn’t make it so but then it leads to the question of what is ” acceptable”.
I have my own moral compass which isn’t influenced by law or society but keep within laws like anyone else purely for self preservation. There is a road near my property which has been 30 MPH for years, I regularly drove down it at 40 MPH as I deemed it safe to do so . Many would start whining about the “law” , yet the speed limit is now 40 MPH so am I now morally right to do 40 but the day before the limit changed immoral and “dangerous”? On the same road, if it was winter I may do less than 30 so rather than quoting laws, cultures and what the masses of non thinking sheep do, use your own moral compass to define a perception of what is moral/immoral. As we are all different, there is no absolute answer and the original thread title is rendered unanswerable.
2 members liked this post.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!