Right or wrong.... - Page 3

in response to cturtle asking which cultures kill elders etc...
I was mainly refering to 'Eskimo's' who often killed or were advised to kill their elders if it was felt they were only going to die any way during winter time. However , i was told of some japanease culture who did this also not too long ago , but i cant clarify that. I am sure you all know of the samuri , these were allowed to cut off the head of any civilian they chose if they had been given a new sword as a test of how well made it was , anohter example of a culture not adverse to murder when the time called...

I thought that Native customs were being considered by your statement. Traditionally, the elderly would leave the tribe, going somewhere they felt was scared to them and await death. This was probably closer to assisted suicide in our culture.

i used native customs as an example of humanity , i dont like confining things to our sociaty , people tend to be incredably shortsighted and tend only to consider humans within sociaty , and not the state of nature, which if morality is being considerd, i think is important.

Yes i agree with you which is why I related it to our modern society.

I believe in right and wrong and I believe in God. But these are theories that sway like branches in the wind, if made solid, these branches would break. Inotherwords: It is not good to say God is like this or that, you will certainly be disproven. Nor should you say that this is wrong and that is right without allowing for exceptions. It may be true our questioning of God can be a result of our lack of faith, likewise, exceptions can be thrown out as excusses for what our heart tells us is wrong. for this reason we have judges and juries and tribunels. Not that any of this is perfect, but the ability to openly discuss things can make things better.

If we accept that the Bible/word of God is true, then in the original 'society of 2' right and wrong consisted of not eating the forbidden fruit. NO OTHER INATE RESTRAINTS. When society expanded (Cain and Abel), we all-of-a-sudden get more 'wrongs'. By the time we get to Moses we've got 10! Society, not inate sensibilities, determines the 'wrongs'. Nothing to do with pain or suffering or implied pain or suffering. Nothing to do with incest or homosexuality.
"Thou shalt not kill" I wonder whom? Some pre-Moses stand-up comedian that mouthed that? The Old Testament is full of killing at God's behest. The commandment is not "Thou shalt not murder" as some would have us believe, it says "KILL". Which one of you clever (I resisted the temptation) linguists would like to attempt to define what we do in war so as to avoid conflict with the commandment? So where is our INATE right/wrong sensiblity? Buried deeply in society. We keep finding justification for all those 'wrong' things we do, to tweak them into something that serves our society's ends: killing is wrong, war is right when it serves society. When the original colonists came to the americas every person was an intergral/valuable member of the society and a keystone in the survival of the colony. When husbands died, their widows became a burden on the colony/society. Couldn't murder them for being a widow, so we came up with a justification - witchcraft. Eventually we came up with permutations that allowed US to kill some young girls (Cotton Mather was afraid one of those 'molested' teeny-boppers would tell that the church ministers had stripped her naked and tested ALL the holes that the devil might have tried to enter into) and a few men. We had arrived. Society could AFFORD to rid itself of troublemakers by killing them. Society put itself above the rule of God. We put ourselves above God. It wasn't the first time, it won't be the last. Remember separation of church and state? Does that mean the state (read YOU and ME) are immune to God's rules? We can have false gods? We don't have to keep the sabbath holy? We can covet? Remember, no one said we couldn't covet our neighbor, only his wife and his goods. Did God mean homosexuality was okay? Unspoken, so tacit approval? Separation, remember, NO homosexuality - later, maybe, in your own home, don't ask, don't tell.
A question: Down to the end. No contact with anyone else in the world after a holocost. Just you and your sons and daughters. Incest or death to humankind? Will you worry about retards or enjoy it. Will you only have sex to reproduce? Will you have to force someone? Will you? Coerce? Wheedle? Abstain? Force the kids? Watch?
Morals are imposed by society. YOU and I are society. God just told us to not eat from the forbidden fruit, then a couple of other cockamamie things that don't matter. Is murder right or wrong? It works for OUR society. It works very well. Remember, societal acceptance of killing allowed the Romans to kill Jesus. Society - YOU and ME.

as its been pointed out time after time , morals are founded in sociaty. what im saying is that humanity wasnt born into a sociaty , if there is a line we can draw between monkey and man then morality should apply if you are to belive in a god ( any creator who could define things as such). so , if morals are founded in sociaty , does this mean before sociaty there were no morals , you couldnt put things down to right or wrong , no exceptions no justifications , simply primative whims to do what ever they felt like. i think if you are to talk of these types of underlying morals ( always there , morals in virtue of themselves) morality outside of sociaty needs to be discussed , for a morality within one is forever changing and forever opposing. i hope this doesnt get taken the wrong way, as the more i try to articulate my point the more it seems to get taken the wrong way.

morality doesn't need to have anything to do with religious belief. a person could be completely atheist and still be a moral person. the only difference is that they may not abide by some of what religious people consider morals, like going to church on sundays and whatever other religion-exclusive morals there are out there. still, just because you aren't religious doesn't mean you're going to cheat people and not have any consideration for others. some people are simply motivated by empathy, and not a fear of the wrath of god.

i have nothing against religion, and i would not call myself an atheist exactly--just thought i'd argue for their sake.

I have to agree with Wind, I like to play the oriental game, Go. I play on line for the enjoyment of the game but some people are so intense, They have to win! The game consists of encompassing area with stones like Chinese checkers. I like to relax & look at the bigger picture so to speak. then you start a game & these type of people are constantly trying to kill your stones (end game), rather than play the beginning of the game for position (letting the you to develop character) of the game. One person said I play to cautious, but I think it is because I don't want to be so aggressive.
I want to enjoy life as I want to enjoy game. I don't feel the need to kill all my opponents stones, taking over his territory. To me it is about enjoying the game, not being superior.

when refering to a creator its a fallacy to derive that i mean a religous personal type creator. i simply mean that if u belive that at one point somthing must have come from nothing , what ever created the somthing must logically create the intrinsic laws of the universe. my point being if that creator didnt what is 'morality' outside of a sociaty.

don't know if I am understanding your statement?
(biblical)
adam exist alone for a while did he have or need morals? adam & eve exist alone for a while did they have or need morals?
Do animals have or need morals? plant eating dinosaurs existed. they interact with each other & reproduce offsprings.
naturally, males compete for females but few species fight to the death.
Is this a moral imparative?
Mankind seems to be an exception to the 'moral influence'
which directs the acts of most other species?

Really - an execption to moral influence.

I do not think I have heard that before. Concoiusness gives us awareness of our actions (or what we might act out). If we are aware of our surroundings, then we understand that our actions will affect our surroundings. Questions of morality are based on the conciousness.

When you look at different societies of animals, you will find displays of acts that are based on what they have come to believe correct. I do not know how this is different from the idea of morality.

With the passage of time has left me vague questions about the meaning of even my own posts. In rereading the thread, I think the intent of our statements are the same? (At least the 1st paragraph) In the NT I think it makes the statement that man is convicted (convinced) of sin nature by the Law of Moses which was its purpose? The greater portion of the laws deal with rules of social behaviors, the ten commandments are commandments as being emphesissed social necessities for harmony within societies. Hebrew tradition ascerts this as a contractual agreement?
In line with 2nd paragraph, Native American traditions accepted similar by observation of social structure of animals these principles necessary for harmonic social relationship?
I don't know that animals believe anything as they are not suppose to have the same consciousness as man (free-will)?

I think what I was trying to say is that I do not know if morality is eclusive to human. If the actions of animals, within the societies they create, are based upon rules, how is this different than the actions of humans.

what I am saying is 'do animals think in the same way as we do? Looking at human thinking culture creates differences in our thinking, animals have distinct differences from humans.
Human imply to animals thinking as they do, feeling as we do?
Granted I think they have similar emotional values but is their brain chemistry that similar to ours to say they think as we do?