Tangible Morality

[Schifference]

When a person walks thru the woods and a tree limb falls and strikes a part of their body they realize that it hurts. When they are in conversation with someone and a person says something to them that emotionally hurt them they feel that. When they slip & fall to the ground it hurts. I think it is fair to say that emotional and physical pain is an experience that can be proven over and over again. If you strap a person to a chair and slam a sledge hammer into their kneecap or hand pain will be the product. A person that has experienced pain can take that learned knowledge and decide to not inflict pain onto another person because they simply associate that with a negative experience. A person that has run out of gas before or that was stuck in the snow has knowledge of how that feels. A simple gesture or lack thereof that keeps another from experiencing unpleasant physical or emotional suffering is simply an act of kindness that comes from an aware person.

[Sola_Fide]

When a person walks thru the woods and a tree limb falls and strikes a part of their body they realize that it hurts. When they are in conversation with someone and a person says something to them that emotionally hurt them they feel that. When they slip & fall to the ground it hurts. I think it is fair to say that emotional and physical pain is an experience that can be proven over and over again. If you strap a person to a chair and slam a sledge hammer into their kneecap or hand pain will be the product. A person that has experienced pain can take that learned knowledge and decide to not inflict pain onto another person because they simply associate that with a negative experience. A person that has run out of gas before or that was stuck in the snow has knowledge of how that feels. A simple gesture or lack thereof that keeps another from experiencing unpleasant physical or emotional suffering is simply an act of kindness that comes from an aware person.

Why is inflicting emotional or physical pain wrong?

[Schifference]

No one needs to tell me that it is wrong. It is uncomfortable and therefore unpleasant. If I would not like pain, distress, or discomfort I would not inflict it or wish it on others.

[robert68]

Why is inflicting emotional or physical pain wrong?

-----------

With many:

conscience:

an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

[Sonny Tufts]

Why is inflicting emotional or physical pain wrong?

Ever hear of the Golden Rule? Variants are found in many cultures, including non-Christian ones.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What if you're in some intimate activity and it hurts so good?

[Miss Annie]

When a person walks thru the woods and a tree limb falls and strikes a part of their body they realize that it hurts. When they are in conversation with someone and a person says something to them that emotionally hurt them they feel that. When they slip & fall to the ground it hurts. I think it is fair to say that emotional and physical pain is an experience that can be proven over and over again. If you strap a person to a chair and slam a sledge hammer into their kneecap or hand pain will be the product. A person that has experienced pain can take that learned knowledge and decide to not inflict pain onto another person because they simply associate that with a negative experience. A person that has run out of gas before or that was stuck in the snow has knowledge of how that feels. A simple gesture or lack thereof that keeps another from experiencing unpleasant physical or emotional suffering is simply an act of kindness that comes from an aware person.

kindness, compassion and empathy.

[Sola_Fide]

Ever hear of the Golden Rule? Variants are found in many cultures, including non-Christian ones.

Why should one follow the golden rule?

[Jamesiv1]

Why should one follow the golden rule?

lol

c'mon Sola.... really?

maybe because every wise man on the 3rd Rock has taught it for like, ever?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." -Jesus, Matthew 7:12 KJV

[matt0611]

I don't want to follow the golden rule, my forces clearly outnumber yours so I'm in no danger. Yes, you may think its "wrong" but to me the strong subjugating the weak is so "right".

[Jamesiv1]

I don't want to follow the golden rule, my forces clearly outnumber yours so I'm in no danger. Yes, you may think its "wrong" but to me the strong subjugating the weak is so "right".

You're about to get showered with Kung Fu stars.

Clearly you are not in harmony with the praying mantis *or* the fiery dragon.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't want to follow the golden rule, my forces clearly outnumber yours so I'm in no danger. Yes, you may think its "wrong" but to me the strong subjugating the weak is so "right".

The history of tyrannical statism in the 20th century is a story of the powerful subjugating the weak for "their own good". Atheism has no answer as to why this wrong.

[Jamesiv1]

The history of tyrannical statism in the 20th century is a story of the powerful subjugating the weak for "their own good". Atheism has no answer as to why this wrong.

"Remember always, that the wise man walks with his head bowed.... humble, like the dust."

[Sola_Fide]

"Remember always, that the wise man walks with his head bowed.... humble, like the dust."

Okay. What does that have to do with what I said?

[Jamesiv1]

Okay. What does that have to do with what I said?

Grasshopper: "Old man, how is it that you can see these things?"

blind Master Po: "Young man, how is it that you cannot?"

[robert68]

I don't want to follow the golden rule, my forces clearly outnumber yours so I'm in no danger. Yes, you may think its "wrong" but to me the strong subjugating the weak is so "right".

"God" won’t stop you, and it’s not hard to get his followers to support you, if they're not already.

[Schifference]

What I proposed in the OP is a natural rule that explains how morality exists without God. Believing in God requires faith. Faith is not tangible. In my opinion faith is a form of entitlement philosophy where you can claim anything even though what you claim is unrealistic or supernatural. If you present your hand to a snarling growling dog and get it bit, you don't need to believe in God to not do that again. If you own a snarling growling dog that you know will bite you or other people you don't need to believe in God to know that dog is a danger to yourself and others.

[Schifference]

//

[Sola_Fide]

What I proposed in the OP is a natural rule that explains how morality exists without God. Believing in God requires faith. Faith is not tangible. In my opinion faith is a form of entitlement philosophy where you can claim anything even though what you claim is unrealistic or supernatural. If you present your hand to a snarling growling dog and get it bit, you don't need to believe in God to not do that again. If you own a snarling growling dog that you know will bite you or other people you don't need to believe in God to know that dog is a danger to yourself and others.

Yes. We all know what you posted. Nature can tell you how things are, but it can never tell you how things should be. Nature can tell you how men behave, but never how men should behave. Natural law is the great "wax nose" that can be used to defend every view.

Natural law is a completely inadequate defense of a free society.

[PierzStyx]

Ever hear of the Golden Rule? Variants are found in many cultures, including non-Christian ones.

So you're appealing to a Higher Being to define morality?

[PierzStyx]

What I proposed in the OP is a natural rule that explains how morality exists without God. Believing in God requires faith. Faith is not tangible. In my opinion faith is a form of entitlement philosophy where you can claim anything even though what you claim is unrealistic or supernatural. If you present your hand to a snarling growling dog and get it bit, you don't need to believe in God to not do that again. If you own a snarling growling dog that you know will bite you or other people you don't need to believe in God to know that dog is a danger to yourself and others.

Not really. If my shattering your kneecaps makes me happy, why shouldn't I do it? If I like it, it is therefore moral for me to do. You simply don't factor in, not in any consideration of immorality anyway. When someone finds pleasure (your basis of morality) in suffering (what you say is immoral) it simply throws the idea that an appeal to comfort or pleasure is a justification for morality out the window.

[Schifference]

A person that intentionally inflicts pain on another has a mental disorder.

Not really. If my shattering your kneecaps makes me happy, why shouldn't I do it? If I like it, it is therefore moral for me to do. You simply don't factor in, not in any consideration of immorality anyway. When someone finds pleasure (your basis of morality) in suffering (what you say is immoral) it simply throws the idea that an appeal to comfort or pleasure is a justification for morality out the window.

[Sonny Tufts]

So you're appealing to a Higher Being to define morality?

How in the world did you conclude this?

[Terry1]

The problem with secular morality is that it has no set precedent. It can and does change and evolve with whatever society sets as the most popular set of morals for the day. So as society and the laws move away from the morality of God, more secular people will become more corrupt with regard to what they believe is moral or not.

With God's morality, there is an unchanging set of morals and values that are meant to be followed by believers forever. These morals do not change, the same as God does not change.

[Schifference]

What I propose could be scientifically demonstrated and recreated. Faith based morality is intangible and cannot be proven.

The problem with secular morality is that it has no set precedent. It can and does change and evolve with whatever society sets as the most popular set of morals for the day. So as society and the laws move away from the morality of God, more secular people will become more corrupt with regard to what they believe is moral or not.

With God's morality, there is an unchanging set of morals and values that are meant to be followed by believers forever. These morals do not change, the same as God does not change.

[Cabal]

The history of tyrannical statism in the 20th century is a story of the powerful subjugating the weak for "their own good". Atheism has no answer as to why this wrong.

Atheism isn't a theory of ethics, and as such, shouldn't be expected to have ethical answers or arguments about ethical questions or matters.

[VIDEODROME]

The problem with secular morality is that it has no set precedent. It can and does change and evolve with whatever society sets as the most popular set of morals for the day. So as society and the laws move away from the morality of God, more secular people will become more corrupt with regard to what they believe is moral or not.

With God's morality, there is an unchanging set of morals and values that are meant to be followed by believers forever. These morals do not change, the same as God does not change.

Secular morality is not perfect, but many feel it's just what we have to work with. Especially if we want a world with multiple religions and Gods to get along.

As for the moral standard of a particular God, it seems like over time even that can change. The Bible might get a few tweakes in the translation. or God's law may be 'intepreted' differently by priests or even the Pope for Catholics. People will look to their human religious leaders to help them understand moral questions. Or as we've seen in history, denominational splits occur in the church when there are disagreements by humans on God's laws.

Either way it seems like there is very much a Human factor in the continuing development of morality and ethics. Also, this doesn't even get into the many other beliefs out there like Shintoism or Africa Yoruba. I mean really, if I want to be religious, I could shop around for many Gods to follow and pick the one with the moral standard that I'm cool with.

[Sola_Fide]

Atheism isn't a theory of ethics, and as such, shouldn't be expected to have ethical answers or arguments about ethical questions or matters.

Any worldview that has atheism as a component cannot determine morality. I show this in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rmine-Morality

[Sola_Fide]

Why should one follow the golden rule?

lol

c'mon Sola.... really?

maybe because every wise man on the 3rd Rock has taught it for like, ever?

Why should one follow the advice of "wise" men? Who determines who is "wise"? Most people who are condsidered wise in history have been statists. Is statism correct?

[VIDEODROME]

Hmm... I wonder how often "wise" men last as leaders under any democratic situation? I bet the voters replace them with the statists who promise them more "stuff". There are a few rare exceptions.