Morality

[astarte_literati]

Is there any moral values that is universally recognized and indicted, or is it all relative?

For instance, one could make an argument that murder is pretty much a no-no wherever you go. However, the US executes people like it's going out of style, and many Islam-practicing tribes permit killing a woman who has "disgraced" her family (see: Zahra Al-Azzo). Pedophelia may be regarded by many as "icky" today, but in ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia pederasty was a social institution.

So, what do we think?

[Erik]

When it comes to murder, I think it's important to differentiate between murder and killing. Murder is never, IMO, justifiable while killing, though regrettable, may sometimes be necessary. Had the police been given the chance to kill the Virginia Tech shooter before he murdered 30+ people I believe it would have been the moral thing to do if there'd been no other way to stop him. Regrettable, but moral.

As for the issue of sex between the age groups, it's not as ancient as we might believe. There is, or was within the past century I believe, a tribe called the Sambia in New Guinea that, as part of the coming of age ritual for young men, had younger boys perform sex acts on the older boys. I won't go into great detail so as not to post anything too offensive. I'll just say that in our society this would be unacceptable and probably illegal while in their culture it's a way for one generation of men to pass their manhood on to the next generation.

I'm fascinated by the relativity of morality and hope your question spurs some thought and discussion.

[Alecto]

See, you make a distinction between "killing" and "murder", but don't really define each word. IS there an objective difference, or is the difference cultural?

My answer is that, no, there are no absolutes. Even within a given framework, there are no absolutes. Life just isn't that simple.

[astarte_literati]

I would agree with Alecto--I see no moral difference between killing and murder. To your mind, eliminating the Virginia Tech shooter would have been justified; to his mind, eliminating Virginia Tech would have been justified. There remains a lack of inherant universal moral standard.

It is also arguable (though not an argument I'm sure I'd make) that how a person reacts to a sexual experience with an elder is entirely dependant upon the constructions of sexuality within that culture, the disposition of both individuals, and the nature of the experience.

[RedneckDyke]

There is a difference between killing and murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. There are killings which are not unlawful. Such as self-defense, or killing an armed soldier in war, or executions. This of course is a legal definition of murder and not a moral one.

If someone threatened my family then I would defend us in whatever way was necessary. If that means killing, then so be it.

The guy who killed those people in Virginia Tech was mentally ill. He was not acting in a rational manner as to whether his crime was justified or not. He was not killing people out of some moral or religious or political reason, which would have made him a terrorist.

Theft is something that is unlawful, but it it not always immoral. If I had been in Nawlins after Katrina I would have stolen food or water or batteries or other life-saving things. But I would not have stolen TVs or designer clothes or stereos. Also, there are shades of gray. If you only need 2 sugars for your coffee at McD's, and you put a handful in your pocket, is that stealing?

This is an interesting topic.

[Steven E. Webster]

Is there any moral values that is universally recognized and indicted, or is it all relative?

For instance, one could make an argument that murder is pretty much a no-no wherever you go. However, the US executes people like it's going out of style, and many Islam-practicing tribes permit killing a woman who has "disgraced" her family (see: Zahra Al-Azzo). Pedophelia may be regarded by many as "icky" today, but in ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia pederasty was a social institution.

So, what do we think?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is pretty universal.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Pedophelia may be regarded by many as "icky" today, but in ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia pederasty was a social institution.

So, what do we think?

There's alot to sort out here. Are we talking about consensual or non-consensual situations? Slavery and the sexual exploitation of slaves may have been "acceptable" in certain cultures in the past, but I don't think that makes it right.

Determining when a person "comes of age" might be relative--16 in some cultures, 18 in others. But the principle in any case should be that sex should involve consent and should not be exploitative.

Not everything our culture deems to be acceptable and even honorable (like, for instance, the oppression of homosexuals) is right. Our culture eventually learned that slavery was wrong, that the oppression of women was wrong. We call that progress.

I think we are developing a global culture and eventually international law. The people of the world will need to come to a common understanding of what human rights and morality consist of. We've already come along ways towards that.

Steven Webster

[paul]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is pretty universal.

Steven Webster

Steven,

You stole my thunder :rolleyes:.

I find it very interesting, this directive, credited to Jesus. Imagine being a teacher coming into a culture who's morality is carved in stone and then teaching that morality is relative to how you want to be treated? To me, these are some of the most profound words in the bible. It brings into focus the two ways morality is established. Something presumably outside ourselves ( 'laws given by God and immutably carved into stone') vs. laws "carved on the fleshy tables of the heart." I observe that fundamental Christianity leads the battle against moral relativism, yet it seems to me that Jesus was a proponent of determining a moral course of action based on how 'I' want to be treated.

Applying this standard, who would choose to ostracize, judge or condemn a person for just about anything? For instance, if I had murdered someone, I would not want to be killed in return but rather would want mercy. "Mercy is better than justice." Again, Jesus is credited with exercising this 'rule' of morality by example. Responding to the woman who's accusers brought her before Jesus accusing her of the capital crime of adultery, his response was to first get rid of her "accusers" by applying 'the golden rule:' "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He then said: "...I don't condemn you either." But, Jesus' last words to the adulteress were: "...go and sin no more." Jesus did say that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus didn't say the adultery was okeedokee (moral), he just instructed appropriate response when there is moral failure.

I have heard it said that the original sin was people wanting to be God. Is that sin most evidenced in the human predilection to judge?

Having said all this it still seems that, from a biblical perspective, morality is carved in stone but the human response to immorality is not.

[Pablo Rafael]

I find it very interesting, this directive, credited to Jesus. Imagine being a teacher coming into a culture who's morality is carved in stone and then teaching that morality is relative to how you want to be treated? To me, these are some of the most profound words in the bible.


Good thoughts, Paul. (Isn't this guy amazing?) I have always been resistant to the idea of "moral relativism". It seems to me that oftentimes that is an excuse people use to condone selfish behavior and attitudes. I think morality is carved in stone, and that is so summed up by Jesus when he says that the law is to LOVE God and to LOVE each other.

The legalistic Christians are the worst when it comes to moral relativism. They ignore the principles that the Bible sets forward and use the Bible as a weapon to use to suit their own purposes.

The concept of LOVE is set in stone, I believe. It is a lot easier to adapt a list of regulations and call them the "law" of God. But God doesn't make it so easy. Jesus said that we must use out heads and act out of love; we are forced to evaluate our motives with every action we take. I believe that our motivation to act out of love is what should be set in stone; the rules and regulations which govern our lives should be able to adjust to that concept.

I think that anyone who has a list of regulations from the Bible and says everything is black and white, and that they adhere to all those regulations is deluding himself. The Bible constantly contradicts itself when looked at in that way. Most of the Old Testament regulations are totally discounted by modern day Christians. Many of the New Testament rules as well are discounted. Legalistic Christians have to go to great lengths to explain why they believe some regulations and ignore the others. However, if we believe that what Jesus taught is true, and that following the law is an exercise in love, then our actions can adapt to changing situations and times.

(Forgive this confusing post; I am having a hard time making my point this morning, sorry.) So as I see it from a Biblical persepective, what we do is not black and white, set in stone; why we do things is.

Tu (rambling) Amigo, Pablo

[paul]

The concept of LOVE is set in stone, I believe. It is a lot easier to adapt a list of regulations and call them the "law" of God. But God doesn't make it so easy. Jesus said that we must use out heads and act out of love; we are forced to evaluate our motives with every action we take. I believe that our motivation to act out of love is what should be set in stone; the rules and regulations which govern our lives should be able to adjust to that concept.


Tu (rambling) Amigo, Pablo

OMG Pablo,

That's wonderfully and elegantly put. I see no rambling in your thread, I think you nailed it.
paul