Some crimes are punished on earth, some cannot be punished on earth, like moral crimes such as lieing, cheating, deceiving and taking advantage of, etc. so someone has to punish for those crimes in a fair environment. Or if an earthly judge is unfair, who is going to punish this judge? (or a president for that matter)
Thoughts about morality and religion
#1
Posted 21 August 2004 - 02:30 PM
Some crimes are punished on earth, some cannot be punished on earth, like moral crimes such as lieing, cheating, deceiving and taking advantage of, etc. so someone has to punish for those crimes in a fair environment. Or if an earthly judge is unfair, who is going to punish this judge? (or a president for that matter)
#2
Posted 21 August 2004 - 08:06 PM
But what I meant in my previous post when I said that for crimes committed on earth one gets earthly punishment was that maybe, if there is a God, He gives punishment through earthly things, like financial struggles, failed career paths, unfulfilled relationships, etc. (even though I don't believe this myself but maybe there is a possiblity). Otherwise I cannot conceive of the idea of a fair God.
#3
Posted 21 August 2004 - 09:35 PM
Survival does not really explain why there is morality. Just one example: a person gives up his life to save his friends life. You may or may not think that there is someting divine in this act but survival as a motive is out of question, this is a purely moral, unselfish act. OK, another example: a person commits a murder for which there is death penalty. Feeling remorse and obliged to cast off this huge guilt he confesses knowing that he will soon be sentenced to death. Again this is an opposite case of survival and a moral, unselfish act.
We can see that this is not the case: many bad people have good lives. On the other hand, there is the law of karma.
#4
Posted 21 August 2004 - 11:15 PM
I don't think these examples illustrate morality. In the first example the person has as much right to life as his friend. If he'd known that he'd die in the process of saving his friend's life he'd never attempt to save him. His dying is just a result of his not thinking clearly at the time of chaos and his unfearful personality. In the second example the person is confessing because of guilt. There is nothing moral about this. If the person had had some morality he wouldn't have committed murder in the first place. Moreover, if morality really is something divine than I'm sure God would've wished for many, many more people to be moral, and clearly this is not the case.
#5
Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:12 AM
Well then bring your examples of morality then we will see what you understand by morality.
Yes, but he chose to give up his life because he loved so much his friend. To me that is one of the highest morality that there can be.
You are wrong, there have been so many cases of heroism, people have knowingly given up their lives. Only in Artsax war there have been so many cases. Just the fact that people volunteered to go to war is a willingness of self-sacrifice. There have been documented cases where one fighter will give up his life to save a friends life, consciously, knowing that he will die. So then you are saying there have never been heros, which simply contradicts facts.
Are you sure you understand what morality is?
The person was not perfect but in the end his conscience prevailed and he repented. That is morality.
God wishes everyone to be moral but not everyone chooses to be moral. Where is the contradiction? We are not God's drones you know, we make many choices out of our own selfish reasons, not because of what God wishes.
#6
Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:31 AM
#7
Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:34 AM
No Stormig, it is instintctual for animals but not for humans.
#8
Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:39 AM
I contest your claim. Try as we may, we cannot be 100% removed from our primitive nature. I've seen people rush out to others to push them off the street when they were paralysed with fear of being run over. When a member of a team of mountaineers is in trouble, nobody stops to think of whether they have an interest in saving his life or what oath they took initially - they abandon the expedition immediately and summon all their resources to save the person in question. Need I even talk about mothers? These people may be considered "heroes" among the rest of us, but they're actually pretty basic.
#9
Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:53 AM
Not all cases are the same. Mother and child case is different from friend and friend. In the latter case there is no instinct involved, it is a conscious choice to die for ones friend, and is against the survival isntinct. If a dog dies for its owner that is a case of instinct as we know dogs cannot think (but this instict is against survival).
Mountain climbers' case depends on circumstances, some cases maybe calculated saving, some may be altruistic saving. I am not arguing that everyone is moral, or everyone is moral to the same degree. What I am arguing is that morality is unselfish, moral acts are against the interests of the moral person. The key in morality is unselfishness. The way I understand, unselfishness defines morality, and the degree of unselfishness determines the degree of morality.
Edited by Sasun, 22 August 2004 - 10:54 AM.
#10
Posted 22 August 2004 - 12:00 PM
I hope we realize that we're discussing some very hard issues that philosophers have been debating about throughout history No wonder we can't come to a conclusion
Just one question, Sasun. Let's say that the person giving up his life to save his friend somehow looked in the future and found out that he'd die in the process of saving his friend's life. Do you think he'd still decide to go ahead and run in that burning building or jump in the cold water or donate half of his liver, etc.?
#11
Posted 22 August 2004 - 01:13 PM
Yes Anoushik, some people have done it. In fact, there have been many cases like that.
Not only that, a great soul like Sidhartha did even a greater thing, in his youth he was willing to give up his life to save a bird's life. It is not a coincidence that he is worshipped. A Hindu king (I forget the name) not only was willing but he actually gave up his life to save a bird's life because according to the moral code of his kindgom he as a king was responsible for all lives in his kingdom including animals.
Again, selfishness and morality are the opposites. Unselfishness is the best definition of morality.
Ethics is a little different, while much of ethical codes come from moral, unselfish considerations, there are elements in commonly accepted ethics that are simply selfish, or were meant to be unselfish but have been corrupted and become selfish.
#12
Posted 22 August 2004 - 01:46 PM
#13
Posted 22 August 2004 - 07:44 PM
Not only that, a great soul like Sidhartha did even a greater thing, in his youth he was willing to give up his life to save a bird's life. It is not a coincidence that he is worshipped. A Hindu king (I forget the name) not only was willing but he actually gave up his life to save a bird's life because according to the moral code of his kindgom he as a king was responsible for all lives in his kingdom including animals.
Sasun, come on you're talking about legends and myths. What about real people?
#14
Posted 22 August 2004 - 07:51 PM
You are welcome, I am just doing what I am supposed to do Sometimes it is hard to separate off-topic posts because they may be not too far from the subject or because they could not make a coherent separate thread. And if you delete some people's offensive posts they will start crying and send complaints to the United Nations.
Edited by Sasun, 22 August 2004 - 07:54 PM.
#15
Posted 22 August 2004 - 07:52 PM
What part is a legend or myth Anoushik?
#16
Posted 22 August 2004 - 08:15 PM
#17
Posted 23 August 2004 - 05:22 AM
#18
Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:27 AM
http://janfedayi.com/
#19
Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:33 AM
Yeah - now what is more offensive I ask - someone posting that you deserve eternal punishment (and claiming that you will get such - from their "just and loving" - but very demanding god) - etc etc - for not believing exactly as they do...or for someone mocking such certaintude and rejecting such and calling the person who believes and preaches such a "sucker"...yeah and who ends up getting edited and told to knock it off? Well I find the former to be very nasty and insulting thank you.
#20
Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:40 AM
I find this Christian concept that all men (and women particualrly) - are bad, evil, dirty, unclean and such to be disgusting and most sad - and to be essentially completly wrong. What a horrible idea - that all people are so horrible and only through the "grace of God" can they be saved...etc etc...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users