Moral Relativety

[Stephen_Richard_Webb]

NOTE: This is my first pole, so if the format is incorrect I appologize.

 

The root of all evil...all professing christians would say that the root of all evil is satan himself, mainly because it is easy to blaim another for ones short comings. I have come to a simple conclusion concerning the matter of evil and its origin and would like to share with you my own point of view - I welcome any criticisms or agreement.

1] As the title implies, I personally believe that moral relativety is the source of all evil - evil only exists as subjective perception in each individual mind.

-It has come to my attention that moral relativety is the source of contention and is the basis upon which wars are waged, and is therefore the source of numerous unecessary deaths.

-From a psychological point of view, the conceptualization of good and evil automatically places an individual into a never ending conflict both internally and externally.

 

2] The entire doctrine of EVERY religion is based on human desire for a "standard" by which to chart societal morals. This also applies to constitutions and governing laws.

-Both constitutional law as well as religious law are one and the same - the idea is a standardization of ideals or morals by which all peoples must abide, and in accordance to the previous points, this places each citizen or participant into a life long struggle against opposing morals and ideals and is thus a source of evil.

 

3] What is good one moment may not be so good the next moment, or may set into motion future attrocities and can therefore not truly be concidered good.

-Since we know not the far future implications concerning our actions, it is impossible for us to determine universally constant "goodness" with only one exception, which ironically is NOT accepted by any law giving religion [see #5]

-Science can not determine the nature of "good" and "evil" because the outcome of any specific action has variable moral consequence [which is in accordance to the personal ideology of observance]

 

4] Who sets the law, and by what method is the law decided upon? [The law being a parallel to moral correctness]

-Those who are in power, by whatever means, are the ones that determine the standard for societal correctness.

-In the "western world" the method used to decide what is morally correct is called democracy. In democracy, the majority rules and the boundaries are determined by the constitution [and as was stated earlier, constitutions are developed according to specific agendas].

 

5] What is the only true good?

-The only true "good" is the lack of our own perception and ideals concerning good and evil.

-The only time that our perception is not in our possession is when we meditate on 'void' and when when we pass on before [when we die].

-Nature, and the sciences that apply are not concerned with our own perception of what is good and evil and are thereofore the only true paths to 'goodness'.

-In death we are awarded perfect peace, which is release from the conflict of perceptions and ideals - we return to the primal nature from which we come.

 

6] What is the only evil [a reiteration]?

-Evil is naught but illusion, and a damning one at that. No one can say what evil is except the one that claims evil is so. -Stephen Webb

-Your choice of good, or evil is no more than an illusion that feeds your own ego - what foundation do you build your castle of cards upon? -Stephen Webb

[R. S. Martin]

Stephen, a few tips about setting up a poll. First of all, you might want more than one option. If you have an edit button at the bottom right-hand corner of your post, you can click on it and change it even now.

 

Here's the basic step-by-step precedure:

 

1. Click edit on your post. That should bring up something that says "Poll Options" and "Poll Title." There is an empty box under "Poll Title." You can put the title in there.

 

2. Under that box see "Poll Content." Under that is a link "Add Poll Question." Click on it. A box will open with a red x at the end. Write the question you want to do a poll on, for example: What is the root of all evil?

 

3. Add options for voters to choose from. To do this, click on the link "Add Poll Choice." You can add as many options as you want, up to twenty. You need at least two to make it a vote.

 

Hope this helps. If you have questions feel free to ask.

[Ouroboros]

I saw you had two questions in your poll. Is Satan the root of evil or We (Humans), so I changed it a bit to match what I think you intended it to be.

 

My answer though is not in the poll. I don't believe in "evil" as defined by religion. We create "evil", because we are the ones making the definition what "evil" is. And hence anything can be the root of it, since we decide what it ultimately is. I can claim Hurricane Katrina is Evil, so that would make Nature the root of that Evil.

[Stephen_Richard_Webb]

Thank you both for the information and thank you mr. solo for editing the format.

[R. S. Martin]

I disagree that either we or Satan are the root of all evil. I don't think humans are evil and I don't think Satan exists. So I didn't vote, either. As for moral relativity being the root of all evil, I read through your argument and I disagree with your interpretation of moral relativity.

 

The root of all evil...all professing christians would say that the root of all evil is satan himself, mainly because it is easy to blaim another for ones short comings. I have come to a simple conclusion concerning the matter of evil and its origin and would like to share with you my own point of view - I welcome any criticisms or agreement.

 

Uh, sorry, but this is wrong. When I was a Christian, I was taught that love of money--or the spirit out of which love of money comes--is the root of all evil. That is based on the Bible verse that says so.

 

1] As the title implies, I personally believe that moral relativety is the source of all evil - evil only exists as subjective perception in each individual mind.

-It has come to my attention that moral relativety is the source of contention and is the basis upon which wars are waged, and is therefore the source of numerous unecessary deaths.

-From a psychological point of view, the conceptualization of good and evil automatically places an individual into a never ending conflict both internally and externally.

 

I don't know why you think wars are waged on the basis of moral relativity. Humans have always been at war with each other since time immemorial. Cave people hardly knew about moral relativity. Joshua in the Bible hardly fought the Caananites on the basis of moral relativity. Nor do I think that Osoma bin Ladin attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 on the basis of moral relativity. I am quite sure that in bin Ladin's mind there is an objective Truth, and that in his opinion the United States had traspassed against that Law of Truth unambiguously so that it was his sacred duty before Allah to attack the US in whatever way he could. That is not moral relativity.

 

I am not sure why you say moral relativity puts a person in psychological conflict with him or herself. When confronted with a question such as "Should I hold the door for the person coming after me?" you have to ask yourself a few logical questions. 1. Is there anyone coming after me for whom I can hold the door? 2. If so, do I have time to hold the door or will that make me be late? 3. If it does not make me late, will it make the other person late that I'm with? 4. Even if it makes me late but the person behind me is limping and has both arms laden down with heavy bags and packages, and the doors are really heavy, will it matter that much if I'm late or can I afford to be helpful to a person in obvious need?

 

I personally would reach quite a different decision if the person following me were a strong young person capable of opening and closing doors, or the person described in Question 4. I have been in situations where I have decided that I can wait another half hour for my bus because "this person needs help." Other times I will hold up traffic in order to get to my bus stop in time. I don't know for sure if this is moral relativity but I think it is. The moral I'm dealing with is selfishness versus thought for others--both in pedestrain and motor traffic.

 

Since these decisions are based on every day common sense and logical decency, there is no psychological conflict.

 

2] The entire doctrine of EVERY religion is based on human desire for a "standard" by which to chart societal morals. This also applies to constitutions and governing laws.

-Both constitutional law as well as religious law are one and the same - the idea is a standardization of ideals or morals by which all peoples must abide, and in accordance to the previous points, this places each citizen or participant into a life long struggle against opposing morals and ideals and is thus a source of evil.

 

It seems you have not studied the origin of religions very closely or exhaustively. This is simply not true. As described above, there is no "life long struggle" if people are true to themselves and just follow the logical ethics of everyday life, which are of necessity based on relativity. In my example above, absolute morals would say: Always hold the door for others. Always wait to cross the street until there is no traffic.

 

3] What is good one moment may not be so good the next moment, or may set into motion future attrocities and can therefore not truly be concidered good.

-Since we know not the far future implications concerning our actions, it is impossible for us to determine universally constant "goodness" with only one exception, which ironically is NOT accepted by any law giving religion [see #5]

-Science can not determine the nature of "good" and "evil" because the outcome of any specific action has variable moral consequence [which is in accordance to the personal ideology of observance]

 

The reason science cannot determine good and evil is because of the reasons given in my example above. Should one always hold the door or should one not? Is it good or is it bad to hold up traffic in order to catch one's bus so one can get to the meeting in time and not cause others to waste their time? One moment it may be good to hold up traffic; another moment it may be bad/unnecessary. See what I mean? This does not set in motion a "set of attrocities." In fact, quite the opposite.

 

We don't need to know "far future implications concerning our actions." If we live as best we know and understand at all times, we have to trust that things will work out as good as they can. If things go wrong, they would have gone wrong anyway. Most of the time they go right for most people in most places. That is reality.

 

4] Who sets the law, and by what method is the law decided upon? [The law being a parallel to moral correctness]

-Those who are in power, by whatever means, are the ones that determine the standard for societal correctness.

-In the "western world" the method used to decide what is morally correct is called democracy. In democracy, the majority rules and the boundaries are determined by the constitution [and as was stated earlier, constitutions are developed according to specific agendas].

 

Ummmm. This is partly right. It is a very simplistic view of a very complex situation. It does not take into consideration the very complicatedness of the human being and of society. Sometimes "agendas" are not all that specific.

 

5] What is the only true good?

-The only true "good" is the lack of our own perception and ideals concerning good and evil.

-The only time that our perception is not in our possession is when we meditate on 'void' and when when we pass on before [when we die].

-Nature, and the sciences that apply are not concerned with our own perception of what is good and evil and are thereofore the only true paths to 'goodness'.

-In death we are awarded perfect peace, which is release from the conflict of perceptions and ideals - we return to the primal nature from which we come.

 

Sounds like you are promoting some Eastern Religion or New Age. That's okay but I'm trying to understand where you're coming from and why you say the things you are saying. I still don't know why you say the things you do about moral relativity. I disagree that anything in Point 5 would serve for living a functional life on the everyday level. It might work for a monk in a Buddhist monastary but hardly for a person who has to go to work every day and feed a family and pay for a home.

 

6] What is the only evil [a reiteration]?

-Evil is naught but illusion, and a damning one at that. No one can say what evil is except the one that claims evil is so. -Stephen Webb

-Your choice of good, or evil is no more than an illusion that feeds your own ego - what foundation do you build your castle of cards upon? -Stephen Webb

 

So you think evil doesn't exist? That of necessity negates/cancels the rest of your post. Moral relativity cannot be the root of all evil if evil is just an illusion.

[Deva]

Sounds like you are promoting some Eastern Religion or New Age. That's okay but I'm trying to understand where you're coming from and why you say the things you are saying. I still don't know why you say the things you do about moral relativity. I disagree that anything in Point 5 would serve for living a functional life on the everyday level. It might work for a monk in a Buddhist monastary but hardly for a person who has to go to work every day and feed a family and pay for a home.

 

Ruby, I doubt it is Eastern Religion or New Age. I base this upon my 5 years in the Theosophical Society and my 10 years of studying Eastern thought. See this link:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=22483

 

I have tried, without success, to understand Mr. Webb. Is evil real or is it an illusion? Mr. Webb seems to say both. I find it hopelessly contradictory and confusing.

 

-Evil is naught but illusion, and a damning one at that. No one can say what evil is except the one that claims evil is so. -Stephen Webb

 

As the title implies, I personally believe that moral relativety is the source of all evil - evil only exists as subjective perception in each individual mind

 

And from the above link:

 

I do believe in a perfectly "good" Divine Creator that is omnipresent [and ironically christians do as well] and because this is so, I have come to the conclusion that "evil" doesn't even really exist.

 

So how is it possible to have a perfectly good Creator ( I assume from this statement that he means good is real) without real evil? If it exists as subjective perception does that still not mean its real?

 

If evil doesn't "really" exist, Mr. Webb, why all your concern over it? I am hopelessly confused. My suspicion is that it isn't just "ironic" that Mr. Webb believes in a perfectly good Divine Creator, although he denies he's a Christian.

 

2] The entire doctrine of EVERY religion is based on human desire for a "standard" by which to chart societal morals

 

I also disagree with this statement and suggest you put in more study into different religions. Buddhism, for example is based on the teachings of the Buddha, which are concerned with overcoming suffering and achieving liberation from rebirth, NOT "societal morals."

 

Incidentally, Mr. Webb, I accept your apology for implying I am a fundamentalist, but you could be a little more understanding when someone has an issue with one of your statements.

[florduh]

WTF?

[R. S. Martin]

Deva, thanks for clarifying. Now I won't feel guilty anymore for ignoring him. He sounds suspiciously like a Christian fundamentalist pretending to be something he doesn't know a thing about.