Moral Perfection

[Guest end3]

"I'm able to treat people morally because I am educated and know better than most".

 

"I'm able to treat people morally because I of my religion".

 

"Success" appears to hinge on morality and our ability to exact it so much so that it separates us.

 

So let's please take a non-believers stance. Let's suppose "love" is an evolutionary point in development. For example, humanity has evolved to a behavior we name "love". Out of logic, illogical is derived.

 

So how does humanity deal with this level of evolution from a management standpoint and why? Why not just let it evolve? Seems rather paradoxical in that morality supports life but evolution carries out death rather effectively.

 

And expecially from a non-Christian standpoint, there are really no eternal consequences.

[florduh]

I don't know what's meant by the term "moral perfection." As far as I can tell, there is no goal that morality strives to attain. It's a fluid and ever-changing landscape. Basically, when people behave as you think they should, they are moral. Currently, the world has pockets of "evolved" morality where lollipops and rainbows are the rule, and then there are other areas where human life is so cheap, murder and death often go unnoticed. America alone has seen times of frontier justice, KKK hangings, slavery, oppression of women and minorities, etc. Those aforementioned activities are no longer officially sanctioned, and the death penalty is becoming less common in all but the states known for being less than progressive anyway. Is America becoming more moral?

[Guest end3]

I don't know what's meant by the term "moral perfection." As far as I can tell, there is no goal that morality strives to attain. It's a fluid and ever-changing landscape. Basically, when people behave as you think they should, they are moral. Currently, the world has pockets of "evolved" morality where lollipops and rainbows are the rule, and then there are other areas where human life is so cheap, murder and death often go unnoticed. America alone has seen times of frontier justice, KKK hangings, slavery, oppression of women and minorities, etc. Those aforementioned activities are no longer officially sanctioned, and the death penalty is becoming less common in all but the states known for being less than progressive anyway. Is America becoming more moral?

 

I don't know that it matters the relative state of the population or the definition, rather that it's real. Just thinking outloud. rules dictate "cures", i.e. natural law enables us understanding and solutions. But, without law..... So I am thinking a few things, the similarity to the Law followed by love, and the necessity to form an effective methodology turning illogical back to logical, that this moral evolution be dealt with effectively.

 

Kind of a stupid question....as the status quo is our attempt to manage it currently. Trial systems, law, mixed with a graceful jury. Rapid punishment in other parts of the world where the law is less gracefilled.

[Kaiser01]

I don't know what's meant by the term "moral perfection." As far as I can tell, there is no goal that morality strives to attain. It's a fluid and ever-changing landscape. Basically, when people behave as you think they should, they are moral. Currently, the world has pockets of "evolved" morality where lollipops and rainbows are the rule, and then there are other areas where human life is so cheap, murder and death often go unnoticed. America alone has seen times of frontier justice, KKK hangings, slavery, oppression of women and minorities, etc. Those aforementioned activities are no longer officially sanctioned, and the death penalty is becoming less common in all but the states known for being less than progressive anyway. Is America becoming more moral?

 

I don't know that it matters the relative state of the population or the definition, rather that it's real. Just thinking outloud. rules dictate "cures", i.e. natural law enables us understanding and solutions. But, without law..... So I am thinking a few things, the similarity to the Law followed by love, and the necessity to form an effective methodology turning illogical back to logical, that this moral evolution be dealt with effectively.

 

Kind of a stupid question....as the status quo is our attempt to manage it currently. Trial systems, law, mixed with a graceful jury. Rapid punishment in other parts of the world where the law is less gracefilled.

 

Things like love are both an evolutionary advantage and an evolutionary by-product. If love creates more survivability it will persist into the future, it if isn't it will die out regardless of what we do. It is not as if morality is choosing its way into the future of development.

[bornagainathiest]

(Sighs.)

 

Well End, we've been here before, haven't we?

Once again, you've started up a thread without properly defining the question.

A properly defined question lets people know if something is being asked of them or if the questioner is talking about themselves.

 

For instance, you posit the following...

"I'm able to treat people morally because of my religion".

But you ask us to "...take the non-believers stance..." and suppose that..."...love is an evolutionary point in development."

 

If I'm a non-believer, how can I treat people morally because of my religion? As a non-believer I have NO religion.

 

Now, if you meant, "I, End3, am able to treat people morally because of my religion", we'd be getting somewhere.

Is that what you meant?

Your definition of morality and your religion?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

(Sighs.)

 

Well End, we've been here before, haven't we?

Once again, you've started up a thread without properly defining the question.

A properly defined question lets people know if something is being asked of them or if the questioner is talking about themselves.

 

For instance, you posit the following...

"I'm able to treat people morally because of my religion".

But you ask us to "...take the non-believers stance..." and suppose that..."...love is an evolutionary point in development."

 

If I'm a non-believer, how can I treat people morally because of my religion? As a non-believer I have NO religion.

 

Now, if you meant, "I, End3, am able to treat people morally because of my religion", we'd be getting somewhere.

Is that what you meant?

Your definition of morality and your religion?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It doesn't matter BAA.....both things I cited can be religious. I choose Christianity. Some people are religously studious.

[bornagainathiest]

(Sighs.)

 

Well End, we've been here before, haven't we?

Once again, you've started up a thread without properly defining the question.

A properly defined question lets people know if something is being asked of them or if the questioner is talking about themselves.

 

For instance, you posit the following...

"I'm able to treat people morally because of my religion".

But you ask us to "...take the non-believers stance..." and suppose that..."...love is an evolutionary point in development."

 

If I'm a non-believer, how can I treat people morally because of my religion? As a non-believer I have NO religion.

 

Now, if you meant, "I, End3, am able to treat people morally because of my religion", we'd be getting somewhere.

Is that what you meant?

Your definition of morality and your religion?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It doesn't matter BAA.....both things I cited can be religious. I choose Christianity. Some people are religously studious.

 

Then you are using the term 'religious' in the loosest and vaguest possible way.

 

A person who is 'religiously studious' has a deity they worship?

This studious person practices their 'religion' according to the words of one and only one holy book?

Another 'religiously studious' person uses another holy book and calls the first person an infidel?

Or, they both use the same book, but interpret it in different way, each calling the other a heretic?

 

Nope. Sorry End, but your vagueness (i.e., lack of defintion) makes this thread meaningless and pointless.

 

How you define a question does matter. A lot.

Come on, surely you can see the contradiction I pointed out?

 

Please try again.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

Not that hard BAA. Both are means to an end......the pursuit of morality, success, love, whatever. They are just different methods. I'm sorry you can't make heads or tails of my post. It is what it is.

 

Your response is a good example. "END3, define (by grammatical law), a question so that I might deal with you in a relationship". In my eyes, this is a religiousness to the law, a law.

 

The statement was, love doesn't follow laws, so how do we deal with each other. Love is by grace.

[norton65ca]

"love is by grace" is a meaningless statement in my worldview.

[Guest end3]

"love is by grace" is a meaningless statement in my worldview.

 

Not a problem. I admit that is the Christian view for sure. So how do you deal with love specifically norton? Education, communication?

[norton65ca]

I don't "deal" with love, I simply experience the emotion and feelings as they come to me. I try to not over analyze my emotions. I love my wife, my family, I love the planet, my real friends, Don't know whether I've seen a lot of point in getting too analytical about it. Love is. It is an emotion like others in the human experience, brought about through biological necessity and social conditioning. Why do animal mothers love their young? Well, it's in the genetic code and is certainly a survival mechanism, the nurturing aspect of life is essential in a harsh environment, when the young are fragile and defenseless. This nurture turns into affection and love with familiarity. How many mothers have you known who have told you that when they gave birth, the overwhelming emotion of nurture and love was irresistible. The love I feel for my wife is also protective and based on years of intimacy and proximity. I love her for who she is but also because it is a biological imperative, In a way I cannot help but love her in many ways, otherwise I might be a sociopath. That being said, with betrayal or abuse, that same feeling could easily fade. The emotion or feeling of love is a supreme benefit to the survival of the species and almost essential for human interaction on a familial level.

[Ouroboros]

Love and morality are not interchangeable concepts.

[Guest Valk0010]

For me morality in general has been described well here.

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." -Kant

 

Most all forms of immorality come from about from violating something like that imho.

[bornagainathiest]

Not that hard BAA. Both are means to an end......the pursuit of morality, success, love, whatever. They are just different methods. I'm sorry you can't make heads or tails of my post. It is what it is.

 

That's right End.

I can't make head or tail of something that's so vague and open-ended that I'm forced to guess and make assumptions as to what you mean. You seem to know what you mean, but you haven't communicated that knowledge to us in any understandable way.

 

Your response is a good example. "END3, define (by grammatical law), a question so that I might deal with you in a relationship". In my eyes, this is a religiousness to the law, a law.

 

All language follows laws, End.

That's how we communicate with each other. You use (or should I say fail to use) these laws too.

If you aren't using the agreed laws of language (by being vague), how is anyone supposed to understand what you're getting at?

 

However, we WILL understand you if you define your question in a meaningful and non-contradictory way. Garbage in, garbage out. Ask a confused, contradictory question and all you'll get is confusion and contradiction for an answer. Is that what you really want or perhaps meaningful answers just don't matter to you?

 

The statement was, love doesn't follow laws, so how do we deal with each other. Love is by grace.

 

'Love is by grace' operates only within Christianity, as described by the Bible, End.

 

Different cultures and different belief systems have different definitions of love, morality, success, etc. For example, in Buddhism, love is an illusion and Nirvana is the only true reality. There are many, many different descriptions of love and morality and success but how are we supposed to know which ones you mean unless you define them properly?

 

Or are we just supposed to assume that since you're a Christian, you're talking about the pursuit of morality, success and love only within a Christian paradigm (by grace and with no laws) ?Leaving the meaning of your question to our guesswork and our assumptions suggests to me that you really aren't that interested in our answers.

 

Maybe you're just stirring things up, just for the hell of it?

 

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

Love and morality are not interchangeable concepts.

 

You'll please have to explain H.

[Guest Valk0010]

Love and morality are not interchangeable concepts.

 

You'll please have to explain H.

Relatively simple actually. You can love somebody but be immoral to them (sometimes by mistake).

[Spectrox]

End3 - Yet another obscure, inpenetrable, pointles waste of time from you. What's your purpose for coming on the Lion's Den with this ambiguous arse-hattery? Go and engage in onanistic mind games somewhere else. Or go and get laid - that's a form of love for you. But it's only moral if you're doing it missionary-style and closing your eyes and thinking of Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

Love and morality are not interchangeable concepts.

 

You'll please have to explain H.

To be moral means that you are acting moral to people you don't love too, not just the ones you love. In other words, love and morality are not the same concepts. It's a fallacy of equivocation to mix them up and think that morality and love are the same.

 

Unless you're proposing that morality is only acted upon those who we love, and we can be immoral towards everyone else. Then morality has lost its meaning and function. Hasn't it?

[Guest end3]

End3 - Yet another obscure, inpenetrable, pointles waste of time from you. What's your purpose for coming on the Lion's Den with this ambiguous arse-hattery? Go and engage in onanistic mind games somewhere else. Or go and get laid - that's a form of love for you. But it's only moral if you're doing it missionary-style and closing your eyes and thinking of Jesus.

 

Waxing philosophical Spec...

[Guest end3]

Love and morality are not interchangeable concepts.

 

You'll please have to explain H.

To be moral means that you are acting moral to people you don't love too, not just the ones you love. In other words, love and morality are not the same concepts. It's a fallacy of equivocation to mix them up and think that morality and love are the same.

 

Unless you're proposing that morality is only acted upon those who we love, and we can be immoral towards everyone else. Then morality has lost its meaning and function. Hasn't it?

 

I see your point but have a difficult time making the distinction of behaving morally and loving.

[Galien]

For me this has a;ways been a simple matter that people confuse and make it a complicated one. If you treat everyone with equal respect regardless of your religion, it makes life easier for everyone. If you don't it makes life harder. It's not fucking rocket science but you would think so seeing people find it so hard to act in a reasonable manner. They let ego get in and it fucks up everything.

 

I have always been, and probably always will be obsessed with treating people well. It's an odd obsession because it almost always guarantees me constant disappointment with people due to thier unwillingness to see past the end of their own nose. It is always unequal. But I still maintain that treating others as well as you treat yourself makes living on the planet a more pleasant experience for all. Shame no one ever listens.

[Ouroboros]

I see your point but have a difficult time making the distinction of behaving morally and loving.

Well, then you know you have a problem. If you can't figure out what morality really is, then you can't understand what it comes from or how it's made.

 

Didn't Jesus say, "do to others what you want them do to you"? The "formula" requires that you first know what you want. If you don't know what you want, you can't know what to do to others either. And what if you want bad things to happen or done to you? Does this mean you should do bad things to others because that's what you want to yourself?

 

And Jesus also said, "love thy neighbor as yourself," right? What does that require? That you love yourself. Just think about a person who hates him or herself. Should they hate other people? They must love themselves first for this to work.

 

Morality is a fabric of communal understanding of cooperation and ethical responsibilities. These grow out of values in society. A group of people think and want similar things, and that's where the values start and mores grow. Morality is like plants in the soil. The community (made out of people) is the soil.

[Guest Valk0010]

Here is a thought end on morality within the christian context

 

[bornagainathiest]

Love and morality are not interchangeable concepts.

 

You'll please have to explain H.

To be moral means that you are acting moral to people you don't love too, not just the ones you love. In other words, love and morality are not the same concepts. It's a fallacy of equivocation to mix them up and think that morality and love are the same.

 

Unless you're proposing that morality is only acted upon those who we love, and we can be immoral towards everyone else. Then morality has lost its meaning and function. Hasn't it?

 

I see your point but have a difficult time making the distinction of behaving morally and loving.

 

Sadly End, this sentence speaks volumes.

 

If it's difficult for you to distinguish between moral behavior and loving behavior, how can you possibly put together a meaningful question about these two different things?

 

And therefore, we're wasting our time trying to pick apart the tangled and confused terms of your question.

 

Perhaps you'd do well to understand what it is you want to ask before you ask it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

I see your point but have a difficult time making the distinction of behaving morally and loving.

Well, then you know you have a problem. If you can't figure out what morality really is, then you can't understand what it comes from or how it's made.

 

Didn't Jesus say, "do to others what you want them do to you"? The "formula" requires that you first know what you want. If you don't know what you want, you can't know what to do to others either. And what if you want bad things to happen or done to you? Does this mean you should do bad things to others because that's what you want to yourself?

 

And Jesus also said, "love thy neighbor as yourself," right? What does that require? That you love yourself. Just think about a person who hates him or herself. Should they hate other people? They must love themselves first for this to work.

 

Morality is a fabric of communal understanding of cooperation and ethical responsibilities. These grow out of values in society. A group of people think and want similar things, and that's where the values start and mores grow. Morality is like plants in the soil. The community (made out of people) is the soil.

 

Let me recap my own understanding.

 

Morality may be a societal agreement.

One may act morally without having the emotion of love.

 

However,

 

If there were defintions of absolute morality, then although one might not feel the emotion of love, the moral act would by default be loving.

 

From a Christian standpoint, I'm viewing the goal as acting in a moral manner from a selection of absolute morals, which would by default be loving.....with the exception that I may not feel the emotion when exacting such.

 

Ok, please let me know how this may differ than some "norm" as I ain't to "norm" myself.

 

Thanks,