we already know the do's and don't. of another country and culture not of our own. all without needing to be told that it is wrong.
I would recommend reading the first section (quarter to third, forget exactly how long) of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity for a Christian perspective on this. Because he agrees on your premise about a set of morals which is widely accepted across many cultures, and discusses how he thinks that came about. (Of course, as you'd guess from the name of the author and book, he comes to a very different conclusion than your initial assumption of "I know we as humans made it up").
Yeah but if he's saying that from a christian perspective you and him are assholes.
C.S. Lewis is an asshole because he was Christian.
You're the gift that keeps on giving, man.
...is complete culture vandalism. and a literal white washing of other peoples religion and culture values.
I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but then you went and actually said "literally" which makes me think you are using "white" in the racial sense.
You do realize Whites and Christians are a very broad Venn diagram, right? Most Christians aren't white?
I like how you say you're not hateful, you're not racist, you're not a bigot. Yet all you do is spew ignorant nonsense due to your own preconceived notions.
We were talking about Christians, not whites. You still managed to completely miss the point. Also learn to spell.
...you took that one paragraph out of context to insinuate that i said only white people can be christians... very fascinating.
You said Christians were "literally" white washing culture. Why say literally? What did you mean, if not white in the racial sense? How else would you literally whitewash something? Aside from the racial context, the only other literal sense would be if the Christians were going around with buckets of white paint.
As to taking a paragraph out of context...it was a paragraph...and you only wrote one paragraph. Do you know what 'out of context' means?
depends. if asshole take things i said out of context.
There you go again. How am I taking you out of context? Do you know what that means?
Also, you're just hilariously unpleasant. I might mock you, but I don't call you names (often.) All you do is call everyone that disagrees with you assholes and other shit, and tell them to die.
I want the best for you. You want me to die. Who's the hateful one?
So, you claim to want a discussion about morality (which for the overwhelming majority of human history and for the overwhelming majority of human population is based on religion) but someone pointing you at a religious perspective on it is an asshole? You might as well say "I want to have a discussion on the history of sports, but anyone who plays or watches sports is an asshole if they want to contribute".
In game theory there is a concept known as tit-for-tat. It demonstrates that in a competitive two participant system, defensive non-aggression is the optimal strategy.
These principles are borne out in nature and can be observed in competition between organisms when no clear advantage exists which would incentivize a first move.
The foundational concept of morality (that it is wrong for one human to kill another human) undoubtedly grew out of evolutionary selection around these principles.
But game theory only offers weak proofs. Philosophers required more... concrete arguments. Hence: god.
We created god to serve as a source of absolute morality. A foundation not based on the fuzzy logic of statistics (which is more than sufficient to guide biology over many iterations; it's good enough for animals I dunno why it isn't good enough for intellectuals but whatever), but absolutes that could apply to all regardless of individual circumstances.
Having created god, in order to empower god it is necessary to ascribe EVERYTHING to god. If you don't, god ceases to function as a tool.
So to answer your question... morality is of god, and your conscience is your personal experience of god.
Because tit-for-tat can only explain why it is better for two lions to avoid each other than to maul themselves until one is dead and the other near death. It says nothing about how the lion should deal with the gazelle.
Enlightened self interest has never been enough to dissuade those who KNOW they have an advantage. This is why the overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by kratocracy.
Which is better? Men killing men to elevate themselves, or men killing men to elevate their god? The former will NEVER end. The latter... supposes that one day it potentially could end, when all are united in veneration of one god and accepting one morality (however bloody the trail may be to get there).
where's the proof
This is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove religion right and the moral nihilists wrong. I can't do this, and religion never set out to do this. Religion itself doesn't beat nihilists, because both religion and nihilism come from unassailable but ultimately untestable foundations. Faith is what beats the moral nihilists, and I can't give you that in words. Even the nihilists conviction that there is nothing beyond is a kind of faith, albeit a pessimistic one.
You either have the certainty in yourself that some things are fundamentally wrong, or you don't. Just as I have the certainty in myself that if someone says they DON'T have that certainty, I am certain THEY are lying.
I do not believe for an instant that you believe the nihilists are right (that nothing is fundamentally moral or immoral). You wouldn't be here if you did.
i know we as humans made it up
If we "made it up" then the nihilists are right.
Look, this is a CHOICE. If you "know" morality is made up, then all your feelings about what is right and wrong are just you. If you "know" some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then that has to transcend you in order to be projected onto others, it can't just be something made up.
It is YOUR CHOICE to acknowledge a higher source of moral truth in order to give your moral judgements greater weight than your own disapproval. Only the divine can transcend you and encompass your enemies.
can i not already project my morals unto people already?
Yes, but the result will never be more than kratocracy.
Its a distinction between:
"The utter certainty that there will never be an end to violence because it's all against all."
"The unlikely but theoretically possible future where there could be an end to violence because one moral (one divine) has prevailed and all (who remain) abide by it."
As long as it's literally just you versus me, the victor will only be you or me, and there will always be more of us to continue that fight.
While I doubt Islam's ability to deliver peace (given that they couldn't go one generation without finding a reason to fight amongst themselves), they do at least have the problem framed correctly: that there can only be peace when all are united around one consistent morality.
To be blunt with you Blue, I don't believe you're grasping the nuance of the point I'm making. You're a caveman; you see a problem, you hit the problem with a stick until it's no longer a problem; and that will work for you as long as the problem doesn't have a bigger stick. You don't care what history will say about your stick swinging and how it ended; and you certainly don't care about putting an end to all the stick swinging.
Same place civilization came from. It's a set of rules that seek to expand society while keeping it harmonious. You could say it's our genetic programing
Your fundamental premise is false, befitting the likes of you.
Subjective morality does not and by definition cannot exist. If morals are up for discussion then they aren't morals at all, they're just standards.
Morality can only be objective, and thusly can only come from a source outside of crass consensus.
I would recommend reading the first section (quarter to third, forget exactly how long) of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity for a Christian perspective on this. Because he agrees on your premise about a set of morals which is widely accepted across many cultures, and discusses how he thinks that came about. (Of course, as you'd guess from the name of the author and book, he comes to a very different conclusion than your initial assumption of "I know we as humans made it up").
C.S. Lewis is an asshole because he was Christian.
You're the gift that keeps on giving, man.
I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but then you went and actually said "literally" which makes me think you are using "white" in the racial sense.
You do realize Whites and Christians are a very broad Venn diagram, right? Most Christians aren't white?
I like how you say you're not hateful, you're not racist, you're not a bigot. Yet all you do is spew ignorant nonsense due to your own preconceived notions.
We were talking about Christians, not whites. You still managed to completely miss the point. Also learn to spell.
You said Christians were "literally" white washing culture. Why say literally? What did you mean, if not white in the racial sense? How else would you literally whitewash something? Aside from the racial context, the only other literal sense would be if the Christians were going around with buckets of white paint.
As to taking a paragraph out of context...it was a paragraph...and you only wrote one paragraph. Do you know what 'out of context' means?
There you go again. How am I taking you out of context? Do you know what that means?
Also, you're just hilariously unpleasant. I might mock you, but I don't call you names (often.) All you do is call everyone that disagrees with you assholes and other shit, and tell them to die.
I want the best for you. You want me to die. Who's the hateful one?
When have I ever flipped out?
Where did I advocate for that? Learn to read. Learn to type. Learn.
What's my religion, retard? And where have I imposed it on anyone?
So, you claim to want a discussion about morality (which for the overwhelming majority of human history and for the overwhelming majority of human population is based on religion) but someone pointing you at a religious perspective on it is an asshole? You might as well say "I want to have a discussion on the history of sports, but anyone who plays or watches sports is an asshole if they want to contribute".
In game theory there is a concept known as tit-for-tat. It demonstrates that in a competitive two participant system, defensive non-aggression is the optimal strategy.
These principles are borne out in nature and can be observed in competition between organisms when no clear advantage exists which would incentivize a first move.
The foundational concept of morality (that it is wrong for one human to kill another human) undoubtedly grew out of evolutionary selection around these principles.
But game theory only offers weak proofs. Philosophers required more... concrete arguments. Hence: god.
We created god to serve as a source of absolute morality. A foundation not based on the fuzzy logic of statistics (which is more than sufficient to guide biology over many iterations; it's good enough for animals I dunno why it isn't good enough for intellectuals but whatever), but absolutes that could apply to all regardless of individual circumstances.
Having created god, in order to empower god it is necessary to ascribe EVERYTHING to god. If you don't, god ceases to function as a tool.
So to answer your question... morality is of god, and your conscience is your personal experience of god.
Because tit-for-tat can only explain why it is better for two lions to avoid each other than to maul themselves until one is dead and the other near death. It says nothing about how the lion should deal with the gazelle.
Enlightened self interest has never been enough to dissuade those who KNOW they have an advantage. This is why the overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by kratocracy.
Which is better? Men killing men to elevate themselves, or men killing men to elevate their god? The former will NEVER end. The latter... supposes that one day it potentially could end, when all are united in veneration of one god and accepting one morality (however bloody the trail may be to get there).
This is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove religion right and the moral nihilists wrong. I can't do this, and religion never set out to do this. Religion itself doesn't beat nihilists, because both religion and nihilism come from unassailable but ultimately untestable foundations. Faith is what beats the moral nihilists, and I can't give you that in words. Even the nihilists conviction that there is nothing beyond is a kind of faith, albeit a pessimistic one.
You either have the certainty in yourself that some things are fundamentally wrong, or you don't. Just as I have the certainty in myself that if someone says they DON'T have that certainty, I am certain THEY are lying.
I do not believe for an instant that you believe the nihilists are right (that nothing is fundamentally moral or immoral). You wouldn't be here if you did.
If we "made it up" then the nihilists are right.
Look, this is a CHOICE. If you "know" morality is made up, then all your feelings about what is right and wrong are just you. If you "know" some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then that has to transcend you in order to be projected onto others, it can't just be something made up.
It is YOUR CHOICE to acknowledge a higher source of moral truth in order to give your moral judgements greater weight than your own disapproval. Only the divine can transcend you and encompass your enemies.
Yes, but the result will never be more than kratocracy.
Its a distinction between:
As long as it's literally just you versus me, the victor will only be you or me, and there will always be more of us to continue that fight.
While I doubt Islam's ability to deliver peace (given that they couldn't go one generation without finding a reason to fight amongst themselves), they do at least have the problem framed correctly: that there can only be peace when all are united around one consistent morality.
To be blunt with you Blue, I don't believe you're grasping the nuance of the point I'm making. You're a caveman; you see a problem, you hit the problem with a stick until it's no longer a problem; and that will work for you as long as the problem doesn't have a bigger stick. You don't care what history will say about your stick swinging and how it ended; and you certainly don't care about putting an end to all the stick swinging.
if a lion could speak, we could not understand him
Same place civilization came from. It's a set of rules that seek to expand society while keeping it harmonious. You could say it's our genetic programing
Not good, never good