Does Man Need a Moral Code?

[dogtowner]

I did not mention Christianity or Christ in my post, not sure why you felt the need to mention it to me... I like the golden rule, regardless of it's origin, but many people, Left and Right, seek to rule the lives of others and, therefore, would never accept the golden rule as an acceptable government standard of morality.

oops wasn't intended to be directed at you (golden rule thing)

I don't want masochists treating me like they like to be treated which is why Christ was love all people.

 

[cashmcall]

Yes and the Bible would be mine, As such, the Bible becomes my source of morality because the Bible is the very Word of God in written form. If the Christian wants to know God’s will, he turns to the Bible. If the Christian wants to discern right from wrong, he turns to the Bible.
What happens if a Christian doesn't turn to the Bible as his or her source for morality? There are many ways to answer this question, but the bottom line imo is we all tend to trust our conscience, whether implicitly or explicitly. The human conscience can be likened to an alarm system; it warns us when we transgress our moral standard. The catch is our conscience is only as good as the moral standard that informs it. If it’s not the Bible, then we inevitably inform our conscience by various other means.

 

[Cruella]

Has anyone here ever raised kids from infancy? They come into this world quite self centered. Most kids want what they see and have to be taught it's not theirs for the taking. They also have different personalities and capacities for giving/receiving affection. I think a moral compass is a learned behavior. The duration and quality of the nurture of these young homosapiens has a life long influence on their adult characters. It would be interesting to find out what the common denominators are of people who have spent their lives in and out of jail.

 

[Richard Savage]

We are indoctrinated from birth; it is our human bondage. It is a fault of learning so ingrained as to be part of our human nature. In this, we repeat the same mistakes not because we fail to learn from them, but because we have not changed our ways. Still, we persist in the same pattern - from father to son, mother to daughter, generation on generation - over and over again, in an endless cycle. To understand this is to understand the nature and tragedy of our lives.

 

[dogtowner]

We are indoctrinated from birth; it is our human bondage. It is a fault of learning so ingrained as to be part of our human nature. In this, we repeat the same mistakes not because we fail to learn from them, but because we have not changed our ways. Still, we persist in the same pattern - from father to son, mother to daughter, generation on generation - over and over again, in an endless cycle. To understand this is to understand the nature and tragedy of our lives.

man.. you always such a ray of sunshine ? : )

I will disagree and say that it is perfectly possible to defeat generational mistakes nd happens frequently.

 

[Richard Savage]

There is a cloud over us. It is congenital. And, it persists.

 

[Cruella]

There is a cloud over us. It is congenital. And, it persists.

Buck up...we have a lot to be grateful for, and things today aren't nearly as negative than they were in past generations. The only difference is that because of technology, we are so much more aware of, and burdened by the negatives surrounding life. Sorting the chaff from the wheat was never easy, but we are clearly more able to do it today than our past generations were.

 

[Richard Savage]

History is the story of man; and, more notably, those of vision and action, fame and fortune. Their portraits look back at us through time, and books speak of their words and deeds from across the ages. Today, everyone with a camera and a computer can make a record of their life for posterity - but then who will want to read or see what they once were? Let those that have achieved great works leave that as their legacy; and for those that have not, let them rest in unvisited graves.

 

[dogtowner]

History is the story of man; and, more notably, those of vision and action, fame and fortune. Their portraits look back at us through time, and books speak of their words and deeds from across the ages. Today, everyone with a camera and a computer can make a record of their life for posterity - but then who will want to read or see what they once were? Let those that have achieved great works leave that as their legacy; and for those that have not, let them rest in unvisited graves.

so now you are saying deeds trump words ? well thats a start.

 

[Richard Savage]

". . . well thats a start." Well, sir, answer this: Who's morals are to be applied? Your morals - my morals - Justice Antonin Scalia's morals - the so-called "moral majority"?

 

[dogtowner]

". . . well thats a start." Well, sir, answer this: Who's morals are to be applied? Your morals - my morals - Justice Antonin Scalia's morals - the so-called "moral majority"?

don't know what you consider to be morals but what does that have to do with you switching postions from words > deeds to deeds > words ?

 

[Dr.Who]

The question that begs to be asked is, "if evolution tends to modify human behavior to become more moralistic, then why isn't the world a more peaceful place?" The answer to that is evolution is always a work in progress. Mankind has progressed passed the point where raiding a neighboring village to steal the wealth, kill the men, and take the women and children as slaves.

That question is starting with the assumption that peacefulness is beneficial to a gene pool. We do not need to fall back on a thought that evolution is a work in progress to explain it because the question itself starts with a wrong premise.

We are indeed still raiding villages and committing all sorts of wrongs because they are in fact beneficial to someone.

I suppose that while evolution may favor some moral codes over others it need not produce a moral code that is any more than beneficial to a gene pool (or more precisely somone's gene pool). The moral codes favored by evolution may in fact be horrible from the perspective of those who are trampled by the fit.

There are rights which supercede that which is merely beneficial to a fit persons genes. IMO, God has a plan for a moral code that is superior and perfect.

I would add that an evolutionary perspective of moral codes would almost certainly lead some to advance theories of utilitarianism: a cold and ruthless barbarism that would be as adequate as evolution in theory but which in practice is as flawed and evil as the men who practice it.

 

[Dr.Who]

". . . well thats a start." Well, sir, answer this: Who's morals are to be applied? Your morals - my morals - Justice Antonin Scalia's morals - the so-called "moral majority"?

There is an ever shifting melting pot of morals which are being hashed out in the marketplace of ideas. In a free marketplace the best ideas would rise to the top. But when ideas are advance through coercion and deceit some pretty bad ideas wrongly have their day at the top. Nevertheless, truth can only be suppressed for so long and eventually, but more slowly, the obstacles to good ideas of morality no longer stop good ideas from being advanced. Each one of us adds to or subtracts from the pot, and I believe when we compromise our greater good, by for instance telling a white lie to advance a political position, then the flavor of the whole pot is corrupted, i.e. a little yeast leavens the whole loaf. Fortunately a little salt counteracts yeast. On this earth the bread will always be both leavened and salted but that will not always be the way it will be.