If killing is immoral then why do people kill each other?
Great question. Which, of course, is asking why we lie, steal, have affairs, and so on. When done to us, is wrong. When we do it, it is, well, not really wrong in this case if you really think about it, and besides, so-and-so actually caused this when she….Humans have an infinite capacity to justify whatever serves their self interests. The definition of morality is reasonably static when applied to others, very pliable when applied to oneself. The question that defines reality is, I think, why that is. And one could say that humanity is divided between those willing to admit this about themselves and those not.It seems that while some people are willing to intellectually admit to something along the lines of imperfection, past mistakes, etc., few will own that as a current state, a definition of identity. So we kill, lie…
Is morality independent of God?
1. If morality is independent of or outside of God (e.g. in the Form of Good), then is it eternal, and if so, does that mean God is not the ultimate First Cause? 1a. Morality is defined by the living. 2. If morality exists inside the mind of God and is therefore expressed in his commands, then does that mean God cannot command arbitrarily? If so, does that mean God is limited, and therefore not omnipotent? (Or how do you define omnipotent to avoid the contradiction?) 2a. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 3. If God’s commands must relay either the Form of Good existing outside him (if you accept that view), or conform to his own nature (if you accept that view as an alternative), does that mean any commands alleged to be from God that reason reveals to be immoral are not from God? 3a. If God can/will only be moral and good, then immoral or bad commands cannot come from God. However, if immoral/bad commands come from God, then God is not entirely moral and good. 4. If reason reveals that murdering innocent children and women is immoral, then does that mean that the Canaanite Genocide that the Bible records was a command from God is immoral and therefore not from God, showing that the author was flawed theologically? 4a. I believe so, but the argument for ultimate good beyond the incident is likely to come up here. 5. If you counter to number 4 that the act of murdering innocent children and women is not immoral if God commands it, then is it immoral for me to kill myself, even though I hear God speaking to me and telling me to do so? 5a. You should get a second opinion, and be skeptical of commands which would cause harm to yourself or others. 6. If you counter to 5 that I am crazy, on what basis do you make that assumption, and in what way is that assumption different from those that some unbelievers make about some biblical authors? 6a. Likely to be called delusional, but the difference is those who don't believe think it's delusional to believe any voice is that of god, and believers think it's delusional or demonic influence to believe a moral god would command you to kill yourself.
Spiritually speaking, why do people continue to insist that religion and morality...?
OK, yes, that is one long question! What can i say? Well, look at it this way. Back in the Bronze Age, the Israelites were living in a harsh environment and so they themselves had to be tough to survive. They also had a very limited understanding of the nature of the world. For instance, they thought that pi=3, that insects had four legs and that the Universe had been created very recently for their benefit alone. They also had a number system which wouldn't let them count in tens in case they put the letters which spelt the name of God together. Later on, people invented a more sensible number system which had place value, then proper fractions, then decimals and they invented a way of expressing the value of pi more accurately. They also invented a new morality in the form of the Sermon on the Mount, and the Old Testament went out the window as outmoded, rather like the old number system, because it couldn't express morality accurately. That was a step in the right direction. You can't expect people in Old Testament times to be able to make a mobile 'phone, a laptop or a spacecraft which can leave the solar system or perform a heart transplant. However, they could make pots, they had writing materials and basic public health measures were built into their religious code. They also understood the need to rest the land and allow it to replenish its resources on the Sabbath, at seven-year intervals and at the Jubilee. In the same way, you can't expect them to have modern values or a sophisticated understanding of ethics. However, just as if you had two points on a graph you would be able to draw a line through them which suggests the direction a third point might be, so you can take Old Testament values as one point, New Testament values as another and metaphorically draw a line through them in order to predict the direction in which ethics can be expected to go. So, the Torah says men who have been castrated are not allowed into the temple, but Christ's disciples accepted them. Nowadays i can't go to church in a dress although i'm a transvestite, but the day will come when i can (maybe after i've been ordained!), and that's a point on that line.
Why do some people lie about our founding fathers?
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Treaty of Tripoli 1796 Signed unanimously and presented by James Madison Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." --Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758 but yeah we are just full of **** aren't we?
Is morality absolute or relative? Why?
It's relative by definition: standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong. Standards and principles are necessarily relative to the the society/ community that frames them and agrees to abide by as the common code. Morals are just more implicit and more unconsciously accepted/followed (by the process of social conditioning) than more explicit standards and principles such as the law. Law enforcement of a country is through the judicial and governance framework. but it is as closely aligned as possible to socially accepted morals standards and principles enforced through social/ economic institutions of that specific country. Quoting anthropologists, "Ethical Relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another."Religions try to project these as absolute - to be able govern their followers in a more uniform manner by projecting their standards as being "eternal" having been guiding by a "transcendental unquestionable force" (God). However, what is considered moral conduct in on religion may be considered immoral in another!Usually the law of the land is it's "explicit" moral code and accounts broadly for any "absolute morals" that are socially implied. So, as long one can be within legal boundaries (not engage in criminal activity) and manage not to be absolutely socially outcast (as a misfit/ sociopath) - morality even within a single society (especially with vast and highly culturally diverse populations) usually come with a pretty long rope, nothing absolute about it!
Why do so many people think that atheists are incapable of having any morals?
Religions need followers to have any power or significance. Since people can easily live with any other religion or no religion, they need to emphasize how important they are in peoples’ everyday lives. Religious people are taught to attribute all good things to The Church, and all bad things to Outside The Church.Religions also need money to function at all and to carry out their goals as an organization. People will give money more readily if they see a personal benefit. If The Church is making you a moral person, and without it you are amoral, then The Church has value and deserves your money.Religions have big incentives to teach followers that God and This Particular Faith are helpful and even crucial to their success. When they are not teaching that religiously devout people are more successful, they are teaching that people NEED church to be okay as a person and acceptable to others. Atheists are held up as examples of “lost”, “dead” or “sad” individuals.Every religion has stories about how screwed somebody was when they lost the faith. This warms all of the followers’ hearts and makes them feel like they are in the right place. It also makes them scared to leave. Many religions have stories about how the very worst sin is unbelief or blasphemy. This makes followers really nervous about saying anything remotely atheistic. The followers can then back up the church’s message with a high level of consistency. The fear message is layered on top of the love message.
We all know that God is watching us, even then why people lie and do Bad to others?
I think I can try and write this answer. Indeed Yes, everyone knows that God is watching them and each wrong deed and bad karma is getting noted and for that one will be punished depending on the extent of that bad Karma done.NOW STILL WHY PEOPLE DO SO AND DONT CHANGE-In todays date there are very few people those who believe in god and has fear of God. Specially the teenagers and people between 20–35 years of age. They have become practical in each single thing they do. They dont think the consequence of anything they do and have become the Selfish to that extent that everyday we hear the news that Son killed father for Money. Young and Innocent girls being Raped.(Shit man how can somebody kill his or her own father, because of them u are in this world) and young girls being raped or harassed, molested(Dont those boys think that this can be done with their mother, daughter, sister any woman in their family too).Moving on teenagers start dating multiple people at same time without thinking that somebody could get so attached to them that can even get Heart or Mind Stroke if come to know that he or she has been cheated.Multiple things, multiple I can write for this answer but I dont want to as It is just bringing all negativity In my mind.Simple Request to all people is dont be practical, dont be selfish. Do each and everything without any wrong intention. If God has given everything(he can take away all due to ur wrong Karma). If he has not given anything(he can give everything due to ur Right Karma).
Are morality and ethics absolute, or black and white, and the 14,000 shades of grey in between are justification and rationalization?
Most people subscribe to more than one terminal value in ethics and morality. This means that such values must be traded off against one another at times. Consequently, they are not black and white.The trolley problem is a basic example. You must decide whether to flip a switch that redirects a trolley containing many people away from a cliff and into the path of a few innocent bystanders. Utilitarianism would indicate this is moral, but most people feel otherwise. The dilemma arises because 'do not harm innocents' is as much a terminal value as 'minimise overall harm'. We have trouble deciding which value is more important, and often prioritize different values in different scenarios depending on the emotional triggers they invoke.At a less proximate level, moral values exist, along with our other impulses, because they're part of our evolutionary heritage. There's no reason to think another intelligent species would share our specific suite of values. But some might be common simply because intelligence and sociality go together in evolution, and moral values help us deal with group living.