Changes

It is possible to consider morality as a characteristic of a culture. The definition being a standard of conduct that helps the culture to operate with minimal conflict. In small groups it leads to rules like "dont kill Fred, because Fred fishes and we all like fish, so leave Fred alone" or "Fred hasnt caught a fish in a month , so lets eat Fred instead ! ". Many moral codes are ultimately pro-survival of the group.  [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:57, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

It is possible to consider morality as a characteristic of a culture. The definition being a standard of conduct that helps the culture to operate with minimal conflict. In small groups it leads to rules like "dont kill Fred, because Fred fishes and we all like fish, so leave Fred alone" or "Fred hasnt caught a fish in a month , so lets eat Fred instead ! ". Many moral codes are ultimately pro-survival of the group.  [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:57, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, i think that my position to an extent has been set out by others i accept morality as a function which must be assessed on a case by case basis, and which is achieved to a much greater extent by personal questioning and rational inquiry rather than by blind acceptance of rules. Much greater evil has been achieved by obedience rather than rebellion. Think about it, the Nazi regime survived for so long because people obeyed blindly and didn't think for themselves, the horrors which came about by Stalin was because of blind acceptance, same as the horrors contained in the old testament of the bible (see especially the books of exodus/Leviticus with every second person seemingly being put to death, not to mention wars etc throughout the whole of old testament  (assuming them to be true - which is highly questionable)and the crusades etc etc etc. Morality exists for numerous reasons without god: the common good, personal benefit- what goes around tends to come around-, rational reality (i.e. there is no need to inflict unnecessary pain on others because you have felt pain and it is unpleasant, therefore there would be no reason for you to do that, assuming the person is not a sadist)etc etc..also see utilitarianism and kants work on ethics..  I am really more concerned with morality being assumed to exist within the context of a christian god who tortures or lets his children be tortured for an unending amount of time because they didn't want to hang out with him or didn't know he was there (was he absent) for a limited amount of time. Not to mention the fact that morality coming from god (which is what the question suggests) denies absolute morality because whatever god feels like calling "good" is therefore good, showing that morality from a christian standpoint is in fact subjective being based upon Gods whims/rationale. Maybe this is best summed up by considering the position that God comes to the conclusion that child molestation must be carried out making it "moral" by christian standards, however we know that this is clearly not moral and not beneficial to anyone involved, however christians would be obliged to obey. Or how about something closer to home like killing someone for trimming their beard. This is contained within the bible and is clearly not moral. The real question i suppose is "If (the christian) god does exist (and is the measure of morality), can anything be morally wrong?"

Yes, i think that my position to an extent has been set out by others i accept morality as a function which must be assessed on a case by case basis, and which is achieved to a much greater extent by personal questioning and rational inquiry rather than by blind acceptance of rules. Much greater evil has been achieved by obedience rather than rebellion. Think about it, the Nazi regime survived for so long because people obeyed blindly and didn't think for themselves, the horrors which came about by Stalin was because of blind acceptance, same as the horrors contained in the old testament of the bible (see especially the books of exodus/Leviticus with every second person seemingly being put to death, not to mention wars etc throughout the whole of old testament  (assuming them to be true - which is highly questionable)and the crusades etc etc etc. Morality exists for numerous reasons without god: the common good, personal benefit- what goes around tends to come around-, rational reality (i.e. there is no need to inflict unnecessary pain on others because you have felt pain and it is unpleasant, therefore there would be no reason for you to do that, assuming the person is not a sadist)etc etc..also see utilitarianism and kants work on ethics..  I am really more concerned with morality being assumed to exist within the context of a christian god who tortures or lets his children be tortured for an unending amount of time because they didn't want to hang out with him or didn't know he was there (was he absent) for a limited amount of time. Not to mention the fact that morality coming from god (which is what the question suggests) denies absolute morality because whatever god feels like calling "good" is therefore good, showing that morality from a christian standpoint is in fact subjective being based upon Gods whims/rationale. Maybe this is best summed up by considering an imaginary position, imagine that God comes to the conclusion that child molestation is good and must be carried out making it "moral" by christian standards, however we know that this is clearly not moral and not beneficial to anyone involved, however christians would be obliged to obey. Or how about something closer to home like killing someone for trimming their beard. This is contained within the bible and is clearly not moral. The real question i suppose is "If (the christian) god does exist (and is the measure of morality), can anything be morally wrong?"

==Questioning the Question==

==Questioning the Question==