Moral OR Immoral???

[_JAK]

Can I just mention that I don't understand most of your posts because of the color issues?

Seriously! I must have issues, the colors throw me for a loop!

I don’t know how your screen colors look.

My reason for using color is to make clear who has said what. Particularly on a longer discussion, just the word “Quote” can leave unclear just who was writing.

Tell me more about this. How is it detrimental to understanding?

Are you unable to read the words? Do the words appear at all?

Please give me detail specific regarding anything on this matter.

Thank you, barrelomonkeys.

JAK

[_barrelomonkeys]

Can I just mention that I don't understand most of your posts because of the color issues?

Seriously! I must have issues, the colors throw me for a loop!

I don’t know how your screen colors look.

My reason for using color is to make clear who has said what. Particularly on a longer discussion, just the word “Quote” can leave unclear just who was writing.

Tell me more about this. How is it detrimental to understanding?

Are you unable to read the words? Do the words appear at all?

Please give me detail specific regarding anything on this matter.

Thank you, barrelomonkeys.

JAK

Hi JAK,

It just confuses me! I can't articulate why this is precisely. Sorry! If I could I would.

~monkeys

[Guest]

"growing up"in the church was interesting. You were asked if you were morally clean during interviews.

During summer I had a business law class in my paralegal program. The book gave an example of a blind man walking toward a cliff. The author said it's not illegal to watch the guy go over the cliff but that it would have been immoral to not stop him. That was easy to understand.

[_karl61]

Can I just mention that I don't understand most of your posts because of the color issues?

Seriously! I must have issues, the colors throw me for a loop!

I don’t know how your screen colors look.

My reason for using color is to make clear who has said what. Particularly on a longer discussion, just the word “Quote” can leave unclear just who was writing.

Tell me more about this. How is it detrimental to understanding?

Are you unable to read the words? Do the words appear at all?

Please give me detail specific regarding anything on this matter.

Thank you, barrelomonkeys.

JAK

I think the box within the box within the box is an easy way to keep track of what people are saying.

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, from your post:

Roger:
Absolutely! Again, the question, "How best to do that?" As you said, something to the affect, "equality is not something we across-the-board share." Particularly, I suggest in IQ, EQ, access to information/truth, natures/nurtures that all combine to make us as we are...YIKES!! :-) This becomes VERY obvious on boards such as this. OTOH, they're wondeful (wonderful) ops to ingest, digest what our constitution find satisfying to our indoctrinations. Would you agree? Do you think there are enough 'fit-specimens' evolving to compensate for the preponderance of 'unfits' to direct human affairs in our Global Village?

JAK:
Sorry, Roger, the first part of this does not compute. Acronyms such as “OTOH” and other ambiguities leave much clarification required for me to know what you’re saying. I do not know with what I am (asked) to be agreeing.

RM: Sorry for the confusion. Thought you'd be familiar with OTOH meaning, 'on the other hand'. IMSCO, 'in my seriously considered opinion'. I don't have hummble opinions ;-) "Would you agree" that boards like this are wondeful opportunities to receive information. Even more so (for some) when that information confirms their own indoctrinations/opinions, generally speaking of course. Without this cyber stuff we wouldn't be having this dialogue. That would be a loss to everyone. Right?

The number of threats to “our Global Village” far exceed “fit-specimens” of humans. On that single issue: What constitutes “fit-specimens”? How is that determined?

RM: I had in mind your earlier reference to folks so busy 'working' they tend not to have much time/inclination to think of much else. Ever thus. They could, not being well informed, and more susceptible to propoganda etc, be regarded as not particularly "fit-specimens" to direct...our Global Village.

Seems to me, as we are at the moment, positive scientific and social strides have been (continue to be?) made by a miniscule number of folks. I suggest they would be the "fit-specimens" amongst us. Most of us as drones IMSCO, would be unfit for much but obedience to our leaders--worthy leaders or not.

Do You think we--humans--can remedy "the number of threats to our Global Village"? Or, are we destined to fail in that "challenge"??

JAK

I hope that adds clarity, and also poses worthy questions... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

barrelomonkeys stated:
I do NOT assume morality as absolute and understand that most people have degrees within their views of moral and immoral behavior. You said that one is to make a moral judgment AFTER they are fully informed.

You first said that moral judgments were all relative. Then you said it was necessary for people to be fully informed before making judgments.

JAK:
Yes. I think you paraphrase relatively well.

barrelomonkeys stated:
It seems to me that even after being fully informed people could come to differing opinions on the morality of whatever action would follow their full contemplation of the facts (for instance your favorite topic Iraq) and I see that it is indeed subjective and not absolute. I shouldn't have used the singular and used plural when I was asking my question.

JAK:
I said: “we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance.”

That does not necessarily mean what you state just here.

Consider this comparison. As fully informed as was possible 200 years ago would not have been equal to that same level today.

barrelomonkeys stated:
The original topic asked us to consider whether it is unchristlike to condone a system that leeches off the poor.

JAK:
I missed that as “the original topic.”

The first post by Roger concluded with this:
What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (inconsistency) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life? Warm regards, Roger

Your “topic” replication is not what Roger asked.

barrelomonkeys stated:
You said that people needed to be fully informed before making a judgment as to whether anything is moral or immoral.

JAK:
Please re-read my posts. I didn’t say this.

Again:
I said: “we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance.”

It was not my position that any individual can necessarily be “fully informed” on a complex, multifaceted problem.

barrelomonkeys stated:
My question would be how does one then (collectively) make any decisions regarding morality if it is all subjective?

JAK:
One way “collective” judgment tends to occur is in law. To be sure, law and laws over time undergo change. Circumstances do not remain static. As circumstances change and new information emerges, considerations regarding “decisions regarding morality” also change.

Women in the USA were not permitted to vote prior to the 1920s. It was the law, and it was regarded by many as morally correct. In Tehran, women today ride in the back of the busses, must cover their heads if not all their body except for the face or eyes. It’s regarded as “morally correct” in Tehran. It’s also changing. But in that culture many things which are moral issues are not in the slightest moral issues in the USA.

Notions of “moral” correctness are subjective. In India, cows are sacred as part of the Hindu religion's story of creation.

So how are “decisions” made? They are made by general consensus in a given culture/civilization. They are made within the context of sub-cultures within a civilization as well.

It’s complex rather than simple. In the USA, girls or women would not generally have worn shorts in the 1920s.

Interestingly, the tobacco companies paid women to sit in the most up-scale of hotels in large cities to just sit in the lobby and smoke cigarettes. Soon, women were smoking in the movies. Men smoked in the movies. Prior to the present knowledge about smoking and health, smoking was seen as sophisticated, cultured, and adult. In fact, tobacco companies capitalized on adult most cleverly to market cigarettes to teens and younger.

“Smoking is an adult activity.”

What better way to market to those who desperately wanted to be grown up!

Today, as a health issue, smoking has also become a moral issue. Tobacco companies cannot market directly on TV today. Smoking is prohibited in many if not most public places and closed spaces (offices).

Selling cigarettes to minors is illegal in the USA -- not in China. In fact, marketing of cigarettes in many foreign countries is done with no health warnings on packs of cigarettes. If the law of a country does not require health warnings, the cigarette makers package for that country with no warnings.

That, of course, is American capitalism. So we can have a debate about the morality of such marketing practices. If you work for the tobacco industry, you may have a different view than if you work for a health-care service.

barrelomonkeys stated:
Surely there must be some consensus as to certain moral and immoral (and degrees therein) behaviors that society will allow?

JAK:
Well, there is -- “some.” But it depends greatly on where one is and the prevailing laws, mores, protocol, etc.

barrelomonkeys stated:
am not a Christian and have never been one but can see the original point the originator of the thread asked. You've sort of gotten off the point don't you think?

JAK:
I don’t think so. But I am responding to your points directly here.
-----------
The first post by Roger concluded with this:
What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (sp) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life? Warm regards, Roger

JAK:
Clearly, there is “inconsistency” in the USA. Clearly, the USA has changed its view (consensus) over time. We could debate rightly if the USA was ever “THE Christian Country.” I don’t think that has been established.

Presidents and presidential candidates use religion and some have used Christianity in their campaigns. G.W.Bush is perhaps a president who has used religion much more than most previous presidents.

In a previous post, I responded to the “Trusts In God” by answering that as a nation generally, we “trust” in the military -- or could have said the industrial military complex. The phrase “Trust In God” is irrelevant.. I stated that in an earlier post under this topic.

So, for my part, I’m addressing Roger’s question(s).

barrelomonkeys stated:
I would think that anyone that is a disciple of Christ would have some beliefs of morality that contained his teachings.

JAK:
You might. But Christians do not agree on issues of “morality.” They claim to believe different things as evidenced by the more than 1,000 groups which disagree with one another.

Roman Catholic doctrine does not agree with Methodist doctrine, etc.

On capital punishment, Christian groups disagree. It’s a moral issue, and they disagree. They even quote the Bible to support their contradictory positions, their moral positions on capital punishment.

I also previously addressed the issue of wealth transfer with which Christian groups are very committed.

barrelomonkeys stated:
I have happy notions of a few things and yet do not see morality as absolute! I don't believe I stated one way or another as to whether I was a moral absolutist or a moral relativist. Did I?

JAK:
Evidence suggests otherwise to your first sentence. Do you think the second two sentences address Roger’s first post?
---------
(no color code -- Can you see why it’s useful?)
JAK previously:
The fact is that Christians don’t agree. That some may regard themselves as “moral absolutists” is [/b]an opinion[/b].

barrelomonkeys stated:
Actually the statement that some regard themselves as moral absolutists is NOT an opinion. It is a fact.

JAK:
It’s their opinion that they are “moral absolutists.”
Objectively speaking, how they regard themselves is subjective in this regard.

If we can demonstrate that others who also view themselves as “moral absolutists” hold different views on morality, we have a difference of opinion on the matter.

barrelomonkeys stated:
JAK, thanks for the refresher. I already grasp that there are complex issues. I already know that some people are moral absolutists and moral relativists......... what was my question?

JAK:
I thought you had several points/questions in your response.

If you got through all this, you should receive some award :-)

JAK

[_barrelomonkeys]

Yes. I think you paraphrase relatively well.

Thanks! Just wanted to make sure I got it!

I said: “we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance.”

Oh, well I would agree with that! Sorry I misquoted you. I don't think it really matters though, does it?

Consider this comparison. As fully informed as was possible 200 years ago would not have been equal to that same level today.

Sure. I understand that.

barrelomonkeys stated:
The original topic asked us to consider whether it is unchristlike to condone a system that leeches off the poor.

JAK:
I missed that as “the original topic.”

The first post by Roger concluded with this:
What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (inconsistency) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life? Warm regards, Roger

Yet the topic began with this:
Are CEOs worth 364 times more than the average Joe/Jane?

I choose to dwell on that question.

barrelomonkeys stated:
You said that people needed to be fully informed before making a judgment as to whether anything is moral or immoral.

JAK:
Please re-read my posts. I didn’t say this.

Again:
I said: “we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance.”

It was not my position that any individual can necessarily be “fully informed” on a complex, multifaceted problem.

Well of course not! My bad! As well informed as possible. But either way, people make judgments of morality with various levels of understanding of the complexities of an issue. In an ideal world most people would try to be as informed as possible, but that's not the world we live in!

JAK:
One way “collective” judgment tends to occur is in law. To be sure, law and laws over time undergo change. Circumstances do not remain static. As circumstances change and new information emerges, considerations regarding “decisions regarding morality” also change.

Of course! We do have collective judgments as a society (and other societies have their own) of morality. So why can't we assume that Christians also should have these same collective judgments of morality?

Women in the USA were not permitted to vote prior to the 1920s. It was the law, and it was regarded by many as morally correct. In Tehran, women today ride in the back of the busses, must cover their heads if not all their body except for the face or eyes. It’s regarded as “morally correct” in Tehran. It’s also changing. But in that culture many things which are moral issues are not in the slightest moral issues in the USA.

Yep. Segregation. Slavery. Etc...

Notions of “moral” correctness are subjective. In India, cows are sacred as part of the Hindu religion's story of creation.

Yep! I get it! :)

So how are “decisions” made? They are made by general consensus in a given culture/civilization. They are made within the context of sub-cultures within a civilization as well.

YES! So why then can't we say that a Christian (that would follow Christ's teachings) should believe that social darwinism is immoral?

That, of course, is American capitalism. So we can have a debate about the morality of such marketing practices. If you work for the tobacco industry, you may have a different view than if you work for a health-care service.

Absolutely! Although one would assume that if you work for one or the other you would have some sort of morality scale on the issue that would be somewhat similiar to those that work beside you. Your subculture in other words. ;)

The first post by Roger concluded with this:
What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (sp) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life? Warm regards, Roger

Confession time: When I see Joseph Smith, "Mammon" and LDS my brain goes a bit fuzzy. :) I was looking at the thread in the light of this question:
Are CEOs worth 364 times more than the average Joe/Jane? Then related that question to the Christian perspective.

JAK:
Clearly, there is “inconsistency” in the USA. Clearly, the USA has changed its view (consensus) over time. We could debate rightly if the USA was ever “THE Christian Country.” I don’t think that has been established.

Well I agree with you there! Although I would think that Christ's disciples would have some sort of view on this that would stay within the teachings of Christ.

barrelomonkeys stated:
I would think that anyone that is a disciple of Christ would have some beliefs of morality that contained his teachings.

JAK:
You might. But Christians do not agree on issues of “morality.” They claim to believe different things as evidenced by the more than 1,000 groups which disagree with one another.

Well I understand that. But on this point; the economic system that would allow a few wealthy to gain more wealth while those at the bottom remain stagnant is not something that I see much wiggle room on. Perhaps I've not been directed to the teachings of Christ that support this system! I'm not so familiar with the Bible, it could be there!

I also previously addressed the issue of wealth transfer with which Christian groups are very committed.

Well I missed it! It's the colors!!
I'd like to see where you addressed this.

JAK:
It’s their opinion that they are “moral absolutists.”
Objectively speaking, how they regard themselves is subjective in this regard.

If we can demonstrate that others who also view themselves as “moral absolutists” hold different views on morality, we have a difference of opinion on the matter.

Okay JAK. The point was that some do consider themselves moral absolutists. That's all.

If you got through all this, you should receive some award :-)

You better believe I expect one!

*color coded violet for JAK's benefit*

[_JAK]

A Question of Roger’s:
Do You think we--humans--can remedy "the number of threats to our Global Village"? Or, are we destined to fail in that "challenge"??

JAK:
What time-frame are you considering?

Dinosaurs appeared on Earth nearly 250 Million years ago, early in a period of time geologists called Triassic. They grew in numbers and types during the Jurassic time period, and dominated Earth during the Cretaceous time period. They were here for nearly 200 million years - 40,000 times as long as recorded human history! But then suddenly they all disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous Period about 65 million years ago. (I have a source for this.)

There is no evidence that I know about that suggests any species can be sustained on the planet indefinitely.

While our sun has a limited life length, it is most unlikely that humans will go out with the sun (so to speak).

End of Dinosaurs

A global nuclear war with hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons in play would produce a “nuclear winter.” While hypothetical, it’s well within possible. Some have argued likely.

'Nuclear winter' may kill more than a nuclear war

There are other factors which could make the planet severely unfriendly to the human species. We know that more species have come and gone than presently occupy the planet today. And the number presently is staggering. More than 1,000 kinds of bees have been documented -- just bees. By the way, the bee population is shrinking dramatically. Bees are important to human life.

Roger said:
Seems to me, as we are at the moment, positive scientific and social strides have been (continue to be?) made by a miniscule (minuscule) number of folks.

JAK:
When was it not the case in the growth of the human species. I agree, but it’s not a change in percentage of those who make the greatest “strides.” The greatest contributions are made by a relative few.

Consider this growing threat to the human species -- population growth

Date: 10-02-2000 19:30

1 Billion humans = 1830
2 Billion humans = 1925
3 Billion humans = 1960
4 Billion humans = 1975
5 Billion humans = 1988
6 Billion humans = 1999

With the human population explosion, it’s likely that some disease (untreatable), or climate change that catastrophically diminishes food supply, another asteroid such as that which made extinct the dinosaur, or some other event will occur.

Again, time-frame is likely an important issue in your question.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK said:

Again, time-frame is likely an important issue in your question.

Well you have certainly made it so ;-) Interesting data, often contemplated its relevence to the immediate obvious social problems, at 'home' and abroad. Certainly population expansion is critical when it comes to resource allocation.

Which is at the root of the topic. So few having so much while so many have so little.

My reference to "THE Christian Country" possibly was without serious analysis. Italy, Spain and other Catholic countries might out-do the US... However there is much made in the USA to being in a favoured relationship with "God". At least in the minds of those who so claim on US currency, lintels and licence plates... Not to be forgotten, Columbus being led by "God" to the Americas...

LDS are mentioned because while there is so much negative commentary re Joseph Smith et al, the wealth of that Corporation 'might' point to where their heart really is... Wealth building... According to Christian teaching, not where one's heart is to be. The reality however, is that teaching has been trumped by next life elements. So most Christians go merrily on their way chasing dreams of riches...Blah, Blah, Blah....

Soooo, what would you think a reasonable time-frame might be in our present situation when addressing current societal needs in our Global Village? Should we even think in those terms? Might it be better to go for Nationalism?

I think i might be running out of steam :-) .... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

JAK said:

Again, time-frame is likely an important issue in your question.

Well you have certainly made it so ;-) Interesting data, often contemplated its relevence to the immediate obvious social problems, at 'home' and abroad. Certainly population expansion is critical when it comes to resource allocation.

Which is at the root of the topic. So few having so much while so many have so little.

My reference to "THE Christian Country" possibly was without serious analysis. Italy, Spain and other Catholic countries might out-do the US... However there is much made in the USA to being in a favoured relationship with "God". At least in the minds of those who so claim on US currency, lintels and licence plates... Not to be forgotten, Columbus being led by "God" to the Americas...

LDS are mentioned because while there is so much negative commentary re Joseph Smith et al, the wealth of that Corporation 'might' point to where their heart really is... Wealth building... According to Christian teaching, not where one's heart is to be. The reality however, is that teaching has been trumped by next life elements. So most Christians go merrily on their way chasing dreams of riches...Blah, Blah, Blah....

Soooo, what would you think a reasonable time-frame might be in our present situation when addressing current societal needs in our Global Village? Should we even think in those terms? Might it be better to go for Nationalism?

I think I might be running out of steam :-) .... Warm regards, Roger

Are you still powering with “steam”? You are behind the times!

It “might be better to go for” internationalism. Nationalism leads to fights over territory. With the weapons we have today, Nationalism leads to attack upon the weaker by the stronger. Results are not guaranteed, however.

In virtually all of nature the “haves” at the top tend to be in the minority. The best is not enjoyed by all. Survival of the most fit means the less fit don’t survive or survive poorly. That’s not addressing nuclear war, of course, but rather natural selection as opposed to artificial selection.

The “next life” myths play to fear of death in human cultures. Since the claims are without evidence (like spirit, gods, God, etc.), it’s an easy play for religion. It also allows good right-wing politicians to have it both ways. Multiple wives (at different times) and still preach “family values” as if only they are the true family values people.

I don’t know an answer to “time frame” in the context of the discussion. Some argue only as long as they live. Let the next generation take care of itself or solve for the problems made by the gluttons of the present. Some argue: God will provide. Never mind that in our conspicuous consumption we may destroy global recovery.

Others consider that we should do all we can to protect the environment for “future generations” (however far that may extend).

JAK