Caleb

Do you tie your shoes after you take them off?

pretty simple,

if you own one or have used one: give me an opinion.

Define morals in your own words, what is right, what is wrong. and is it absolute or personal truth?

Do our morals hinge upon our instincts, emotions, and experiences? Is the only thing keeping people from performing "immoral" acts, herd instinct and personal conviction?

I cannot believe this to be the case? If it is just a different emotion or instinct that makes someone into a murderer; then, what basis is there for judging and convicting them? if there is nothing more to morality than instinct and upbringing, then we are judging a person based upon what we feel. What if someone feels differently than you., are they wrong simply because you decide so.

NO. I believe there must be an absolute truth to whether something is good / bad, wrong / right. If there is an absolute truth, than there is an non-subjective scale to base decisions of morality on. if there is only personal truth then there is a scale that varies greatly depending upon the person being judged and the people judging.

With unimportant matters, (such as- appropriate clothing, profanities, white lies, etc.) any two individuals feelings might differ abundantly.

But, with something death, the range of opinions shrinks.

I would say that the vast majority of people ,when hearing of this action, would immediately think "wrong"; but eventually, most would ask about the extenuating circumstances. if i say it wasn't in self-defense you think "probably wrong" , if it was revenge you think "probably wrong?", if it was my wife's rapist you think "just", if it was a random shooting and a coincidence (that he was my wife's rapist) you think " ", if he was my enemy in war you think " ". the lines get hazy. We start judging if it was murder. We can reason all we want, but it comes down to what we feel. that's all we have for justice on earth; others actions and our feelings. and if enough people feel a certain way then they control morality.

what if i said the man i killed was black? hopefully it wouldn't sway your judgment either way, but there was a time ,wherein, if i said that, it would almost certainly free me of a guilty verdict

The majority of Americans thought at one point that they were Betelgeuse of their color. were they right then and wrong now? As the majority's feelings changed, did morality follow.

So maybe today's majority might have something wrong. Maybe the majority will decide in a couple of years that bald men are better than men with hair. That sounds silly, but it wouldn't be the first time majority's morality was altered negatively. I.E.--Hitler manufactured an unjust hate.

I know this is moot. One could say that i just "feel" this way and the majority disagrees, which would, ironically, strengthen my argument,

one more thing, If men are the only device for measuring morality, does that mean i can do no wrong if no-one knows what i'm doing?

Do are morals hinge upon are instincts, emmotions, and experiences? Is the only thing keeping people from performing "immoral" acts, herd instinct and personal conviction?

I cannot believe this to be the case, because if it is just a different emmotion or instinct that makes someone into a murderer; then, how can I tell that person that they are wrong? if there is nothing more to morality than instinct and upbringing, then we are judgeing a person based upon what we feel. What if someone feels differently than you., are they wrong simply because you decide so.

NO. I believe there must be an absolute truth to whether something is good / bad, wrong / right. If there is an absolute truth, than there is an unsubjective scale to base decisions of morality on. if there is only personal truth then there is a scale that varys greatly depending upon the person being judged and the people judging.

With unimportant matters, (such as- appropriate clothing, profanities, white lies, etc.) any two induvidual's feelings might differ abundantly.

But, with something like forcibal death, the range of opinions shrinks.

I would say that the vast majority of people ,when hearing of this action, would immediately think "wrong"; but eventually, most would ask about the extenuating circumstances. if i say it wasn't in self-defense you think "probably wrong" , if it was revenge you think "probably wrong?", if it was my wife's rapist you think "just", if it was a random shooting and a coincidence (that he was my wife's rapist) you think " ", if he was my enemy in war you think " ". the lines get hazy. We start judging if it was murder. We can reason all we want, but it comes down to what we feel. that's all we have for justice on earth; other's actions and our feelings. and if enough people feel a certian way then they control morality.

what if i said the man i killed was black? hopefully it wouldn't sway your judgement either way, but there was a time ,wherein, if i said that, it would almost certianly free me of a guilty verdict

The majority of Americans thought at one point that they were better becuase of their color. were they right then and wrong now? As the majority's feelings changed, did morality follow.

So maybe today's majority might have something wrong. Maybe the majority will decide in a couple of years that bald men are better than men with hair. That sounds silly, but it wouldn't be the first time majority's morality was altered negatively. I.E.--Hitler manufactuered an unjust hate.

I know this is moot. One could say that i just "feel" this way and the majority disagrees, which would, ironically, strengthen my argument, but now i must sleep. Please forgive grammatical errors.

Atheists keep telling me that men have morals because of the herd or social instinct that tells us to please others so that they don't kick us out of the group. So I ask, If there was no group, and you wouldn't get caught is it right or wrong to murder? not in self-defence, you get so full of anger and hate in a jealous fit that you just want him to die, what do you do?

I have asked this question before and was quite displeased with the answers. I'll admit I'm a little bias, but please be practical and respectful in your answers and I'll read them as unbiasly as possible.

First let me say that I have always wondered right and wrong, and if right and wrong are univeresal. Is there a standard or can every one find there own truth? C.S. lewis once used an analogy to explain morals. the followig is my take on it.

Imagine that the piano is the bank of all human instincts. For instance, the herd instinct, the self-preservation instinct, the sexual instinct, the humor…… so on and so forth, all are represented by there own key. Now, human instincts themselves do not automatically cause human action, just as the keys on the piano do not immediately make music. The pianist must decide what he is to play and then allow the key to play by striking it. So this is the difference between morals and instincts, and this is important in the debate between intelligent design and evolutionists. In that, all other creatures do not display morals as humans do. All their actions can be accounted by pure instinct. Now, sometimes that instinct may surprise us, in that a lion cares for a hyena, but this is still an instinct. I can prove this, I think, take the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee will often be cannibalistic on pure whim; this action in humans is intolerable. Now, did the monkey have a choice to either obey his herd instinct or his self-preservation instinct? Some may say yes, to them I ask, Does the monkey feel remorse for this act or for the monkey being digested? I would certainly say not. So why do men feel shame or guilt while all other creatures do not? This is the difference evolution does not account for. One more addition to this analogy would be the connection of the sheet music to one’s moral code, the things that that one person values are based upon including presuppositions , education, as well as some other more minuscule sources. To a Christian these by definition should only contain the Bible, but I will admit that my moral code is skewed by my sin nature. What composes the moral code of those who do not believe in a creator?

I will not accept any answer that claims i know not if a chipanzee shows remorse, unless there is a documented observation that leads to that assumption.

I would appreciate more philosophical answers, but scientifics are welcome too.

My mother would like them for mother's day!

Have humans ever witnessed any addition of genetic information in any species?

I keep hearing evolutionists saying that evolution is not a belief or a religion.

re⋅li⋅gion   –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

I might understand the religion one. Evolution doesn't account for a beginning (first cause) or a purpose, but you have to believe it to think it's right. How sure do you have to be to say that you "know" something?

I mean, if there is no God, who has the right to tell you what to do?

Why can't I murder someone and steal all their money? Survival of the fittest, right?