Thread: Comparing Religion to an Abusive Husband

Originally Posted by psychology student

So we need a universal moral code.

Get where I'm going ....

There is nothing to say we "need" one. You're right up to here, about human morality being flexible depending on nurture; but that's all.
There is no higher moral code rather than what we impose. There is no need for a universal code, why should there be?

Originally Posted by Omicron

There is nothing to say we "need" one. You're right up to here, about human morality being flexible depending on nurture; but that's all.
There is no higher moral code rather than what we impose. There is no need for a universal code, why should there be?

We've deduced that there needs to be a moral code, right. And the moral code needs to be universal or the whole system breaks down. i.e. "how comes he gets to steal". The feeling of inequality among varying moral codes within the same society prevents a succesful moral code from being inconsistent. And if a moral code is subjective and personal then it can be easily broken. e.t.c ....e.t.c ......e.t.c.

Do you question my exeeestance?!!!

Originally Posted by psychology student

We've deduced that there needs to be a moral code, right. And the moral code needs to be universal or the whole system breaks down. i.e. "how comes he gets to steal". The feeling of inequality among varying moral codes within the same society prevents a succesful moral code from being inconsistent. And if a moral code is subjective and personal then it can be easily broken. e.t.c ....e.t.c ......e.t.c.

Yes. It can easily be broken; and manipulated- hence the ridiculous amounts of evil and suffering [IMHO] in the world..

There doesn't need to be an objective moral code; just because it feels unfair to us "he gets to steal". Existence isn't fair from our moral point of view, really.

Originally Posted by psychology student

We've deduced that there needs to be a moral code, right. And the moral code needs to be universal or the whole system breaks down. i.e. "how comes he gets to steal". The feeling of inequality among varying moral codes within the same society prevents a succesful moral code from being inconsistent. And if a moral code is subjective and personal then it can be easily broken. e.t.c ....e.t.c ......e.t.c.

Ok, "psychology student" lets back up a second. Morality is a human construct, just as television is, just as art is, just as language is. It functions to serve human interaction, human interaction does not serve morality. What I'm saying is, have morality is not a prerequisite to being human, take a look at feral children or any other society where morality is radically different from our own. There is no need for a *universal* moral code from a scientific standpoint, i.e. it is not necessary for the human being or society of human beings to exist. There is a difference between the universality of a thing and the specificity of a thing. If you had said it like "all human beings need a moral code *of some kind* to interact with one another simply based on biological structure" then I would agree with you whole heartedly.

So, is this a matter of misunderstanding, or are you making a general assumption about all of humanity?

Wording is everything. Have they taught you about methodology yet in your psychology class?

Once again, humans working together effectively means better life standards, thus more joy and longer lifes. Since we humans are quite smart, we figured out some very basic morals, like don't kill, don't steal, don't be an ass.

That's how morals arose.

Originally Posted by Traveling_Troubador

Ok, "psychology student" lets back up a second. Morality is a human construct, just as television is, just as art is, just as language is. It functions to serve human interaction, human interaction does not serve morality. What I'm saying is, have morality is not a prerequisite to being human, take a look at feral children or any other society where morality is radically different from our own. There is no need for a *universal* moral code from a scientific standpoint, i.e. it is not necessary for the human being or society of human beings to exist. There is a difference between the universality of a thing and the specificity of a thing. If you had said it like "all human beings need a moral code *of some kind* to interact with one another simply based on biological structure" then I would agree with you whole heartedly.

So, is this a matter of misunderstanding, or are you making a general assumption about all of humanity?

Wording is everything. Have they taught you about methodology yet in your psychology class?

Im sorry did you think that I meant that humans need a moral code to survive? I mean they need one fro society to be decent and to function effectively.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Im sorry did you think that I meant that humans need a moral code to survive? I mean they need one fro society to be decent and to function effectively.

Yeah that's true and fine.

Just leave it there though; there isn't a universal moral code as such; there are no objective morals etc.

There isn't, but there can be.

Actually, I don't think that there is any possible way to have a universal moral code in the society of human beings seeing as every interaction is a different circumstance of the morality between two human beings that express to understand each other.

Moreover, I don't believe there should be because it leaves all capacity for human growth and struggle which is essential to evolution of the social organism to be completely meaningless.

Normally I would say, "this goes without saying", but apparently psychological biases deny me that ease.

Do you believe that there should be a homogeneous set of moral values for all human beings, and if so, what would be the guidelines of this system and would there be any room for the flexibility of circumstance?

Originally Posted by psychology student

There isn't, but there can be.

How?

Do you mean just a moral code that all humans live by perfectly? Even if that happened it would still be subjective to us.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Im sorry did you think that I meant that humans need a moral code to survive? I mean they need one fro society to be decent and to function effectively.

And why should that moral code be the bible? its a work of fiction. Should i use harrypotter as my moral code?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

And why should that moral code be the bible? its a work of fiction. Should i use harrypotter as my moral code?

Ten points for Gryffindor!

I'd only give it one or two points. The point it makes is valid, but that particular line is somewhat overused. Same reason you get -5 points for bringing up the FSM. I'm actually losing five points just for even mentioning it in my post here.