Okay, I get what you are saying, and I agree with your assessment. I guess I just don't think this is a bad thing. Is it a dysfunctional system in some ways and open to abuse and exploit? Yes it is, one need only look at our own history to see why. With rational and intelligent people leading the way though, I believe we will continue to move in an overall positive direction, and I think history shows this to be true as well.
With or without natural or G_d-given rights, the system is dysfunctional and open to abuse and exploitation, because the system must be interpreted through and implemented by man who is flawed, and I certainly hope we will continue to move in an overall positive direction. I think though that without some bedrock, some underlying truths, we have less chance of doing so.
There is no guarantee that we will not evolve back to slavery, and I don't think I ever implied that (not saying you are accusing me of that, just clarifying that this has not been my stance ever). It is up to us, human society collectively, to keep that from happening, through the realization and understanding that we ARE responsible for the development and enforcement of our societies moral code. Our moral code isn't handed down by God, it is not a set of values that exists out in the ether, it is the product of our own actions and beliefs, and we should strive for and fight for what we believe to be moral and right at every turn.
But its important to note that we shouldn't do so blindly. Just deciding to believe that slavery is moral is not a valid reason for it to be moral. What makes it moral? What would make murder or theft moral? I think most people, if they sat down and tried to morally justify most of the things we consider immoral today, would be very hard pressed to come up with very many ways to justify them that did not rely purely on personal gain or selfishness, and even fewer of those justifications would take into consideration how those moral values might affect themselves in the long term, or society at large.
I would never suggest moving forward blindly. I only suggest that, if we are to define "moving forward", then there must exist something completely outside man to determine what forward means. Some men throughout the ages have attempted to understand that force through G-d, by faith or logic; others have attempted to understand that force through logic only (i.e. if we are to define a free creature, what conditions must be met?) In the eighteenth century, the combining of those two paths, those two concepts, quickened.
In a sense you are correct. But I believe moral values are created for a reason (improve chances of survival, quality of life, and in some instances influenced by basic human emotion). Those reasons must be reached logically, and thus their merit can be argued, it can be quantified (to some extent), and it can reasonably be demonstrated to be beneficial or not. Thus it is still moral because we say it is, but there must be some reasoning or justification behind it, it must stand up to scrutiny, and it must be agreed upon.
But if something is moral because we say it is moral, then ultimately the reasoning or justification behind it can be anything at all, no matter how ridiculous, because we have established ourselves as the final arbiter of morality. Thus it is very tempting to establish morality as best benefits those in power at the moment, be they majority or minority, and none can gainsay them, for they are the arbiters of morality and so by definition correct.
What is Kim Jong-Un's divine leadership doing for his people that could not be done under any other form of government? Why does it require that his people starve? Can he justify his actions in such a way that we can agree he is doing the right thing? Until such time, it does not matter whether he believes what he is doing is moral or not. In much the same way that we would not excuse a man for murder just because he believes it was moral, we do not excuse Kim Jong-Un just because he believes he is moral.
If morality is manmade, then Kim Jong-Un has no need to justify himself; he has the power, therefore he defines morality for everyone under his power. Any other morality is merely a different opinion. As far as starving and enslaving his people, so what? If there are no natural rights, then his people can have no inherent right to life or liberty. How can we define improving the North Koreans' lives as good if they don't even have a right to life itself unless we decide they have that right?
This is all true, this could happen, it has happened. The justification doesn't really stand up to scrutiny though. Just because it benefited this one man does not provide justification for imposing it on everyone or even any other single person. One man may murder another man and maybe his life is better off for it, this does not provide rational justification for murder being moral. I do not know much about Sharia law, so I can't effectively argue the effects of imposing it on another or imposing it on an entire society, but such things should always be considered when society attempts to determine the value of holding a certain moral value.
On what basis would one evaluate the morality of one's actions? If there is no natural right to life, how can murder be morally wrong? Certainly we may create different moralities based on our own thoughts, needs and wants, but on what basis would we say ours is better than the murderer's?
Yes, but the Babylonians didn't have the Bible. They were polytheistic. If you're trying to suggest that they got their morals from your monotheistic God, there is no evidence of any such influence, anywhere.
I'm not really sure what your point is in claiming that there were no written moral codes from our "ancestors." It's false.
I think my beliefs are at least somewhat in line with Moonbeam's on this. I believe man is born into a state of conflict, with a tendency toward good and a tendency toward evil. I believe that G-d is not a white-haired old man on a cloud who occasionally swoops down to impregnate a virgin, but rather a transcendent force which is both within us and without, a force of love willing to sacrifice His Son (which is a part of Him but also separate) to bring life and light to those in the dark. I believe that our ability to discern G-d is much like that of earthworms to discern a human, but we CAN feel Him, and thus our progression from animism to polytheism to monotheism is the record of our struggle to understand G-d. Based on this, I think philosophy, science and religion will converge, if only we can resist the temptation to use either of these for our own selfish motives, in understanding. Thus the Babylonians' polytheistic beliefs and our own monotheistic beliefs are a continuum of the process of understanding G-d. Faith, logic, and science should ultimately be only three complementary ways of solving the same problems.
Facebook
Twitter