How do you determine your morality? (disciple, faith, Jews, pray)

[swbtoo]

[quote=stretch00;799387]
As for prostitution, you were the one who brought it up and linked it to taxation. I have never made a moral judgment on prostitution one way or another.

For the record, someone else brought it up in response to one of your initial posts. I jumped into the fray. ( now, just trying to keep my head above water)

Society makes a decision on whether or not to allow it based upon that morality. ONLY after that point in time is a decision made on taxing it. The taxation issue does not change the morality of the prostitution action at all.[

Who, exactly is "society"?

[brittZ]

By that logic, society let OJ go. So apparently murder would be considered moral. I realize this is not necesarily your thinking stretch, but if you take idea that society sets moral standards a whole can of worms is opened up. What society, how far does it extend? If you visit a muslim area where beheading Americans has been deemed a moral virtue, would you call it morally right for them to behead you? The problem is that as you have pointed out many times morals are not subjective. Things are either moral or not and when left to man to decide there will never be a true consensus. Morality must come from a higher power that is infaliable to human error, judgement, or sin. This is why Christ gave us the Bible. To teach us how to live. That doesnt mean you haveto accept it though, you were also given free will and have the option to reject it and forge your own road. In the end though the truth is universal and not made by man. We will all face that truth and be measured by it one day.

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by stretch00

Society makes a decision on whether or not to allow it based upon that morality.

Yes, I am quoting myself. I did not say society decides the morality of something, only that society decides whether or not to allow something based upon its morality. Society has been, is, and will be, wrong.

I admit that maybe I was unclear, so I will try again.

Things have a moral tincture based upon whether they harm, help, or are indifferent to people. Society, governments, whatever, make decisions on actions, but sometimes society is wrong. Slavery is a good example here. For most of human history, nations, kingdoms, republics, city-states, etc, have practiced slavery. I will contend that slavery is evil. That does not change the fact that cultures at various times have practiced slavery.

We are human, and we make mistakes. Your view of what is a mistake may be different from mine. For example, I think that the US makes many mistakes. I think that the following are moral, and should be allowed:

drug use
gay marriage
polygamy/polyandry
universal health care
all types of abortion without restriction


I think that capital punishment is immoral, and should be discontinued. I think that the use of the military in foreign adventures (Iraq) is generally immoral. Nuclear weapons are immoral as well. Age restrictions for drinking alcohol should be dramatically lowered.

I can defend all of my positions. You may not agree with me, but the case can be made that these things are moral, and therefore should be allowed.

Society has made a variety of judgement calls on these things. The fact that something is legal, or illegal, does not change the morality of the thing. The fact that something is taxed or not also does not change the morality. What determines morality is the amount of harm that is done.

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by southward bound

Who, exactly is "society"?

I have no good answer. A reasonable working definition would be government. This can change, and as I think I just clarified, I do not mean to imply that society decides morality, it makes decisions, sometimes badly, based upon morality.

[MontanaGuy]

southward bound wrote:

Who, exactly is "society"?

Society is a group of human beings who have organized themselves in such a manner that they have established rules and regulations in order to function in an efficient and organized way. This would also include punishment for those who break the rules and rewards for those who promote the general welfare of the society. There are so many variations in societies throughout history that I couldn't begin to go into detail but the basic idea of a society is a basic form of cooperation and organization that functions in an orderly manner.

[brittZ]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

southward bound wrote:

Society is a group of human beings who have organized themselves in such a manner that they have established rules and regulations in order to function in an efficient and organized way.

Originally Posted by stretch00

Yes, I am quoting myself. I did not say society decides the morality of something, only that society decides whether or not to allow something based upon its morality. Society has been, is, and will be, wrong.

I admit that maybe I was unclear, so I will try again.

Things have a moral tincture based upon whether they harm, help, or are indifferent to people. Society, governments, whatever, make decisions on actions, but sometimes society is wrong. Slavery is a good example here. For most of human history, nations, kingdoms, republics, city-states, etc, have practiced slavery. I will contend that slavery is evil. That does not change the fact that cultures at various times have practiced slavery.

Ok stretch. I have included MontanaGuys's definition of society as it seems fair and appropriate to the context of your post. So society allows or disallows something based on its inherent morality. Two questions; where was that inherent morality determined? If society and the individual man aren't the ones who determine that inherent morality, then who? That thinking requires that there is a higher power who assigned that morality outside of human faliability. Second question, if there is an inherent morality and each soceity decides what is allowable or not allowable based on that inherent morality, are they not in essence deciding what is morally virtuous regardless of the inherent morality? By simply saying, "We as society say this is allowed because we believe it is morally right" they are in fact putting their opinion of the inherent morality in first place. This still creates a situation in which man decides what is morally virtuous and that will undenaibly change and shift as society finds new things it wishes to accept or reject. So I ask the question again.

Originally Posted by brittZ

if you take idea that society sets moral standards a whole can of worms is opened up. What society, how far does it extend? If you visit a muslim area where beheading Americans has been deemed a moral virtue, would you call it morally right for them to behead you? Morality must come from a higher power that is infaliable to human error, judgement, or sin.

[MontanaGuy]

brittZ wrote:

If society and the individual man aren't the ones who determine that inherent morality, then who?

I did such a good job of explaining this a few pages ago that I think I'll just copy and paste it so you can have a second chance to understand it.
My personal morality is based on my life experiences and my sense of right and wrong. Religion tends to claim that it is the basis for human morality and I'm talking about all religions but I think that people are just taking common human judgements that we all make everyday and trying to enshrine them with a religious basis. Human beings could not exist as a species if we were not nurturing and cooperative with each other. Any violent or cruel act tends to undermine the structure of society and the family. The overwhelming majority of people realize that at some deep level and act accordingly. As societies have developed and become more complex certain kinds of behavior are generally recognized as either being helpful or hurtful to humanity and people have responded by promoting that which is good and punishing that which is destructive. It's in our best interests to do this and of course it becomes deeply ingrained in our psychology and is passed from one generation to the next. Our ethics and sense of morality have become interwoven in every form of human activity. Our own personal experiences reinforce this sense of morality and it becomes deeply rooted.

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by brittZ

where was that inherent morality determined? If society and the individual man aren't the ones who determine that inherent morality, then who? That thinking requires that there is a higher power who assigned that morality outside of human faliability.

Ultimately, thinking people determine morality. They can use a variety of methods to do this. I described rule utilitarianism earlier, that is one method of deciding. You can slavishly follow the dictates in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales as a second method. Social contract theory is a third. I could go on.

I will reiterate that in utilitarianism, one weighs the good and harm caused by any action. There is no need for a higher power.

Originally Posted by brittZ

Second question, if there is an inherent morality and each soceity decides what is allowable or not allowable based on that inherent morality, are they not in essence deciding what is morally virtuous regardless of the inherent morality? By simply saying, "We as society say this is allowed because we believe it is morally right" they are in fact putting their opinion of the inherent morality in first place. This still creates a situation in which man decides what is morally virtuous and that will undenaibly change and shift as society finds new things it wishes to accept or reject. So I ask the question again.

But of course man decides what is morally virtuous. I never meant to imply otherwise. Morality does not exist without man, and is a construct of our consciousness. It has no existence in and of itself.

Sure, societies can and do make mistakes. I said that already. Why would you not think that society puts its opinion on moral issues. Take my example of slavery. It is wrong (based on utilitarian theory that it causes great harm), but many societies decided that it was right, or that they would do it anyway.

So what?

[Pathwalker]

Originally Posted by stretch00

The taxation issue is separate from the prostitution issue.

You need to break it down and ask if prostitution is good or ill. I am unsure, but that could be debated on another thread if you like.

Then you need to ask whether taxation is good or ill. I say yes.

The third question to ask if whether applying taxation to prostituion is good in the application thereof.

I see what you're saying. But because we come from different belief systems, this will probably be rather futile to continue discussing.

To me, it all boils down to what I originally posted - WHO defines what is beneficial, not WHAT is beneficial.....WHO defines morality, not WHAT is considered moral. It is precisely because there are a myriad of opinions about a host of subjects, that none of us are capable of determining what is moral or immoral. What one may consider to be moral, another will deem immoral. But for those of us who believe in God, we don't think we have the ability to make that determination. That's simply the NATURE of who we are.

[stretch00]

Gotcha. Who defines morality? We all do. It is subjective, and relative to our experience as human beings. If we were substantially different, our morality would be different.