by The Berean 105 Replies latest jw friends
As a US Soldier, you kill a suspected terrorist in a marketplace in Baghdad. Across the street a shopowner straps a bomb to his wife who blows up your fellow soldiers. Do either have a guilty conscience? Are either or both wrong?
They are both reacting to the wants and motivations of higher ups outside themselves ! IMO. the univeral force for good
is also outside ourselves ... one must only respond and hear this voice ! It is possible to shut off a screaming fire alarm !
Definitions of Wisdom
Wisdom is what it is. The source of wisdom can come from wise people, which is proved through actions.
Caliber said
one must only respond and hear this voice !
With all resepct, your existential findings on this can only be good for you. If you find wisdom through this voice, then that is great. Where is the source of the voice you speak of?
Code of conduct to me implies: Those things it would not be appropriate to say or do to another human as well as those things we would appreciate if another human said or did to us ... (Golden Rule)
The Berean asks, "Who or what are we acountable to for our actions?"
Look at the framing of the question. In effect, do 'we' have to be "accountable" to someone in order for our actions to be 'moral'? The phrasing implies a NEED for a dominating, fear-generating controller in order for humans to behave in a 'moral' way...
I give the human race more credit than that. Most humans who are not under extreme duress will behave in a 'moral' way because they expect it of themselves. Most forms of crime/warfare are based in FEAR, once one analyzes the motivation...
For example, the couple who ran off with $2 mil. bank error - their fears were - lack of money for retirement, lack of ability to make such monies themselves, lack of courage to attempt earning that much money, lack of self-worth sufficient to feel secure in their future WITHOUT taking the money...
Unfortunately, Religions Generate/Accellerate such fears! Most of us posting on this board have seen enough of the manipulations of the WTBTS to realize this; most other religions have some level of this type of denigration/manipulation, too...
I, personally, am only accountable to myself for my actions. If I don't behave in a way that I feel/think is 'right', my own mind can be a terrible jailer...
This does not necessarily hold true for everyone... However, the idea of a ready, "God-made" forgiveness actually tends to increase crime, not decrease it - above and beyond that, look at religious wars - extreme violence and cruelty because they were 'accountable' for increasing converts...
I vastly prefer being able, as a [pagan Goddess-worshipping] atheist, to weigh all the factors and act in a manner that I feel is just and right, not some behaviors preferred by the mythology of a recently formed, Middle Eastern male god of a group of ignorant, backwards desert nomads...
Zid 
Code of conduct to me implies: Those things it would not be appropriate to say or do to another human as well as those things we would appreciate if another human said or did to us ... (Golden Rule)
This would seem to be a good start, although what is called the Golden Rule is not exclusively Christian, the concept has been around before Christ supposedly walked the earth. As examples....
The Golden Rule was a common principle in ancient Greekphilosophy. Examples of the general concept include:
More on this through Wikipedia: The Ethic of Reciprocity
I find nothing objectionable with this premise though. It can hardly be claimed as unique to any faith, nor proof that ethics exist as a cause of a higher powers actions....
Morality is objective because either our behavior has positive effects or it doesn't.
Yes, our actions have a positive or negative (or neutral) effect. But that does not make morality objective. Objective morality would mean that it is universal and not up to any sort of "conditions." It also wouldn't change with time. I say morality is subjective. It is relative to circumstances, society, culture, and evolves over time.
Killing is wrong, but it's ok if you are defending yourself. Stealing is bad, but it's definitely "less bad" if you are stealing to feed your starving family. So many moral issues are gray areas and the circumstances must be considered before it can be judged as right or wrong.
Some actions approach objective, though, and are probably considered wrong by most any person, in any culture, in any time period. Sexual abuse of a young child might be one example. But even that is not considered wrong by 100% of humanity under all circumstances for all time.
There will never be agreement among 100% of humanity on any moral issue, let alone an entire moral code that encompasses all possible actions.
That's why objective morality does not exist.
for Satanus,
Collins English Electronic Dictionary - Digital Edition: 2008 © HarperCollins Publishers 2008
From where did this inborn intuitive power come from ? Is Collins dictionary overly influenced by religious bias ????
"For example, whenever people who don't have laws from God do by nature the things that Moses' Teachings contain, they are a law to themselves even though they don't have any laws from God." - Romans 2:14
