Sources of Moral Values

Relative to what? To the current social climate?
Where do morals come from? Why have morals at all?
If everything is relative, then there is no constant, nothing to compare anything to as is it constantly changing to some mysterious consensus.
Stealing is fine. Lying is OK. Murder of an innocent is OK. Your neighbor wants your car and takes it. It's Ok. Your friend lies to you about his affair with your wife, who also lied to you. Who cares? It's a mysterious concensus that will change sometime by another consensus, so don't sweat it. Live life to the greatest gain for me and let everyone else sweat it out as this current moral consensus is a bunch of whooie that's going to change anyway. Steal, lie, cheat, kill, hurt it don't matter folks, I'm getting all I can because I'm bigger and stronger than you and can take what I want.

What twisted thinking is that?

Morals are relative -- that's the point. But they're not relative the way you make it sound: values are relative at the societal level and NOT at the individual level.

I know where you're coming from, I wish we could say moral values are eternal and unchanging, but that's not the case. Keep hoping for a perfect world, but I'm going to live in the real world.

A couple of examples.
1) Abraham Lincoln: "There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." Our values have CHANGED since these words were spoken. How do you explain that biblically since the Bible was present then and now, in the same form?

2) Murder of an innocent is OK (Arnie's quote). Don't you think this is a current value in our society? Abortion is perfectly acceptable, and our society condones it. The very fact that moral values evolve over time demonstrates why we, as conservatives, must stand against the tide and hold true to our (sub-cultural) values. The liberals have influenced society to say that the murder of innocents is acceptable. Conservatives must influence society to say that this is absolutely unacceptable. We must make our individual values the values of the moral zeitgiest. If, as you say, moral values do not change, then you must accept that this is a value and you can't change it. But values do change.

Let me reiterate my earlier point because it is most important to your argument. The world around us demonstrates that moral values change over time, in concert with the spirit of the times. I don't think that point can even be argued. But values are not relative at the INDIVIDUAL level, so lying to your wife, stealing from your neighbor, killing a stranger, are not acceptable values for you to hold as an individual.

Finally, I would disagree with Dawkins that it is a "mysterious consensus" because we all participate in the society. For example, you and I both know that there is an attempt to add a new cultural value that says animal life is equivalent to human life. This value would prevent us from eating meat, owning animals as pets/slaves, and destroying their natural habitats. It hasn't taken root yet, but it's no mystery that it's being attempted. And if it takes root, we'll all know how and why.

Religion can coexist with reason, argument, and logic, Arnie. Acknowledge the world around you, and don't be so dogmatic in your faith that you deny what is plain to see.

If you don't currently hold every value espoused in the Bible, how do you explain which ones you hold and which ones you don't? How do you explain that the values you hold are different than people of only 50 years ago?

-tsc

And so, you indicate that there are individual values and there are societal values and these can be different. In a sense you are right. Currently our system of laws says that drivng a car without the seat belt fastened is breaking the law, a value the government holds dear and will fine me when I am caught. Personally, I'd rather drive without the belt, I'm more comfortable and am willing to take that risk of being thrown out the window if by chance I wreck the car. You and a thousand others may provide me with all kinds of data, all kinds of reports, all kinds of reasons why it is more in their interest to protect me from myself and that I have the wrong values based upon all this scientific data.
This is the problem. Society at the governing level is forming values based on consensus, not based on the inherant values within each and every human. There must be a set of laws that control in a sense how the multitudes live along side each other. To keep peace. To arbitrate, To punish. And these are those values that keep changing. And we must have those.

But there are also some basic values of morality that each individual tries to adhere to. These have been mentioned: lying, cheating, stealing, killing or murder, etc. One side says that these are absolutes or standards to be measured by, all voluntarily complied with or not. The other side says that these are relative. It all depends on the circumstances. These conflicting views filter up to governing bodies of groups, committees of individuals who vote to make the laws. Then those laws are forced upon the individual. There is also the efforts to influence the individual values by the combined units that govern.

All the laws of every government, of every nation has resulted from a filtering up of values from individuals. The larger the group, the more complicated the laws become.

Can't finish my thoughts now, got to go, but it's been interesting. Keep on writing.

a) The Bible asserts certain values

b) Hopefully no one honestly believes that biblical values are upheld in practice, like slavery, genocide (Joshua 6), incest (Genesis 19), and gang rape (Judges 19). Clearly, these are not our values, but they were all practiced by biblical patriarchs.

c) The written biblical word is not the demonstration of values, and our actual behavior differs.

d) Therefore, since people's actions do not match the values espoused throughout the Bible, the Bible is clearly not the source of values

(enoren, i'm glad you're conservative, as seen by your logical thinking. As you say, practice counts. (i'm not sure what counts more, practice or belief. For the current life, practice seems to matter more, but after we die, i suspect our current belief matters more.
I think some make a good point that our belief will lead to what we practice. (The muslims are the best example ive seen that garbage belief leads to garbage practice.))
I have a difference with you in your line of logic, one that i probably wouldve agreed with, for the majority of my life.
In this: b) Hopefully no one honestly believes that biblical values are upheld in practice, like slavery, genocide (Joshua 6), incest (Genesis 19), and gang rape (Judges 19). Clearly, these are not our values, but they were all practiced by biblical patriarchs.
You cant look at everything done in the Bible (by patriarchs, or others), as things approved by God. E.g., there is scripture about the kings that some did evil and some did good.
In your examples, here, did you find that God approved the wrongs that you list? Or are they just enumerated as things done, but NOT approved by God?
In my reading of the Bible, over 21 years of being Born Again, i think even a little care in reading it, will show, for the most part, which of things done, God approves, and which things God doesnt approve. Your line of logic is thrown off when it has false premises, such as the idea that God approves, in the Bible, what He doesnt approve.
If you're going to use the Bible, you would use it better by being more sure of what it says, and especially being more sure of what is approved in it, and what isnt approved in it.
Thanks for being a conservative. The liberal lunatics are causing a lot of trouble. Now theyve even put a muslim in u.s. govt. And they nominated him right around september, when the news was plastered constantly with the murder and destruction that muslims are constantly doing. With that display of stupidity (the muslim nomination), ive concluded that there is no limit on self-destructive stupidity in the u.s.)

Are you really going to make me quote the verses I referred to? I may not be a believer, but I know my Bible.

I'll give you one, but you'll have to do the leg work on the others. My genocide example from Joshua 6: [2] "And the Lord said to Joshua: "See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor." Then Joshua tells the people, [17] "Now the city shall be doomed by the Lord to destruction, it and all who are in it." And the people, [21] "utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword."

I would interpret this as God's approval of genocide. My explanation is that it's men writing history to justify their military conquest by claiming a divine directive. How do you explain His approval?

MORE IMPORTANTLY, my main point is that, if "you can't look at everything done in the Bible", as you say, then how do you decide? It absolutely must be some other source of values besides the Bible itself.

-tsc

thanks for your reasoned response. I do remember the jericho story, as you say it. I interpret it differently than: "God's approval of genocide. My explanation is that it's men writing history to justify their military conquest by claiming a divine directive."

But your interpretation seems reasonable, especially in light of the very thing you're saying, now happening in the world.

Since i dont remember the full context of the story, i'll have to study it, and then get back to you with an interpretation. I may agree with yours, but i dont think so, because i havent thought that before. My offhand thought (but i'll have to re-study the story) is that when God said to kill them all was that they were incorrigible. (Kind of like when people insist on going to hell, so they finally do, when they die.) It gets much trickier to know why the innocent animals must be killed. (in fact, i do remember when king saul was ordered to kill all, including the animals; and he spared the animals, thinking it unreasonable to kill useful, innocent animals; and God was displeased with saul's disobedience. So maybe that part is just a matter of obedience, even though it seems unreasonable.).

Then there were animal sacrifices, which also seemed unreasonable (more killing of innocent animals). The animals represented the coming sacrifice, Jesus, for all sin of the world, for whoever believed in Him. Why the animals had to come first, I'm not too sure. They were called "atonement" for the sins of those who didnt have Christ yet. Since ive had Christ, i cant relate that well to animal sacrifice. But maybe if i lived back then, i would feel the need of it.

The Bible itself says that men wrote it, but strictly as they were directed by God, to write it. There's a scripture that says exactly that. But as you say of "leg work", trying to prove it in depth, might be a very long process, depending on the need to prove it. Some need that proof more than others. I was 19 years needing enough proof, and then, it only happened, in the end, because of circumstances, really, rather than something intellectual. The Bible says it can only happen if "the Holy Spirit draws one." I was so much drawn, finally, that i believed it was true, which was all i needed, because ive always wanted to live by truth.

It might take me awhile to go through jericho, again, but i'll plan on it. My upcoming week looks pretty busy, but hopefully, during the next 7 days, i'll get back to you with a better thought out, specific interpretation to the jericho story.

Aside from that, here's the first value i remember that the Bible taught me: "Do not answer evil with evil, but overcome evil with good." I had previously believed in seeking revenge, when done evil. But when i read this scripture, the wisdom of it dawned on me almost immediately. I thought about how answering evil with evil, doesnt overcome evil; it keeps fueling the growth of more evil. Of course, life can almost never be as simple as that. On a national level, it doesnt mean a country should just play dead to muslims, e.g. But on a personal basis, if evil is done to me, it's a lot more effective to overcome it with good, than to answer it with evil. (In fact, either on a personal basis, or national basis, there's the question, "Is it, in fact, "evil" to defend ourselves?")
Anyway, ive found in 21 years of being born again, that the Bible's values are better than my values were, even though i think i had a relatively decent conscience. The Bible also had to teach me about sex, because i thought it should be a more acceptable thing than in marriage only. (especially when i wasnt married).
The way i look at the Bible is: yes, i can determine some reasonable values without the Bible. But God knows more than i do; so i can have improved values, by using God's values. And i think His values are in the Bible. If i didnt use God's values, i certainly wouldnt use those of current day society, instead of deciding my own. E.g., it's obvious enough without the Bible, that homosexuality is a perversion. Yet, now we have a society so silly that it tries to tout it as something reasonable. Looking at male and female bodies, it's simple enough to see what fits with what, and that same sexes are not created to fit together.

Just some notes, so far. Extremely busy week, until tonight, and getting too late to finish tonight.
Seems to me, the key point to find explained is: God's instruction to the israelites to take control of, own, and occupy this land. To be honest (which is what i always intend to be), as you indicate, taking someone else's land doesnt seem fair. (In my lifetime, i dont know of any cases when taking someone else's land was, or would be, fair. So that seems to be the question: why would it have been fair, in those days of old? As i understand it, your answer is that it wasnt fair; it was just men writing it in the Bible as an excuse for genocide and military conquest. So i'll see if i can answer the question. It's a challenging one, and seems to be an honest one. I respect any honest question.)

I'll just jot down these notes, so far (things you probably know and remember):

joshua: replaced dead Moses; God's command to moses, and then to joshua: take for israel the land across the jordan (as i recall, called "the land flowing with milk and honey." (lebanon, etc). Do ALL the law of moses, for success. (kill any traitors to joshua. Be strong and courageous.) 2:9 jericho knows their land given to israelites. 3:17 crossed the jordan on dry ground.

ive seen no response at all from you. Thus, i assume YOU ARE NOT interested in truth. I wont be wasting my time further, here. You can go on playing your baby mind games, trying to talk yourself into lies. Have at it.

Sorry, didn't realize you needed some kind of response. Each of your last two comments indicated you were doing more research and would be back.

But thanks for keeping the dialog intellectually stimulating and not resorting to personal attacks.

-tsc

Then i will be back, if you're really interested. Whatever i find, i'll be truthful about it. If i find no fair rebuttal to your opinion, i'll just admit that.
Again, sorry for my misinterpretation. I thought you just werent interested, since you made no comment, at all, in 2 weeks.

You don't need to keep researching on my account. Here are a couple of comments I would add in response to your postings above.

You say, "God knows more than i do; so i can have improved values, by using God's values. And i think His values are in the Bible." How do you know that God knows more than you do, or more accurately, more than mankind does? As you admit, God didn't write the Bible, men did. Assume, as I do, that God didn't inspire these men, but that these men wrote the words themselves. If you can assume that, just for the sake of argument, then it is these men who know more than you do, not God. THEREFORE, it is reasonable to accept that men can develop a moral code, and men can modify that moral code over time, for example when it comes to slavery and genocide.

As for Jericho, either a) what's written is an accurate account that believers can accept as a faithful account or b) it's not an accurate account and the story is a tool of the author to rationalize a military conquest.

If A, then God is okay authorizing "genocide" (my word) at His discretion. I'm okay with that -- if I were God I would probably exercise my power in the same way. Does God still authorize genocide? Let's assume that he doesn't, so genocide is wrong and mankind should act to end it when it occurs. This is a CHANGE in moral values. Genocide was acceptable then; it isn't now.

If B, then men at this time felt that genocide was acceptable under certain circumstances. They wrote about it and, regardless of how they rationalized the action, claimed that it was good. Again, we currently believe genocide is wrong and mankind should act to end it when it occurs. Another CHANGE: genocide was acceptable then; it isn't now.

No matter how you interpret the story of Jericho, your way or my way, it signifies a time when moral value were different than they are today. Values clearly evolve. If we don't universally accept biblical values, if we pick and choose, what do we use to define our current values? MORAL ZIETGEIST. The spirit of the times. We decide.

You may also be interested in my post on Christian maturity: http://secularconservative.townhall.com/g/80402af0-48df-4df8-883e-37f07bba511f.

-tsc

1) i had no objection, at all, to research what i was researching. I couldve continued it this past weekend, but let it slip to a lower priority, since i thought you werent interested in further communication. But your post here, looks like maybe you might be. I'm always interested to talk with someone who so well uses logic, like you do.

2) i had this thought: so far, our discussion has been primarily hypothetical. The real test of theory is how well it applies practically. (regardless of logic). E.g., i remember in college, in a philosophy class, logic was used on this question: "if a tree falls in the woods, did it really fall, if no one heard it?" I think this is an example of how satisfactory logic can lead to absurd results. My answer is: of course, the dam thing fell. I dont need any "brilliant" logic to know that.

3) On the other hand, i consider logic, overall, a very good way to live, as opposed to living absurdly (as is so very typical, these days, in the case of many americans. E.g., how about electing muslim trash into govt in minneapolis, minnesota?? On top of being muslim, also leftist. And also, as far as i'm concerned, a criminal, because this scum is part of the garbage legal system that seeks to increase criminality and the supposed "rights" of criminal filth.)

4) Why i think God knows more than i do: (i like this good question!!): I was a professional chess player, and thought, for sure, i would have to become world champion, or senior master, at the very least. (a senior master is rated 2400, but my highest rating was 2250.). Chess taught me that i'm not so brilliant as i thought. This was my first step ever, toward a little humility (at age 39).
I had never even considered that maybe i was created by someone higher than myself. But if i couldnt be the highest in chess, that shot down my notion that i was as high of a being as there is. Combine that with what i saw of others, and i started to suspect that someone is higher than all of us.
Now that i'm 60, and see that mankind, with all of its great learning and "progress", has come to the WORST condition ive ever seen it in, tells me, all the more, that man's values and thinking, are very puny, indeed (overall). This is especially evident in the united states, where the more the "brains" claim that there is no God, the more absurd and destructive the society gets.

5) Re: "No matter how you interpret the story of Jericho, your way or my way, it signifies a time when moral value were different than they are today."

(I AGREE, enoren. And in fact, the Bible agrees also. That's why there's the New Testament and the Old Testament. The battle of jericho occurred in the Old Testament. That's why i needed to research it, because we are not in Old Testament times. After the Old Testament, Jesus came on the earth to die for the sins of all of mankind. That was a major change for the human condition.
I think i mentioned, e.g., that back then there were animal sacrifices, etc, that dont apply now. Thus, when we refer to the Old Testament about genocide, it takes some REAL STUDY for me to understand the transition, because many things were different then, than ive ever experienced. I dont mind at all, doing the study, either for you, myself, or anyone else. I consider that all Bible study is worthwhile. It's just that i put if off when i thought you werent really interested. Also, i came under some rough deadlines, which should soon be fairly well past.)

"Values clearly evolve."

(Here, we have an interesting disagreement. To me, this is definitely worth exploration with an intelligent person such as you.
I dont think that, as an example, genocide then, no genocide now, is clear proof that values evolve. If i compare today's human values in the u.s. to the u.s. values of say, 46 years ago, to me, the values 46 years ago, are far superior to current values. Authorities in the u.s. have succeeded in jack-hammering good values, and replacing them with garbage values. Honest scholars point to the first thing that authority crud got away with: so-called "supreme" court scum outlawing prayer in schools. It's been all downhill from there. Check key statistics, if you dont believe it: increase of destructive things, ever since, such as rising divorce rate, rising abortion rate, rising crime rate, etc, etc. Yes, values have evolved, FOR THE MUCH WORSE, over time, thanks to more human control, and less God control.)

"If we don't universally accept biblical values, if we pick and choose, what do we use to define our current values? MORAL ZIETGEIST. The spirit of the times. We decide.

You may also be interested in my post on Christian maturity: http://secularconservative.townhall.com/g/80402af0-48df-4df8-883e-37f07bba511f."

(AS LONG AS you're interested, i'll continue with you, unless we hit too large of an empasse. But i dont plan to be rude to you, again. Sorry i made that mistake. I run up against so many who dont want to be honest and honestly pursue anything. I made the wrong assumption that youre one of those. Sorry. What i usually encounter is that the only interest is in proving one's case. (selective reasoning and selective information). Whatever is against one's case, no matter how true, the many liars dont want to accept those truths.) tw

Joy (aka happiness): what you experience when you attain your values

Value: that which you seek to obtain or retain

Virtue: the actions by which you seek to obtain or retain your values

Some of these excerpts are from: http://voice.townhall.com/g/eeeb3f97-b34e-4618-bd7c-95a7931e7e14 titled "The pursuit of .. values?"

I'm sure that a suicide bomber feels a perverse kind of 'joy' just before he blows himself up. After all, he has just attained his 'value' which just happened to be the destruction of innocent lives. In his loony-tunes world, his action is 'virtuous', truly deserving of multiple virginal defloration rewards in his benighted paradise. For the record: my sympathies are with the virgins!

So, it comes down to this: happiness depends on your value system. So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue', although it has come to be known as the foundation of a free society.

Clearly humans can have twisted 'values'. History is replete with examples of these value systems causing untold harm on those who believe them - and also on their neighbors.

The question is whether there is a source of 'objectively good' values. Religious people claim that their faith provides such a source. However, there is enough evidence (and you have posted several examples) that religion and its interpretations lack consistency.

If moral values come from the moral Zeitgeist, then where does the moral Zeitgeist come from?

I submit that it comes from a society's power structure, and more specifically the people who form it. The moral values promoted in a society are those that the powerful want promoted, for their own purposes. They are in a position to make certain ideas fashionable, while stigmatizing others, and they do, and it works.