News3 mins ago
Do you need moral guidance?
155 Answers
http://www.channel4.c...thoughttv/4od#3314326
I found the implications of this video rather disturbing. This man appears to be saying that he adheres to an acceptable moral code only because he fears the negative consequences of his actions - as taught by Islam - in the next life. He then talks about children needing moral guidance, but still he relies upon an outside source – Islam and the Koran - to provide it. Surely, as an adult, he knows right from wrong, and should be capable of living a decent lifestyle, and of teaching his children to do the same without abnegating his responsibility and without this feeble dependency?
I found the implications of this video rather disturbing. This man appears to be saying that he adheres to an acceptable moral code only because he fears the negative consequences of his actions - as taught by Islam - in the next life. He then talks about children needing moral guidance, but still he relies upon an outside source – Islam and the Koran - to provide it. Surely, as an adult, he knows right from wrong, and should be capable of living a decent lifestyle, and of teaching his children to do the same without abnegating his responsibility and without this feeble dependency?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
what about the "no and maybe"? they are as valid as the yes.
you said lets get back to the original question and emphasised to me that the question was (your words) "do you need moral guidance?"
When I asked you what you meant and tried to get you to elucidate, you directed me back to the heading question and not your OP so i have answered your original question, which IMO is not the same as discussing the use of threats of an unpleasant afterlife in order to train children.
you said lets get back to the original question and emphasised to me that the question was (your words) "do you need moral guidance?"
When I asked you what you meant and tried to get you to elucidate, you directed me back to the heading question and not your OP so i have answered your original question, which IMO is not the same as discussing the use of threats of an unpleasant afterlife in order to train children.
The fact is the "moral guidance" offered by the tomes of the Abreahamic religons are demonstrably based on primitive concepts that do not stand up to modern analysis.
Indeed they are based largely on bigotry, prejudice and largely involve killing those who do not accept the facist principles of a ruling oligarcy.
Even the Christians who on the face of it one would think their princlples of love would prevail continue to look forward to God's ultimate massacre where those who do not conform are eliminated.
Indeed they are based largely on bigotry, prejudice and largely involve killing those who do not accept the facist principles of a ruling oligarcy.
Even the Christians who on the face of it one would think their princlples of love would prevail continue to look forward to God's ultimate massacre where those who do not conform are eliminated.
Woofgang, //what about the "no and maybe"? they are as valid as the yes.//
If you need moral guidance in one area only, then you need moral guidance. The ‘no’ and the ‘maybe’ are invalidated.
//i have answered your original question, which IMO is not the same as discussing the use of threats of an unpleasant afterlife in order to train children.//
I take it you want to discuss the underlying implications of the original question now. Good. Off you go.
If you need moral guidance in one area only, then you need moral guidance. The ‘no’ and the ‘maybe’ are invalidated.
//i have answered your original question, which IMO is not the same as discussing the use of threats of an unpleasant afterlife in order to train children.//
I take it you want to discuss the underlying implications of the original question now. Good. Off you go.
My parents brought me up with a healthy scepticism of everything and implored me to thing about why I believed in what I belived in. As Dad always said, "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
I passed this philosophy on to my children and encouraged them to have a healthy distrust of my own beliefs explaining to them that one's parents can have undue influence on them and should be questioned like any other philosophy.
This is quite the opposite of the primitive notions of religion where the parent's values are enforced on the subsequent generations. Little wonder societies still based on religion find themselves stuck in archaic notions of morality that suffocate genuine philosophical and intellectual progress.
I passed this philosophy on to my children and encouraged them to have a healthy distrust of my own beliefs explaining to them that one's parents can have undue influence on them and should be questioned like any other philosophy.
This is quite the opposite of the primitive notions of religion where the parent's values are enforced on the subsequent generations. Little wonder societies still based on religion find themselves stuck in archaic notions of morality that suffocate genuine philosophical and intellectual progress.
Do we need moral guidance? Yes. Do we need moral “authorities”? No, and especially not the self-appointed moral experts who wrote the Bible and the Koran between 1300 and 2600 years ago. If you want instruction from antiquity I suggest you might find more humanity, intelligence and decency in one letter of Cicero, one dialogue of Plato or one chapter of Thucydides than Bible and Koran together.
Old, Geezer: Who is the authority on what is decent? Nobody is: we’ve had to work it out for ourselves as our brains, our consciousness and language developed. We’re pack animals and the rudiments of morality are in us of necessity, just as less desirable things like the fight for territory, social hierarchy and the inequable distribution of the rewards of co-operative effort are, too, trapped in our distant origins. But we are not meerkats or wolves; we have the ability to reflect on our evolutionary conditioning and to modify our behaviour. And that is why moral progress is possible. No incentive is required - just the knowledge that a world in which people treat each other decently is a better world for us to live in and for our children to inherit.
Old, Geezer: Who is the authority on what is decent? Nobody is: we’ve had to work it out for ourselves as our brains, our consciousness and language developed. We’re pack animals and the rudiments of morality are in us of necessity, just as less desirable things like the fight for territory, social hierarchy and the inequable distribution of the rewards of co-operative effort are, too, trapped in our distant origins. But we are not meerkats or wolves; we have the ability to reflect on our evolutionary conditioning and to modify our behaviour. And that is why moral progress is possible. No incentive is required - just the knowledge that a world in which people treat each other decently is a better world for us to live in and for our children to inherit.
Beso, "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." is advice worth repeating. I would add to that, "Reason, the art of non-contradiction, is the process of determining which half is true."
The words I remember hearing from my dad, on numerous occasions, were, "This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you." for which I find your dad's saying particularly relevant . . . given that I was never successful in persuading him to trade places with me.
While I suspect most of us are born with the capacity to learn to reason, it seems that remarkably few ever do, let alone achieve an understanding of what the term means and the process it entails or why mastery of the art of reason is essential to deriving sound moral principals along with an understanding of why practising them is to our mutual advantage. The benefits of learning to reason are substantially limited when an understanding of those benefits are not shared by those around you and you discover that you live in a vast wasteland of unrealised potential. To those who share in that realisation . . . I feel your pain.
The words I remember hearing from my dad, on numerous occasions, were, "This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you." for which I find your dad's saying particularly relevant . . . given that I was never successful in persuading him to trade places with me.
While I suspect most of us are born with the capacity to learn to reason, it seems that remarkably few ever do, let alone achieve an understanding of what the term means and the process it entails or why mastery of the art of reason is essential to deriving sound moral principals along with an understanding of why practising them is to our mutual advantage. The benefits of learning to reason are substantially limited when an understanding of those benefits are not shared by those around you and you discover that you live in a vast wasteland of unrealised potential. To those who share in that realisation . . . I feel your pain.
//No incentive is required//
None should be – but for some it very clearly is. The speaker in the video compared the watchful eye of policemen to the watchful eye of his God, suggesting that if the police weren’t around, people are more likely to break the law – but most of us don’t purposefully break the law whether there’s a policeman around or not. How on earth do we manage to control ourselves?
None should be – but for some it very clearly is. The speaker in the video compared the watchful eye of policemen to the watchful eye of his God, suggesting that if the police weren’t around, people are more likely to break the law – but most of us don’t purposefully break the law whether there’s a policeman around or not. How on earth do we manage to control ourselves?
An interesting slant on this question is that believers seem to have abdicated responsibilty for deciding what is moral and what isn't to their religious texts or to their religions authorities, Whereas atheists apart from obeying whatever laws are relevant, have to make their own decisions and thus have to think about moral issues. Does this mean that atheists have a more keenly developed moral sense than believers?
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Two Men Charged Over Manchester Airport...
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.