A better question

[Mike Long]

I do agree with your definitions Rooster but where we part ways is that I don't find it necessary to call others faiths fraudulent. It is simply enough for me to state that I disagree.

 

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

I asked Rooster: Is it possible for man, in the absence of any interaction with other beings, to behave morally or immorally? I would say no.I would be interested in your answer to this question.

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

I suspect you haven't thought this question through to a logic conclusion.

 

Do you consider a man, who watches pornographic movies of children alone, to be acting immorally?

 

Do you consider a man, who fantasizes about rape, to be acting immorally?

 

Do you consider a man who refuses to acknowledge God to be acting immorally?

 

Personally, my answer to all of these questions is "YES". I know you might get hung up on the last one so why don't you focus on the first two. To answer your question directly, I believe moral or immoral behavior is NOT necessarily dependent upon "interaction with other beings". When one entertains (by that, I mean deliberately and willfully contemplates for his enjoyment) thoughts of immoral behavior, he is acting immoral.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[CubsRgr8]

I'm not Rooster, but I can't help but respond. tj asks: Is it possible for man, in the absence of any interaction with other beings, to behave morally or immorally?

 

I say yes, and I offer this attempt at a proof. A man is cast away on a tropical island. He is the only human being there. There is an abundance of food available, to the extent that his presence has no effect on the amount of food available to the native flora and fauna. The man is a glutton. He constantly eats more than he needs. I say his actions are immoral, for to waste food is wrong.

 

Morality does not require interaction between two beings to exist, anymore than understanding the intellectual concepts of "right" or "wrong" requires such interaction. To say something is moral or immoral is to verbalize our conscience - the innate sense of what is right or wrong in one's actions or motives, impelling one toward right action. When we listen to our conscience, we're listening to nothing less than the quiet voice of God.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, thank you for insulting and attacking my religion and its beliefs. As far as I am concerned, you have destroyed the force of your own arguments better than any counter-argument I could make. It is obvious that you are the one who does not believe in the true principles of Scouting.

[tjhammer]

Rooster, you should know by now that I rarely (though unfortunately not without exception) say something in this debate without having a clear and logical conclusion in mind. To the contrary, I try to maintain my side of the debate solely on rational and logical arguments without depending on emotion or insular perspective.

 

Morality is a social condition. It is man's attempt to maintain standards by which he can be a social creature. Morality is certainly not God given, though certain mores are indeed derived from lessons and fables of the Bible and other religious doctrine (and, I would argue, that most of religion is conversely created by man based on certain mores, in a reciprocal way).

 

I have argued before that I do not accept such a thing as absolute morality, thus all morality is indeed relative. There probably is a majority of behavior that all humans deem to be moral or immoral, but that is still subject to time and context. (For example, murder is commonly recognized as nearly absolute immorality, but in certain context it is considered by many to be perfectly acceptable and moral (death penalty, war, etc).

 

Man, in the absence of interaction with other beings is incapable of being immoral. He is capable of being wrong, of course. If you were a religious person with a belief in God you would be capable of being sinful, but not necessarily immoral. Morality is about conforming to social standards and relating to other beings.

 

I know this part of the debate seems a bit academic to some, but I believe it is fundamental to understanding Rooster's perspective on the entire debate. Not to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you see morality and God as synonymous and inseparable. And anything that you personally deem immoral ("not conforming to standards") you are projecting to be in violation of your God's will, and vice versa.

 

To answer your questions...

 

Do you consider a man, who watches pornographic movies of children alone, to be acting immorally? Absolutely immoral. There is an exploitation of another being (in this case the children in the movie, whether they are present or not).Do you consider a man, who fantasizes about rape, to be acting immorally?A bit tougher, because now you are asking to judge the thoughts, not the actions or behavior of someone. I think this is the subject of a new Spielberg movie ("department of precrime"), which looks interesting. I would argue in your favor, however, that this too might be immoral only because a clear and likely causal link to actual violence could be shown. Though I might change my mind on this one after thinking about it a bit it certainly is wrong, though Im not sure morality can yet be measured.Do you consider a man who refuses to acknowledge God to be acting immorally?First, for the record, I believe in God. I am a Christian. I know I have said this several times on this forum, but you have insinuated a few times recently that maybe I lack such a belief, and I don't want to allow that to go without response. I think your insinuations are consistent with NJCubscouter's response to you above, in that you really do put forth the opinion (despite your protests to the contrary) that anyone who does not have the exact same perspective or belief in God and religion as you is wrong, misguided, lesser or worse.

 

To answer your question directly, "a man who refuses to acknowledge God" is neither moral nor immoral because of that. He is not righteous, in my opinion. And his lack of belief in God may allow him to violate morality and harm society, but I certainly believe it is possible to be an atheist and a moral man (though less likely).The man is a glutton. He constantly eats more than he needs. I say his actions are immoral, for to waste food is wrong.Ugh, yet another liberal application of morality. Cubs, who is to say that the food is wasted, just because he ate more than he needed? Was it somehow depriving someone or something else? If not, its not a matter or morality. Gluttony might be considered a "sin", if you happen to be of such religious beliefs, but its not immoral unless it violates societys standards or harms another being, and since there's no society or other beings on your island, how can we measure it?

 

Morality and religion are not synonymous and not inseparable. I'd say that they are often derived from each other, but only by mans evolving interpretations of each.

 

To place this in the context of this debate, homosexuality is not in and of itself a moral issue. Unlike all the other examples (by which some attempt to "link" or associate), there is no violation of society or free will of another being. (Pedophilia, bestiality, etc require the subjugation of free will by one being over another and/or violate the acceptable standards of society. Homosexuality does not violate other beings, and is not in violation of the acceptable standards of society (quickly evolving to be even more true).

 

To beat a dead horse, let me state again since we clearly have such a different understanding of what is moral or immoral, and even what can be judged for morality's sake, it seems to me the solution is for me to respect and allow you to choose who you want to associate with and what you want to believe. I would expect the same in return, and believe the only feasible level of our Scouting society to pick and choose these associations and beliefs is at the local unit and as close to the parents of our Scouts and chartering organizations as possible.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Rooster7]

NJ & TJ,

 

I disagree with the implications that you have drawn from my previous posts. Yet, I see no use in trying to convince either one of you. If you believe in relative morality (changing values for changing times)...if you believe morality can be separated from God, then we ARE beating a dead horse. You will never understand my perspective. As for my so-called religious bigotry...I deny any malice. If this charge stems from the fact that I see God's laws as eternal, His righteousness as unquestionable, and urge all to seek His mercy and love, then I plead - no contest.

[tjhammer]

 

Rooster, do you believe that Native Americans were (are) incapable of being moral? Since they were largely pagan, and fall well outside your strict definition of "belief in God", I wonder how you might judge them to be moral? Or for that matter, can Buddhists be moral? They, too, seem to fall outside your perspective of God.

 

I made the point flat out that I believe it is possible for an atheist to still be a moral man (though less likely, in my opinion). I would also suggest that pagans and Buddhists and a whole lot of other religions that don't closely fit to Rooster's insular perspective are all capable of being moral people. Despite your protests to the contrary, Rooster, you are clearly talking out both sides of your mouth on this issue.

[littlebillie]

I always like to think of 'ethics' as morality without a Supreme Being involved. Or conversely, of 'morality' as ethics enforced by religion. That's just a nutshell version. Looked at this way, I think there are some behaviors that can be ethical without being moral, and vice versa - mostly though, there's a lot of overlap.

 

Making the distinction can help clarify a lot of things, even if you draw the lines differently than I do.

 

Just an observation...

 

 

[yaworski]

"I do agree with your definitions Rooster but where we part ways is that I don't find it necessary to call others faiths fraudulent."

 

If I believe the teachings of my religion, by definition, all other religions must be wrong or their teachings would also be taught by my religion. Religion is not a matter of opinion, it is what we believe to be fact. So should we give other religions any more respect than we give the Flat Earth Society?

 

 

[littlebillie]

following up on yaworski's comments, no reason to give another religion any more respect than you give your own! I know very few - no, really, I personally don't know anyone - who really keeps the Biblical commandments completely and faithfully, or who even tries.

 

but when we are confronted with folks who DO take their religions literally, completely and sincerely, our response ranges from ridicule to indignance to fear.

[littlebillie]

fboisseau...

"littlebillie

If you want to take issue with me on a use of a single word, I will grant you that complete may have been a better word for me to use. This did not change the fact that you provided an example to support your position without, suppling a fact which was also important to this discussion that would have hurt your position. When someone in a debate, which this is, does that, I consider it

to be at the minimum misleading. "

 

it is equally misleading to apply a term for a human aberration for which the dictionary includes the word 'abnormal' to an animal behaviour that is part of the norm for a species.

 

so often in these discissons the cry is raised that "it just ain't natural", but when natural models are given, then the other objections get patched together.

 

among the bonobo, as you apparently know, the child-adult contacts are NOT power-based, do not involve pederasty (another human trait), and are performed in large to comfort the young rather than the gratification of the adult. to omit that is misleading in itself.

 

older human children that have been breastfed, esp. among certain poorer and/or very rural populations, frequently stroke their mothers breast even to the age of 10. sexual in our eyes, quite possibly, but a source of comfort for the participants.

 

since the bonobo was mentioned to provide an animal model - and since that behaviour to which you object is qualitatively and intentively different bonobo - I had felt no real need to mention it.

 

no would I have now, were it not for charges of deception.

 

 

BTW - usually, folks end up objecting to the rat studies rather than the chimp stuff. interesting twist here - thanks, y'all!

 

[fboisseau]

LittleBillie

First, if I understand you correctly the two distinctions are as follows:

1) The behavior is natural for the chimps. I agree with you on that in that since they do not have the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong they are doing what makes them feel good.

2) The other distinction you are making is that this in not part of a power play among the individuals, but instead it is away of rendering comfort. I have two issues with this. First I do not believe you will accept this explanation if you found a member of your family comforting your preteen or teenage child in this manner. Second, from what I know about the society of chimps every interaction between two chimps does involve either gaining protection from someone else or gaining support of someone else. This being the case it does involve a power play in the troop.

 

The last example you gave about the mother and her child stroking her breast. I have not heard anything about that so I can not comment.

 

BTW: The reason why you have not had people discuss the bonobo chimps before is because they are a rare species of chimps that most people are not familiar with, and they could not challenge you on that.

 

P.S. I also believe that you I have both gotten our points across, at least I have for the moment, and unless you bring forth a fact that I am not aware of I will not be responding to this subtopic.

 

Thank you for the debate.

 

[littlebillie]

FBOisseau,

 

all the more reason to mention it, so that those who believe nature "ain't got no such" can find out otherwise. frankly, tho', I prefer to think that the folks I've seen posting so far are a little more aware of the world around them.

 

either way, it is to be hoped that such mention, unfamiliar or no, encourages a little reading and a little re-think.

 

adult-child support among chimps, bonobos and gorillas CAN contribute to power positioning in the troop politic - such has been noted - but for the most part seems to be set off to one side of that particular facet. while care-taker aunts can bask in some reflected glory of the alpha female, most often an entire troop rallies around a youngster - any youngster - in trouble.

 

of course, there is little divorce among our furry cousins to turn children into pawns on THAT board, and the child exploitation arena (labor, prostitution, whatever) is virtually empty.

[evmori]

Morality can't be relative and change with the times. If that were the case, then morality would have no purpose. Morality changing with the times in nothing more than political correctness which IMHO is a bunch of whoey! PC does not belong in Scouting. We as adult leaders in this organization have a responsibility to the Scouts to be good examples of adults. If we choose the relative morality method then all the Scouts learn is "If it feels good & no one gets hurt, do it". If this happens, then we as adult leaders in this organization have failed at our jobs.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1