No way it is coincidence that morality is not taught in schools, Universities

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LesterJust

If you need school, particularly college, to teach you right from wrong you are pretty much royally effed to begin with.

Yep, because it means your parents did a s#ty job raising you anyway. "School" doesn't fix born & raised common sense stupid.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You're doing the same thing by trying to spread your "liberty". More, your message doesn't hold up to logic - it's paradoxical garbage. "Listen to me! Don't listen to anyone!"

I am not trying to spread anything or advocate that people listen to me, what other people do is their business. The religious mental cases that want their brand of 'morality' inflicted on other people's children are the problem.

You asked what spiritual fornication was. I answered.

Sounds super awesome in an Old Testament kind of way.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Yep, because it means your parents did a s#ty job raising you anyway. "School" doesn't fix born & raised common sense stupid.

The right application of morality to the knuckles can fix anything.

Maybe giving people the tools they need to develop a code of their own that fits in with wider society in general is the best way of teaching morality?

It's no good simply saying do this, or don't do that.

Letting someone understand the consequences of certain actions is far more worthwhile than enforcement of one person's rules or another's

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nyiah
Yep, because it means your parents did a s#ty job raising you anyway. "School" doesn't fix born & raised common sense stupid.

The right application of morality to the knuckles can fix anything.

Ah yes, the tried & true "Knock Off The S#" maneuver. I hear that works wonders with those whom are exceedingly slow to learn via other information input methods.

originally posted by: jellyrev

originally posted by: dfnj2015

What is moral to day may be immoral tomorrow. What is moral yesterday may be immoral today. Hence, moral relativism is true and all morality is colloquial.

Wrong. Scientific theories are proven wrong yesterday and new ones are formed tomorrow. In the future old ones may come back into prominence or politically some theories are suppressed and hidden.
An incorrect scientific theory about black holes such as Hawkings' does not invalidate all of physics.

Just because we have not perfected morality does not mean what we think of as good and evil does not exist.

All "good" sciences is declared so by subjective judgments. Just by saying "wrong" you prove my point.

originally posted by: Jefferton
My parents taught me right from wrong, so, by the time I got to school, I knew the difference.
Sorry Op, that you and the others you are shaming did not have that.

It is a shame.

The golden rule is found in every religion of the world. It was probably invented by the Chinese like everything else.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ah yes, the tried & true "Knock Off The S#" maneuver. I hear that works wonders with those whom are exceedingly slow to learn via other information input methods.

You should see what I can accomplish with a pair of pliers and a BurnzOmatic.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Anyway, what are morals?

Not a dictionary definition, but I look at morals as rules we live by. Morality is our faithfulness in sticking to those rules, even when doing so might be painful. Ethics are rules of living reinforced by society, common to all in that society.

For instance... killing another human without just cause is ethically wrong. That means it is morally wrong to most in society. But it is possible for someone to kill another without just cause if they are stressed out sufficiently, say while they were robbing a store for food because they were starving. Ethically, they would be in the wrong, but morally they would only be in the wrong if they believed what they were doing was wrong. That would be an example of immorality, since they broke their own morals.

Law is not ethics... it's close though. The law can be manipulated and twisted by attorneys or judges; ethics cannot.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

cool reply.

I'm having a bit of an issue with the robbery example though.
There are times when I think killing someone would be morally justified.
Self defence or defence of a third party being the most obvious.

I suppose it highlights how there isn't really a universal morality as such, because to some, insulting their religion is a just cause, disobedience to the Bible's deadly sins another...

perhaps, what you said about having the courage to stick to your principles is more like it?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You're doing the same thing by trying to spread your "liberty". More, your message doesn't hold up to logic - it's paradoxical garbage. "Listen to me! Don't listen to anyone!"

I am not trying to spread anything or advocate that people listen to me, what other people do is their business. The religious mental cases that want their brand of 'morality' inflicted on other people's children are the problem.

I agree. Having mandatory Bible study in school would be like the state having national religion. And many people want to make some sect of Christianity our national religion. The Dominionists already control most of our government and believe their sect is our national religion.

So I agree with you that no one in power should be able to be in a position to force other people to be indoctrinated with their religious view. The problem is many evangelicals think having no religion, that is a secular view, is itself a type of religion that is being forced over other people and is itself a form of indoctrination. I'm not sure I agree with the argument the absence of something is itself something. But that is what people think.

"On June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that a prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents for use in schools violated the First Amendment because it represented establishment of religion"

I think we may have gone too far with having no religion in school. Any kind of mandatory prayer or participation is too far in my opinion. But allow voluntary Bible study classes in public school seem okay to me. I have no problem with public schools being used for Bible study during school hours. As long as it's not abused in some way I have no problem with it. But saying that it would inevitably lead to abuse is too much. If people want to study anything in school I think it's a good thing. However, according to our Constitution, a Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land. It would be immoral not to live by the rule of law.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But allow voluntary Bible study classes in public school seem okay to me.

I'm going to take this to Derp Level 5 since it always ends up there anyway.

That's all well and good but how do you think it will work out with the Bible-studiers when little Jenny tells Mommy that Ahmed is participating in a Koran study or little Anton Jr. brought his Satanic Bible? Me? I don't give crap, but I'm a live and let live kind of person.

The reason why morality is not taught in school is because it is very subjective. People simply cannot agree on what is moral and what is not. That is why moral relativism exists. Some people believe morality is absolute. But they are deluding themselves.

"Moral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years. For example, the ancient Jaina Anekantavada principle of Mahavira (c. 599–527 BC) states that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth;[7][8] and the Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 481–420 BC) famously asserted that "man is the measure of all things". The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–420 BC) observed that each society regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than all others. Various other ancient philosophers also questioned the idea of an objective standard of morality."

I think morality should be taught only at church on Sunday school. It's just too controversial of a subject and I would prefer not to upset other people by pushing my own point of view on other people.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Thank you.

I'm having a bit of an issue with the robbery example though.
There are times when I think killing someone would be morally justified.
Self defence or defence of a third party being the most obvious.

The best way I can further explain is to use myself as an example. You're absolutely right that morals vary from person to person, so your mileage may vary.

We all have something called a 'moral center,' which is the general overall morality of the person, usually fairly abstract. Mine includes 'it is wrong to cause pain to others needlessly.' My morals are situational interpretations of that moral center... in my example, if I am the robber, is it immoral? Robbery causes pain to others, by denying the victim the fruits of their labor or raising prices to compensate. But is the pain I am causing needless? Another of my tenets (portions of my moral center) says I have the right to survive. Therefore, I can justify my actions morally because they prevented my death, and the pain inflicted was not needless.

On the other hand, if I were to shoot a clerk during a robbery for something not necessary to my survival, that would be immoral. I would have violated my own moral center and the morals that extend from it, over a desire. I would consider the result of my action as needless, because it did not ensure my survival, only my selfish desires. I might commit the crime in a moment of weakness, or a moment of anger, or whatever... it would still be immoral.

If my moral center had nothing in it about harming others, then my actions would not be immoral. They would be unethical, and illegal, but not immoral. In that case, I would probably show no remorse, and people would likely see me as 'evil.' If I immorally acted in a moment of weakness, I would likely show remorse. If I acted within my morality, I would also consider myself innocent of a crime.

Clear as mud? I can stir it up more if needed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Hecate666

It shouldn't be removed at all, it should be taught elsewhere [without religious reasons] as well. I personally can't see anything bad to learn about dignity, honesty, empathy etc.

Those are not the morals I refer to.

The things you listed should be reinforced at school. Here are the types of things schools reinforce. This is what I have actually seen in MA.

Illegal immigration is ok.
Republicans are bad and no one should vote Republican, it's better to not vote at all than do that.
It's not enough to show kindness and love to someone who is homosexual you have to accept it is a good thing, and when they have guest speakers come in to preach to kids you can not have your child skip.
All white people are racist and black people can never be racist.

If you were a Jain, and you ate a bug or stepped on an ant, you would be committing one of the gravest sins according to the religion. Again, morality is relative otherwise we would all agree on what it is.

"Jainism (/ˈdʒeɪnɪzəm/[1] or /ˈdʒaɪnɪzəm/[2]), traditionally known as Jain Dharma,[3] is an ancient Indian religion belonging to the śramaṇa tradition. The central tenet is non-violence and respect towards all living beings. The three main principles of Jainism are ahimsa (non-violence), anekantavada (non-absolutism) and aparigraha (non-possessiveness). Followers of Jainism take five main vows: ahimsa (non-violence), satya (not lying), asteya (not stealing), brahmacharya (chastity) and aparigraha (non-attachment). Jain monks and nuns observe these vows absolutely whereas householders (śrāvakas) observe them within their practical limitations. Self-discipline and asceticism are thus major focuses of Jainism. Notably, Mahatma Gandhi was greatly influenced by Jainism and adopted many Jain principles in his life.

The word "Jain" derives from the Sanskrit word jina (conqueror). A human being who has conquered all inner passions like attachment, desire, anger, pride, greed, etc. is called Jina. Followers of the path practiced and preached by the jinas are known as Jains. Parasparopagraho Jivanam ("the function of souls is to help one another") is the motto of Jainism.

Jains trace their history through a succession of twenty-four teachers and revivers of the Jain path known as Tirthankaras. In the current era, this started with Rishabhdeva and concluded with Mahavira. Jains believe that Jainism is eternal and while it may be forgotten, it will be revived from time to time.

The majority of Jains reside in India. With 6-7 million followers, Jainism is smaller than many other major world religions. "

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you did a good job there.
I admit that I've always seen morality as an individual thing too. We pick up things from family and peers but it is us, individually that formulate those things into a code.

Therefore, it would be missing the point to try and teach some abstract, moral code to people wouldn't it?
Perhaps giving examples to kids of what all the big religions regard as morals, add in some philosophical arguments and let them run with it...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SprocketUK

Thank you.

I'm having a bit of an issue with the robbery example though.
There are times when I think killing someone would be morally justified.
Self defence or defence of a third party being the most obvious.

The best way I can further explain is to use myself as an example. You're absolutely right that morals vary from person to person, so your mileage may vary.

We all have something called a 'moral center,' which is the general overall morality of the person, usually fairly abstract. Mine includes 'it is wrong to cause pain to others needlessly.' My morals are situational interpretations of that moral center... in my example, if I am the robber, is it immoral? Robbery causes pain to others, by denying the victim the fruits of their labor or raising prices to compensate. But is the pain I am causing needless? Another of my tenets (portions of my moral center) says I have the right to survive. Therefore, I can justify my actions morally because they prevented my death, and the pain inflicted was not needless.

On the other hand, if I were to shoot a clerk during a robbery for something not necessary to my survival, that would be immoral. I would have violated my own moral center and the morals that extend from it, over a desire. I would consider the result of my action as needless, because it did not ensure my survival, only my selfish desires. I might commit the crime in a moment of weakness, or a moment of anger, or whatever... it would still be immoral.

If my moral center had nothing in it about harming others, then my actions would not be immoral. They would be unethical, and illegal, but not immoral. In that case, I would probably show no remorse, and people would likely see me as 'evil.' If I immorally acted in a moment of weakness, I would likely show remorse. If I acted within my morality, I would also consider myself innocent of a crime.

Clear as mud? I can stir it up more if needed.

TheRedneck


How do you feel about this one?Is it morally justified?

www.upi.com...

a reply to: LesterJust

Western values have been thrown under the bus by reletavists and solipsists to accommodate their own guilt. Unfortunately it had the effect of becoming a dogma.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: LesterJust

Western values have been thrown under the bus by reletavists and solipsists to accommodate their own guilt. Unfortunately it had the effect of becoming a dogma.

Please explain what you mean. I would love to share your enlightenment.