Thursday, June 4, 2009
Your Morals
There has been much debate on this blog about who has the greatest morals. Well to put the question to rest I suggest you go to www.yourmorals.org and find out for yourself. There are a number of scientifically designed test to let you see where you stand on the morality scale. I'll admit it's not as exciting as some other online tests but it is something to do while killing time at work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
Hahaha yea we'll tell you how you scored!What a bunch of crap!Morality isn't online it's what's in your heart!Nice try rac.
Oh I'm sorry - I should have warned you this post contained scientific content. Why do you have to be such a fucking asshole about everything mat? You must really live a pathetic life you piece of shit.
Well we know how someone scored!Hahahaha.
Why do you have to be such a fucking asshole about everything mat? There was nothing in this post that was slanted one way or the other. I put it up here because it made some interesting observations in the difference between how we think. Observations not judgements. I'm really making an effort to lighten this blog up mat but you certainly aren't helping matters. If you don't know how to act like a civilized human being you should crawl back into your slimy little hole. Maybe you'll be more tolerable after a few million years of evolution.
You are pathetic.
Hmmm... won't let me register. Perhaps it senses my political leanings and is automatically scoring me as morally bankrupt.
Probably does Doug.Hahhaha.Or it's not as scientific as its supposed to be.
I personally believe that we are all born with the God-Given gifts of: morals, knowing right from wrong and with some form of common sense. I believe that we are also given the choice to either use it or not.
Some attempt to search, and will dig very deep to justify their immoral acts.
Is name calling moral? What does your inter-voice tell you?
My inner voice tells me if people want to come on here and be jerks then I'm going to call them out on it. If I have to stoop to a certain level of vulgarity to be heard then so be it. Certain people on this blog have proven it is the only form of communication they understand. Can you hear me now?
RAC’ster, I can’t hear you, but can read what you have posted. But does that justifiy name calling?
Absolutely Ric. And you really should drop the high horse routine. You've been one of the most offensive people on the blog. If you don't believe me just ask the others. If you would like to be part of making this a better place then I applaud you. But if you want to continue with the bullshit then it won't go without a fight.
Yep,twelve years old back on the block.Hahaha.
And how have I been one of the offensive people on the blog? I say what is on my mind as you do, but I don’t name-call as you.
RAC said, “Ask others if I have been offensive”? Let them bring it on!
RAC said “But if you want to continue with the bullshit then it won't go without a fight”. And I respond, “ What the heck are you talking about”?
And what do you mean by me taking the “high horse routine”? Elaborate dude!
RAC, it is very clear that you have a political agenda going on here. This is very clear, and that is cool with me. But it is A.O.K. with you to have different political views? I, have mine, you have yours. I may disagree with yours, and I know for a fact that you disagreed with mine. I believe in the two party systems. And it seems that you believe in a one party system. But hey, that’s cool too.
You have been the King of name calling thus far. If you disagree with a person, you call them an “ass hole”, or the likes. Why?
What ever happened to a true debate; an intellectual discussion of political different views?
Give it up Ric.It was just an innocent remark.We are bigger than that remember the code.
That's a big '10-4' Mat!
"The code"! :)
No Ric, I call a person an asshole when they act like an asshole. And the very fact you can't see your own faults is example enough of you trying to ride the high horse. If you were 1/1000 of the man you think you are you might someday be a saint. You want intellectual discussion - don't call some one's input a "bunch of crap" and then become condescending with them. Seems pretty fucking childish to me wouldn't you say ric? Oh I forgot, its so hard to see the little people from that horse you ride.
Yes mat, acting like a 12 year old seems to be the only effecting way of communicating with you.
Got to love the ‘code’!
Just fell off my horse. My ass hurts.
"the code" Sounds like a hold over from your tree house days. You guys are so mature. Ooooh! LOL
;)
I certainly don't need a test to affirm that I am the wretch the song refers to. But "A" for effort in the peacekeeping process, RAC.
Hahahaha.
I don't think morality is in the heart or what you think, I think it is about how you conduct yourself in your daily life. Do you steal, treat people poorly, try to molest the nine year old girl next door, kick the dog, yell at your kids, drink and drive, keep the wallet you find, cut across the neighbors lawn and let your dog shit there. That sort of stuff. That is one of the problems I have with people who say they are ohh so christian. Gee, Heck, Darn,Golly... I hope I didn't offend anyone.
Juliet...You go girl...amen
RAC, I've had a chance to take a couple of the tests...very interesting...fun to see the results.
I believe what you are talking about here are ethics,not morals.
I however do not need to take a scientific test to know what my morals are. See, morals are not any difference than truth. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't mean it is. You can say gravity is wrong, and that you should take a test to see if it is true, no. Makes no science. What are your morals based on? That is the question.
What makes it morally right to kill an unborn child?
What makes it morally right to smoke pot?
What makes it morally right to fornicate or commit adultery?
Just because you want to do something, does not make it moral.
So go back to your ethics, but morality is not a variable, but is fixed.
Morality vs ethics wiki
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created and defined by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time."
In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism, in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected.[1]
In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics. Ethics is the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).[3]
In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion.
In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified.
In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong". Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.
Yes Juliet, now google "ethics". You will see what I mean. Ethics is philosophical, not grounded in any form. It is a discussion of morals. Anyone who has studied philosophy knows it is the questions asked, not the answer found. I learned that in debate, many moons ago.
green, red, blue mean anything to you drl?
Not at all. I am saying that the conservative Christian takes the Bible literally, and that is where we get our values from.
Liberal view of morals is 'if it feel good, do it'. That is not the way it is, or should be.
Juliet - I can't and don't call myself a Christian, but I am also not an aetheist crusader. What I have come to realize is that Christians don't profess to be angels and behave perfectly. On the contrary, they recognize that they are not angels and are far from perfect. The ideals that are set forth in their bible and teachings are just that - ideals which are to be strived for, not declaration of their perfection.
There has been a rather obvious war against Christians for decades now. I don't believe it is really about God or faith at all, but rather an attempt to eliminate any source authority (other than the state, of course) that would serve as a point on the moral compass. Religion is rejected, targeted, ridiculed by those who reject the very idea of a consistent morality, and prefer instead to redefine morality depending on the whims of what is cool or interesting at the time.
No morals, no judgements, no responsibilities, no consequences. This is the leftists idea or morality.
Red, green and blue are the colors used on the morality comparison chart results you see after you take the test. Just wanted to know if you bothered to take the test before you started to comment on this thread which was after all about the link RAC posted.
nope - I haven't taken the test yet.
Sean, Christians tend to hold up the bible and say there is only one authority so I could see where YOU would draw that conclusion. I am commenting more on the daily life of people and how hypocritical it seems to me that many express how they are living the life of god's morality and then don't appear to demonstrate that in their personal behavior. Look at what people do not what they say in determining if they are genuine.
Ric my inner voice tells me that you are not very genuine and on occasion you have been very offensive to me. You did ask.
OK - so I took the first test. I don't see anyone posting their numbers, though... Maybe we should all add them to our profiles?
I think you would see that in the majority of the areas we would all rank very similarly.
It doesn't really matter to me the source of a person's or group's morales, but rather the content. Does it the fact that is is mentioned in the bible make "thou shalt not kill" any less valid as a moral value?
There is always a lot of talk about sex outside marriage. There are some religious roots to this, for sure. Terms like chaste, virginal, pure probably all have religious origins. Over the last few decades many in our society have rejected these values and tied them with religion. But, there is a very basic and sound reason to promote these values. Human babies can't survive on their own and human mothers can't (in general) provide for, care for and raise a baby on their own. Thus it is valuable to our species and to our society that women (and men!) don't have intercourse outside of the bond of marriage. Not because "God said so" but rather because it only makes biological sense.
Of course, if you subscribe to the notion that "it takes a village" to raise children, then you simply replace the man with the state and have no worries.
OK - here goes:
Moral Foundation Results
2.0 2.3 3.2 3.3 2.5
I tend to overthink surveys/questionaires so I'm not sure how accurate this might be.
DRL,
the presence of gravity & one's moral code are not a worthy comparison.
That gravity exists is empirical fact based on verifiable science.
Your morals and my morals could be quite different.
I may choose to get stoned as shit and fornicate all night with a consenting partner of legal age and there is to me nothing immoral about it. You may feel differently. .
On the other hand we could all jump off a building with the same wind speed, pressure & humidity and we would fall to the ground at the exact same speed, every time without exception. See the difference? Science vs judgement.
The problems arise when one group inevitably attempts to impose their moral code on others.
You know, kind of like the Taliban.
Not to devaite from the "Gravity" of the topic but who uses this word anymore?
Fornication is a term which typically refers to voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other. [1]
The origin of the word derives from Latin. The word fornix means "an archway" or "vault" and it became a common euphemism for a brothel as prostitutes could be solicited in the vaults beneath Rome. More directly, fornicatio means "done in the archway"; thus it originally referred to prostitution. The first recorded use of the noun in its modern meaning was in 1303 AD, with the verb fornicate first recorded around 250 years later.[2]
Fornication is dealt with differently in various religions, societies and cultures.
The laws on fornication have historically been tied with religion and the legal and political traditions within the particular jurisdiction. In the common law countries (England, USA, Canada, Australia, etc.), the Courts were never interested in punishing subjects for purely private moral deviations - even incest - although sodomy was an exception. What laws did exist were purely statutory. In many other countries, however, there have been attempts to secularize constitutions, and laws differ greatly from country to country. Most Western countries and some secular Muslim countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan have no laws against fornication if both parties are above the age of consent.
Wiki
I think RAC that there is an overall difference in how some people take to anything new that is presented in front of them. Some are trained to react emotionally and some react objectively. If you take for example children who are reared to believe in a mythical being since his whole existence is faith originated and taught to emotionally connect with a book that is a collection of stories and biased historical accounts and then to use this spoon fed interpreted wisdom from it as a guide for a judgmental analysis of the world (good/bad, right/wrong etc.) VS those that are raised to try to understand something and be objective before they make a value determination on it.
Juliet, as you to me too!
It’s OK Juliet; Here’s the dill pickle…I don’t find you very genuine either? (And I need not elaborate on that). And if you scroll back in time, on this blog, you can read where you have also been very offensive towards others as well. (Like the time that I said that I was on-call, and your posted remark(s)?). But in general, you wont find me whining or complaining as you or others do when they feel offended.
And I hate to be so straight forward, but Juliet, if I have ever posted anything on this blog that has ever offended you, then it must be a state or you own insecurity.
I want to jump off lovers leap, with my hair tied to dougs.
Last I saw Doug didn't have much to tie to.Ok that was kind of funny.You had to be there Pat.
THE DILL PICKLE RIC! the dill pickle, gosh, golly, gee... well heck, Ric just one of the ways I find you un-genuine the language doesn't seem to match the actions. See your comments that you are walking hand in hand with the lord etc and then your consistent support of some of the offensive behavior on the blog don't seem to jive well.
Here is a small excerpt from an online source.
So where do the word in your question fall into these three categories? When we are unsure of the meaning of words, the best place to go is to the dictionary. When I looked up “gosh” it said that it was a euphemism for God. When I looked up “golly” it said the same thing. The word “heck” is a euphemism for “hell.” The words “darn” and “dang” are euphemisms for the word “damn.” The word euphemism means the following:
THE DILL PICKLE RIC! the dill pickle, gosh, golly, gee... well heck, Ric just one of the ways I find you un-genuine the language doesn't seem to match the actions.
“the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.” Basically, a euphemism is using a word that doesn’t sound as bad as the one that most consider offensive, but the meaning of the word is the same. So there is no change in meaning when we use a euphemism.
http://preachersfiles.com/are-slang-words-euphemisms-wrong/
I could post here your response to my post about the brain and anxiety from UPENN which seemed to upset you and so you went on offensive but I won't I will just track down the link and then you can re-read it and if you are really honest you will see that it was your insecurity at appearing to be so insensitive toward your clients and your job that caused you to react to me in that offensive way.
http://deanscircle.blogspot.com/2008/08/im-on-call-this-week-end.html
Ric here is the link for im on call where you say I offended you.
That's ok...hair grows and I can wait;)
Just got it cut short again. Too dadgum hot for hair.
I do appreciate the sentiment though.
:) :)
Doug, What I was saying, that you must have missed is, 'truth' is not a variable, as gravity is not. True, gravity will vary, but it is true. So is morality. Just because you want to sin, doesn't make it right. Sin is sin no mater what you think of it, or want to do. If what you think is 'true', then the polygamist are 'right'. Child molesters are 'right'. MAMBLA is 'right'. The Taliban is 'right'.
No, right and wrong are as constant as E=MC2.
Sean, You are right on. You explain the thoughts and beliefs of Christians better than many Christians do.
You, unlike the left, think with logic, over emotion. You keep it up.
Oh, and something else to remember about morals or ethical discussions on such a matter.
It is Christians wish that 'none' should go to Hell. For someone to wish another to 'burn in Hell', shows their morals. RAC, for you to wish it on someone shown how despicible a person you are.
DRL,
I am sorry if I have missed your point. I'm again sorry to say that after reading your latest post at least ten times I am at a loss for words.
"...'truth' is not a variable, as gravity is not. True, gravity will vary, but it is true...."
Dude, that is friggin' awesome.
Post a Comment