Quote:
Originally Posted by MeoTwister5
A social construct it is, but as I stated mostly due to the fact that there really isn't a universally accepted truth to morality. One of the aspects of religion was to put a definitive separation and classification to the entire morality play by stating that "God" has the authority to say what is good and what is evil, and thus define what the innate nature of man is. In a sense, religion was an answer to this eternal question of man as to what defines good and evil.
The only way to have a definite end to the argument is to have said Creator come down from the heavens, tell everyone what's cool and what isn't, and smite with bolts of high-level chain lightning the foolish unbelievers. 
Oh wait... sounds very much like Moses and the ten commandments...
Religion, at least I know those of the Abrahamic line, have their own versions on the origin of morality most of which of course are scientifically unverifiable obviously. This in turn is where faith again comes in, which returns itself to the original problem: how can you verify truth without evidence?
(For the record of this thread, I'm a devout Roman Catholic.) |
There are many things that aren't definite other than morality. But what's important is the percentages of each answers, this is really because its so dependent on situations. We *can* accept answers because of its greater tendency towards one way than the other. This doesn't make it definite, what it does is make sense....
Definiteness is a useless argument that lacks practicality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xrayz0r
For all those who feel threatened by science's monopoly on truth, there's Hans Georg Gadamer.
|
Please don't present that as direct information, describe it, state your opinions, and we'll state ours----that way, it'll make it more meaningful(that's only my opinion however).