.

Dear grateful,

.

You observe:

["What I would say is that if there is such a thing as a process by which "beliefs" evolve then it must be one in which ONLY the consequences matter. It must be a process that is indifferent to justice and injustice, which of course is antithetical to the whole notion of us acting upon our beliefs.]
.

Of course beliefs evolve. Who believes the world is flat today? Who believes Galileo was wrong in declaring that the earth revolves around the sun, contrary to common belief and Catholic dogma at the time?

That was not indifferent to justice and injustice. The Church (morally) rectified the injustice many centuries later. As it did with its condemnation of Joan of Arc and her subsequent burning at the stake by the English, finally declaring her to be a saint.

Justice, as it is conceived today, bases its decisions either on conclusive material evidence, where it exists, or on concordant elements of irrefutable circumstantial evidence where they exist.

Beliefs based on blind evidence are not admissible for decisions of justice.

.

Hi Banjo,

You say:

"Morality is a system of cooperation within the community based on those customs, habits and traditions. It is a code of conduct. Respect of the code is right and non-respect is wrong."

Sure, all sorts of beliefs about what is right and wrong may evolve. However, the real issue is whether there is a right and a wrong, since there would otherwise be no need for a Creator to provide his creatures with guidance (through a fitra, “instinct”, and through Prophets).

And definitely, many of the non-religious are practicing what many of the more religious just preach. But the issue is whether this ‘non-belief’ can provide a foundation for morality.

Surely, in your definition of “morality” there is no foundation because there is no notion of right or wrong as such. For example, nothing would be inherently wrong with murder or rape... as long as its serves the community these acts can be "morally" justified. This is the path that your definition takes us, is it not?

Personally, I think your response actually reinforces the case that justice and injustice are purely relative and therefore meaningless unless you believe in a Creator.

Thank-you for the Bertrand Russell link. An excellent resource.

salaams
grateful

Sorry, a correction to the last sentence:

Personally, I think your response actually reinforces the case that justice and injustice are purely relative and therefore meaningless unless THERE IS a Creator.

.

Dear grateful,

.

In my previous post I was referring to morality as the "conformity to conventional standards of society of right, (or acceptable) conduct".

That, of course, does not prevent each and every one of us from developing our own, individual, code of conduct, which may or may not concur with that of society in particular circumstances.

This is the manifestation of the "free will" of the individual which I discussed on page 2 of this thread, concluding as follows:

"Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development is progressive. It is an evolutive mode of functioning.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

As for morality, I cannot speak for others. I do the best I can to respect my ideals of humanity and personal responsibility.

Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards".

Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15035#259828

There is no good or bad, right or wrong in nature. There is only what is most efficient for survival and development. However, with the emergence of free-will in human beings, we have developed a greater degree of consciousness which allows us to make a choice in accordance with our moral values and/or those of society.

There can, however, be no free will without the possibility of individuals to choose, deliberately or inadvertently, a course of action contrary to their perceived best interests and/or those of society. This possibility exists and may be freely exercised at all times and in all circumstances.

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who first suggested in 1893 that societies dispose of a common or "collective conscience", as a distinguishing factor similar to that of culture.

Carl Jung extended the concept in 1919 to what he called the collective unconscious. From there to suggest that it could also be extended to include a "collective free will" is a step some may be prepared to take at the risk of coining what others may consider an oxymoron.

There seems no reason, however, why a group of individuals or even society as a whole should not be considered as exercising free will if we accept the idea of free will as autonomy. Collective free will in this sense would designate the autonomy of the group or society as a whole to make its own collective decisions and take whatever action it deems appropriate without any outside influence or interference.

So far as justice is concerned, an individual over a prescribed minimum age is responsible for his or her acts, including individuals whose unconscious behaviour and failure to exercise due precaution is prejudicial to others.

Irresponsibility can be established by proving that the accused individual lacks a conscience or faculty of discernment due to a mental disorder and was incapable of wilful intent. This is achieved in less than one in a thousand of all criminal cases brought before the courts in most democratic countries.

Justice is the ultimate objective of democracy. It is what democracy is all about. John Rawls, defined justice as fairness. Fairness is a noble intent but an elusive target. Failure to achieve fairness is a failure of democracy. That makes justice the Achilles’ heel of democracy.

There are many obstacles to justice: political, legal, practical, technical, financial, or simply human. They may be the result of bigotry, dishonesty or collective outrage or emotions, or take the form of intimidation or corruption.

Not only is justice simply not possible in some cases, its decisions may even have the adverse effect of aggravating existing injustices or creating new ones.

.

.

Dear grateful,

.

You wrote:

"Personally, I think your response actually reinforces the case that justice and injustice are purely relative and therefore meaningless unless you believe in a Creator".
.

I have discussed human justice above and have nothing to add to that. As regards so-called "divine justice", I am afraid I have never found any evidence of its existence, though it is not for want of searching.

Nor have I found any evidence of the existence of any supernatural entity of any sort, let alone a deity - other than the hearsay of "believers".

Hearsay is rarely accepted as evidence in the courts of law of most democratic countries - for good reason - and I consider the question far too important for me to rely simply on hearsay as the sole basis of belief.

The problem, as I see it, is not in any lack of belief on my part, but of a lack of something to believe in. I am more than willing to believe in something which exists, not in something which does not exist.

Here is a link to hearsay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
.

You also mention the "... need for a Creator to provide his creatures with guidance (through a fitra, “instinct”, and through Prophets)".
.

I do not know what a "fitra" is. As regards "instinct", a few words of wisdom come to mind, such as:

“[On Schopenhauer in Black and White] Schopenhauer's views of love are flawed. Love can't be merely an illusion of the mind to aid in procreation, but the path to redemption for an otherwise violently selfish species. Past human greatness has proven that when challenged, love can overpower impulsive instinct, and in essence, the vilest aspects of our nature.” (Tiffany Madison).

Prophets are self-appointed, would-be gurus. As Karl Popper pointed out, " The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability". The hypothesis of God is unfalsifiable.

The best we can hope to achieve is to judge so-called prophets on the basis of the accuracy of any previous prophesies.

.