Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomForWho
Yup everything you said about the church there is true I'd say. However, I think you might want to research Rome a little more. Riots are bred from violence, for example.
How many peaceful people begin riots?
Precisely, just as a morally declined society breeds violence.
Ex.
You care nothing about your fellow man, so what is to keep you from harming him?
A morally and ethically founded society would not struggle in this nature, because they would care for their fellow man.
But ultimately, you are on the right road I guess. In the sense of which came first the chicken or the egg.
Rome fell to multiple armies, but it was due to a lack of unity among the people, and they way they expanded themselves so abruptly and abroad. Unity is found within morality, a common bond among people. Morals can be found in just about every positive type of unification. So the lack of these morals will cause a rift among people, leading to flaw and inevitably disaster.
But please, even though you submited in thise debate, don't let that stop you from researching further.
|
I don't personally ascribe morals to anything. Being an atheist, I am well aware of the religious contingency of morality, and feel it is an unnecessary outdated form of law. Since we live in a modern society full of laws and law enforcers there is no need to also back up violent actions with a concept of "bad". Its too vague, and its vagueness is directly responsible for some incredibly unlawful and inhumane acts.
Further, you asked if any peaceful people start riots. This is a perfect example of where morality can trip you up. Your question is faulty, you're assuming there is a property called peacefulness intrinsically and universally ascribed to a human. There is no such thing, peace is contingent on the environment, and almost anyone can be driven into violence including riots.
As for unity, I again disagree. One does not need morality to find solidarity. During world war two, after the occupation of Poland in one town the towns people and citizenry quickly renounced their Jewish neighbors. In a near by town, they hid those same Jewish neighbors. Now, with your vocabulary, the second town is full of more peaceful people. However, as this clearly doesn't give much significant insight, I purpose instead my interpretation, that highly idiosyncratic events between the Jews and towns people resulted in a sense of solidarity, of kin ship. This solidarity does not come from one's "goodness", but instead it comes from their relating to one another, making friends of each other. Two towns, two nearly identical situations, cultural nuances, history, yet still different outcomes. You'd have be think it was just because those second towns people were good?