You talk of books teaching moral values, yet while the differences between moral and immoral can be universal and seperated at the same time, the point of morality itself is to teach values that help people live together in peace. In a world of only morality and immorality the two ARE black and white, they are GOOD and EVIL, but in the real world morality is highly complex, with different levels of rightousness that benefit the benefactor in the situation. Either side can be justly moral or immoral as seen by one or the other. It's true that not all books are black and white, but the books that DO teach moral values HAVE to be black and white. You must have an immorality to explain a morality.
Faith is a way to achieve ANY type of success- again, including moral success. Having faith in your religion alone will teach your how to live a moral lifestyle, therefore using faith to achieve a moral outcome. Also, having faith in humanity, the love for equality, will teach people how to live a moral life. Many people have already lived with these examples of faith- Ex. the pope. He loved Catholalism, he cherished his faith in God and lived and died a moral man.
This is a very weak argument. First of all, religion is not nessecarily moral, second, having faith in humanity dosen't promise morality in any sort, there are factors of humanity, many factors of ourselves that one can argue are seriously immoral, and thirdly...and this is common sense, have you...the pope's love for his religion (*Catholalism) DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT make the pope himself moral. Not even the position in which he stands can be a valid example of morality. Faith and morality have nothing to do with each other besides the teaching of what THAT religion deems as moral or immoral in it's own right. And to tie my arugments together, while one person may see their religion as rightous and moral, an onlooker may noy agree, and there is your opposition. Morality cannot exsists with immorality. Religion cannot teach morality without knowing immorality, one cannot exsist without the other.
Then there are volunteers. Only certain volunteers, however, devote their lives to things such as Charity, School-work, etc. and they do nothing wrong but are morally benefitting the world.
And you can say that? You know they do nothing wrong? Moral acts are just that, ACTS. Actions performed by somebody with the idea that they are doing something selfless, and this is good, this IS Good and moral, I agree, but that does not make these people moral. It only gives the idea that they are, not that they are, because away from the world, away from the reportors, the onlookers, thoes who they are helping, we have no idea who these people are or what they do in the privacy of their homes. How would this morality exsist if thier were not immoralities to be fixed by these (supposedly)"all moral people"?
Some of those who are homeless do not seek crime to have happiness, but morality. How do they achieve this? Morality. In this case, things are not built off of materialistic things but love. Love, in all fairness, is moral, and having love in eachother- that being the tool to carrying on- is how they live in happiness and morality.
No offense, but, I've been homeless, and no act of morality ever gave me the sense of happiness. Love does not promise happiness, and niether does morality, and I'm not even going to comment on this one because the entire paragraph has nothing to do with whether immorality is nessecary for morality.
Now, I believe it is clear to say that morality does not require immorality.
And now, I believe it is clear, that morality not only requires immorality, but cannot exsist without it. There would not even be no sense of morality wthout the immorality to preceed it, do you not understand that there is a balance in life and this balance cannot exsist if only one side of this blalance exsisted.
Edited by Apple, 25 April 2006 - 11:27 AM.