An object lesson

Disagree.

Disagree quite strongly.Anything Don Henley had anything to do with is by definition inferior to anything being compared with it.I'm no great Skynyrd fan, but I like the fact that "Sweet Home Alabama" tells Neil Young where he can stick it. Damn Canadians.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Disagree.Ten seconds until Dan posts a joke about having meat in my mouth. Six...five...

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Disagree.

Chickens and fetuses, whatever. I stand by what I said about Don Henley. Some things are just true, dammit!

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Oh please. Haven't you ever taken a Philosophy 101 course? You're trying to define the term 'moral absolute' to mean 'something floating around in the sky.' Unfortunately this is the only definition that non-believers feel comfortable with, since it makes it easier to ridicule the entire notion. Its relevant definition is 'something that we affirm to be good in and of itself, not as a means to an end.' And it most certainly does depend on our opinion.If we regard freedom as good in and of itself, it is a moral absolute for us. The way 'relativism' enters the picture is that we have ethical dilemmas in defining the best application of this moral absolute in a certain situation. How do we affirm the 'freedom' of a man intending to rape a woman and still affirm the woman's 'freedom' from being assaulted? The fact that freedom is our moral absolute doesn't stop us redefining it in certain contexts, or setting realistic limits on its meaning.We may say that life is good in and of itself and not as a means to another end. As a consequence it's a moral absolute. However, we run into another dilemma when we look at the abortion debate, where the life of a fetus has to be seen in the context of the life and freedom of the woman carrying it. Are we always going to define the relevance of each absolute the same way in every situation? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that we're not dealing with moral absolutes.If this makes me a 'situational ethicist,' so be it. All ethics are situational. If this makes me a 'moral relativist,' that's fine by me. Moral absolutes are relevant, but only inside the contexts where we have to define them.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Holmes,You're right, my post ignored metaethical considerations. I'm not sure how to address the concept of where we 'get' these absolutes, because I'm not sure it matters. If we say our ethics derives from authority, then obedience to authority is our moral absolute. If we only act out of self-interest, then self-interest is our moral absolute.The source from whence we derive these absolutes seems immaterial. The important thing is the meaning we ascribe to them. We've seen plenty of people on this forum who claim that their misogyny and homophobia are derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Why are there plenty of belivers who don't hold these beliefs, if their morals are supposedly derived from the same sources?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-03-2004]

Look no further for confirmation of your conclusion than that hideous story in Genesis where Abraham is instructed by God to kill his son. It proves that the moral absolute of obedience to God is supposed to overrule any other ethical or even rational consideration.Wouldn't it have been more meaningful if Abraham had refused, claiming that if the voice told him to kill an innocent person, then the demand could not have come from God? You'd think most believers would have the sense to realize that God would only demand something that were 'good' in some objective sense, not that whatever God demands is 'good' no matter how atrocious it seems. Yeah, you'd think that. The universally accepted meaning of the story is just the opposite.I agree wholeheartedly that all other absolutes go out the window when obedience to God is involved. I draw the same conclusion when the regularity of physical laws are used as proof of God's existence. We'd actually expect to see physical laws subservient to the whims of the Big Magic Guy, just like the moral absolutes that don't have meaning except in whatever way God wants to use them.So we get folks like our Zealot, relishing in the condemnation of various 'sinners' because that's what he sees in the Bible. If God tells us to hate homosexuals, for example, that's validation enough for Z-man and people who would just as soon be homophobic. Others of us may point out the passages of the Bible that talk about forgiveness, or passing judgement on ourselves instead of others. Those of us who are under no obligation to accept the Bible as the source of our moral foundation can be more rational about it. Why a believer is allowed to ignore the admonitions against judging others is another curious loophole that the faithful seem to exploit when it suits them.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Holmes,I urge you to stop engaging this character. Most of our correspondents here, though lacking in science education, seem like harmless types. They may be frustrating, but basically they're just out for a laugh. This guy creeps me out.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall