Haggard Scandal

I agree with your assessment that NJ's commentary was wrong (you can see my reply to it in the spinoff thread for that). Atheism doesn't mean anything about one's morality per se.However, I have to uhhhh... well I wouldn't say stand up... let's say clarify something with regard to morality and use this Haggard situation as an example. Nevermind that it is really quite funny and hopefully he gets his just end.I have never known a Xian to claim that they are all sinless, or morally pure. Their whole point is that EVERYONE is a sinner, they will be tempted, sometimes failing, but then will attempt to change.They want laws against things not because they themselves would never do so, but because their legality makes such things more likely to be engaged in. In the case of Haggard for example if homosexuality were illegal, maybe he wouldn't have tried it, and if he did he'd be facing a lot more problems.Xians can justifiably note that, outside of laughing at hypocrisy, the actual activities Haggard engaged in (got caught for) would largely not be criticized by atheists, or that atheists would have no solid logical ground for condemnation.That would be outside of appealing to current social standards, which would itself be hypocritical given that atheists champion the changing of social standards as well.Xians will do what they usually do these days, which is condemn his activity and to some great extent him, and if he is repentent then forgive him and use him as an example of how people can fail.In essence I think it is a bit of a straw man to argue they claim they are incapable of any such activities. And while Haggard may claim he never had or would want to do such things, when in fact he did, that is just a sign of another human failing. They argue that we do not repent, or even view such things as immoral, have no solid basis for such condemnation, and in some cases even glorify that behavior.Edited by holmes, : they

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

How is some guy failing to do something, despite a law, refuting an argument a group wants laws for their deterrent properties?I didn't say their argument had validity, I said that's what they want. They continually claim executions are a deterrent despite the fact that murders (including by Xians) continue.And it is true that for some people, laws can act as a deterrent, even if it may not for all (or statistically meaningful for any specific category of crim) . That's where the other side comes in... punishment. In the very section you quoted from my post I said "maybe he wouldn't..., and if he did he'd be facing a lot more problems."If meth (or whatever he used) was NOT illegal he would not be facing as many problems. If homosexuality were illegal he would be facing more problems.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

We have absolutely no idea what these people would be like without the moral code they live with, backed up by their fear of gods. Given some of their statements of what life must be like without gods or moral codes, I sometimes wonder that perhaps it is a very good thing they have such beliefs.I'm not sure if I am joking or not. Mmmmm, to think about it, in this case perhaps justice deserved, would be justice denied.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well that's not true. Morals exist, just not in an absolute sense.You have a point that they can be more slippery, but only to the extent that one doesn't really care about the moral code one lives by. That would be the same for theists.The idea that a relativist who has a personal code will feel less guilty, because a rule can be changed in theory, is a bit unrealistic. You would have the right, it is just harder to do so with logical strength. Your only logically justified arguments would be criticizing internal consistency of another's system, or to appeal to emotions of the other person (which is essentially inconsistency between system and feelings about the outcomes if a system).But there is yet another problem, lack of morals have little to do with personal behavior. Rather they are about aligning behavior for those whose personal behavior might conflict with some social sense of propriety in a given situation. It is errant to believe that in most cases (in an inate state) most would want to do something that is viewed as wrong.A person's taste may run to honesty or heroism or justice just as easily as their opposites. But whatever their taste is, it is not likely to move back and forth easily. An honest guy, with or without a moral system, or gods, is likely to remain honest because he wants to. The dishonest person, even with a moral system backed by gods, will have to fight his urge and may lose more often than the honest guy.Edited by holmes, : apostrophectomy

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While that is certainly true, it cuts both ways.I listen to supposedly enlightened, rational, freethinkers condemn moral absolutism, and it is really funny to hear the statements of their own moral absolutism mixed in with their condemnation of others.Wait, no it isn't funny... in either case.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

No, says moral relativism. Whether that concept is right or it is wrong, you don't get to choose what it says and tell people that are relativists what they think. All it takes for a consensus is for people to agree on something within a shared environment. There does not need to be universal understanding of anything except that a situation exists and that people are going to deal with it. Many laws, as one can see if one watches CNN are compromises. Same goes for moral codes. So which is universally better: chocolate, vanilla, or butterscotch? True relativists shouldn't besides prefering to interact with others of the same code, seeing potential negative reactions from another system (ie avoiding practical conflict), or spotting internal logical conflicts during arguments of theory. Laws may be based on morals if people choose to make them so, but there is no inherent connection between the two.For example there is nothing moral about which side of the road we choose to have people drive on, nor which side goes first at a an intersection. As far as laws against violations of people's rights, such as murder and theft, that can be derived simply by people demanding laws to protect themselves from what they do not want to happen to themselves. Why does a person like Butterscotch? There can be many answers, none of which have to do with any universal truths. In the case of honesty it can come from laziness and it being easier to simply stick with the truth, or the enjoyment of consistency which honesty provides.I might point out with your Pilate commentary, that it was a relativist that tried to save Jesus, and it was the absolutists following the moral truth of god that had him killed while saving a murderer.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Rob can follow the argument from here, rather than my replying in both placesto both of you. I'm not sure how that works. The absence of absolute morality, does not demand any absolute phenomena, at best it is simply a desciptor, and there is no logical reason a descriptor must describe everything.Absolute morality requires being an absolute phenomena, as soon as it is not, and a lack of absolute can be seen with respect to morality (even the smallest gap)... absolute morality falls on its own.But even if I wanted to accept your argument, I could simply change my point to be that no absolute morality has been identified or can be known by humans at this time.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Moral relativism does not mean (not defined as) no moral codes exist. Relativists do not necessarily say or think that no moral codes exist. Thus you cannot just assert that moral relativism means that no moral codes exist, otherwise you are putting words in their mouth. Or fighting a strawman. Wrong, or they just don't like something, or don't want it to happen to themselves? I might point out that the "laws" are instituted to stop those that don't share such agreements or pangs. By your own statement above "virtually everyone" is not everyone, and hence there is not a universal... no absolute.And I could move on to point out that murder itself is fluid. Murder of a neighbor is wrong, oh unless he is an enemy agent, or a killer/rapist, or (for some) an abortionist. What gets defined as murder v justified killing tells us that there is not a universal concept. Ancient Japan and even the early US showed whole classes of people thought able to be killed, with no concept that murder was occuring. Dueling was also accepted in both cultures with no moral repercussion of murder. My guess is they would be horrified or other based on how it was presented. I am quite certain a child would be equally horrified at an open heart operation, or even liposuction treatment on a morbidly obese person... that does not indicate these events have moral repercussions. and yet... You are in contradiction. It is quite clear. The fastest way to end the contradiction is to drop your argument, or replace the highlighted text with something more specific.To answer your question, with regard to personal preferences, there are no absolutes. There may certainly be a single factual Absolute Reality which underlies/results in our sensory experiences... but that is descriptive and not presciptive or value ridden. Indeed where there are physical values given (such as distance) they are surely relative. First of all really stupid laws like that are made. Haven't you ever seen lists of ridiculous laws? Second, you just underscored my point (in your second sentence). It can be about sympathy with a victim, in the sense that we do not want ourselves being victimized. That has nothing to do with it being "wrong".Self preservation and even straight up selfishness are equally able to construct a pattern of laws between different actors. We can decide to keep order or not. People could very well drive cars without such rules, if you've been to Italy or Boston you might have had a taste of this, and certainly which side goes first has no moral component. The autobahn has essentially no speed limit, yet in the US it was restricted to 75 and then 55 (which some people just can't drive!). Where is the moral component in these decisions, much less an indicator of universality? Take it up with social contract theorists like the founding fathers. They do. Lets pretend for a second that you really have no concern with being murdered and so laws against murder just to protect yourself. It is equaly valid to have concerns for those you love. Why not? That still has nothing to do with murder being wrong, but a desire to keep those around you alive because you happen to like them and want them around (and perhaps not to suffer).In any case, my guess is you do not have such "selfless" motives when it comes to getting robbed or raped, and so quite alive afterward. That's not quite right. I did not say that people (as in all or most) would be naturally honest. Nor did I say it was wholly inexplicable, just not fully understood.People have natures, tastes. I cannot say why that is. Some people like to get up early and some like to get up late. Some like strawberries, others die if they eat them. Some people have a desire to lie, some just happen to have an honest disposition.That I cannot say exactly why a person has a disposition, does not mean it is wholly inexplicable. People have these things.Regarding honesty, you have discounted the possibility that people without gods or moral codes involving right and wrong, might be able to tell the truth in a consistent fashion. That is an error.Indeed your whole argument seems to be that without a single concept of moral truth, immoral action (or random chaos) are required... which would itself be a sort of moral rule and simply not be true. Why can't people, via experience, simply discover things they like and dislike and so become internally ordered, while not necessarily sharing the same order as anyone else? Good question, in that it will hopefully allow for clarification. Lying is defined as intentionally telling something which is known not to be factually true. That would remain true even if moral relativism and nihilism were the case. Liars and lies could still be identified.A relativist with a personal code could still say they believe a lie is "wrong", only perhaps seeing how it can be seen as "right" to another system.A relativist without a code at all would say it simply is a lie, neither right nor wrong. They will of course decide whether they like the lie or liar based on tastes or how it impacts their life. More importantly they will know that the person is capable of lying. I'm sorry but there are plenty of Xians who state that it is NOT through deeds alone that we will be measured. Unless by the above you are attempting a forked way into heaven: submission, or good deed.In any case, you are merely asserting the deity above as well as the absoluteness of that law. I don't have a problem if you state that that is what you feel, its when you state that it has a logical necessity that you are going to get an argument. Or when you imply that those who do not feel as you do will do anything and everything with no consistency and somehow be incapable of joint action/agreement.Edited by holmes, : period, commaEdited by holmes, : once again

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Something occured to me about the idea of laws intrinsically related to morals, which reveal universal morality.People agreed to laws allowing slavery, denying a variety of people the right to vote, and denying people of opposite race from getting married.While I might agree that these can be gotten from some moral vantage point, what universal moral concept do you feel they were created by? Did everyone really agree to them, feel what they outlawed as being wrong (or legalized being right)? How do you account for any discrepencies?Edited by holmes, : morality to laws

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't have a sense of right or wrong, and I am honest with myself. I don't have to make up external justifications for saying I like something or I don't, and pretend it holds for everyone else. I am a big boy and realize people might very well like to do things I despise and vice versa.The "legitimate standard" for a relativist with a personal (or cultural) code is acceptance of that code, which generally means feeling bad for violating it (or accepting punishment for doing so). The "legitimate standard" for a relativist without a code of right or wrong is doing what comes naturally, which derives from a combination of life experiences.The key for these relativists is that the legitimate standard is recognized as not being accepted by everyone, and that others may have a totally different, yet valid, moral code. If I wear a black shirt because I like black shirts in no way contradicts another person wearing a white shirt because they like white shirts. Moral sensitivity is about choice and feelings regarding a choice. People can and do make separate choices.The fact that some people do murder and like it, and some think it is wrong, sort of disproves your concept. First I would say that essentially makes the concept of murder always being wrong patently not universal. Second I don't believe murder is wrong. I don't like a range of ways people kill each other, but some are considered murder and some are not. Some are considered right and some are not. I have no sense of what "wrong" is in defining one from the other.You can claim I am "deadening my senses" but I'm not sure what that means either, other than you are making up an ad hoc proposition to save your theory. Anyone can do that. Given what you just did, someone could equally argue that Xians simply deaden their senses to the true morality (which according to you could be no morality). How is anyone supposed to argue against that? Whites could kill blacks without provocation in the past. There was no murder in that case. In feudal Europe and Japan many people could be killed at whim. Once we get to that degree of slipperiness for the definition of murder, your universal concept ends. In essence you are arguing that every culture generally has some legal restriction against killing someone, though no inherent commonality between them.I could be wrong but I believe the Yanomamo would trip you up even there. Who said anything about murder? You said the kid would be horrified. If you told the kid an abortion was not murder that is likely what the child would believe, just as if you showed her images of an enemy soldier being blown to bits (arms and legs scattering) and told her it was not murder. That is generally how the child will come to experience the world and believe it is. A relativist can still state what is tolerant and intolerant. That is not a judgement of right or wrong. A dishonest relativist will claim that their personal belief system involves no intolerance. A closet absolutist will claim that they are a relativist and then state that another system is WRONG because it is intolerant.You are absolutely correct that a relativist has no logically solid basis on which to argue against your moral codes (that they are wrong)... save two things. A relativist can point out inconsistencies within your system, and can attempt an emotional appeal that would make you change your moral system to fit your feelings on some subject.Of course they may also challenge any factual claims which revolve around your codes. Such as that it is universal, or that fertilized eggs are babies, or that blacks aren't people, or etc etc. Now you have a handle on moral relativism. I didn't say they had no reason, I said they aren't all based on morals, nor do they ever have to be. You gave an example of the kind of laws that would be made which aren't moral and I pointed out those exact kinds certainly do exist. Laws are written by the citizens to protect themselves. Empathy for suffering has nothing to do with identifying wrong, and neither does revulsion at witnessing an event. I could be horrified at watching an operation done without anesthesia on a friend to save her life, but that would not make it wrong. I could be nonplussed by a person falling asleep and then dying peacefully because of a poison.Further still I could be both horrified and elated at the same time while hacking my foe to pieces on a battlefield, an act for which I receive medals... up until a revolution topples the gov't and I am hung as a horrendous butcher... and then the tables turn and I am posthumously placed as a hero in history books.Where is your morality now? Whoa whoa whoa. Now you are entering MY territory. Who said selfishness was a virtue? That people pass laws for self preservation is not synonymous with selfishness. That laws CAN be made based on selfishness (rather than self preservation) does not make selfishness a virtue.And I challenge your statement about selfishness and Darwin. I can think of many examples of selfishness before his time, but not many more large scale and adored than Moses stepping off the mountain to slay men, women, and children because they did not do exactly what he said, then the purges which followed to create the Kingdom of Israel. The feats of Alexander were also quite selfish, yet not so adored as those of Moses and Kind David.I might add that your God specifically states that he is angry and jealous. That latter point is impossible without the "virtue" of selfishness.This is a no casting stones area. Okay, lets go with tow away zones. How about parking meters. BTW not floundering. Just rolling around laughing at how many connections you have to make to get to your generic heavily watered down universals. No. I can tell you that some cases of killing are illegal (and classified as murder). Most kinds of killing I would never want to engage in, but they are not wrong just because I would not want to do them. Thankfully there are some willing to kill in ways I would personally prefer not to. They help protect me against people that might try to kill me and I wouldn't want.That said, I will reign such people in based on concepts of civil rights I want applied to myself and so (in agreement) others. If for some reason it is necessary I will kill people in those ways I would rather not have to, if it is necessary to keep myself and those I love alive. I would not do so gladly but I would do so willingly. In no case would it be wrong. Heheheh... I could think of a lot of bad jokes to make on that one. But seriously, I did not claim that YOU would not want to make laws based on morals, nor that no one could make laws based on morals. My only claim is that laws are not inherently based on morals. They don't have to be because there are other ways of constructing them.I might point out that it is unlikely any of us have had to think about making laws about murder, rape, or theft. Most of them were made long ago which is why we don't have to think about them. I am pointing you back to the founding fathers of our system of gov't and their influence in creating our system. It was based on social contract theory and so rights as one takes for onesself.You can do whatever you want, but that is not how anyone else has to do it. I personally think of laws (as they are created) based on rights I would want for myself. That is why Bush's allowance for torture and warrantless wire tapping and pre-emptive wars against people who currently pose no threat are repulsive to me and why I hold they should be illegal (if not already). Not because they are wrong... unless by that one means likely to fail at their mission and against the values agreed to as founding principles for this particular gov't. Well you are not discussing me, or everyone else. Some cultures have valued lying, or at least not found it morally reprehensible, and found blunt honesty tactless and blundering, perhaps even a sign of weakness.I personally just find lying way too hard. I can't do it well and so its not worth the bother. Too much to remember and keep straight. That's not to say I don't lie, but it isn't often. I have a predisposition to keep it simple and straightforward (which is not to be confused with efficiently worded).When I lie I will feel guilty if it involved breaking some trust with someone (sometimes including myself), otherwise it means nothing to me. It certainly isn't wrong in either case. Every time I do it, or chose not to, it defines my character. That is all. Uhmmm... I'm not sure if he was saying it was immoral or not. In any case I get the humor that a supposed moralist has been hung by the same rope he was trying to lynch others with. I personally don't think what he did was immoral.My personal run down on the guy is this: Who cares if he does drugs, pays for sex, or has sex with men? I can see why his wife would be upset because he betrayed her trust. I can see why his congregation would be upset as he betrayed their trust. I can see why he would be upset since he pretended to hate all such things. He has identified his character as dishonest, untrustworthy, and overtly hypocritical. If it helps I have witnessed one, possibly two, murders, as well as an attempted murder. Two were horrendously brutal and just steps from me. If I lacked imagination before that time, I certainly had enough after that. This does not include being personally attacked in situations where I could very well have been killed, or badly injured, but thankfully escaped (in addition to those above).But lets pretend I had no such experiences, what on earth prevents me from imagining them? As soon as I know what pain is and what death is and I know I don't want either, it doesn't seem to take a genius to figure out I would not want to be murdered. Likewise when I know I don't like losing something, why would I be incapable of imagining it being "lost" because someone took it? No question on the first sentence. I had that within the quote you gave from me so I'm not sure why you mention it. As far as the second sentence goes I am not so sure.When your wife/gf asks if she looks good in the new dress she bought, and you know she loves it, but you don't partciularly like the style: Is it selfish to say yes?When a bum starts hassling you for money when you are in a hurry, is it really selfish when you say you have no money on you?When the honorable senator from Wisconsin grills you about all of your friends being communists, it it really selfish to say you don't remember them ever discussing such concepts?Or as you point out, a harlot can lie and become beautiful to members of your faith.In that case not only was there no selfishness, but morals became less absolute.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't want you getting mad at me, but I would like to calm you down as it would be interesting to have you in the debate rather than kicked out.I think you are taking NJ's comments incorrectly. Calm yourself, read what I have to say and think about things for a bit. The overall topic has slid toward moral relativism. He is not equating gays or anyone else with children or animals. He is addressing relativism.The fact is that there are people who want to have plural marriages (what the poster he was responding to mentioned), as well as marry kids, as well as animals. While you can point to characteristics which define any group from another, the request for such rights is fundamentally the same. If relativism is true then NJ has a valid point in discussing all those cases equally.That is made more so if NJ finds the behavior in each equally errant, which relativists would not be able to question, if they are in fact relativists. He certainly does not have to use the same criteria you do to judge all of those situations.If you find that offensive, his likely (and valid) response would be to ask why that should matter to him or to you. He has his system and you have yours. Who are you to judge his? You can say you don't agree and don't like it, but that's it.That is relativism.On the flipside, as soon as you demand that he should take your feelings of how relationships should be judged, he has every right to ask why you shouldn't take his criteria seriously? Or why is he not able to find your position offensive, morally connecting the interaction of two members of the same sex as equal to members of the opposite sex acting as they agreeably (to his mind) should?If you are feeling your hackles rising, take some moments to cool down and think it through. And please don't get mad at me. I'm just trying to show you how this fits in the context of the debate.If anything you are proving his point so far about the general behavior of relativists. Frankly I want you on my side, not his. Edited by holmes, : things for a bitEdited by holmes, : fundamentally

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Just to make it easy, you don't have to respond to me at all. I was simply trying to calm you down a bit by putting it into the correct context. He himself may view the comparison to be hyperbolic in nature, that would only work to his advantage.In any case it wasn't a direct comparison, which seemed to be how you were taking it.Just try to keep that in mind. And enjoy the game!

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

He just said what I told you he would say. You need to stop and think about this carefully as you are talking past him.In the very quote you cited he sets the context for his statement as "relatively speaking". He is saying that the comparison would be true for relativists, which he most clearly is not. If you are claiming that there is an absolute true criteria that everyone must use regarding marriage such that no one can make a comparison between all of those situations... remember, situations and not the entities within the situations... then you are engaging in moral absolutism, and you are in fact conceding the very point NJ was trying to make.If you are claiming that he is wrong because even relativists would be unable to compare those situations, then you would be wrong. Relatively speaking those situations could (it would depend on the cultures one is looking at) be compared as identical. It all depends on the criteria used to judge them based on the culture.Perhaps an example taken outside the US will make this more clear.Theoretically there could be a society which allows any and all marriages as long as the two (assuming monogamy) appear to be happy together as judged by village elders (or a shaman). And one could find adults married to what we would call minors, as well as hetero, homo, and bestial marriages. There could even be marriages to trees and plants in that culture. Thus in their culture all of these are equivalent.A relativist would say that that particular society has a valid concept of marriage, whether the relativist enjoyed such a concept or not.NJ is arguing for the absurdity of such a situation, and that there are criteria that are universal or somehow obvious and those people's ways should be viewed as wrong based on those criteria.Further, denial of gay marriage, by absolutists (including NJ), would not require assumptions that gay and bestial marriage would be equal. They could use wholly different criteria, and it just so happens that both cases are denied legitimate status. Hell, you could easily have an absolutist that allows for marriage to some animals and not others, and still deny gay marriages.I hope you can see then, that you are pulling a direct insult out of a statement viewed out of context. He is making a much broader statement about relativists, not about gays.The irony being that it is in relativists that you are more likely to find allies for gay marriage than with absolutists such as NJ. That is indeed the strength of his argument and why it is used. It is an emotional appeal to get people to reject relativism based on inherent biases (tastes), and so undercut relativist arguments for such things as the legitimacy of gay marriage.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Berb is already going through this same mistake.If you agree that there are universal standards then NJ has made his point, regardless of if you happen to disagree which criteria are the universal standard.If you believe there are no such things as universal standards, and in fact morals are relative, then you will have to concede that "consenting adult" is not a true absolute criteria and the situations he is describing could be considered equally valid.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Just to let you know, I had a response to you back at #232. I realize you just got into a whole other thing to keep you busy.If its any consolation, I understood your point and how your critics are stepping right into it. As I said to nwr, relativists tend to act as absolutists just as absolutists tend to act as relativists. As long as one has a personal code it will eventually have to get slapped on someone else as true, or excused away as conditions merit.That's one of the reasons I got out of the right/wrong game a while ago. There is NO such thing as morality. Those are words meant to make people's tastes and whims sound justified.The best systems were descriptive ethics found outside of/before monotheistic impressions (on the west) of black/white thinking. People are as they do, acting out both virtues and vices, but none of it wrong... just showing what they are.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)