Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard Scandal
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 302 (362057)
11-06-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Silent H
11-05-2006 3:15 PM


Re: absolute morality is all relative
I don't have a sense of right or wrong
So if I butchered a baby before your eyes, you would be incapable of distinguishing whether or not I did something wrong?
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.
Again, this argument only holds so much water when the introduction of a small child who has no formal training in the law. Would you disagree that there is something innate in humans that we have some grander sense of morals-- perhaps genetics? You've already shared that you believe people are inherently honest, (I disagree), but even if that were the case, wouldn't that suggest that these were imparted in us?
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.
You're still not understanding. Personal preferences, like colors, or clothing styles, or flavors have nothing to do with morals or any absolutes. That would be like me sayong, "that tree is wrong." You'd probably look at me quizically, and ask, "what do you mean by wrong?" What could make a tree wrong? Morals are vastly different, because if we were to say, "murder is wrong," immediately everyone knows exactly what we're talking about and they are all in agreement.
The fact that some people do murder and like it, and some think it is wrong, sort of disproves your concept.
The fact that they like it makes them sinners who have begun to sever their own conscience, but the fact that they hide themselves is the evidence that they are aware that they have done something wrong.
First I would say that essentially makes the concept of murder always being wrong patently not universal.
Name me a society or a tribe that does not know what murder is and I will consider it.
Second I don't believe murder is wrong.
Then you believe that its right. Or you are claiming indifference to murder. I doubt, however, if you were put to the test that you'd feel apathy.
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.
Man 1: Some try to escape from the meaning with word games, but they can't escape from the emotion it brings them. The emotion goads them to believe. Why do they try to deny what they already know in their hearts?
Man 2: Its the implications, friend. If they commit this much, then nothing would keep them from coming to the ultimate conclusion.
Man 1: What conclusion is that?
Man 2: God. A dreadful prospect for those imbued by their own sense of self-worth.
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.
And anyone can assign any excuse to serve relativism. Like I shared earlier, the fact that people commit crimes proves that they are sinners. The fact that they try to cover up their crimes proves that they know right from wrong.
Whites could kill blacks without provocation in the past.
Let God judge what is immoral. I'm not here to argue what the absolutes are, only that it is necessary for them to exist.
In essence you are arguing that every culture generally has some legal restriction against killing someone, though no inherent commonality between them.
The commonality between them all is that murder is unlawful. What constitutes murder is a matter of interpretation. But if you'll notice, no society is a far departure from another on the matter.
I could be wrong but I believe the Yanomamo would trip you up even there.
Why is that?
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.
It was meant if you did not train the child's behavior, rather, just let them watch. What would they come to on their own without any outside influence?
A relativist can still state what is tolerant and intolerant.
Not with any measure of truth or meaning behind it.
That is not a judgement of right or wrong.
Of course it is. Saying that I'm intolerant, you are saying that its bad. You would be meaning to chastise me. You would be expecting me to conform with your notions of right and wrong, or at least pleading me to come to some sort of agreement on what it means.
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.
I believe, philosophically, that there are moral absolutes for all the reasons I have listed. I would be exalting my beliefs over another's if I tried to asset that I know empirically that I have inside knowledge of what the absolutes are. I believe I am right in my assessment, but I don't know. Does that make sense? I believe in both absolutes and relativity. I believe most things in life deal with relativity. But I believe the big things, like the laws of physics and morality deal with the absolute. But I can't prove which morals are absolute. I can only make persuasive arguments in their favor.
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.
I would agree with that. I see absolute morals as being so finite and so rigid that its almost impossible not to find at least one inconsistency. In contrast, I see relativism as being completely inconsistent to the point where all meaning is lost. Up doesn't really mean up, and down could mean down if it were under circumstance A., but not under circumstance B. or C. Uhhhh, what?
quote:
"I like vanilla." That's true for me. And you say, "I like chocolate." Both statements are true insofar as it depends on you.
Now you have a handle on moral relativism.
Those have nothing to do with morals.
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.
Alright, well lets go in this direction that laws have nothing to do with morals. Would you agree that some laws, perhaps what you might consider as the important laws, to be guided by a moral framework?
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.
That's because there is a vast difference between killing and murder. Everyone knows that. If it weren't, we wouldn't have such notions as manslaughter negligent people who accidently kill people.
quote:
Ever notice how selfishness is not considered a virtue only until its in context to some Darwinian sense?
Whoa whoa whoa. Now you are entering MY territory. Who said selfishness was a virtue?
Richard Dawkins and his ilk.
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.
Again, certain evo's have used self-preservation as a more evolved mechanism for human selfishness. In the "Selfish Gene," Dawkins basically describes every desire as being inherently selfish, but that we shouldn't view negatively because its just a survival reaction. I disagree.
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.
How can doing anything from God's will be considered selfish? I'm not Jewish, but I'd venture to say that keeping all the 613 laws of Moses a burdensome stone that requires selflessness, not selfishness. And I'm sure at times they'd be more than happy to trade positions, being that they view gentile life easy so long as they can maintain the 7 Noachide laws.
I might add that your God specifically states that he is angry and jealous. That latter point is impossible without the "virtue" of selfishness.
Yes, you are right. But perhaps using human jealously and anger cannot be so for God. Consider the context:
"For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. For I married you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ." -2nd Corinthians 11:2
quote:
Then let me ask you if murder is wrong. Is murder wrong? If so, why?
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.
But why Holmes? Afterall, isn't that the grand question? Why is most killing illegal? What do we understand about such things? Isn't there something within us that seeks justice for the slain?
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.
Then how can anyone come to a decision about laws if not by some moral framework? To state otherwise would mean that laws are completely arbitrary. Don't we make laws against things like fraud, rape, robbery becuase we see it as being 'wrong?' So, how else does anyone come to their decisions?
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.
The foundation of America comes from four civilizations. From Jerusalem we derive our theological view. From Athens we derive our philosophical views. From Rome we derive our governmental view. And from London we derive our immediate cultural view. American law is a conglomerate of all four.
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.
These are good examples. How can feel so strongly for something and in the same breath, pretend that it doesn't really exist? Or if it does exist, that it is really inconsequential to life?
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.
What? Who values being lied to? Seriously, that's just preposterous.
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.
Why do you make it so casual if it defines your very character? That's all? That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?
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.
Then you think that what he did was acceptable? Lets use immoral to mean 'wrong.' Would you not think it was wrong for your husband or wife to be sneaking around behind your back with meth-addicted prostitutes? Would it be wrong if your significant other transmitted some venereal disease unwittingly to you? There isn't some moral obligation from your significant other? I find all of this hard to believe. Maybe you are trying not to judge another man's position. So, instead, what if you were the victim, as I'm sure his family is?
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.
You can't see that? You don't think its important for people to live the virtues they espouse? Sure, no one can keep all of them, all of the time. But buying meth and male prostitutes is pretty far departure from everything he knows to be moral.
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.
There ya go. In a nutshell.
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).
Well, I've seen a man get shot straight in the heart from a drive-by shooting near a strip mall. As he was bleeding profusely, two men from a nearby pizza shop were talking to him. One was craddling his head as the man was gasping for air. His eyes spoke terror to me. And as he was lying there, the other man went through his pockets to rob him while this man was dying. His face went from terror to shock, as he apparently had enough wits about him still to be in utter shock that somebody would have the audacity to rob him while he was dying. I was in complete shock. Just then, the police arrived and hey ran into their shop. I was so outraged that I informed the cops. They didn't care either. They weren't even helping him. He was still alive and they were talking field interviews. I came up close to him then because he looked alone and terrified about where he was going. And I tried to talk to him to comfort him. But by then, he was almost gone. And then he lost all muscle control and all the air in lungs escaped with an unmistakable sound. And he slowly closed his eyes.
I had seen dead people before. But I had never seen a man die right in front of me. But even more shocking is that somebody would feel compelled to steal a few dollars off of a dying man instead of trying to help him. Now, Holmes, can you honestly sit there and tell me that there was no immoral action by the shop owners?

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 3:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RickJB, posted 11-06-2006 3:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 294 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 8:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 302 (362059)
11-06-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by berberry
11-05-2006 4:34 PM


Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
No it is not, because there is no valid comparison between them. There is only a thinly veiled insult, and I don't for one second believe it wasn't intended.
Believe whatever you want. But I explained my position and the meaning of my own post and I apologized for having said anything that might have confused you. I'm not sure what more can I do for you.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 4:34 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Taz, posted 11-06-2006 12:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 288 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 4:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 302 (362060)
11-06-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by ramoss
11-05-2006 5:39 PM


Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
That in nonsense. There is a difference between an expression of love and commitment between two consenting adults, and marriage between a person and a minor, or an animal. As far as I can see, a minor or an animal can not consent.
The way I view it, if you are against same gender marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender.
What difference is there if its all relative? You are making it sound as if marrying dogs and children is an immoral action. Is that what you think? If were both moral relativists, should your opinion mean anything to me? Is the starting to click for you. Apparently only Holmes is actually understanding the argument. And he's making me work for my position.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ramoss, posted 11-05-2006 5:39 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by RickJB, posted 11-06-2006 3:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 302 (362130)
11-06-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
11-05-2006 6:13 PM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut's moral standard refuted by Haggard ... et al
There are still as many christians in jail as in the general population. There is NO visible benefit in any form to show that christian morality standards are any better at controling the behavior of people.
RAZD, you still don't understand. People tend to come towards God in affliction and hardship. That would include jail. So if it appears that jails are swamped with Christians, its because they adopted Christian after the fact or they never were serious about it before. The unambiguous thing thing is, the behavior that got them in jail to begin with was of pagan origins-- and I mean pagan as in unbelief and worldly.
quote:
if you are a moral relativist, then morals don't actually exist
This is absolutely false. The only thing that doesn't exist is "absolutist" morality - and it doesn't exist anyway.
You still don't understand how that's a logical fallacy? If there no such thing as an absolute standard for right and wrong, then right and wrong is an individual 'belief,' and no ones belief would be superior than the other. Therefore, right and wrong do not actually exist or if they do, its only in the solipsist view. If that's true, if everyone's opinion rings true, that in itself is an absolute phenomenon. But it gets worse. Some people get to decide their morality for others by instituting laws. The ones who don't have a say decry that its 'wrong' to suppress their voice if we're all supposed to be equal. But you could say, "Nope, that's not wrong." And around, and around we go drifting aimlessly like a vessel anchored to nothing; a ship tossed about by waves.
The golden rule still applies, enlightened self-interest still applies, the universality of equality, justice, liberty and basic human rights still apply.
Universality of equality, justice, and basic human rights is a prime example of absolute morality! You are appealing to all of us to conform to some general standard that we all should, (in your mind), recognize. Now, I'm in full agreement with you on this matter. I, like the Founding Fathers, see these Truths® to be self-evident-- meaning, they are axiomatic. You cannot come to such an understanding if there was not something that imparted such a self-evidentiary claim.
quote:
People tend to adopt Christian beliefs or finally take it seriously during bad times. That kind of goes without saying.
Actually the fastest growing faith in prison is Islam. BUT: the data involves the faiths the inmates noted when they were first incarcerated, not after any jail-time revelations.
Well then, that kind of puts a damper on Islam.
There is also VERY high recidivism in the USof(N)A, and of those repeat offenders the proportion that is christian is still basically the same as in the general population (HIGH) if not slightly more than average.
You know, some people might equate a man with an enormous gold chain a and jewel encrusted crucifix hanging around his neck as a Christian-- they may even consider him to be a devout Christian. But lets not pretend that he owns it as a fashion accessory. Christ is often just an accessory in people's lives, not a reality that they take seriously. I'm willing to bet that half of the people you mentioned are basically Christian by default. In other words, their sweet grandmother used to take them to church when they were younger. As they aged, they took to the streets more and more and started getting in trouble. So, are they a Christian by upbringing? The Scriptures say no. Jesus said that we all have to be born again. And until we make that conversion in an honest and open way, Christ will just be a fashion accessory and nothing more. On that Day, He won't say, "Nice necklace. Thanks for giving me props." He'll say, "I never knew you. Depart from from Me you evildoer."
Tellingly the ONE thing that has been shown to reduce recidivism is education - the higher education an inmate receives the less likely they are to be repeat offenders.
I would agree with this. I think any kind of positive structuring works well with most inmates. Like allowing them and scheduling their times for school, work, chapel, and exercise. A day filled with that is surely going to do wonders for them.
The conclusion from this is that education promotes higher moral behavior much more effectively than christianity.
You first need a quantifier.
And from this, that rational consideration of moral behavior and ethics is more realistic than an artificial imposition of archaic codes or any laws based on such codes.
Yes, murder, because its archaic, is an antiquated form of justice, aye. We should jettison all forms of these ancient customs because they hinder our progress as freethinkers.
And from this, that a relativistic moral code is more realistic than any arbitrary absolutist code.
A relativistic code is more 'realistic' only in the sense that anyone at anytime can just make up whatever code they want and call it their pie in the sky. We can't fully adhere to the absolute code and that is troubling for a relativist. But I've already demonstrated that moral relativism is a concept that is at odds with itself. At most, it can put itself in a stalemate situation with absolutism. But left by itself, there is always a fatal flaw in it.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2006 6:13 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 11-06-2006 11:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 299 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 11:57 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 302 (362141)
11-06-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Taz
11-05-2006 6:33 PM


Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
quote:
I can see that you are a homosexual and that I offended you.
He wasn't the only one offended... and I'm not even gay.
Then you need remediation in English because the topic is on moral relativism. If you're one of them, you being offended should mean nothing to me. And in fact, if everything is relative, then what purpose is there in being offended at all? All our opinions would be valid, right?
quote:
If homosexual marriage is okay, relatively speaking, then so is marriage between a man and a child or a woman and a dog.
Yes, and I take it that in your little fantasy world consenting adults include little children and dogs too, right? Why don't we just throw in cars to be part of the "consenting adults" group? I've been driving my car for years now and have been for some time wanting to marry it.
LOL! What does 'consent' mean to me? I'm a relativist, man! I don't care what you think. I wanna marry dogs and you can't tell me its wrong. I'll marry the lawnmower if I want. Its all about me. And for you, its all about you. Hey, if you wanna marry only consenting adults, that's on you. But me, I do whatever feels right because morals can't absolute.
Let me tell you something, I don't think you can be a christian and good person at heart at the same time.
You're gonna make a terrific cop and an even better relativist. You gonna pull people over with "God is my co-pilot" bumper stickers, but leave "Dog is my co-pilot" bumper stickers alone? But what am I talking about? Who cares either way, right? Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect me.
At least I have the guts to admit it. If you think gay people are like children and dogs, just say so.
Hopefully you picked up on my satire. If you didn't, I can't help you out with that. For the last time, I'm not equating homosexuals to children or dogs. You just fell into my trap, as Holmes has eloquently described. Therefore, you have no basis for arguing anything in defense of moral relativism because you don't actually believe in it. You have set standards that you expect me to follow. That's hardly in keeping with true relativism.
quote:
I'm merely showing that moral relativism is a bit absurd when you view it in these contexts.
This same argument was used when interracial marriage was ruining the good christian society of America. Personally, I'm still waiting for fire and brimstones raining down on us from the whole giving the black man basic human rights thing.
Interracial marriage has nothing to do with any precepts of Christianity. There was, and to some extent it still exists, where a Jew is commanded to be married to other Jews. It has nothing to do with race, but of cultural influence.
“Have we not one father? Has not God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” -Malachi 2:10
"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." -Colossians 3:11
So whatever racist beliefs some people had back in the day, that was on them. I can't help but notice your total bigotry against Christianity. You are doing so much good for your cause. You've basically destroyed your own argument on several occasions.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Taz, posted 11-05-2006 6:33 PM Taz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024