Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard Scandal
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 286 of 302 (362073)
11-06-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 12:40 AM


Re: absolute morality is all relative
nj writes:
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.
Murder is a negatively loaded term that you have chosen to lend weight to you argument. Killing (to use the neutral term) is seen a "wrong" when it impinges on one's local community, yet killing is also seen a morally correct by many when one is dealing with an "enemy" in wartime.
Your story is truly sad, but this is isn't the Oprah Winfrey show. Appeals to the heart in lieu of logic may work in church, but you ain't fooling anyone with sob tactics here.
The act of killing can have a different moral status that is entirely dependent on its context. Hardly what I'd call "absolute"...
Besides, the very fact that you are engaged in argument here is in itself a confirmation of the fact that views on morality are not absolute!
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 12:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 287 of 302 (362076)
11-06-2006 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 12:49 AM


Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
nj writes:
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.
No, you both ARE relativists - it just so happens that your views overlap in some areas and not in others. Bestiality is one area which the vast majortiy of humans find objectionable. Homosexuality is frowned upon to a far lesser degree.
As a said previously the very existence of this argument works against your hypothesis.
It seems to me that the real issue for you is not that others have different concepts of morality, it is that you are determined in the face of opposition to label your own concept as the "correct" one.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. See Message 292
AdminPD
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 12:49 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 302 (362077)
11-06-2006 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 12:45 AM


Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
nemesis_juggernaut writes me:
quote:
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 hope you don't regard yourself as having offered any real apology to me or to anyone else, because you haven't. So you and holmes may be right: you were being perfectly logical in arguing against an anything-goes, remove-any-and-all-restrictions-on-who-or-what-can-get-married policy. Your rebuttal to that policy was immenently sound.
But no one was proposing that policy, you bigoted nitwit! You brought it up yourself for the sole purpose of knocking it down with your veiled insult comparing gays to dogs. It was an insult in the purest sense of the word and you still haven't apologized for it, not that I'd ever expect you to.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. See Message 292.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
Edited by AdminPD, : Msg #

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 12:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 289 of 302 (362080)
11-06-2006 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by nator
11-05-2006 8:50 PM


Re: Drugs
If there are universal morals or not is irrelevant to the discussion on gay marriage, IMO.
Are you kidding me? If you think NJ was simply discussing gay marriage then you were not reading this thread at all. He has been arguing about relativism. The topic is relativism. Up above he directly states again that he was talking about relativism.
I think its sort of sad that one can't discuss gay marriage in the context of discussing relativism, without having people react according to their current socio-political agenda.
I'd rather talk about reality than philosophical la-la lands.
I know what you mean by "consenting adult" but it is not reality, and just as much philosophical la la land as the "one drop rule" someone else might hold. Consenting can be defined many ways, so can adult. In fact when you speak of adult, there is no set acceptable concept of that across the US, much less the world. Both of these are relative concepts across the states. And abstraction, not a reality.
I might add that "consent" is simply a word of convenience for argument in order to arbitrarily eliminate things to do with minors, or I suppose animals too, which might involve sex. Obviously kids have wanted to get married so consent is not about "agreeing to". That's when it becomes informed consent. Yet the mentally handicapped can have as limited of informed consent as children and get married. Thus consent is not about mental capacity for understanding what is going on. So what is the definition of consent which knocks out kids but not the mentally disabled?
Animals are a whole other story. They don't have to give consent for anything else in life, including being butchered for food, so the idea that consent is what prevents them from being married is a bit of a stretch. The Owner can continue to live with the pet anyway for the rest of their life... without consent, and even have the animal killed just to be buried with them, without consent.
AbE: Assuming your argument was correct. As far as "consenting adult" is concerned, if you feel that it is a reality because it is in society, then NJ could easily ask what you don't understand about "consenting adults of opposite sex"? Indeed I would ask how that is not a greater reality. or how it does not countt as real to you since more people currently hold that concept regarding marriage than your more limited version. Isn't removing "of opposite sex" going to involve some sort of la la land discussion?
Please read Message 292 before responding and do not continue off topic.
AdminPD
Edited by holmes, : more important discussion assuming schraf is correct.
Edited by holmes, : emphasis on AbE
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 8:50 PM nator has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 290 of 302 (362081)
11-06-2006 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
11-03-2006 8:15 PM


the oil opposition
I have a question about a fundie ritual mentioned in that Harper's article. What's the deal with surreptitous neighborhood expeditions to annoint buildings with oil?
I knew a Pentecostal man in the States who used to do that. He'd go out in the wee hours with other members of his 'home church' and daub oil on doorframes.
Anyone know why do they do this? I confess my own idea of a Wesson Oil party is a little different.
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 11-03-2006 8:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by nator, posted 11-06-2006 7:42 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 291 of 302 (362083)
11-06-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Taz
11-06-2006 12:52 AM


he didn't call anyone dogs
I agree with your overall point on not interfering with gays getting all sorts of rights including that of marriage, however...
Oh, and stop calling gay people dogs.
This is really getting absurd. NJ didn't call anyone dogs. If anyone wants to get mad at least get mad for the right reason.
Or lets assume for a second you are right and that's what he meant. In that case he called more than just gays dogs. Why are you confining your criticism to just gays?
So now I suppose I should get all high and mighty and tell you to stop agreeing with NJ that polygamists and children are dogs.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. See Message 292.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Taz, posted 11-06-2006 12:52 AM Taz has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 292 of 302 (362096)
11-06-2006 7:01 AM


Stop - Cease - Desist
That's Enough
Those discussing the comment made by NJ in Message 212 please stop.
NJ explained his comment and apologized for his part in the confusion in Message 244.
NJ writes:
The bottom line is, I was not referring to gays as dogs and children. I'm sorry if I had anything to do with that confusion.
Any more comments on this and the thread will be closed.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 293 of 302 (362103)
11-06-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2006 4:57 AM


Re: the oil opposition
quote:
I knew a Pentecostal man in the States who used to do that. He'd go out in the wee hours with other members of his 'home church' and daub oil on doorframes.
Anyone know why do they do this? I confess my own idea of a Wesson Oil party is a little different.
Well, I wonder if they "bless" the oil, thereby making it a magical substance, and then smear it on doorframes to offer some kind of protection to the people who live there?
It reminds me of what the Jews did for the first Passover.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2006 4:57 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 294 of 302 (362111)
11-06-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 12:40 AM


Re: absolute morality is all relative
Our posts are getting a little lengthy so I'll condense my reply to general points rather than go sentence by sentence...
1) Morality v Preference...
Morality is about choice and so synonymous with relative judgements of preference. There is no question that "tree is wrong" is not equivalent. But that's not what I said. The applicable analogy would be "Liking that tree is wrong", or "liking that tree more than this other tree, or more than the gods, is wrong".
Hence if ALL relatives can only exist because of an absolute truth, then the LIKING of chocolate over another flavour must be based on some absolute.
2) Morality v Habit...
I did not say that everyone was inherently honest. What I have been arguing is that each individual has an inclination to practice honesty to a certain degree, some more than others. That is aside from any moral imperative based on an external system.
Thus it is inaccurate to claim that without a belief in an absolute moral system one is more likely to be dishonest. First they may believe in a relative (external) personal code they should follow, and those who don't have such a code will STILL have personal habit... which may be for honesty.
It is not like people are generally chaotic in behavior, they tend to act in specific ways as is their personal nature. Then external moral, social, and legal systems are used to confine behavior further to an external ideal. A person's nature may be in tune or against any one or all of those systems, and an individual may attempt to submit to (or not) any of the above.
I personally do not believe or maintain moral codes, I am open to some social pressure but do not necessarily agree or obey all such, the same goes for laws. Thus I am never immoral (as that simply does not exist for me), but at times can be asocial, as well as criminal.
In the case of Haggard he clearly adopted a moral code, social norm, as well as legal code which were opposite his own nature and could not live up to any of those expectations. By his own accepted/stated definitions he is immoral, asocial, and criminal.
3) Laws and Morality...
Laws can be made based on morality, and clearly many have been. My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
You may discuss influences all you wish, but social contract assumes that LAW is made by people taking rights for themselves. This certainly CAN be done without having a concept of morality. For example I know I do not like pain and I know I want to live, hence whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant, I want to put into place laws which protect me from being killed. And it is not necessary to have experienced something to imagine it happening to onesself.
The fact that killers might try to hide what they have done means absolutely NOTHING about whether they feel any moral reality. Your use of this argument would not help you in the least. At times in history Xians have taken pains to hide what they were doing and thinking, when the practice of Xianity was outlawed. According to your theory Xians must have felt some moral reality that Xianity was bad.
In another post I raised the point that there were laws in support of slavery, against rights of various minorities, and now I will add against Xianity. What moral absolute were these driven by?
Likewise there are societies that did not have concepts of murder, much less legal charges, that are comparable to what you are discussing as universally understood. The Yanomamo allowed killings between tribes and to a great extent within them. IIRC they didn't even have laws to speak about, much less charges of murder. There were senses of loyalty and some killing of some people within one's group might elicit a reaction, but that is less than wrong because of having commited murder. Violence (as a sign of bravery and loyalty and power) was acceptable, including killing.
In feudal Japan some classes could kill at will. The idea of a specific killing being wrong at all would be wholly based on the situation and whether it defied/interfered with a specific command from above. Lying was also as undefined (perhaps more so) as murder. It was practically an artform. There was more to decry in tactless honesty, than cunning deceit (which could be honored even from one's enemy if it was clever enough).
4) Violence, Murder and Mayhem...
You posited several situations in an attempt to elicit a moral charge of right or wrong from me. You seem not to believe what I am telling you. You need to lift your moral goggles and try to understand what I am saying. Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed.
According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike. Would I be viscerally shocked by a person being shot? Yes. Would I be repulsed by the choice of the shooters to gun him down and so want to defend him? It would depend on the situation. From what you described the answer would be yes. Would I be upset with someone taking money from him? Again it would depend on the situation, but from what you described yes I would.
In all cases I would find the actions criminal and generally act on them (or at least hope I would) based on their being criminal and the fact that I am part of that legal system which I want upheld so it would (I would hope) protect me when I am in that situation.
Visceral shock/disgust at the result of violence, personal distate with the choices others make, and engaging in the reciprocal/communal act of legal enforcment have NO inherent connection to any moral codes of right or wrong.
One can approach this situation from a different angle to watch morals fall away. Why was the man shot, and why was he robbed by those bystanders who would normally be expected to help?
In the case of the drive by, he was collateral damage for someone intending to do something beyond just pull a trigger... even if it was simply to engage in a show of bravery. Bush justified the deaths of how many wholly innocent Iraqis, as collateral damage just to make sure that people understood the US's word means something? That we would stand up against anyone who might possibly threaten us... even if they didn't actually do so. Scale is irrelevant, collateral damage is always the same. Are these wrong? Could you not find yourself in a situation where you might have to shoot someone and end up accidentally killing someone and consider it an acceptable loss? Morally okay, even if graphically repulsive, and not something you'd prefer to do bu habit, and understandably criminal according to some group?
How about the people that robbed the guy as he died? Perhaps they really needed money badly and in desperation they took the money (and what all) from a dying man. I am quite thankful that I have never known such desperation for money, but its quite possible that such a situation could arise. Couldn't it for you? Suppose they could help more with what they got than this person or anyone else, and so felt justified. Would it then be morally justified?
With all of these caveats the same actions would flit from moral to immoral. How can one judge what they are truly, outside of their surficial aspects... and even when revealed some would still find certain things moral and others not.
You might argue that my "personal distaste" is a sense of morality but that would not be accurate. That sense would remain regardless of the situational criteria that might effect morality, and indeed feeling I had to do something.
We can also change the example to the people shooting him in a blatantly unjust random killing, and the thieves stealing for pure greed with no "justification" of need. That would not change the moral landscape to "wrong" for me, and in either case (justified or no) my distaste for all actions would remain the same.
In fact the descriptions of why they did it... "unjust" and "greedy"... would be the proper labels. In both cases more unjust and greedy than is in my nature, and to a degree that I find distasteful. Not wrong because they are unjust or greedy, just different than my nature in degree.
Even in a "justified" setting, where some would claim it morally right, I would still find such things more unjust and greedy than is my nature. If forced to do such things by events beyond my control, it would be very hard for me. I would not feel wrong, just not myself.
Given a different life than the one I have come to lead my tastes might be very different. I might find such drivebys (or Bush's actions) palatable, or feel a bit jealous that I've never found someone so helpless such that I could get money as easily as them.
Their actions define their natures compared to mine, and mine to theirs. There are no absolutes here, and no sense of just plain right or wrong.
5) Bible and morality...
It seems to me that the Bible is rather relativist, or perhaps nonabsolutist in nature in many places. At the very least it argues for people not holding knowledge or claims of absolute morality.
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge. Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality?
Interesting to note is that God's response was not to say that they now knew of good and evil as He did, they did not become like Him. What he said is that they became LIKE gods, and so judge good and evil. It was judgement, particularly of assuming absolute moral codes, which is where they went wrong.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans.
Edited by holmes, : Better emphasis
Edited by holmes, : clarity
Edited by holmes, : clarity
Edited by holmes, : one of these days I'm going to cut this post into little pieces

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 12:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 302 (362125)
11-06-2006 10:17 AM


The times just might be a-changin'
The New York Times this morning has a fascinating piece on the effect of all this on the Rev. Haggard's church, at which there were apparently a number of guest speakers at services yesterday. If I may draw your attention to the last three paragraphs, I'd like to ask if anyone else sees a very interesting change in tone from what we usually expect of the religious right?
Other speakers urged the congregation not to look for political conspiracies. If the timing of the disclosures affects the nation, or the election on Tuesday, then that is God’s will, the speakers said. Mr. Haggard was a prominent supporter of conservative causes, including a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
“God does things when he thinks they’re appropriate,” said Larry Stockstill, the pastor of the Bethany World Prayer Center in Louisiana, from which the New Life Church began in 1985 as an outreach mission.
“What’s going to happen in the nation?” Mr. Stockstill said. “You know what ” I don’t think that’s your concern or mine. He chose this incredibly important time for this sin to be revealed and I actually think it’s a good thing ” I believe America needs a shaking, spiritually.”
I'm certainly intrigued!

W.W.E.D.?

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

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 297 of 302 (362132)
11-06-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 10:58 AM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut's moral standard refuted by Haggard ... et al
quote:
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.
All people do this anyway.
The point is, there are social consequences to behavior for everyone, regardless of the behavior allowed or prevented by their moral code.
My moral code may say that it's OK for me to walk around, punching random people in the face, but how far do you think I'm going to get in life doing that?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 10:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 11:46 AM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 298 of 302 (362139)
11-06-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by nator
11-06-2006 11:14 AM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut's moral standard refuted by Haggard ... et al
The point is, there are social consequences to behavior for everyone, regardless of the behavior allowed or prevented by their moral code.
I get what you are saying but then you are sort of missing the point, and not addressing it. I think NJ would agree that your theoretical moral code would not have an easy go of it.
His point is that an absolute moral code underlies everything, such that those social consequences you speak of are formed from that underlying truth... a truth which relativists would deny exists.
So where do those social consequences come from? Your example is valid but it doesn't reveal the full nature of social consequences. For example...
Your moral code may say its okay to walk around hand in hand with a member of the same sex, and even marry them, how far do you think you are going to get in life doing that?
The answer would be not necessarily very far and in some parts dead a lot quicker than punching people in the face. Even in the US as a whole it would have been a hard go not 50 years ago, and still today you can have problems (and in some cases getting killed).
The social reality is that "liberal" beliefs are not as common as "conservative" ones, including in the US. Moral relativity is often appealed to in order to create arguments to loosen social expectations and so consequences. Thus it is not just a practical discussion, given that social norms held by many are moral based.
Edited by holmes, : not
Edited by holmes, : clarity

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 11-06-2006 11:14 AM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 299 of 302 (362140)
11-06-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 10:58 AM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut's moral standard refuted by Haggard ... et al
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.
You are correct in this assessment.
I, like the Founding Fathers, see these Truths® to be self-evident-- meaning, they are axiomatic.
Ahem... What truths were those again?...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You said you did not agree with social contract theory and that laws were based on morals. They do not discuss morals, they discuss inherent personal RIGHTS, and that gov'ts are set up by people to secure them... not to judge what is right and wrong.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 10:58 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