Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality Decreasing With Time?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 305 (371050)
12-20-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
12-19-2006 11:33 AM


Re: The semi-hidden moral reality...
The trouble with this sort of moral absolutism is that it is easy to make such genaral sweeping statements as the above but very difficult to back them up with specific absolutist examples. What is universally good? What is a specific example of something that is universally bad?
This is the dichotomy and the crux of the seemingly insoluble, which is why there exists what seems to be an perpetual stalemate. On the one hand, we have you that questions that there is not a universal good/bad, however, in order to present your argument, you must be coming from a point of reference that Scottness' beliefs are bad because he is an absolutist. But if truth is always objective, then there is no truth at all. For you to even speak disparagingly about absolutes in defense of relativity is rendering your own argument ineffectual.
Case in point, if you were to posit that there are no absolutes, you would be breaking the law of non-contradiction, because by saying that there are no absolutes is, in itself, an absolute statement. And you are expecting me to believe that time honored truth. Thus, you would essentially refute your own argument.
On the other hand, in order to prove something is absolute is an exceedingly difficult to do. Pinpointing what is truly absolute and what is not cannot be proven empirically. However, absolutists often don't pinpoint what is absolute, other than maybe natures laws, but rather point out the necessity of them.
Take the "Thou shalt not kill" example - Ask a dozen people some very specific questions about morality and killing and you will very probably get a dozen completely different answers ranging from absolute pacifism to gun toting, capital punishment and warmongering rednecks with the vast majority of people occupying shades inbetween. All will have slightly different views and all will believe themselves to be equally morally founded.
Don't you get it though? Its a relativistic mindset that questioned it to begin with. And so they get to eat of their own fruit. What are you going to say in court to the man who raped and killed your daughter to satisfy his lusts? Are you going to say:
"In my opinion I think you were wrong for doing that, not that I want to take away your freedom of thought, because that would be bad... Well, not bad, per say, but maybe wrong of me to do..? Okay, maybe not wrong because obviously true right and wrong don't actually exist. What I mean to say is, if I were you, I would not have killed my daughter. But, again, that's just my personal choice. You can believe whatever you want and I respect your opinion"
Murderer: " Yeah, well, I don't respect yours and I'd happily do again if I had the chance!"
You: "You son-of-a-bitch! I mean, sorry... it's just that, I loved my daughter and we have rules in society, not that those laws are set in stone by any means. I just mean that you can't go around doing this to people?"
Murderer: " Oh yeah? And why is that? Am I wrong you twinkle-toed candy ass!?!?"
You: "Only by my standards. And there's no need to speak to me that way. I'm treating you with respect, you bastard! You killed my daughter!"
Murderer: "LOL! Who cares about your standards? I don't. Look, mister, you said it yourself. There is no right or wrong. Me slaying your daughter is as arbitrary as taking out the garbage."
You: "How can you say something that squalid about a person who lived and breathed to take care of others? She was beautiful, and you robbed the world of that beauty"
Murderer: "Excuse me? Did you say, 'squalid?' LOL! By what standard you candy-assed Sally? I should agree with you on one thing. She sure was beautiful. Heh. Oh, I'm sorry. Does that bother you to hear me say that? You're all flush in the face. LOL!"
You: "You have to fight for some kind of standard. You are being judged not by me, but the State."
Murderer: "Well, gee golly gosh... That sure is comforting. Funny, though, how my views aren't acknowledged, and yet, its all about relativism for you! Seems like some relativist views are more absolute than others, aye? Is it wrong that my rights have been taken from me? If there is no truth, can I even have rights? What say you twinkle toes?"
You: "Look, I didn't make the rules. But lets get real here for a moment. You killed my daughter... My daughter! I'm not saying that taking away your opinion is right. I mean, its really right or wrong. I don't know, my head is spinning."
Murderer: "So let me get this straight partner... You owned your daughter? You keep speaking about her as if I'm supposed to understand some kind of entitlement. If everything is relative I can do what I want, when I want, and you can to. I wanted your daughter. You wanted your daughter... So, who gets to have the girl? Its survival of the fittest, brotha! Haven't you read Darwin? That's what counts. Strength. I'm obviously a badass and you.... Well, you're a candy ass. LOL! So shove your morals up your ass! Man, you are the worst relativist I've ever seen. You know what? You must be Christian. LOL! You ain't an atheist. You're disgrace to atheists everywhere. You must secretly follow the mojo of Jebus! LOL! Come on man... Spill the beans... You are a Christian, huh."
You: "A Christian? Me? Ha!!! You wish! How can you even say such a thing when I'm practically defending your rights to freedom of belief even though you did me wrong!?!? Alright, not wrong... but.... Yeah, wrong! You're wrong! You are wrong! Say you're sorry, at least! What's the matter with you? You.... are.... wrong!"
Murderer: "I sure am sorry for hurting your delicate sensibilities. There I said I was sorry. You do believe me, dontcha twinkle toes? LOL! Can't you see I'm so sincere? I may even be able to squeak out a tear for you just for added measure. LOL! Tell you what, chief... Next time you want to want to bring in your warped version of tolerance, just know that you can't appease the lion for very long before before he turns on you. Appeasing the lion will only ensure that you're the last to die... But die you shall! You're just delaying the inevitable. Oh, and by the way, you've just been pranked by your daughter who wants you to realize the error of your ways. We appreciate your conversion on the matter. Wave to daughter behind the two-way mirror."
.... And end scene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 12-19-2006 11:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2006 12:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 79 by jar, posted 12-20-2006 12:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 153 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2006 7:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 305 (371051)
12-20-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2006 12:05 AM


Re: The semi-hidden moral reality...
Case in point, if you were to posit that there are no absolutes, you would be breaking the law of non-contradiction, because by saying that there are no absolutes is, in itself, an absolute statement.
Easy enough to amend. Statement redacted to read:
quote:
There are no absolutes except this one.
The trouble with you absolutists is, you think we've never heard these arguments before. Do you really think that's the case? That we're all like "law of non-contradiction! Shit, you've got us there!"
C'mon. That's sophmore philosophy. Amateur hour. Ethics 101. You need to bring your A game here, not the smart-sounding sophistry you used to seduce freshmen in coffeehouses. (I'm just sayin'.)
What are you going to say in court to the man who raped and killed your daughter to satisfy his lusts?
If I decide to punish him, from what basis are you going to tell me I can't? What you forget about moral relativism is, it works both ways. Maybe there's no objective basis to punish a criminal, but there's also no objective basis to conclude that it's wrong to punish a criminal without an objective basis for doing so.
Get it? I don't have to conclude that a criminal did something wrong in order to justify punishing him for it. I (or rather, society) simply needs to determine (democratically, perhaps, or by another method) what we think deserves punishment and what doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2006 12:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2006 3:41 AM crashfrog has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 78 of 305 (371052)
12-20-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rob
12-19-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Botched home op.
scottness writes:
I don't think he called the pastor to confess his sin Gasby. The sin was obvious! He needed someone to hold him up in light of what he was now going to face. The excrement had already hit the rotator.
Then suppose you're right, that he didn't call the pastor to confess his sin. Years of religious indoctrination has made him a completely selfish person. The supposedly most important person in his life just suffered greatly and he needed someone to hold HIM up in light of what he was now going to face? How about thinking a little beyond that and make a call to the emergency hotline like 911?
You are just making excuses for a man that obviously lets religion get in the way of someone else's well being. If my wife was in any kind of trouble, I'd call 911 without any hesitation because she is the most person in my life, not the local reverend or priest.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rob, posted 12-19-2006 3:44 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Larni, posted 12-20-2006 4:57 AM Taz has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 305 (371053)
12-20-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2006 12:05 AM


Re: The semi-hidden moral reality...
Might be nice if it had ANYTHING to do with the subject or topic.
Unfortunately is it simply more of the slight of hand, shell games, beloved by the snake oil salesmen.
Case in point, if you were to posit that there are no absolutes, you would be breaking the law of non-contradiction, because by saying that there are no absolutes is, in itself, an absolute statement.
Case in point. By hoisting this old canard, petards seemingly in short supply this season, the conartist is drawing your attention away from what has been said.
No one has said that there are no absolutes. There may well be absolutes and in fact some absolutes may even be placed in evidence.
What has been said is that so far no one has presented an example of Absolute Truth or Absolute Morality that stands up to examination.
The conartist does not want you to see that he has palmed the pea, so he draws your attention away from what has been said to the totally unrelated question of non-contradiction. It does not matter that no one has said that Absolutes cannot exist. He has distracted you long enough to palm the pea and take your money.
Again:
What has been said is that so far no one has presented an example of Absolute Truth or Absolute Morality that stands up to examination.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2006 12:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 305 (371073)
12-20-2006 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
12-20-2006 12:17 AM


Re: The semi-hidden moral reality...
Easy enough to amend. Statement redacted to read:
quote:There are no absolutes except this one.
How convenient... If there is even one instance then doesn't that bring into question the rest? I certainly agree that some things, even most things, deal in relativity. But to deny the existence of absolutes seems odd to me. Actually, wait, no it doesn't. Because if absolutes exist, then it brings into question how that came about and why it is sustained, as its highly indicative of intent, and intent is highly indicative of cognizance. That makes for some uncomfortable people.
The trouble with you absolutists is, you think we've never heard these arguments before. Do you really think that's the case? That we're all like "law of non-contradiction! Shit, you've got us there!"
If not consciously, then subconsciously. It makes too much sense for it not to sting the conscience.
C'mon. That's sophmore philosophy. Amateur hour. Ethics 101. You need to bring your A game here, not the smart-sounding sophistry you used to seduce freshmen in coffeehouses.
I don't go to coffeehouses, 'cept our coffeehouse. Reason being is because they are filled with liberal nonsense. Talk about sophomoric hubris... It isn't my kind in coffeehouses. And if it is then they are they to, you know, buy some coffee instead of using as a platform for angsty pubuscents who regurgitate the hatemongering they saw on their friends MySpace page.
Damn, did I hit the nail on the head or what?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2006 12:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 12-20-2006 8:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2006 9:01 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 101 by kuresu, posted 12-20-2006 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 12:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 81 of 305 (371075)
12-20-2006 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rob
12-19-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Botched home op.
Dude! Are you blind to the fact that it was the religious thought patterns learned by the couple that caused the botched operation? If they had no worries about being sanctioned by the church they would have went to a real doctor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rob, posted 12-19-2006 3:21 PM Rob has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 82 of 305 (371076)
12-20-2006 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rob
12-19-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Botched home op.
scottnes writes:
I don't think he called the pastor to confess his sin Gasby. The sin was obvious! He needed someone to hold him up in light of what he was now going to face. The excrement had already hit the rotator.
Again and again and again!
If the couple were not indoctrinated into xianity they would have had a propper abortion under a real doctor.
There would have been not tragedy other than the abortion that was going ahead anyway.
Is xianty realy more important than people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rob, posted 12-19-2006 3:44 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Taz, posted 12-20-2006 1:19 PM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 83 of 305 (371077)
12-20-2006 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taz
12-20-2006 12:21 AM


Re: Botched home op.
Gasby writes:
If my wife was in any kind of trouble, I'd call 911 without any hesitation because she is the most person in my life, not the local reverend or priest.
Damn straight, that man!
Love your sig, Dude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 12-20-2006 12:21 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Woodsy, posted 12-20-2006 8:14 AM Larni has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 84 of 305 (371094)
12-20-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Larni
12-20-2006 4:57 AM


Re: Botched home op.
I agree with you both.
As another such example, I have taken many groups canoeing to a popular spot where a fellow was bitten by a rattlesnake and was saved by the efforts of his wife. He has erected a sort of shrine, to the Virgin Mary I think, in thanks. Everyone I have guided there has greeted this with ridicule, saying he should be thanking his wife and that the shrine defaces the woodland location.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Larni, posted 12-20-2006 4:57 AM Larni has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 305 (371102)
12-20-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2006 3:41 AM


If you have evidence now is the time to bring it forward.
What has been said is that so far no one has presented an example of Absolute Truth or Absolute Morality that stands up to examination.
If you know of some Absolute Truth or Absolute Morality, now would be a good time to bring it up so that it can be examined.
If you have evidence of decreasing morality, then again, this would be a great place to present it since that happens to be the topic under discussion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2006 3:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 12-20-2006 10:35 AM jar has replied
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2006 11:59 AM jar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 86 of 305 (371106)
12-20-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
12-20-2006 3:41 AM


Re: The semi-hidden moral reality...
If there is even one instance then doesn't that bring into question the rest?
No, the statement is true and non-contradictory. Just because there's one absolute doesn't mean there are any others.
But to deny the existence of absolutes seems odd to me.
Really? Because to assert the existence of absolutes, but fail to provide even a single example, is what seems odd to me. If there are absolutes... what are they?
It makes too much sense for it not to sting the conscience.
I didn't really feel "stung." I was able to defeat that line of reasoning in seconds, after all.
Damn, did I hit the nail on the head or what?
Uh, actually it looks like you completely avoided addressing my argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2006 3:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2006 12:07 PM crashfrog has replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 87 of 305 (371116)
12-20-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
12-20-2006 8:52 AM


Re: If you have evidence now is the time to bring it forward.
So, I am going to contend, again, that the closest we have come to a moral absolute as a SOCIETY, is;
'Love thy neighbor'.
Nevermind the 'as yourself' bit. Whether or not it should be or ever was part of the equation, it most certainly isn't now.
Our laws give it no meaning. We are obliged to treat our neighbor well no matter how crappy we might feel towards ourself. There is no such thing in a court of law as 'I had a bad day". Or month, or year, for that matter.
We are not even forced to love ourselves either. Sure, people get on you about smoking and excercising and eating MacD's, but I have yet to see massage or meditation or diet imposed by law. We can't smoke in certain places, sure, only because it affects our neighbor.
The absolute in society is 'love thy neighbor, in spite of yourself' and of all your feelings toward them, religious or otherwise, that makes you sick to your stomach. Our own opinion of morality is swallowed up in the one command 'love thy neighbor'.
A person who says morality is decreasing..I will venture a guess..usually had two examples in mind; abortion and SSA laws.
On the first subject, there is no meeting of the minds about who exactly the neighbor is. Is it the mother, or the baby?
On the second subject 'loving the sinner' has in all reality swallowed up all notion that there was sin. This is problematic for the slight? majority of society that is still not convinced. In the very least it is problematic because it has no parallel that I can think of off-hand (I am open to reminders).
I say that using 'love thy neighbor' as the absolute creates division. Societies (not individuals!) are getting closer to Absolute Truth in this regard, and in many many ways morality is increasing. But at the same time, the closer we get the more division there is, which kind of makes sense. We can consider ourselves as getting closer to a final answer, and upon seeing this, we rush to get involved and say 'no, this can't be it!'. I imagine an encounter with Absolute Truth in the form of God to be quite similar. Indeed the closer we get, the more the contentions that we are as a society 'playing God'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 12-20-2006 8:52 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 12-20-2006 10:42 AM anastasia has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 88 of 305 (371118)
12-20-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by anastasia
12-20-2006 10:35 AM


Re: If you have evidence now is the time to bring it forward.
Well I would tend to agree that "Love thy Neighbor" is close to an absolute, but as you point out
On the first subject, there is no meeting of the minds about who exactly the neighbor is.
so that seems to be relative and subject to judgment and interpretation.
I have no idea what SSA laws are so I can't comment on that.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 12-20-2006 10:35 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by anastasia, posted 12-20-2006 10:56 AM jar has replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 89 of 305 (371120)
12-20-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
12-20-2006 10:42 AM


Re: If you have evidence now is the time to bring it forward.
jar writes:
so that seems to be relative and subject to judgment and interpretation.
I never said that the absolutes are not subject to interpretation. In fact, I said they were. If God is an absolute, we have known all along that He is subject to interpretation. If 'love' is God as a moral absolute, it is still open to interpretation. Point is, both sides claim to be working towards the same absolute of 'love'.
I have no idea what SSA laws are so I can't comment on that.
Sorry, SSA= same sex attraction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 12-20-2006 10:42 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 12-20-2006 11:02 AM anastasia has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 305 (371121)
12-20-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by anastasia
12-20-2006 10:56 AM


Re: If you have evidence now is the time to bring it forward.
I never said that the absolutes are not subject to interpretation. In fact, I said they were.
Okay, you totally lost me now. If an absolute is subject to interpretation, then how is it absolute?
AbE:
In addition, how does that relate to morality over time?
Edited by jar, : add additional paragraph.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by anastasia, posted 12-20-2006 10:56 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 12-20-2006 11:13 AM jar has replied
 Message 93 by anastasia, posted 12-20-2006 11:18 AM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024