Morality Decreasing With Time?

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. 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.

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. If not consciously, then subconsciously. It makes too much sense for it not to sting the conscience. 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

If ever we were to reach a consensus, I think the Golden Rule would be the maxim of all maxim's.

---

"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

There is quite a few others, most notably, physical constants. The Golden Rule, which encompasses most things. Heh... hubris of the defeated.

quote:

---

Damn, did I hit the nail on the head or what?

---

I was talking about the kinds of people who frequent coffeehouses to whine. What did I neglect to cover?

---

"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

Yes, but what makes it so ostensible is that we all have come to a consensus without even trying, naturally, if you will, that none of us want to punched in the face. We all want to be loved and cared for and treated with a measure of respect, etc. I agree, but what does it mean? It has no real meaning behind it unless its delivered with absolute enforcement. That's what why nobody fears American law. They fear Chinese law, because when the Chinese tell you they're going to imprison you for x-amount of years, they mean it. They aren't going to change their mind. When the US tells you they are going to imprison you for x-amount of years, plan to be on parole in a week.In my opinion, this is what relative morals have done for us. Up sometimes means up, but every now and again, it means down (even though, in order to even understand up or down must be first understood in absolute terms).

---

"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

You're not understanding the philosophy behind it. You couldn't 'know' anything without them. We've all heard of the law of non-contradiction, that two things of opposite meaning can't both be right. But that's really only half of it. In order to even understand something means that we recognize it under absolute terms.If you claimed that you could be on the continent of Africa and the continent of Australia at the same time, people would either laugh at you or think you were deranged to make such a claim. That's because physical law would prohibit that. Indeed, that's what was supposed to make miracles so miraculous-- that they defied intuition and natural law. But you can't hang up your argument on "may." The mere fact that it is constant and hasn't ever changed is enough to render it ineffectual. But this about morality, not physical constants. I only mention to show that in the known universe, absolutes exist. No, you claim to have defeated my argument with semantics. But you haven't said anything other than that you've heard all of this before. That's not an argument at all. You never gave one. You just tap danced. Now, you will no doubt try to defend yourself. If we have contradictory answers, both of us can't be right. Both answers may not be cogent, but only one of us has the possibility of being right. Would you agree?

---

"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

If you are prepared to make such a statement, then you are going to have to explain the mechanisms in order to give your statement some substance. Some people tell me that love is just the bi-product of a biochemical reaction. For instance, if placed in in a CAT-scan and showed you pictures of loved one's, we, the viewers, would likely notice notice all this brain activity. One of two conclusions can be drawn from it. Either those changes in the brain is love, or they are the physical manifestations of what happens when we feel love. Does that make sense? In other words, do morals derive from the brain or are those feelings expressed, physically, by the brain? Every culture has a belief that unjust killings, i.e., murder, is just that-- murder. What they may disagree on is what constitutes murder. How could a belief, something not tangible, be transmitted through a genetic line? First I have to ask why its evidently not from God.

---

"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

quote:

---

You couldn't 'know' anything without them. We've all heard of the law of non-contradiction, that two things of opposite meaning can't both be right. But that's really only half of it. In order to even understand something means that we recognize it under absolute terms.

---

According to your views, everything is meaningless and only we assign our own meaning. If its meaningless to you, it still may be meaningful to me. In any case, what stumbles you? What wasn't clear? The names may be arbitrary, but the plot is not. Are you telling me that there aren't really two different large pieces of land separated by vast oceans? Whether its called Australia or Kangarooland is the arbitrary part. The fact that they exist coupled with the fact that you can't be physically present on both simultaneously elucidates the fact that we absolutely can't get around that. As to why I mentioned it I thought I was clear. I just wanted to identify what an absolute was. It is impossible for you to be both on the continent of Africa and Australia at the same time. You may be on designated Australian land while in Nairobi, but you can't occupy both continents at the same time. There is a fundamental difference. Then nothing is known is which is my whole point. It sounds as if you are taking a nihilist position. If truth doesn't actually exist, then it renders its own argument null and void. That's quite a paradox as the cogency of the argument is seriously questioned. Consider the philosopher who spends countless hours philosophizing whether or not the universe has meaning. He pours out his mind on the meaninglessness of it all. But the mere fact that he is avidly pursuing meaninglessness is contrary to the point of his meaningful endeavor. Is it not? It shouldn’t take long to figure out that he prefers a meaningless existence and pursues it because he wants it to be so, rather than it is. He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate his actions.The post-modernist may see pious views as being intolerant. Interestingly, when expressing views on absolutes we often get the chance to some of that ”tolerance’ in action. They might see my view as too rigid and finite and are essentially repulsed by it. But if there is no right or wrong, what is that supposed to mean to me when they to judge my beliefs, much less, get angry with them? If there is no truth then there can be no basis for criticizing anything. Even if all things were ephemeral and temporal, either in form or capacity, the fact that if things change, always, would still be an absolute phenomenon. There's no way you can get around the principle. You don't have to conclude that a criminal did something wrong in order to punish him? Then what basis do you have to punish him? You say, by a democratic society. That's the law, which stems from a moral framework. How does the deciding of a persons fate by more than one person affect absolutism? You still aren't giving me anything to go by, which is why I said it to begin with. What profound thing am I supposed to extract from this? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fix quote box

---

"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

I've expressed numerous times and on separate occasions that I cannot prove the existence of God? That doesn't negate the existence, nor does that mean that life is only comprised of tangible objects.

quote:

---

Every culture has a belief that unjust killings, i.e., murder, is just that-- murder. What they may disagree on is what constitutes murder.

---

Then let me reiterate for clarification: Everyone knows that murder is wrong. What constitutes murder may differ from culture to culture, I certainly agree-- not by much, but its still present. However, that doesn't make us right when we are wrong. Only God gets to make that determination. You are making the inference that absolute morality is supposed to mean that we are incapable of breaking the absolute Law. That's not what it means. It means God has established His law as a finality. There are only two ways around it. The first is to follow the law in its entirety and never break a commandment. No one has ever been able to do that, save Jesus. The other is to accept His covering of sin through Jesus Christ who has payed our dues for us.

quote:

---

How could a belief, something not tangible, be transmitted through a genetic line?

---

................? Where did I mention the ability to communicate and how does that answer my question? Why does the sun rise in the East and set in the West instead of vice versa? How many more asinine questions can I come up with-- answers that none of us are qualified to answer; answers that only bring up more questions in an endless cycle? But to answer your question more directly, its not the "book" that means anything, its the message contained therein being penned by people who have had a relationship with Him. I mean, we could ask why God would create physical life. Why not forgo all of this? Why create in us a dependency for Him? Why blue eyes and not red? Why red blood instead of hot pink? I can't answer questions like that. I would be the same as everyone else. I would understand this battle with my conscience, but I'd dismiss it as a fundy influence and trot on anyway to my peril. Isn't that how it usually goes for the haughty?"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -Romans 1:18-20

---

"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

You're a Christian who believes in the power of God... That's all they need to know in order to not like you and to derail your commentary.

---

"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

How have you deduced this? I'm not arguing with you because I'm usually so busy responding to posts directed to me, that I rarely get a chance to read other people's posts. From what I have read, he seems to make sense and that Jesus is his Saviour. Rob? Are we talking about Rob or Scottness? Or is Scottness Rob's alias?

---

"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

Is that Scottness acts? Is he overbearing or is he giving his viewpoint like everyone else? The fact is, people like Scottness and I get a lot of attention because people don't like our views. That's really all it boils down to, which would justify my comment that they derail him because of his views, not his assertiveness. I suppose that I could be insulted that you think I'm lying, rather than just believing that this is the perception. But I won't allow it to offend me because I'll just take it to mean that you either misunderstood me or that you are speaking out of anger rather than hatred. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"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

Do you implicate yourself or are you the enlightened exception? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Added a question mark

---

"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

Statistics, which works great now, but public records on criminal activity has only been around for a few hundred years. Statistics is a gauge by giving us mean averages. It isn't going to tell us anything beyond that, but if record keeping is accurate then statistical analysis should paint an accurate picture. And what is that? It doesn't matter what people think about it if there are absolutes. Its either right or wrong. If we had one billion people saying that it was alright and only one person denouncing it, none of that would make any difference. That one person could stand alone. It doesn't matter what most people think. It either is or it isn't. Murder by "Princes?"

---

"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

quote:

---

quote:And what is that?

---

How is that a test? You are asking everyone their opinion on the matter. In order to make it a test, you'd have to ask people from the past what their beliefs were and compare it to how people of today would respond. But even if the results showed a marked difference, that wouldn't tell us anything other than people's perceptions and opinions have changed from those of the past. We'd have to first reach a consensus on what is moral, immoral, and amoral. We can't really quantify something like that. When somebody says that morality is decreasing with time, what they are really saying is that what was once taboo is perfectly acceptable now. What was once held as virtuous seems to be looked down upon by today's standards. But we can't really measure that. When we look at the condition of the populace in the 1950's and juxtapose them by 1960's standards, we see a marked difference in mentality. But we can't really measure that if we don't first agree on what is moral, immoral, or amoral prior to conducting the test and compare them to the results of today's standards. This seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding of absolute morality. The criteria for absolute morality isn't that we all innately know when something is wrong, though it helps to support the inference when a general consensus is met. Absolute morality speaks more of a moral code to follow given by a higher authority-- actually, given by the highest authority. In this case, we generally think of God. I would say, yes. But first we need to understand what slavery meant and if it was considered right or wrong. In biblical times, slavery was not necessarily an immoral act. What made it immoral was the misapplication of it. Its the same premise that sex is not immoral in any way, unless, its misapplied.For instance, in Israel, there were three main types of standards as it relates to economic status. And largely that still remains today with rich, middle class, and poor. In Israel we had the wealthy, we had slaves, and we had day laborers. Slaves were indentured servants who were purchased. They were considered the middle class of society. They had job security and a steady income. The idea was that your slave was your helper. They lived with you, they took care of the basic needs of the household. The master generally loved his slaves and their families. It was a reciprocal and symbiotic relationship. Because if the slaves weren't bought, they would have to fend for themselves and get whatever menial jobs they could take.That brings us to the lower class in biblical times, who were day laborers. These were the bottom of the barrel during that time. They were drifters and peddlers with no job security who had to plead for work. It was an unstable life, as opposed to the slaves who were taken care of.However, history is replete with instances of the maltreatment of slaves. In more current times, the British, like most people that time, bartered for human life. The African slaves come to mind. These people were sold by their own people into slavery and were horribly treated by many. When America was established, there was a lot of mistreatment as well as good relationships between slaves and masters. History only remembers the bad instances. The point is, slavery was designed to be a relationship between a master and slave, not what we envision slavery to mean today in the popular culture. So, it isn't slavery that is immoral, or ever was, but rather, is the mistreatment of human life has always been immoral even if people never spoke out against. Therefore, I would say that slavery is neither moral or immoral, but amoral. Its the behavior that makes an action either moral or immoral, not necessarily the act itself. I don't know how most people view it. I can say that for the majority of human history did not view it negatively, however, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when Victorian mentality maintained that interracial marriage was taboo. And this was directly influenced by the societal acceptance of mistreating slaves. Society has been getting away from the Victorian mentality that was once widely prevalent in snobbish soiceties. Therefore, I would say that interracial marriage is neither moral or immoral. I don't know what this means. Yes. If left to such an open interpretation, I would say that it is neither moral or immoral. I would have to have specifics in order to answer that candidly. I say that because it could either be that the government is maltreating its constituents or that the society is maltreating the government set to protect its constituents. No, in the sense that if the punishment fits the crime. However, in accordance with that view, we are all prescribed to die in a similar vein according to the law. It then is immoral to take such a hypocritical stance on the matter. By stoning someone, we really should first stone ourselves. No. An execution without a trial is immoral. No.

---

"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