Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 91 of 219 (411741)
07-22-2007 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by anastasia
07-21-2007 10:08 PM


quote:
Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.
Absolutism covers a range of different positions, yes. But most would claim that their moral code is the one that is absolutely right. YOu won't find many people outside of philosphy arguing that there is some absolute moral code but we don't know what it is.
quote:
Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.
Of course, the OT is full of examples of God killing, commanding killing and approving of killing. So really you're down to subjective ideas of what God wants - in in all likelihood your idea of what God wants is going to be more strongly influenced by your moral code than by the Bible - because the Bible doesn't present a clear and consistent moral code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 10:08 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 92 of 219 (411883)
07-23-2007 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Modulous
07-21-2007 5:44 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
Modulous responds to me:
quote:
You should read a paper by Paul Cameron sometime.
Friend, I had the tremendous joy of debating him face to face.
Twice.
quote:
you'll know that I am not easily dumbstruck in discussions about homosexuailty.
You're missing the point. If we're talking about the charge of the electron and somebody pipes up with the conjugation of the Present tense in Spanish, the only sane response is to ask what on earth he's talking about. It is not legitimizing the question.
quote:
Except I remember why they were brought up together
Except there is no logical way they could be. They have nothing to do with each other.
quote:
You said that I was unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality which is easily falsified!
Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The topic came up and suddenly you were legitimizing the connection. Ergo, you were unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality.
quote:
I discussed the argument at hand
Which had no connection to reality. Why did you legitimize it?
quote:
I note with interest that you have also not been able to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality in this thread.
Incorrect. I've been the one saying it is illogical to try and connect the two. You will note that at no time have I said one way or the other what the morality of bestiality is. You can understand the difference between a discussion and a meta-discussion, yes? I haven't legitimized the connection.
quote:
Well - since you can't know what I think I can't prove you wrong.
Well, unless you're admitting that you're a troll, I think your words and actions here are indicative of your thoughts. Otherwise, you are having an incredibly hard time expressing your thoughts.
quote:
what do you think I connect my own sexual behaviour with?
I can only go off of what you write. You seem to think that there is a logical connection to be made between sex between species and sex between people of the same sex. Oh, you have a moralistic reason for why you think one is bad but one is good, but that is neither here nor there. The two have nothing to do with each other and the justifications for one have no relation to the other, whatever they may be.
quote:
An absolutist is someone who believes that there are absolute answers to moral questions.
It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you do.
quote:
Situation A (doesn't matter what it is): An absolutist will think Act A' is either moral or immoral.
(*chuckle*)
And where have I indicated that I disagree with this definition?
All I've done is point out that when push comes to shove, it turns out they don't actually think that.
quote:
There has never been nor is there now, a person that believes there is a single objective and absolute moral answer to a moral question.
It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you do. Humans are very good at lying to themselves and coming up with excuses when shown that they are behaving in a manner directly opposite to what they claim to believe. But since wishing doesn't make it so, the only conclusion is that there are no absolutists.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2007 5:44 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 4:32 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 93 of 219 (411884)
07-23-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by cavediver
07-21-2007 6:02 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
cavediver responds to me:
quote:
you may want to do some research through EvC on Mod's own sexuality
I already know. What does that have to do with anything?
quote:
Of course there are connections between bestiality and homosexuality
No, there aren't. Changing the sex of the participants involved in a sexual act doesn't change their species and vice versa. Ergo, they are orthogonal traits.
quote:
both entail sexual activity forbidden in the OT.
But there are lots of sexual activities forbidden in the OT. We never seem to hear about them when discussing the morality of homosexuality. Why do you think that is?
quote:
and Berb's sensitivity to the issue
You mean the normal and rational reaction berberry has? It would seem the problem is not with berberry.
quote:
Does this mean that we cannot discuss homosexulaity and bestiality in the same paragraph?
Not without legitimizing homophobia. There is no connection between the two.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2007 6:02 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 07-23-2007 6:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 219 (411905)
07-23-2007 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rrhain
07-23-2007 12:59 AM


Oh, Buddha...not again
Friend, I had the tremendous joy of debating him face to face.
Twice
Awesome! Colour me officially green.
Except there is no logical way they could be.
Well I've spent a lot of time explaining how I think they can be and why the debate ended the way it did. A lot of time has been spent explaining the contrary position. It hasn't gotten anyone anywhere, unfortunately.
Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The topic came up and suddenly you were legitimizing the connection. Ergo, you were unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality.
Well if actual examples of me doing that very thing can't convince you I'm not sure what can. It is obviously trivial to prove you wrong. Start a thread on bestiality and I can guarantee I will not bring up homosexuality once during the thread.
I have only discussed homosexuality after someone else brought it up, and I responded to them in order to refute their position.
I've been the one saying it is illogical to try and connect the two.
You've been discussing the two. I've been discussing the two to explain how nj was wrong in his conclusions about relative morality - it seemed rather unavoidable if I was going to address what he said.
Which had no connection to reality. Why did you legitimize it?
I have explained that, if you don't understand something specific I'm happy to explain it further - or refer you to where I addressed it.
You can understand the difference between a discussion and a meta-discussion, yes?
Yes. You understand the difference between agreeing with someone's points and refuting them, right?
I can only go off of what you write. You seem to think that there is a logical connection to be made between sex between species and sex between people of the same sex.
Well, a connection can be drawn between any two things at all if one was asked what the connection was. What a logical connection is, as opposed to an illogical connection - I am not sure. I thought it wiser to understand nj's issue and address it rather than avoid it since that would play into his hands.
It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you do.
Agreed. However - a person's belief can put them in certain philosophical camps even if they are wrong. Absolutists are put into the absolutist camp. Theists in the theist camp. Even if someone doesn't act like there is a god, if they believe there is, they are a theist.
And where have I indicated that I disagree with this definition?
All I've done is point out that when push comes to shove, it turns out they don't actually think that.
That's not all you have done - you also denied the existence of absolutists. If you now accept that they exist, but that they are wrong then we are in agreement.
But since wishing doesn't make it so, the only conclusion is that there are no absolutists.
But denying the existence of absolutists is certainly what it sounds like you are doing. The label is about what a person believes or thinks - it is a philosophical position! Their philosophy put into practice might, under inspection, actually be relativism - but that doesn't stop them from thinking there are absolute moral answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 12:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 5:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 95 of 219 (411909)
07-23-2007 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Modulous
07-23-2007 4:32 AM


Re: Oh, Buddha...not again
Modulous responds to me:
quote:
Well if actual examples of me doing that very thing can't convince you I'm not sure what can.
Nice try, but that's my argument to you. If quoting your very words doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.
By your logic, if I don't use a particular word on the very first page of a book, then I can legitimately claim that I didn't use the word at all.
quote:
I have only discussed homosexuality after someone else brought it up
Thus showing that you cannot discuss the topic without making reference to it. If it were otherwise, you would have pointed out that such is a non sequitur. Instead, you legitimized the point and debated it as if it had any sort of logical connection to the discussion at hand.
quote:
You've been discussing the two.
No, I haven't. I've yet to say one way or the other what the moral position on bestiality is. All I've said is that the connection is nonsensical.
quote:
I've been discussing the two to explain how nj was wrong in his conclusions about relative morality - it seemed rather unavoidable if I was going to address what he said.
See, we're back to the same problem we've been discussion in the moderation thread: You seem to be incapable of seeing that the problem is not what you say but rather what you do.
You're legitimizing the discussion. His example has no bearing on the question of relative morality for bestiality has absolutely no connection to homsoexuality as sex and species are orthogonal traits.
You will note, this doesn't state what the moral status of bestiality is. It simply points out that you won't be able to find any justification for it when examining sex among people of various sexes.
quote:
You understand the difference between agreeing with someone's points and refuting them, right?
Of course. But it doesn't matter if you agree or refute the argument as both are predicated upon the idea that the argument is legitimate in the first place.
So your claim that you understand the difference between a discussion and a meta-discussion is trivially proven false. At least in this case, you don't know.
quote:
Well, a connection can be drawn between any two things at all if one was asked what the connection was.
No, they can't. It's called "orthogonality." You do understand what that means, yes?
quote:
I thought it wiser to understand nj's issue and address it rather than avoid it since that would play into his hands.
But that's just it: You played right into his hands by legitimizing his argument.
Instead, you should have pointed out that his example has no connection to what he's trying to argue but is a non sequitur. You could then discuss the question of moral relativism without having an irrelevant subject involved.
quote:
a person's belief can put them in certain philosophical camps even if they are wrong.
Irrelevant. There are no absolutists.
quote:
Even if someone doesn't act like there is a god, if they believe there is, they are a theist.
Huh? Since when did theism turn on acts? The definition of theism is belief. The only criterion for being a theist is to believe, even if that belief doesn't translate into any action differing from one who doesn't.
But to claim to be an absolutist, one has to behave in such a way that things that are thought to be morally wrong are avoided as best as can be in every single case it comes up.
But nobody does that. Everybody finds an exception to the rule. It doesn't matter that they claim to be an absolutist: Their actions overrule them.
quote:
If you now accept that they exist, but that they are wrong then we are in agreement.
Nope. They still don't exist.
quote:
But denying the existence of absolutists is certainly what it sounds like you are doing.
That's because it is precisely what I am doing. I am directly, specifically, and purposefully denying the existence of absolutists.
There are people who claim to be absolutists, but we find that they do not practice what they preach. Ergo, they are not actually absolutists no matter how much they protest the contrary. Their actions belie their true beliefs.
quote:
The label is about what a person believes or thinks - it is a philosophical position!
Of course! But their actions show they don't really believe what they claim they do! Do you seriously not understand this?
quote:
Their philosophy put into practice might, under inspection, actually be relativism - but that doesn't stop them from thinking there are absolute moral answers.
I never said it wouldn't. But since they don't practice what they preach, it necessarily follows that they aren't what they claim to be.
It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 4:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 6:18 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 99 by ikabod, posted 07-23-2007 7:02 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 219 (411913)
07-23-2007 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rrhain
07-23-2007 5:40 AM


Re: Oh, Buddha...not again
You're legitimizing the discussion. His example has no bearing on the question of relative morality for bestiality has absolutely no connection to homsoexuality as sex and species are orthogonal traits.
I agree that there is no connection to homosexual sex and interspecies sex in the sense of 'connection' that you mean here. Do you think that discussing the criteria for marriage would indicate that I think there is some question between marrying a lawnmower and marrying the person I'm in love with. Lawnmowers were also brought up you see, but I'm confused as to why it is just bestiality that is being singled out in every single discussion on this issue - especially given that nj wasn't talking about bestiality when he raised the issue.
But it doesn't matter if you agree or refute the argument as both are predicated upon the idea that the argument is legitimate in the first place.
So your claim that you understand the difference between a discussion and a meta-discussion is trivially proven false. At least in this case, you don't know.
You think so? Given that this is a topic about moral relativity, and we are discussing a discussion about homosexual marriage and lawnmower marriage, not only are we engaged in meta discussion but we are also off-topic.
I believe that the question of marriage was legitimate, but that the point being made was wrong. It is rare that I see a question that is entirely illigitimate, I can usually divine a speaker's meaning even if it doesn't mesh entirely with the words he uses. If I am still wondering what the person means - I just ask them.
No, they can't. It's called "orthogonality." You do understand what that means, yes?
Since it is likely that you will probably say that I don't even if I explain it, if you'd like you can explain it's relevance again.
But that's just it: You played right into his hands by legitimizing his argument.
Instead, you should have pointed out that his example has no connection to what he's trying to argue but is a non sequitur. You could then discuss the question of moral relativism without having an irrelevant subject involved.
Yes I could have done that. I feel that nj would simply feel his point has been proven by our inability to answer it. We all have our ways of handling debate...
Irrelevant. There are no absolutists.
OK, let's run with this line of thinking. What name do you think I should be using to describe people that believe there is a single moral answer to a given moral question which is objectively true?
The definition of theism is belief.
Agreed. Hopefully you've gathered my point: absolutism is a defined by a belief.
But to claim to be an absolutist, one has to behave in such a way that things that are thought to be morally wrong are avoided as best as can be in every single case it comes up.
Well, to claim to be a moral absolutist, anyway. A lot of absolutists say that they themselves fall short of living in the most moral fashion possible.
Of course! But their actions show they don't really believe what they claim they do! Do you seriously not understand this?
Yes it is simple. I disagree - I accept the existence of hypocrites that do not live up to their own beliefs. In case you were confused as to how I was using the word absolutist in the OP - you should be clear now. I was not discussing absolutists who upon close examination act as absolutists should. I was discussing people that held a certain belief - whether or not their belief was true, could be shown to be false or whether they could be shown to not live life as if it were true.
I never said it wouldn't. But since they don't practice what they preach, it necessarily follows that they aren't what they claim to be.
It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.
Not when it comes to discussing what they believe - which is all I was doing in the OP. What relavence does this criticism have to the OP if that is all you were saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 5:40 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 3:04 AM Modulous has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 97 of 219 (411916)
07-23-2007 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rrhain
07-23-2007 1:10 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
both entail sexual activity forbidden in the OT.
But there are lots of sexual activities forbidden in the OT. We never seem to hear about them when discussing the morality of homosexuality. Why do you think that is?
So you agree that there is a connection. Good. Point noted.
Does this mean that we cannot discuss homosexulaity and bestiality in the same paragraph?
Not without legitimizing homophobia. There is no connection between the two.
Hmmm, I thought we had just agreed there was a connection? Very strange...
Anyway, bored now...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 1:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 6:55 AM cavediver has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 219 (411919)
07-23-2007 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by cavediver
07-23-2007 6:37 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
But it must be pointed out that "both are forbidden in the OT" is not a relevant connection for the purposes of NJ's argument. Two reasosn to consider are the fact that Christians happily permit some things forbidden in the OT without seeing anything wrong with them - and forbid things accepted in the OT. (Therefore not even NJ thinks that that alone is an adequate reason). Secondly it assumes that the only reason for fobidding something is that it is forbidden in the OT - which conradicts NJ's assertion that there are reasons behind the prohibitions.
I've been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt to the extent of accepting that he might have some relevant connection in mind (even if it's wrong). But since he's evaded giving any explanation of it, it seems he doesn't. It looks as if the connection is indeed made only for rhetorical effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 07-23-2007 6:37 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 07-23-2007 7:25 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 3:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 99 of 219 (411920)
07-23-2007 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rrhain
07-23-2007 5:40 AM


Re: Oh, Buddha...not again
There are no absolutists.
It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.
sorry but i think you are wrong here , some people are able to do things , that because of their beliefs and the way in which they belive do not conflict with them being absolutists .. what you and i would clearly point to as exceptions , thus negating the absolutisum , they can belive that to do that is conforming .
They create a different reality to you and i , and as they are the percever they must be correct .. we become the uninformed , the unenlighted, the ones who just cant understand , the plain wrong .
Humans have a talent for viewing reality that forces reality to conform , pro life-er's can support the death penalty , people can burn books , while defending a constitution that upholds the right to free speach , people can complant about drug use while sitting in a bar drinking till they cant drive home... we are very skillfull at the art of beliving ..
In lots of cases we all have a cop out clause .... this does not really mean me ....
eg ... speed limit is 70mph .. ya well im a good driver thats just for the idiots ....
...its not stealing its a perk of the job
and so on , some people are able to scale this up to allow them to be absoluteist in their minds ..
remember we are all equal , cos they tell us we are

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 5:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 100 of 219 (411921)
07-23-2007 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
07-23-2007 6:55 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
Paul, that's pretty much my exact opinion of the matter. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest relevance, merely that one cannot categorically state no connection, especially when one is calling for a suspension. You can't go around suspending members based on "what we *know* they were implying/thinking". NJ has made a complete ham-fisted job of defending his position, but it is still a defense of sorts.
But since he's evaded giving any explanation of it, it seems he doesn't. It looks as if the connection is indeed made only for rhetorical effect.
I wouldn't say no explanation, becasue of course this was all wrapped up in his "point" on moral relativism. But in the aftermath I think I agree. I'm not at all sure what NJ thinks he's doing in consistently evading the "consent" issue. It is here where I am confident in declaring NJ out of line.
With regard to the original unfortuante comment, I think there is just about enough reasonable doubt to take it as suggested: a very poor and ill-advised questioning of moral relativism starting from a background of OT sexual prohibitions. Unlike Berb, Dan, Rhrain and Crash, I'm prepared to think (like Percy and Mod, I think) that Nem wasn't trying to make the point that "gays=animals" or something equivalent. Given what little I know of Nem, I'd like to think that. I may be wrong. But at least I don't know I'm right, which is what a number of posters seem to be suffering from recently...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 6:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by happycamperdude, posted 07-23-2007 9:38 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 3:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
happycamperdude
Junior Member (Idle past 6092 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 07-21-2007


Message 101 of 219 (411935)
07-23-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by cavediver
07-23-2007 7:25 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
/O.o\
OMGZ!!!!!!
You should trying licking a spoon covered with chocolate cake batter!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 07-23-2007 7:25 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AdminModulous, posted 07-23-2007 9:47 AM happycamperdude has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 102 of 219 (411938)
07-23-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by happycamperdude
07-23-2007 9:38 AM


Two posts, neither of value
The first post was passable as a bit of humour but this one adds nothing to the discussion of relativism or any subtopics. I'd like to welcome you to the forum nevertheless, and hope that you enjoy your stay here. I would ask that you try to stay at least vaguley ontopic and try and add value to a debate.
Thank you.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by happycamperdude, posted 07-23-2007 9:38 AM happycamperdude has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by happycamperdude, posted 07-23-2007 3:33 PM AdminModulous has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 103 of 219 (412018)
07-23-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
07-19-2007 5:21 PM


Re: Which is relative?
Modulous writes:
As such the best we can do is say something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of ancient Greece or perhaps 'right' relative to the standards of modern Canada.
It is not a label for all moral systems since many moral systems attempt to discover a single and definite moral action.
Yes, but as much as we say:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of ancient Greece"
wouldn't we also say:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of a moral system that attempts to discover a single and definite moral action"
No? I guess I just don't see the difference between what you're trying to classify as relative and non-relative.
I mean, what's the difference between Divine Command Theory and relative morality?
Relative Morality:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of ancient Greece"
Divine Command Theory:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of what some people think God is thinking"
or:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of God"
(it doesn't really matter)
Why is one relative and the other not?
Or are you not so much classifying systems of morality, but more... how people view systems of morality? If that's what you mean, then I see your point. I understand how some people think their system of morality is an absolute single model for all time. Or how some people think morality changes from day to day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2007 5:21 PM Modulous has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 104 of 219 (412020)
07-23-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by cavediver
07-23-2007 7:25 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
I haven't been calling for a suspension because there is some doubt. But if the only similarity is that both are forbidden in Leviticus or other OT writings then he's essentially arguing that neither is wrong for any good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 07-23-2007 7:25 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 4:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
happycamperdude
Junior Member (Idle past 6092 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 07-21-2007


Message 105 of 219 (412023)
07-23-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by AdminModulous
07-23-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Two posts, neither of value
Thank you for the kind welcome. Yes, it was an attempt at some humor is all.
Edited by happycamperdude, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AdminModulous, posted 07-23-2007 9:47 AM AdminModulous 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