Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 136 of 161 (523042)
09-08-2009 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Holyfire23
09-07-2009 10:35 PM


HolyFire23 writes:
Can you, in your own words, define what God's law is?
I have no idea to whom you are addressing that question. Nor can I see how it could be relevent. You're asking a purely religious question, which has almost nothing to do with morality.
Your religious question should normally be directed to practitioners of the religion in question or to those who have studied that religion to a sufficient extent. For example, even though they all profess to believe in the same god, Jews, Muslims, and Christians (of which there are so many different varieties that one would need to ask each denomination), they would also have very different definitions to offer to that question.
Obviously, the religious writings of the various religions would be a source in answering your puzzling question. And also obvious, since all gods are products of human invention, is that those religious writings are similarly of human invention.
So, did you have any constructive reason to ask such an off-the-wall question?
Edited by dwise1, : Include quote from message to which I am responding

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Holyfire23, posted 09-07-2009 10:35 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 137 of 161 (523078)
09-08-2009 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Holyfire23
09-07-2009 10:35 PM


God Has No Legal System
quote:
Can you, in your own words, define what God's law is?
If you checked out the Christian Law thread you would see that no one has been able to list Christian Laws or God's laws that bind Christians.
Divine law is any law or rule that, in the opinion of believers, comes directly from the will of a god and independent of the will of man and cannot be changed by man.
In Judaism, it is the Torah that contains God's law or the 613 Mitzvot.
In Christianity, it seems to be the first list of the 10 Commandments and whatever they seem to glean from the NT writers or wish to pull from the Torah.
You can't really deem someone lawless without out specific laws to judge them.
Morals are the acceptable modes of conduct for a society or group. Sometimes the laws of the land cover morals. Sometimes groups carry morals of their own separate from the local laws.
You apparently consider the 10 Commandments to be your measuring stick for God's Law. The question was, which set of the 10 do you use and why? Text of the Decalogues
Traditional Decalogue - Exodus 20:3-17
Ritual Decalogue - Exodus 34:14-26
Exodus 34:11
And the Lord said to Moses, Cut out two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you smashed
Exodus 34:28
Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Holyfire23, posted 09-07-2009 10:35 PM Holyfire23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 2:18 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 161 (523116)
09-08-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by purpledawn
09-08-2009 7:16 AM


Re: God Has No Legal System
purpledawn writes:
have no idea to whom you are addressing that question.
Anyone who wishes to answer it.
purpledawn writes:
Your religious question should normally be directed to practitioners of the religion in question or to those who have studied that religion to a sufficient extent.
So you admit that you have not studied the subject of God and His Law? My question now is this, since you cannot give me the definition of God's Law and since you admit that you have not studied it to a sufficient extent, how can you pass judgements on it? How can you say that God breaches His own Law when you cannot even define it? Have you read the Bible?
purpledawn writes:
Morals are the acceptable modes of conduct for a society or group.
According to this view, morality can only be judged within that society or group then. Who cares what other societies do because they have there own "acceptable modes of conduct".
Answer me this, using your mode of moral reasoning, please tell me who is more moral. The ancient Aztecs, or todays western society? FYI, the ancient Aztecs regularly made child sacrifices to their rain gods. They believed the more tears the child shed before they died, the more rain would come. Who is more moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2009 7:16 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Michamus, posted 09-08-2009 2:26 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 09-08-2009 2:55 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2009 4:00 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 142 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2009 4:42 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 139 of 161 (523117)
09-08-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 2:18 PM


Re: God Has No Legal System
Holyfire23 writes:
So you admit that you have not studied the subject of God and His Law?
Cute.
Too bad that's not what purpledawn said.
Purpledawn was clearly stating that the term "God" is vague in that it is an abstract term. To properly use an abstract term, one must precede it with your.
So, Purpledawn's statement can more appropriately be summarized as such:
Why would you ask people who don't know what you think God is -let alone his/her/it's law- what YOUR God's law is?

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown
It's not what you know, it's if you know how to find it.
-Me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 2:18 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 140 of 161 (523125)
09-08-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 2:18 PM


Re: God Has No Legal System
Answer me this, using your mode of moral reasoning, please tell me who is more moral. The ancient Aztecs, or todays western society? FYI, the ancient Aztecs regularly made child sacrifices to their rain gods. They believed the more tears the child shed before they died, the more rain would come. Who is more moral?
Under what ethical system, using what assumptions?
The Aztecs honestly believed that their sacrifices were necessary for the continued existence of every living thing in the world. The sun literally would not rise the next day without a human sacrifice.
By purely utilitarian ethics, assuming the Aztec's beliefs were accurate, sacrificing even thousands of people daily to preserve the lives of millions (at the time) would be the more ethical choice, though even then it would be more like choosing the lesser of two evils.
But that's the point - there is no such thing as absolute, objective morality. The moral value of an act is determined not by some written-in-stone objective standard. The same act can be both moral and immoral given different circumstances and in different contexts.
If you kill a man, have you committed murder? What if he was threatening your life? What if not your life, but your property? What if he was threatening to rape you? Your wife? Your child? What if you just didn't like him? What if you killed him in a bar fight accidentally? What if you were driving drunk and you killed him with your car? What if you were a doctor trying to save his life, and you accidentally cut a blood vessel and killed him?
Socially, we identify each of these as a separate issue. Some are crimes, some are not. Some carry the identifier "murder," while others do not. Even within murder, we have degrees.
Other societies have different rules, and different moral values are expressed. In some countries, corporal punishment (ranging depending on location from caning to actual beatings to amputation) is regarded as ethically acceptable, while in most Western societies we consider such practices reprehensible and barbaric. Female genital mutilation is considered, in those countries where it is practiced, to be a moral obligation, yet here in the US most people would be happy to imprison (or worse) anyone who participates in the practice.
Just look at the "Two wrongs don't make a right" thread - it's very clear that some people value human life equally regardless of whether a person is a criminal or not, and others diminish the value of a life if that person chooses to commit a criminal act.
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
What we consider to be evil and reprehensible here and now was considered right and proper just a few years ago, or in different places. Even right now in the same country we cannot all agree whether the death penalty is ethically justifiable, whether shooting an intruder in your home is ethically acceptable, whether providing healthcare for everyone is ethically monstrous or angelic, etc.
Your question is circular - assuming modern, Western ethics, you ask us to judge whether modern, Western society is ethically superior to Aztec society. That's the same as asking whether, assuming Biblical ethics, a strict Biblical society is ethically superior to (insert anything else here).
All you've done is reinforce the undeniable fact that there is no objective moral standard. Ethics and morality are decided for human beings, by human beings. It is not an intrinsic force of nature, it is not a universal law - we, as societies, decide what is "good" and what is "bad" and every shade in between based on our cultural perspectives, and those judgments change as our societies continue to evolve.
Even the Bible's ethics have changed over time. According to the Bible, you should stone rebellious children to death, along with homosexuals, "witches," and any number of other sinners. Slavery would be fine (and in fact the Bible was long used as justification for the American slave trade). If you rape a single woman, your moral obligation would be to marry her, meaning you'd get to rape her for the rest of her life.
Nearly all Christians today accept that those ethical judgments no longer apply to today's world. Homosexuals are allowed to live, along with "witches"and rebellious kids. We don't execute victims of rape or adulterers; we don't punish the victim of a rape by forcing her to marry her rapist. "Thou shalt not steal" has interesting interpretations in today's world of digital media and Big Banking investment schemes. "Thou shalt not commit murder" changed immediately after the commandment was issued:
quote:
Exodus
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
This notion of moral absolutism is a myth propagated by the unthinking, unquestioning hordes of Christian hypocrites who participate and agree with moral relativism every single day of their lives.
There is no objective moral absolute. Moral relativism, far from being the curse word fundamentalists like to paint it as, is simply the only way that morality and ethics come to exist at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 2:18 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 141 of 161 (523142)
09-08-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 2:18 PM


Re: God Has No Legal System
Uh, excuse me please, but why did you put my words into purpledawn's mouth? That is not right, it is not nice, and it is totally uncalled for. Is that an living example of your "moral absolutes"?
dwise1, not purpledawn as Holyfire23 so falsely claims, writes:
Your religious question should normally be directed to practitioners of the religion in question or to those who have studied that religion to a sufficient extent.
So you admit that you have not studied the subject of God and His Law? My question now is this, since you cannot give me the definition of God's Law and since you admit that you have not studied it to a sufficient extent, how can you pass judgements on it? How can you say that God breaches His own Law when you cannot even define it? Have you read the Bible?
That is not at all what I said. I was merely stating that practitioners and students of a particular religion would be the one to answer the question, not making any kind of admission about myself.
The Law, in Judaism, is the Torah, AKA the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament. In ancient times, students at the academies were required to memorize the books they were studying, a practice which continued in the yeshivas where the students also memorized the Talmud, a truly encyclopedic work rivaling the Encyclopedia Britannica in sheer volume and containing Scripture, commentary on that Scripture, commentary on the commentary, and commentary on that.
Out of that volume of Rabbinic literature comes a book, Pirke Avoth (Sayings of the Fathers, some of which you heard if you ever saw that movie, Yentl). In that book is the story of a Gentile who went to the head rabbis of the academies and demanded that they recite the whole of the Law (ie, the Torah) while standing on one foot. Rabbi Shammai of the Sadduces is said to have grabbed a stick and chased the man out, as that fool so richly deserved. Rabbi Hillel of the Pharisees, however, replied (quoting from memory):
quote:
Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. Now go practice it.
BTW, that story dates from 20 BCE.
You are like that Gentile, making ridiculous demands of others. Why? What purpose could it serve? How could it possibly promote discussion. Especially considering that the discussion here is about morality, not about religious beliefs that have no bearing on morality.
And, yes, I have read the Bible. Was one of the best things I have done for myself, because it turned me into an atheist. I also have had many close associations with fundamentalists and especially learned a lot about that theology when close friends converted during the "Jesus Freak" movement circa 1970. I had studied much about Christianity when I was younger, but have since moved on to much more important subjects, like C#.
dwise1, not purpledawn as Holyfire23 so falsely claims, writes:
Morals are the acceptable modes of conduct for a society or group.
According to this view, morality can only be judged within that society or group then. Who cares what other societies do because they have there own "acceptable modes of conduct".
Answer me this, using your mode of moral reasoning, please tell me who is more moral. The ancient Aztecs, or todays western society? FYI, the ancient Aztecs regularly made child sacrifices to their rain gods. They believed the more tears the child shed before they died, the more rain would come. Who is more moral?
I hope you don't mind too terribly much that I am not standing on one foot while responding.
The real question is not who is more moral. The Aztecs undoubtedly believed that what they were doing was both right and necessary.
Rather, the real question is what we are supposed to do when somebody in our own society insists that the Aztec religion teaches moral absolutes and insists that we must impose those foreign Aztec moral absolutes upon our own society. Within that context (which really is what's going on here), we would be quite correct to point out that those Aztec "moral absolutes" are not absolutes, but rather relative values that pertained only to that ancient and foreign culture and that have no place in our own society. We would be quite correct in pointing out where the Aztec moral system differs from our own and in evaluating what would happen if Aztec morality were to be implemented within our own society. And we would be totally justified in being appalled at the very thought!
The ancient and foreign laws of the Israelites are no different.
BTW, the whole question of "God" is irrelevent to morality, just as it is irrelevent to gravity or the water cycle. Those things exist regardless of anyone's religious beliefs and they function quite well regardless of anyone's religious beliefs. You, personally, do not need to reject your God in order to benefit from gravity or rain, yet it appears that you feel that you must reject your God in order to stop being amoral. That is not the case. You can still learn to understand morality and how it works and why it is so vitally important (has nothing to do with "God", but everything to do with humans getting along and functioning within society) and believe that your God had set that up. You can even accept that specific aspects of moral codes are relative -- something you've repeatedly argued for -- and still believe in your God. There doesn't have to be a conflict.
PS
I thought that PurpleDawn's actual reply raised a lot of good points. I do hope that you will reply to it.
Edited by dwise1, : cleaned up qs blocks
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 2:18 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 142 of 161 (523153)
09-08-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 2:18 PM


Re: God Has No Legal System
quote:
Anyone who wishes to answer it.
It helps if you get your quotes straight. That wasn't my question. It was dwise1, which I think he has also corrected you in his Message 141. Be very careful quote accurately.
quote:
So you admit that you have not studied the subject of God and His Law? My question now is this, since you cannot give me the definition of God's Law and since you admit that you have not studied it to a sufficient extent, how can you pass judgements on it? How can you say that God breaches His own Law when you cannot even define it? Have you read the Bible?
Again, not my statement and I have not admitted that I haven't studied God's law. I have been through Christian Bible studies on the covenant and the laws and I did define God's law. You, unfortunately don't understand what a definition is.
From Message 137
Divine law is any law or rule that, in the opinion of believers, comes directly from the will of a god and independent of the will of man and cannot be changed by man.
I also showed you that the Jewish list of God's laws and the Christian view of God's law are not the same. You on the other hand have not answered the question I posed in Message 129 and Message 137. How do you come up with just 10 laws and the Jews have 613 commandments from the OT? The question was, which set of the 10 do you use and why?
Try answering the questions asked.
quote:
Answer me this, using your mode of moral reasoning, please tell me who is more moral. The ancient Aztecs, or todays western society? FYI, the ancient Aztecs regularly made child sacrifices to their rain gods. They believed the more tears the child shed before they died, the more rain would come. Who is more moral?
I can't say it any more succinctly than Rahvin did in his response to this question in Message 140. Try to read and comprehend what he is saying.
Excellent post Rahvin!

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 2:18 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 161 (523215)
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


dwise1 writes:
Uh, excuse me please, but why did you put my words into purpledawn's mouth? That is not right, it is not nice, and it is totally uncalled for. Is that an living example of your "moral absolutes"?
Ooops! I am truly sorry. I didn't mean to make a false quote. I read your post first, and then purpledawn's. I got you two mixed up. Please forgive me, purpledawn and dwise1, I didn't mean tp put words in anyone's mouth.
Rahvin writes:
Under what ethical system, using what assumptions?
Assuming the theory of moral relativism is true, please tell me who is more moral---the ancient Aztecs or our modern society?
purpledawn writes:
How do you come up with just 10 laws and the Jews have 613 commandments from the OT? The question was, which set of the 10 do you use and why?
I use the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God in Exodus 20:3-17.
Rahvin writes:
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
That is an absolute statement. This implies that truth is absolute (I agree with this). However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one.
Atheists make alot of absolute statements that they cannot defend because their own beliefs don't allow for the theory of absolutism.
Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong?

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2009 11:13 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 145 by Phage0070, posted 09-08-2009 11:42 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 146 by purpledawn, posted 09-09-2009 6:11 AM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 148 by dwise1, posted 09-09-2009 10:51 AM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 149 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2009 11:20 AM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 150 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2009 12:24 PM Holyfire23 has replied
 Message 151 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-09-2009 3:47 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 157 by Coragyps, posted 09-11-2009 12:24 PM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 161 by Asgara, posted 09-12-2009 12:56 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 144 of 161 (523224)
09-08-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Rahvin writes:
Under what ethical system, using what assumptions?
Assuming the theory of moral relativism is true, please tell me who is more moral---the ancient Aztecs or our modern society?
Uh, assuming the theory of moral relativism is true, isn't asking such a question total nonsense? If anything, that question would only make any sense to an absolutist.
Besides, Rahvin did already give you an answer to that question. A very good answer. So why are you ignoring it? Shouldn't you be responding to his answer instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't exist?
For that matter, I also answered that question and you also ignored my answer! Here it is again:
dwise1 writes:
Rather, the real question is what we are supposed to do when somebody in our own society insists that the Aztec religion teaches moral absolutes and insists that we must impose those foreign Aztec moral absolutes upon our own society. Within that context (which really is what's going on here), we would be quite correct to point out that those Aztec "moral absolutes" are not absolutes, but rather relative values that pertained only to that ancient and foreign culture and that have no place in our own society. We would be quite correct in pointing out where the Aztec moral system differs from our own and in evaluating what would happen if Aztec morality were to be implemented within our own society. And we would be totally justified in being appalled at the very thought!
The ancient and foreign laws of the Israelites are no different.
Are you just going to ignore it again?
purpledawn writes:
How do you come up with just 10 laws and the Jews have 613 commandments from the OT? The question was, which set of the 10 do you use and why?
I use the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God in Exodus 20:3-17.
You ducked again. Which "Ten Commandments"? Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic/Lutheran? And why would something "absolute" have so many different versions?
Rahvin writes:
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
That is an absolute statement. This implies that truth is absolute (I agree with this). However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one.
I'll let Rahvin deal with your twisted illogic there, since he can do a better job of it.
Why do you claim that morality is absolute? Especially considering that you have repeatedly argued emphatically for moral relativism, including applying it to the source of your so-called "moral absolute", the Bible.
Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong?
OK, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. You have already demonstrated that you will ignore our answers to your questions, so how dare you try to pull that same stupid trick on us again?
Instead of trying to play stupid mind games on us, why don't you engage in discussion honestly?
Edited by dwise1, : Hey! What about my answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 161 (523228)
09-08-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Holyfire23 writes:
However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one.
Correct and incorrect is not the same as moral and immoral. "Right" and "wrong" have been used to represent both terms, but they are not interchangeable meanings. For instance, someone who does not tire easily does not necessarily have a hard time changing a car's tire.
I suspect you understand this, and were throwing a dishonest counter out in the hopes that the scolding would overshadow the devastating argument to which you are unable to honestly respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 146 of 161 (523244)
09-09-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Commandments
quote:
Ooops! I am truly sorry. I didn't mean to make a false quote. I read your post first, and then purpledawn's. I got you two mixed up. Please forgive me, purpledawn and dwise1, I didn't mean tp put words in anyone's mouth.
Apology accepted.
quote:
I use the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God in Exodus 20:3-17.
Why?
Stop making us waste posts to keep you on track.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 147 of 161 (523281)
09-09-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
08-25-2009 1:57 AM


Just noticed this topic, as someone mentioned it. Got a lot of responses to deal with.
I condemn rape. What are you kidding me?
But Jack the Ripper doesn't. He said that according to his relative morals, I should rape. I told him I don't want to rape therefore he concluded I was immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 08-25-2009 1:57 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2009 12:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 148 of 161 (523284)
09-09-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong?
Since you are claim that this is a moral absolute, please answer some questions about your claim. Since your past conduct indicates that you will dodge these simple and pertinent questions, I will include what I would anticipate the absolutist response to be.
What makes it a moral absolute? "Moral absolute" means "it's in the Bible". Therefore, please provide the citation, complete with book, chapter, and verse.
But then that would raise the corollary that if we do not find it in the Bible, then it cannot be a "moral absolute". Since you do not enjoy the convenience of "continuing revelation", you cannot create new "moral absolutes" on the fly by dreaming about them (which I understand to be how God continues to provide revelation to Mormons).
Interestingly, out of the 613 Mitzvot', you absolve yourself of responsibility to follow the vast majority of them, only committing yourself to the 10 Commandments. Since I am quite certain that I've never seen "Thou shalt not gaze longing upon graven images of under-age children" in the Decalogue, that would mean that you also absolve yourself of any obligation to not partake of child porn. It's a very slippery slope, you know, when you start to pick and choose which "moral absolutes" to follow and which to ignore.
Why is it wrong? I would anticipate the absolutist response to be: "Because God said that it is."
What will happen when you violate that "moral absolute"? I would anticipate the absolutist response to be that God would punish you and/or that you would face eternal damnation.
How does one atone for that sin? I would anticipate the absolutist response to be that one repents and asks God for foregiveness, which God will do as any half-way decent invisible friend would. And then when you relapse, you repent and ask for and receive forgiveness again. And then when you relapse again, you again repent and ask for and receive forgiveness again. And then when you relapse yet again, you yet again repent and ask for and receive forgiveness again. Etc, ad infinitum.
Do please provide your answers to those questions. They are needed to carry this discussion forward. We really do need to gain a thorough understanding of how your "moral absolutes" work.
Edited by dwise1, : Corollary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 161 (523290)
09-09-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Obfuscating terms
quote:
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
That is an absolute statement.
There is a difference between a moral absolute versus absolutes. Of course there are absolutes, but that's not what she said.
This implies that truth is absolute (I agree with this). However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one.
No, not necessarily. There may be an absolute truth to morality, but it is unprovable. It then becomes no different than subjective opinion.
By your rationale we could then conclude that chocolate ice cream absolutely tastes better than vanilla ice cream.
Atheists make alot of absolute statements that they cannot defend because their own beliefs don't allow for the theory of absolutism.
Agreed, but that's no different than theists. When push comes to shove and when backed in to a philosophical corner, you'll suddenly see those hardcore absolutists shifting goalposts.
Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong?
I believe it is wrong based on my morality and based on societies utilitarian morality. If it is absolutely wrong, I would have no way of knowing, and neither would you.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 150 of 161 (523308)
09-09-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Ethics and morality
Holyfire, it really doesn't look like you're comprehending what the terms "subjective" and "objective" are. At the very least, you didn't understand my post - from all appearances, you seem to have ignored it almost completely.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Under what ethical system, using what assumptions?
Assuming the theory of moral relativism is true, please tell me who is more moral---the ancient Aztecs or our modern society?
Assuming that morality is indeed subjective, that judgment cannot be made, as there is no objective standard to compare the two (really, more than two - modern society is not as homogenous as you seem to think it is).
Under modern, Western ethical systems, the Aztecs would be judged to be horrifically immoral; monsters, even.
Under Aztec values, we would be considered awful - we aren't meeting our responsibility to sacrifice to the gods and ensure that teh Sun continues rising, the rain continues to fall, crops prosper, etc.
Let's try bringing this down a level to make it easier to understand.
If something is "objective," it is true regardless of the observer; it exists whether there is an observer or not, independently. The pen on my desk objectively exists; whether I am here or not to observe it, there is still a pen on my desk, and anyone else who observes my desk will observe the same pen. The pen's existence is an objective fact.
My love for my girlfriend, however, is "subjective." It depends entirely upon the "subject," in this case, me - if I were to die, the love I feel does not exist independently. Other people will not feel the same as I do towards my girlfriend; the value I place on her is completely dependent on me, and not any external fact.
Now, let's bring it up one level.
A stop sign objectively exists; the red octagon remains perched on its post at the street corner regardless of whether someone is there to observe it or not. All observers who are able to see the stop sign will see it; it exists independently of the human mind, of human emotion. A person from Kansas, from California, from the UK, and from India will all see the sign and describe its physical features the same way. Even animals will see it.
The meaning of the stop sign, however, is subjective. To a person who's never seen a car and doesn't speak English, the stop sign will have no meaning at all - it will be an odd red octagonal object, but the meaning that the sign represents will not exist. The meaning of the stop sign, the instruction to stop your car before proceeding, does not exist independently of the observer. Through commonality of experience and agreeing that a red octagon with the word "STOP" written on it will symbolize the instruction to stop your vehicle, many people (hopefully everyone with a US driver's license, though I've seen a fair few who apparently take the meaning to be "slow down slightly;" which both helps prove my point and tends to earn one a traffic ticket) will agree upon the meaning. But to a person wholly unfamiliar with US traffic signs and driving in general, the sign will not function as an instruction to stop a vehicle. Symbols are subjective - they have common meaning only when we all agree upon the common meaning. The meaning does not exist outside of our agreements. A squirrel will not understand the "meaning" of the sign. A young child who has not yet learned how to read or picked up on the meaning of a stop sign yet will not understand. If humanity disappeared tomorrow, no stop signs would have any meaning whatsoever. In another culture, a red octagon could be used as a "yield" sign, or a "no parking" sign, or be assigned any other meaning at all.
Are you still on-board about the difference between "objective" and "subjective?" If so, we'll move it up one last time and bring the discussion back to the topic:
An action (walking down the street, killing a person, taking an object from a store, etc) is objective. Regardless of who observes the activity, the action still happened. Even if nobody saw me take the pen that is now on my desk from the supply drawer, the pen is still no longer in the drawer and is now on my desk. Whether we are aware an action has taken place or not, the action still happened.
The meaning and value of an action is subjective. The circumstances and observer determine the value and meaning, not the action itself. When one man kills another, it is only "murder" if the society agrees that the circumstances make it a murder. Other homicides are classified as manslaughter, accidental death, self defense, etc. In some societies killing a person under certain circumstances could be considered "good." Examples include executing inmates on Death Row (not a value I agree with, but that's not the topic), or sacrificing children to ensure rain for the next year. In other societies, or even to other individuals, those acts may be considered abhorrent. The "good" and "bad" value of an act does not exist independently of the human mind, and is determined solely by communal agreement. First Degree Murder is typically considered to be worse than Second Degree, which is worse than Manslaughter, which is worse than a self-defense killing, which is worse than an accidental death...unless the person who caused the accident was intoxicated, in which case the killing is judged to be just as "bad" as First Degree Murder. The value of each is relative to the specific circumstances involved and the society applying the meaning.
You can hold up the Bible as the transcription of an objective moral law, but you have to ignore facts to do so. You have to ignore the fact that many Biblical laws (the imperative to stone homosexuals, rebellious children, and "witches," the imperative to marry your rapist if you are single and to execute the victim of a rape if married, etc) are considered abhorrent and evil by most Western ethical systems. You have to ignore the fact that, despite a degree of commonality, moral values change over time and between societies.
The Bible exists as a moral standard among many. Depending on your personal beliefs, it may be considered a "good" or "bad" moral standard to varying degrees.
If no human beings existed, the concepts of "ethics" and "morals" would not exist. We made them up, because they allow us to establish a functional society. Every "right" you have, every value you assign to an action or to a human life, is all determined by the human mind. There is no objective, independent Morality that exists outside of human societies.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
That is an absolute statement. This implies that truth is absolute (I agree with this). However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one.
Holyfire, your statement doesn't even make sense.
My claim that there is no such thing as a moral absolute is a simple observation, based on the indisputable fact that moral values differ over societies and change over time.
"Truth" is not absolute. Truth is subjective - the teachings of Jesus, for example, can have great "truth" regardless of whether the man Jesus ever existed or ever said the things recorded in the Bible. Even fairy tales contain "truth," even though they're completely made-up.
Fact is absolute. There is a difference; a rather large one, at that.
Further, there's a rather large leap between understanding that some statements are "true"a nd some are "false," and stating that there is an absolute definition of "right"a dn "wrong." I've spent a good amount of time over the past two days refuting the very idea that an absolute "right"or "wrong" exist, and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.
Atheists make alot of absolute statements that they cannot defend because their own beliefs don't allow for the theory of absolutism.
Behold, generalities and stereotypes! I make very few absolute statements, Holyfire, because I hold basically everything I believe to be tentative, subject to new information. The degree of tentativity depends wholly on the amount and quality of evidence supporting my current belief.
There is very little tentativity in my belief that no objective morality exists; I have roughly the same degree of tentativity concerning the existence of the pen on my desk. It's conceivable that I could be wrong on both counts, but all observation clearly shows that not only is there a pen actually on my desk, but moral judgments and ethical values differ from one society to the next, and they change over time. What one person considers to be "bad," another person could consider to be "good," or at least "less bad." Morality does not seem to exist outside of the minds of human beings,
Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong?
It's amusing that you thought this trap would work.
No, I don't agree. The reason is simple:
Under current, Western ethical systems viewing child pornography is typically considered to be monstrously wrong. Under other ethical systems, it is not necessarily so. What I consider "child porn" may be considered "adult porn" to a society where the age of consent is lower (and this is, in fact, the case). Viewing child porn can be valued in different degrees of wrongness even under a variety of Western ethical systems - some may consider the viewing of porn to cause no harm since any harm is already done regardless of the viewing, and so consider it less bad than actually performing an act with a child. Other systems view the observer of the porn as complicit in the child's abuse and hold it to be jsut as bad as committing the act oneself. A police officer viewing child porn in order to identify the victim and catch the perpetrator would even be considered good under most Western ethical systems. Even to those of us who consider viewing child porn as wrong, the degree of wrongness differs; some consider it to be as bad as murder, others less so to varying degrees. personally, I judge the "wrongness" by the act and age of the child - a simple picture isn't very harmful, and so while it's still exploitation of a child and therefore wrong, it's not nearly as bad as a picture of an actual child rape. The younger the child, the more "wrong" the act; taking a nude picture of a 17-year-old is barely "wrong" at all (and in some societies is considered perfectly fine), while a picture of an actual sex act with a toddler I would consider monstrous, combining the "wrongness" of rape, torture, and exploitation of children into the same act.
My cat would look at child porn of any sort and not care at all; she'd either walk past the photograph, or lay down on top of it. Not being human, she doesn't make moral judgments.
No act is objectively good or evil. Commonality of experience and sharing the same basic culture allows most of us to agree that certain actions under certain circumstances are "bad," and to what degree. Ethics and morality are nothing but shades of gray, and we all interpret them a little differently. On many things, we agree as a society that certain activities are "wrong." On others, we wildly disagree even within the same social groups - there are some who consider Atheism to be as "bad" as terrorism in the US, while others make no such judgment; some consider gun control "good" and some "bad," and within both groups individuals consider those judgments to varying degrees. Some people consider a fetus to be an actual child and thus abortion to be murder and "Wrong," while others disagree. Some people believe that wearing a Hijab is a moral imperative for women, while others consider it to be morally repugnant oppression. Some people believe that universal healthcare is wicked and evil, while others consider it to be a moral imperative.
Do you see what I mean yet? If an objective standard were to exist, we would all agree, because the standard would exist independant of the observers. Just as we can all see the pen on my desk, we would all be able to see the same "rightness" and "wrongness" of every action. Morality and ethics would be identical across all societies, and would not change over time. Bu that's not the world we observe.
Direct observation proves indisputably that morality and ethics are the creation of the human mind. They exist subjectively, and are slightly different for all of us. Like the meanings of symbols, we can often agree on basic moral judgments even across multiple ethical systems - but also like the meaning of symbols, we typically disagree with the details, and over many other major issues as well. If humanity were to disappear, morality and ethics would not exist; animals have no concepts of theft, of rape, of murder. Those concepts have no existence outside of the human mind - they are not objective, but are rather subjective.
There is no such thing as a moral absolute. Morality exists only subjectively, and is the creation of human minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 3:58 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 153 by Holyfire23, posted 09-10-2009 1:33 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 156 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-11-2009 11:54 AM Rahvin 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