TheologyWeb Campus - Blogs - Teallaura's Baby Blog by Teallaura

Blog Wars III: The Response of the Jedi

Teallaura — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:47:09 GMT

Or it will be soon as I get the chance to actually answer this...
----------------------------------
My first reply

Teal's first reply.

Right, then.

Originally posted by Teal
That culture can influence moral behavior/ideology is not in dispute. That culture defines morality is. This shows influence, granted, but does not establish that morality is necessarily defined by culture. Anyone can claim the sun is blue. A culture could inexplicably conclude that the sun must be blue despite not appearing blue. The sun is not influenced by what we think about it, even if all our kids start drawing pictures of blue suns.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote I specifically note that in the text of my last post I was attempting to demonstrate that:

Originally posted by Me
2. Moral relativism implies the existence of a society in which murder is acceptable.
...is false.

As such, this is relevant.

Originally posted by Teal
I�ll grant this - but now you need to establish those factors and show that the probability is indeed so low that the statistical improbability is overcome.
That's kind of the point of the entire post. Read the post all the way through, then come back and reply

Originally posted by Teal
Okay� ( Animal morality? Animals aren�t moral actors�)
Exactly

Originally posted by Teal
This is an individual factor, not a cultural one. I grant sane humans don�t want to be killed - but that would also be true of not wanting to be killed by cars - so why don�t we see streets lined with barriers to keep cars from accidentally running over people? If this is so overwhelming a factor we should see it just as strong in other areas. We do see self-preservation but we don�t see every culture/society regarding personal safety as overriding. To get where you are going, we should see exactly that.
A few things here:
People have different perception of risks. Take a look at this.
Other humans are both perceived to be (see above) and are actually a larger threat. They're intelligent, afterall.

It�s a non-issue for our purposes - you need something that makes the probability of a culture accepting murder overwhelmingly low. By your own admission this doesn�t get us there and I�d argue while it might decrease probability somewhat its counterpart, selfishness, cancels that out.
It's a contributing factor, as is everything I present.

As I previously mentioned, the selfishness motivation would also favour a society in which murder is not allowed - for reasons of not being murdered and not wanting to worry about murdered.

It's important not to understate the extent to which empathy and altruism plays a part in most people's decision making process.

In the vast majority of cases we require justification if we're going to kill - as... we've basically both said. The reasons that people will accept vastly differ between different cultures and even between people in cultures - which you would expect without an objective moral standard. You're very much focused on the idea that all cultures are against killing for killing's sake rather than the huge quantity of other ways that they do differ. Off the top of my head, here's some reasons in different cultures that people would accept as justification for killing:

�[The victim was] an enemy.
�...or they were just not in the "in-group"
�For family honour.
�Committed a crime [of variable seriousness] . (Referring to lynch mobs/vigilante justice rather than state-sanctioned)
�Adulterer.
�"Your honour, he had it coming." (The "Texas defense")
�Deserter in an army.
�weaker than you.

It's also probably important to note that someone with no justification to kill someone also has no reason to kill someone. I talk about this in more detail later.

And people kill loved ones all the time - in fact the likelihood in any murder is that the victim knew the killer and usually had a close or strong relationship with them. We humans can be hurt most deeply by our loved ones and are ironically more likely to kill a loved one than a stranger. This does not reduce the probability of murder being morally acceptable - it does the exact opposite.
True, but we also have a lot more contact with people close to us than not. The chance of being murdered by someone you know is small (because the chance of being murdered by someone, in general, is small) - and a lower murder rate is, as I'm sure you'd agree, optimal for smooth operation. Would you be more or less willing to trust and socialise with people if murder was acceptable in your society?

Um, Chris, I already disproved this. Societies presently exist and are sadly stable that tolerate murder. They do not do so sans caveat, that�s true, because sane human beings require justification for their acts - but my argument is that is because morality is objective. In a morally relative world justification should not be a psychological need - yet we see it in even the most murderous of cultures/societies.

I�m pretty sure Chris accepts the same premise but for the viewing audience �justification� or �caveat� in this instance is not necessarily the same thing as a legitimate justification. Most would accept self-defense as legit justification (and no, self defense isn�t murder, it�s just the easiest example) but would not accept stealing the victim�s shoes as just cause.
Firstly - as I previously mentioned - someone without justification for their actions also has no reason to perform that action.
Secondly - Acting rationally is beneficial. To expend effort killing a person with no justification or benefit is irrational and detrimental to the person.

The sort of person who will take action without reason is incredibly rare and also probably pretty short lived. To have an entire society of those people... or at least, enough of them so it's the prevailing opinion? Highly improbable, particularly as people don't pop up in a vacuum - they're highly exposed to culture and the ideas and beliefs of people around them as they grow up.

This is your best argument and it�s pretty good. But it rests on the false assumption that all cultures will act in their own best self -interest (that they will be rational). Nazi Germany self-destructed because it turned on a segment of its own population. The examples of repressive and oppressive cultures are numerous. Such cultures can be stable and survive long periods. They also use the repressed/persecuted elements as labor - often involved in agriculture. Can you think of a better way to poison people than to be harvesting and processing - even cooking - their food? Trust isn�t what keeps the oppressors safe - terror is. So to can less discriminately murderous cultures develop along �mutual self-interests� to either police laborers or insulate themselves. Yes, it means subcultures develop but virtually all cultures have subcultures so that isn�t a problem for my argument.

I grant that in a rational society this factor does indeed reduce the probability of murder being regarded as acceptable - but since my contention all along has been that most cultures would not regard murder as acceptable even in a morally relative world this does not defeat my argument. I do not agree that this would reduce the probability sufficiently low such that we would see no outliers - I explained why above.
A society that is run too suboptimally is unlikely to last very long. Your example - Nazi Germany - lasted 12 years. I would agree that both individuals and societies don't always act rationally.

One thing to note is that you're using the term "murder" here. I think we're being a little imprecise in our wording. Shall we define it - for our purposes - as being the same as "(malicious killing of a human being) sans caveat (justification)"?

This is demonstrably false - South America. Surprisingly stable, yet volatile and with astronomically high murder/violence rates.
Murder is morally acceptable in South America?

Even with the points I�ve granted would reduce the probability combined, there is not enough here to reduce probability that low given that we see counter examples in most of those cases. Granted they aren�t perfect (they all function with caveat) but they don�t need to be. You now need to show why caveat would affect the probabilities sufficiently - otherwise, the counter examples disprove the points and thereby the thesis.
I was apparently half-asleep when I first wrote this, because I missed the obvious problem with the idea of a society in which malicious killing of a human being sans caveat is morally acceptable - the fact that (the vast majority of) people don't do things for no reason. It's the height of irrationality to do so.

Again, we're talking about whether or not we'd expect a society in which malicious killing of a human being sans caveat is morally acceptable. I present the following reasons:

�People who act without reason are rare. It's highly irrational to do so, expending effort to kill someone without reason is not beneficial. Someone who acts like that is unlikely to be particularly successful.
�People don't appear out of thin air and are heavily influenced by their society, parents and other people. The sort of person to kill malicious without justification does exist - but it's rare, as I believe you've previously agreed to.
�For it to become the prevailing opinion in a society, all (or at least a majority) people in that society have to hold it - given the rarity of people who would hold that maliciously killing people without reason is acceptable is rare, a society in which this was acceptable would be even more so.

As such - even without an objective moral basis - we would expect the vast majority of people and the all of the societies that have ever existed to not find killing malicious without reason acceptable. .

Blog Wars, or "Why don't Y'all Get a Thread'?

Teallaura — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 22:25:06 GMT

Okay, there are a couple problems here. I�ve already refuted a couple of these points and concede on a lot of the rest - but it doesn�t matter because the things I agree with don�t prove your argument. So, a quick recap and then I�ll tackle it point by point:

My thesis is that the idea that numerous, diverse cultures all coming to the exact same conclusion is irrational. If culture is a major defining factor of morality then we should see at least a few outliers coming to the conclusion that murder (malicious killing of a human being) sans caveat (justification) is morally acceptable. We have agreed that no such cultures exist.

We have further agreed that not all cultures behave rationally or in their best self interest. If they did, your case would be made, but the fact that they don�t supports my position.

Originally posted by Chris

The probability of a particular society having a certain moral belief is dependant on the circumstances of that society. For instance, you may find that a society with a lower ratio of males to females may be more likely to find polygamy socially acceptable.

That culture can influence moral behavior/ideology is not in dispute. That culture defines morality is. This shows influence, granted, but does not establish that morality is necessarily defined by culture. Anyone can claim the sun is blue. A culture could inexplicably conclude that the sun must be blue despite not appearing blue. The sun is not influenced by what we think about it, even if all our kids start drawing pictures of blue suns.

But to your point, okay, multiple factors can influence cultural ideas. No prob there.

Originally posted by Chris

So, the probability of a society finding malicious killing without caveat be acceptable is going to be dependant on a lot of factors, too. If this probability is rendered incredibly low from factors that every society has in common then we would expect the total lack of societies which find malicious killing without caveat acceptable.

I�ll grant this - but now you need to establish those factors and show that the probability is indeed so low that the statistical improbability is overcome.

Originally posted by Chris

So, let's look at the factors which are common to every society. Every society is made up of humans (we're talking about humans, here, a debate on animal morality or whatever is not something I want to get into really ) - which is an important factor.

Okay� (:hrm: Animal morality? Animals aren�t moral actors�)

Originally posted by Chris

Humans have a lot of things in common. Not wanting to be killed is one of them. For each individual person in a society, not having to face the threat of being murdered every day is an advantage � firstly, it stops them being perpetually fearful for their lives; secondly, it allows them to use the effort they'd otherwise be put into not being killed to do something productive to improve their quality of life and... there are quite a lot of other benefits of not being killed, I would imagine.

This is an individual factor, not a cultural one. I grant sane humans don�t want to be killed - but that would also be true of not wanting to be killed by cars - so why don�t we see streets lined with barriers to keep cars from accidentally running over people? If this is so overwhelming a factor we should see it just as strong in other areas. We do see self-preservation but we don�t see every culture/society regarding personal safety as overriding. To get where you are going, we should see exactly that.

Originally posted by Chris

Another important factor common to basically all humans (short of the truly sociopathic) is that we do possess (and frequently carry out) alturistic actions. We also have the ability to emphasise with people and to understand how our actions will make other people feel. Being murdered, I would imagine, is not a particularly nice feeling. This isn't exactly perfect, though, as we can (obviously) kill, injure or hate � but still something to keep in mind.

It�s a non-issue for our purposes - you need something that makes the probability of a culture accepting murder overwhelmingly low. By your own admission this doesn�t get us there and I�d argue while it might decrease probability somewhat its counterpart, selfishness, cancels that out.

Originally posted by Chris

Humans are also social animals. Firstly in the case that we rely on other humans for our survival (see below) and also that we enjoy (and pretty much require) socialising. Both with friends and romantic/sexual partners.

And people kill loved ones all the time - in fact the likelihood in any murder is that the victim knew the killer and usually had a close or strong relationship with them. We humans can be hurt most deeply by our loved ones and are ironically more likely to kill a loved one than a stranger. This does not reduce the probability of murder being morally acceptable - it does the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Chris

Another feature that societies share is that, in general, they want to stick around. Stability is a inherent goal of any society � this ties in a lot with the �not wanting to be murdered� thing. A stable society benefits everyone in it substantially, as I'm sure you'll agree. A society in which murder was acceptable is not one that's going to stick around for very long.

Um, Chris, I already disproved this. Societies presently exist and are sadly stable that tolerate murder. They do not do so sans caveat, that�s true, because sane human beings require justification for their acts - but my argument is that is because morality is objective. In a morally relative world justification should not be a psychological need - yet we see it in even the most murderous of cultures/societies.

I�m pretty sure Chris accepts the same premise but for the viewing audience �justification� or �caveat� in this instance is not necessarily the same thing as a legitimate justification. Most would accept self-defense as legit justification (and no, self defense isn�t murder, it�s just the easiest example) but would not accept stealing the victim�s shoes as just cause.

Originally posted by Chris

One other important similarity of the vast majority of societies is the division of labour. The fact that people rely on other members of the society to do jobs (for instance, I rely on the people who purify my water or make my food) is important. You have to trust other people � not only to perform their job well but also to not just run away with your money. The benefits of allowing division of labour to occur are obvious � imagine a society, though, in which murder was considered acceptable � it'd be hard to ensure that that baker you just gave a load of flour to would be around tomorrow for you to pick up your bread and then everyone loses.

This is your best argument and it�s pretty good. But it rests on the false assumption that all cultures will act in their own best self -interest (that they will be rational). Nazi Germany self-destructed because it turned on a segment of its own population. The examples of repressive and oppressive cultures are numerous. Such cultures can be stable and survive long periods. They also use the repressed/persecuted elements as labor - often involved in agriculture. Can you think of a better way to poison people than to be harvesting and processing - even cooking - their food? Trust isn�t what keeps the oppressors safe - terror is. So to can less discriminately murderous cultures develop along �mutual self-interests� to either police laborers or insulate themselves. Yes, it means subcultures develop but virtually all cultures have subcultures so that isn�t a problem for my argument.

I grant that in a rational society this factor does indeed reduce the probability of murder being regarded as acceptable - but since my contention all along has been that most cultures would not regard murder as acceptable even in a morally relative world this does not defeat my argument. I do not agree that this would reduce the probability sufficiently low such that we would see no outliers - I explained why above.

Originally posted by Chris

While it is true that there have been thousands of societies throughout history, the probability of one emerging (and surviving for more than five minutes) in which murder is acceptable is incredibly low. It is entirely possible � and I would argue probable - that we could see all of the societies that have ever existed finding murder to be morally unacceptable, even when the morality is dependant on the society.

This is demonstrably false - South America. Surprisingly stable, yet volatile and with astronomically high murder/violence rates.

Originally posted by Chris

I'd also like to note that societies aren't really ever in a vacuum. The people in them come from other societies (possibly previous ones) and were brought up and taught in various ways. They have neighbours which they might trade with...

Granted, but again it really doesn�t reduce the probability that much.

Even with the points I�ve granted would reduce the probability combined, there is not enough here to reduce probability that low given that we see counter examples in most of those cases. Granted they aren�t perfect (they all function with caveat) but they don�t need to be. You now need to show why caveat would affect the probabilities sufficiently - otherwise, the counter examples disprove the points and thereby the thesis.

Context : On cultures with rules against murder.

Teallaura — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:21:23 GMT

Chris and I are debating. His blog has his treatise - I'm shoving this here so I can find it!

His blog: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/en...against-murder

################################################################################
MGC Chatbox EVO DUMP - General channel archives
TheologyWeb Campus;http://www.theologyweb.com/campus
July 28th 2012 02:54 PM
################################################################################

==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:52 - Chrs : (Actually, I think that's a potentially valid point. About duels. Duels are basically methods of airing greviences in such a way that you don't get random killings. It formalises the procedure in such a way to protect stability.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:52 - Spartacus : Honor killings
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:51 - Chrs : yeah, but that's consensual murder! :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:51 - Spartacus : Duels used to be commonplace :teet.h:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:50 - Chrs : So, Sparty. what do you think? Does moral relativism imply a culture must exist in which murder is acceptable? :P
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:50 - Chrs : hey Spart.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:47 - Chrs : http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/en...against-murder
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:47 - Spartacus : Burn Notice
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:47 - Teallaura : ;arg.h: What was the name of his shox? I can't call it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Spartacus : heh
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Teallaura : I love Bruce Campbell.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Teallaura : you wanna help Chris? he's writing a treatise on why morality is relative
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Spartacus : A Bruce Campbell movie was available on-demand, so naturally, I watched it :smug:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:45 - Spartacus : hi teal
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:45 - Teallaura : Hi Spart
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:42 - Spartacus : :lo.l: bubba ho-tep
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:40 - Teallaura : I'm gonna run add a footnote to my blog - be back
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:39 - Teallaura : they are made up of divergent people. ;teeth:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Teallaura : Dan Ariely "The (honest) Truth about Dishonestly
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Teallaura : Oh
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Chrs : ive only written 500 words!
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Chrs : I need more ideas. What do societies have in common? :P
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:37 - Chrs : :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:37 - Chrs : oh right, the thing didn't render
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:37 - Teallaura : A girl has to keep busy
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:36 - Chrs : nails?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:36 - Teallaura : :nail.s:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:30 - Teallaura : Michael Brooks
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:29 - Teallaura : it's a book title - Stossel is interveiwing the author
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:29 - Chrs : haha
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:28 - Teallaura : Free Radicals, The Secret Anarchy of Science
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:26 - Teallaura :
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:25 - Teallaura : :gir.l:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:25 - Teallaura : :girl
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:21 - Chrs : Alright. I'll upload it somewhere.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:21 - Teallaura : ya might wanna link instead. :hrm:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:20 - Chrs : Give me a second, I'm four paragraphs in :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:20 - Teallaura : Collective malice - shouldn't be present if collectives are what makes malicious killing unacceptable
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:19 - Teallaura : yup, witch hunts, lynching and nazism all disprove it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:16 - Chrs : (I'm just writing a thing out in a document. I'll paste it in a big wall of text in a minute :P)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:16 - Chrs : Oh?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:12 - Teallaura : :smil.e: Nope, it's false.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:12 - Teallaura : Er, okay on the tea - the previous statement is questionable (I think false but not ready to prove it)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:11 - Teallaura : Okay.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:10 - Chrs : Let me go and get some tea and think how I can word this defense :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:10 - Chrs : Sure, collections of people behave differently to an individual. In fact, that's a contributing factor to why you'd find social unacceptablity of malicious killing in all societies.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:09 - Teallaura : Truth is, you defeated yourself early on - defending relativism by trying to use objective methodolgy is ... well, self defeating.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:08 - Teallaura : Collections of people are not going to behave the same as the individual even if you allow rationality. too many forces/needs/wants/ et al conflict. The idea that such groups using varying methodologies and with varying degrees of rationality would all conclude the exact same thing is irrational and bordering on ludicris
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:07 - Chrs : okay, here's how im going to do it.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:06 - Chrs : Don't try and win me over to your crazy side with political humour, you :rasberr.y:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:06 - Teallaura : The extrapolation doesn't work - look at your own parliment. Accepting your premise, all MPs are to some degree rational - so they should not come up with laws that are bad either for the nation or for themselves politically. When was the last time that happened?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:04 - Chrs : It depends on the thing.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:04 - Teallaura : If morality has no objective basis - as you assert - then it's irrational that numerous and divergent cultures would all conclude the same thing
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:03 - Chrs : (Also, people are rational to different degrees.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:03 - Chrs : Sure, sure. So let's look at R-->Y. How do I word this...
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:02 - Teallaura : Biology doesn't govern malice
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:02 - Teallaura : No, biology forces them to eat.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:01 - Chrs : All cultures have concluded that people have to eat :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:01 - Teallaura : We just established that with South America
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:01 - Teallaura : It can only be true if cultures are all rational - and they aren't
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:00 - Teallaura : Because humans do not all agree on anything - to assume that numerous and wildly divergent cultures would conclude the exact same thing is irrational
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Chrs : (You're just asserting (R-->Y))
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Chrs : Why?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Teallaura : If morality is defined by culture then you should necessarily see a culture in which murder is morally acceptable sans caveat.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Chrs : I'd agree with 1, I disagree with 2.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:58 - Chrs : As I said, to show that culturally relative morality is inconsistent with reality you'd have to show that: 1. There doesn't exist a society, Y, in which X is morally right and 2. That if morality is culturally relative, one would expect (or there must be) a society, Y, in which X is morally right.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:58 - Chrs : ..fail
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:57 - Chrs : As in, (�Y/\(R-->Y)) --> �R
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:57 - Chrs : ociety, Y, in which X is morally right and 2. That if morality is culturally relative, one would expect (or there must be) a society, Y, in which X is morally righAs I said, to show that culturally relative morality is inconsistent with reality you'd have to show that: 1. There doesn't exist a st.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:57 - Teallaura : Nazis did know killing Jews was morally wrong - in order to be able to do it they had to willingly self deceive - to force the irrational 'subhuman' belief (again, exception for sociopaths and other psychopathologies)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:55 - Teallaura : According to you, humans aren't moral actors because morality is defined by humans - hence behavior would not change. But humans are moral actors - that's why they need caveat/justification in order to go around murdering people (excepting the sociopaths, of course)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:54 - Teallaura : No, they don't - so it proves my point, not yours. ;tongue:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:53 - Teallaura : Caveat really doesn't matter when you turn it around - caveat is mere justification. If you could totally remove justification it would depend on whether or not humans are moral actors as to whether or not behavior would change
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:53 - Chrs : Sure, south america is unstable, but people don't kill people without caveat and believe it's an amoral act :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:52 - Teallaura : Such cultures recognise that what goes on inside them is morally wrong - but they strangely learn to survive within it.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:52 - Chrs : Do you think a society in which maliciously killing people without caveat was allowed would last? people would also be well aware of that fact.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:51 - Teallaura : Actually, they do - but allowable and morally acceptable aren't the same thing. The former exists - the latter does not
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:50 - Teallaura : yep - may I introduce South America where terror of life and limb is the norm. Unstable in places, surprisingly stable in others - still not without caveat
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:50 - Chrs : do you think a society in which maliciously killing people was allowed would last?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:50 - Chrs : Unstable societies wouldn't last very long, and I'm sure people are aware of that.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:49 - Teallaura : 't need to be 'stable' - it needs to exist
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:49 - Teallaura : So? It doesn
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:48 - Teallaura : But no, maliciously killing Mom 'cause she couldn't cook wasn't acceptable even to the spartans
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:48 - Chrs : It's massively unstable. People would be perpetually in fear of their lives, or losing them.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:48 - Teallaura : Spartans are pretty close - mostly because 'weaker than me' was their idea of a good caveat and they succeeded for a long period
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:47 - Teallaura : On what basis?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:47 - Chrs : Drug cultures? there's a couple of things you could be referring to.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:46 - Chrs : There's two different factors at work. I'd agree that all cultures don't always behave in their best self interests all of the time, but I'd also say that a culture which allows murder would fall apart very very very quickly.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:46 - Teallaura : Clearly suboptimal
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:46 - Teallaura : Drug cultures seem pretty resilient
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:45 - Teallaura : :lo.l: I knew that's where you were going. sorry, but just because it's not in a groups best interest won't save the argument - you would have to show all cultures behaving in their best self interests all the time
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:45 - Chrs : No?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:45 - Chrs : Cultures which have very suboptimal methods of managing themselves (for instance, allowing people to murder other people) are going to be amazingly short lived.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:44 - Teallaura : You're gonna run into a big problem with your logic - cultures aren't allways rational all the time (some hardly at all) - so a logical construction isn't gonna solve it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Chrs : :tongue.:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Chrs : I posit the premise "People quite like living"
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Chrs : Great.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Teallaura : Sufficient reason without appeal to morality, yes
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:42 - Chrs : Would you agree?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:42 - Chrs : So, the question is is there sufficient reason to expect to see prohibitions against maliciously killing human beings you haven't defined in such a way as to change the issue in every single culture?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:42 - Teallaura : Did the Nazi's murder? unquestionably - but most would have claimed otherwise since they redefined jews and others as subhuman.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:41 - Chrs : Alright.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:41 - Teallaura : Maliciously killing human beings you haven't 'defined' in such a way as to change the issue
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Teallaura : they are using the 'enemy' caveat
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Chrs : Or are we talking about malicious killing of people in the same group explicitly?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Chrs : Let's think about murder for a while (:tongue.:) - Would, say, vikings going on raids and killing be considered murder?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Teallaura : Murder, sans caveat, should be present as morally acceptable in at least a few (or even one)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Teallaura : You said culture defines morality and gave it the central role in so doing. Cultures vary wildly and are too numerous to all come to the exact same conclusion
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Chrs : or, related.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Chrs : I disagree. Hold on, I have a book on this :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Teallaura : No, the issue is whether or not culture is adefining factor (the pre-eminitent one in your construction) in all precepts of morality. If so, you should see outliers that don't exist in reality
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:37 - Chrs : You'd have to show (Culturally defined morality --> Culture or cultures in which malicious killing is morally acceptable.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:36 - Teallaura : IF culture is the defining factor - but if something else governs (like objective morality :whistle:) then that's exactly what you should expect to see
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:36 - Chrs : but, they do differ.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:36 - Chrs : As humans, we have roughly the same set of conditions to live in.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Chrs : Is it?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Chrs : The issue is whether morality is defined on a per-culture basis, not whether cultures have differing morality.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Teallaura : No, but given the hugh number it is absurd to argue that they would all conclude the exact same way on a single point
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Teallaura : If not, culture cannot be the defining factor
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:34 - Chrs : As I said, non-sequitur. The fact that all cultures define their morality independently doesn't mean that their definitions must differ on every issue.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:33 - Teallaura : So you have a culture in which malicious killing of a human being is morally accceptable?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:33 - Chrs : I got your meaning.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:33 - Teallaura : my bad - it is not merely unlawful
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Chrs : ..unlawful.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Teallaura : Murder is malicious - it cannot be accidental or justified
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Chrs : premeditated lawful killing, then :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Teallaura : No, murder is not unlawful killing - manslaughter is often unlawful but isn't murder
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Teallaura : But if morality is relative then so to is murder.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Chrs : (In which murder=unlawful, wrong killing.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Chrs : Quite. So "Murder is wrong" is a tautology in any culture.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Teallaura : Murder is defined as wrong - it doesn't merely imply it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:30 - Teallaura : Actually, he stepped on my shoe would be okay.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:30 - Chrs : (Although murder implies wrong, as it happens.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:29 - Chrs : Ooooh, wait. I see what you're doing.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:29 - Teallaura : Because if culture is the defining factor then such should exist absent caveat (they aren't human; those people are enemies; he stepped on my shoe)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:29 - Chrs : Non-sequitur.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:28 - Teallaura : Really? There's a culture in which murder is morally right?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:28 - Chrs : Or more accurately, by my culture, time period, etc etc.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:28 - Teallaura : Morality can be defined - usually in terms of right and wrong/ good and evil. When in use it's defined by case (murder v manslaughter, for example).
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:27 - Chrs : Moral precept is defined in terms of my culture, time period, etc etc.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:26 - Teallaura : So is moral precept... and murder as immoral is understood - you're objection is still invalid
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:25 - Chrs : Doesn't mean they don't exist.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:25 - Chrs : The definitions are implied.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:25 - Teallaura : So if you understood it the objection that it isn't true because it isn't stringently defined is invalid
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : So, can you define moral precepts for me, Teal?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : It's generally implied in normal language.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : Quite.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Teallaura : is the sun hot? yes - do I need to define it more stringently? Not usually - and never for the purpose of comprehension with an intelligent human being who speaks the same language
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : Undefined without some clarification of "hot". Defining hot as "Hotter than 14 million degrees C", then true. :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:23 - Chrs : "Moral precepts"? :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:23 - Teallaura : An act/concept which agrees with moral preecepts
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:22 - Teallaura : What is the truth value for the statement 'the sun is hot'?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:22 - Chrs : Okay, "moral"?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:22 - Teallaura : Immoral - An act/concept which violates moral precepts
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:21 - Chrs : What is the truth value of the statement "murdering a child is SEIHIBV fbfhq237er2t7esadiafuifuhu"?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:21 - Teallaura : If 'being morally right or wrong' is meaningless then necessarily things understood to be immoral are also moral
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:20 - Chrs : Okay, can you define what it means for an action to be moral or immoral, for me?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:20 - Teallaura : The act is immoral therefore it should not be done. It is not immoral because it shouldn't be done - that's a tautology, I believe
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:19 - Chrs : No, I didn't. Sheesh, this is the problem with objectivists :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:19 - Teallaura : No, shouldn't follows from wrong, not wrong from shouldn't
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:19 - Teallaura : Chris, you just defined murder as a morally correct actions. Changing from verb to adverb solves the objection - be gains no clarity since it was understood the first time
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:18 - Chrs : What would be "X is wrong" in common language is a statement of the form "One shouldn't do X, if..."
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:17 - Teallaura : All statements require either definition or context or more commonly, both. Tells us nothing about the truth of the statement
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:17 - Chrs : I'm not saying it's sometime's false, I'm saying it's never true or false because an action or concept can never have the property of "being morally right" or "being morally wrong" on its own.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:16 - Teallaura : Bob is programming - is Bob a computer programmer or a TV exec?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:15 - Teallaura : If your premise is true then necessarily all moral statements must sometimes be false. Otherwise, it's not much of an objection
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:14 - Teallaura : So the statement is sometimes false? It is clearly comprehensible so
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Chrs : Okay, bad example, read the explanation rather than the other bit :tongue:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Teallaura : *context
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Chrs : because "being wrong" isn't a state of being that a concept or action can be
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Teallaura : You really need contest to define murder or innocent or child?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:12 - Chrs : Neither are adaquetly defined without context.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:12 - Chrs : So the statement "Blurghfarging a slishalhoof is wrong" is sometimes false?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:10 - Teallaura : So the statement 'murdering an innocent child is wrong" is sometimes false?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:08 - Chrs : (The context there being "To enjoy yourself, you should try playing this game.")
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:08 - Chrs : It may not be said, but it's there.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:08 - Chrs : When I say... "You should try playing this game." There is an implied "...because I believe you might enjoy it."
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:07 - Chrs : is what im saying.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:07 - Chrs : A "should" statement is meaningless without context.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:06 - LostSheep : To see that it needs an objective Chris? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like utilitarianism
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:05 - Chrs : Which is implied in normal speech
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:05 - Chrs : For a statement to have a truth value it has to be defined. A claim of "X is moral" isn't defined. Similarly with "Y should be done" - it's not sufficient to just say that, it needs an objective. "[If you want to achieve X], Y should be done
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:03 - Teallaura : So morality is never true?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : (btw)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : (Relativist in morality, not in truth.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : im still about, I can read at my desk :P
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Teallaura : later
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : whut?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Teallaura : :n.o:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:58 - Chrs : Alright, going to hit this book on the Chinese Room
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Chrs : :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Chrs : Well yes.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Teallaura : :ahe.m: Not at all. You aren't a postmodernist or relativist, are you? :eh:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Chrs : (Ok, not quite)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Chrs : same thing :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Teallaura : Moral pressures but yes
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Chrs : Yeah.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Chrs : Oh right, the thing where you can make people be honest by reminding them that social pressures do, infact, exist and they probably shouldn't lie.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:53 - Teallaura : A pychitrist wrote a book examining dishonesty - found a lot of what you are talking about
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:53 - Teallaura : :lo.l: Oddly enough, I blogged about that interview
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:53 - Chrs : oh?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:52 - Teallaura : You would probably enjoy the interview Stossel did on his show yesterday.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:52 - Chrs : anyway, this book is fascinating. I also have a load of other ones. I blogged about the ones I picked up :p
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:51 - Chrs : Quite.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:50 - Teallaura : That too - we call those 'bad surveys'
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:50 - Teallaura : But is it that people are sheep or that we can manipulate their isocial instincts
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:50 - Chrs : or deliberately invoking them :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:49 - Chrs : (and in a lot of cases they test it with incentives, too.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:49 - Teallaura : yup - survey research spends a lot of time weeding out those factors
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:46 - Chrs : showing them someone failing/doing well at a task, even if they're well aware that it's staged
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:46 - Chrs : and giving people "anchor" values to try and work it out from
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:45 - Chrs : I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but there are huuuuuuuuuuuuge things you can do to manipulate performance very very simply. Or views, infact. Think of the ways surveys manipulate people using other questions, etc.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:44 - Teallaura : Um, Chris, if you can't manipulate performance why bother having managers?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:43 - Chrs : what was it..
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:43 - Chrs : That's also a thing you can do to manipulate performance :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:43 - Teallaura : Unless you're talking about admins, of course
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:42 - Teallaura : Actually, I'm not sure it's a good measure. If you give an incentive for accurate estimates would they improve? If so it's not the reasoning that's the problem
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:42 - Chrs : shiny
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Teallaura : :sigh: Conversely, a lot of similar sized houses have come on the market so by the time I can try again I'll have a wider selection. heck, it might even still be on the market (not that I'm gonna count on that)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Chrs : but the extent you can manipulate performance with various things is riduclous
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Chrs : I knew it before
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Chrs : So! People suck at reasoning. I say again, as I read more of this :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:40 - Chrs : :smil.e:

The Ten Commandments and Modern Psychology

Teallaura — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:43:08 GMT

I saw an interesting segment on Fox last night. Stossel did a show on how some of the things we 'know' prove to be untrue. He interviewed a psychiatrist who had written a book about dishonesty (the thesis being that everyone is to some extent - I can think of another Book that made the same claim 2000+ years ago... :wink:).

One of the experiments they tried was to pay people per math problem solved. The grader would return the paper which the person was then to shred (trick shredder but they didn't know that). The test was unfair in that there wasn't enough time allowed to actually solve all the problems. A researcher would pretend to be taking the test as well but would claim to have finished in an impossibly short time. Others would follow suit and would lie about how many problems they solved when asked.

They repeated the experiment after asking participants to name the Ten Commandments. They found that few could name all ten - but a strange thing happened. Where the first group had cheated outrageously, the group that had simply named the Commandments (well, the one's they knew, anyway) didn't cheat at all. It didn't matter if the were Christian or atheist - merely reflecting on moral principles was enough to change 'human nature' - actually human behavior - in the short term.

Other experiments showed the same thing. Kids and adults both controlled the tendency to cheat when confronted by the Ten Commandments even in the mildest form.

The Law teaches us that we are flawed - that it's our nature to sin. It took a few thousand years but modern psychology is coming around to the same conclusion. But the Law also teaches us what is good - how to be good. Our nature fights against us - but God provides us with the tools to fight back. One of them is reflecting - just as Paul teaches us - on what is good. It does more than make us feel good - it helps us be good, to live up to the principles we believe in.

The Correct Application of Probabiilty to Evidence

Teallaura — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:39:06 GMT

Which I would have titled 'The Correct Application or Probability to Evidentiary Assessment - stupid character limits... :hmph:

Interrupting our previously scheduled program because I found a new shiny to play with for the moment - yes, I'm easily distracted, why do you ask? :eh:

Anywho, blame Leo for getting me on this topic last night in the SB.

So, we were discussing a Chesterton quote which he's read but couldn't find and I've only heard his paraphrase which goes something like this: 'I can't understand why someone believes his grandmother when she says she's seen the mailman but not when she says she has seen an angel' (Leo did a better job, I think, paraphrasing - I'm paraphrasing his paraphrase - okay, kiddies, this is NOT how you do this in debate!). I'll let Leo discuss his own understanding but here's how I interpret it: 'If Granny is credible for X under the exact same circumstances as Y then she is also credible for Y and the mere fact that the listener does not like Y is not valid grounds for dismissing Y'. (And you thought the first paraphrase was bad!).

In other words, if circumstances warrant believing Granny saw the mailman they also warrant believing she saw an angel and the mere content (mailman v angel) is not a reasonable reason to deny she saw either one. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander where credibility is at issue.

So what factors do we correctly examine to determine credibility if not content? Reliability (can correctly report), conditions (can correctly observe) and reputation (will correctly report) are the main factors. If Granny has dementia then she isn't credible when she says the mailman came to the door or that an angel visited her - she cannot trust her own perceptions and neither can we. Both may be true, false or some combination but we can't know which is or is not true and probability is no help here. The mailman may be more probable - or not - it doesn't matter because Granny's ability to correctly report what she saw is compromised to the extent that we cannot trust it. If the mailman is later accused of murdering the neighbor at the time Granny says she saw him he's out of luck using Granny as a witness because it would never be admitted.

If conditions are poor Granny's ability to correctly observe is compromised and so is her credibility. It's dark and stormy out, the guy is two blocks away and Granny's eye sight isn't the best so did she really see the mailman or was it Bob the beat cop? Both are plausible but we can't know which because Granny couldn't have seen the person clearly. When she says the guy was in a blue uniform but had wings did she see an angel or a blurry vision of either the mailman or the cop? We cannot know and again, probability is no help. She could have seen another person entirely - the conditions are poor enough to compromise the credibility - inserting probability is the same as making a guess. We want to know what she saw - guessing doesn't accomplish that and really, without other evidence (a witness or picture), we cannot know.

Reputation. This, kiddies, is why it matters. If Granny is sharp as a tack, has great eye sight and saw the figure in broad daylight up close, but has a reputation for lying, her credibility is just as shot as when she had dementia or conditions were bad. Granny may have indeed seen the mailman and no doubt his attorney will call her to the stand (in desperation) but the prosecutor will eat her for lunch. "Isn't it true you told Bob the beat cop you were having supper at Brad Pitt's house that day?" "Um, well, I might have mentioned that to Bob but I really saw the mailman after I got home from Brad's..." Bob has already testified and the prosecutor will prove Granny doesn't even know where Brad Pitt lives - so how many jurors should believer her? None - she is not credible. She may be telling the truth about the mailman but because her relationship with the truth is so tenuous we can't trust it. When she later claims she saw an angel then instead, she is still not credible (okay, less so - mounting lies reduces credibility) and although she's finally telling the truth, we cannot know it and so rightfully dismiss the claim. Probability? Hopelessly useless - how the dickens would you determine when she is most likely or least likely to lie as those determinations are strictly about her - how do you get into her head well enough to even make a decent guess at how to assign values to your variables? You don't - not if you want your own credibility to remain intact.

So, when is probability appropriate to use? In those cases where we have the option to consider the evidence or not. That option is not available if you are debating the topic (side does not matter) or charged with a duty to find the truth (officers of the court, law enforcement, scientists, investigators, doctors - et al). If you are merely satisfying your own curiosity you have no obligation to examine anything and in that case you have every right to decide X is improbable and not worth consideration for your own purposes. The only other time probability enters in is arguable but I'd grant that if could be reasonably used to assess what priority you are going to give a given piece of evidence in the timing of your examination. It's legit to want to examine the most probable accounts first - but it would not be legit to rule out examining an account merely on probability. For that you must assess credibility - and probability tells us little to nothing about that.

Justice and Mercy

Teallaura — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:39:38 GMT

Tonight's blog, brought to you by my tiny brain and the letter A, we begin with a question. If justice without mercy isn't justice then is mercy without justice mercy?

No, not just being pedantic. Can there be true mercy with no justice? For some reason we hang up on mercy for the individual but totally neglect it in the aggregate - the dead opposite of how we tend to view justice. We want to show mercy to the individual, but we forget the victims, past and future.

On a less esoteric level, if mercy can exist without justice, how do we explain the Cross?

Those are the questions I'm considering - next time I'll start work on the answers.

Tempting, Three!

Teallaura — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:05:39 GMT

So, body didn't work and mind just went splat - so what's a fallen angel to do? There's one more wall to try to breech - the spirit.

Satan figures Jesus for a 'big picture' sort of guy. This messy incarnation thing is a means to an end - not an end in itself. Satan knows that. So, what if there's another, less painful, way to get to the whole 'ruling the world thing'? Wouldn't that be a fine little carrot...

So, up to the mountain top and a grand view of all the nations of the world. This is what it's all about, right? For whatever reason Jesus cares about these human/worm things - well, as ruler over them all He can make a great little world - a regular slice off the Paradise pie. No humiliating cross necessary - just walk right in and take over. And it just so happens Satan is running a special on world domination this week. Just worship Satan, here and now, and it's a done deal.

Personally, I suspect this is where Satan came closest to being tossed off the mountain and straight back to you-know-where... But our question is, was Jesus even really tempted? The answer is yes - the prize is too great not to be a temptation but Satan overplays his hand. Jesus is tempted but He is also instantly aware that Satan is trying to separate Him from God. Incarnation is messy, painful and ultimately humiliating - but it's also necessary for God's game plan to work. Falling down to worship Satan ain't a 'baby step' - it's a leap away from God - a leap Jesus has no intention of taking.

Jesus chose to come into the world. Here He chooses to complete that work. In both cases He is supremely aware of the cost - but He is also aware of the prize. God's plan gets Him both the humans He loves and is willing to die for and maintains His relationship with God. Added bonus, now His children can know He really does understand what temptation is like.

Satan's 'plan' gets Him neither. Sans the Cross, there can be no reconciliation so at most Jesus would rule the physical world for the short time (relative to eternity) before it decayed fully to death. Then He would be left with nothing at all.

Turns out Satan's biggest carrot is rotten to the core. But of course, so are all his carrots. Satan ultimately offers only death, destruction and the horrible loneliness beforehand. God offers life, love and goodness. Satan's offer is wrapped in pretty paper and has a big bow. God's comes in a glass box so you can see exactly what is involved. Satan's offer is pretty on the outside but hideous on the inside. God's offer doesn't look like much on the outside but is nothing but beauty within. Satan offers an easy street to destruction; God offers a difficult path to life.

Come to think of it, when we really understand what Satan has to offer, it ain't so tempting after all...

Tempting, Too?

Teallaura — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:31:19 GMT

So, Satan's appeal to Christ's fleshly nature fell kinda flat. Well, Jesus is really God so that's to be expected, right? Eh, to a degree but that doesn't negate that the first temptation was a very real one.

But Satan ain't through yet - he's nothing if not persistent. So, body didn't work out so well - what about mind? One whirlwind trip to the top of the Temple later and we have Satan daring Jesus to jump.

Somehow, hopping off high buildings, even if you know God will catch you, just doesn't seem all that tempting. Jesus shows no signs of being an adrenaline junkie so that's no attraction. What is Satan up to here? Got beat the first time so going back to the rookie league?

Not hardly - again Satan is in top form. Here the appeal isn't to thrill seeking - it's to ego. Hopping off the Temple and miraculously getting to the ground unharmed in front of impeccable and probably more than a few witnesses should establish Him as the Messiah in short order. Heck, even the Romans will be a little cautious dealing with that kind of miracle. Instant stardom, sans all that messy wandering preacher stuff. Can't beat it for getting the message out - and the sooner that's done, the sooner He gets to go back to Heaven. Win-win, right?

Wrong. This isn't what Christ has come for - this is a worldly act, not an obedient one. Jesus knows this - but He also knows just how much this whole Incarnation thing has cost and will cost Him. It had to be an enormous temptation - getting things into high gear quickly. The powers-that-be won't be able to deny Him - they become something of an asset instead of the usual hindrance - this looks awfully good... but it's not God's way.

Again, Jesus rejects the easy way out in favor of God's way, even thought He better than anyone understands the cost. He can shortcut the process but in so doing He would be moving in the wrong direction for all the wrong reasons - exactly what Satan wants. Satan doesn't care about the nature of the sin - he cares only that it separates us from God. Even the tiniest separation within the Godhead itself would be a massive victory for Satan and he knows it.

So does Jesus - and He hands Satan his second defeat of the day. He will love God more than Himself and do it God's way. Scripture doesn't mention Jesus spiking the ball - but Satan probably felt like He did! Spiked it right on Satan's horny little head - and passed a very real test.

Tempting?

Teallaura — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:27:02 GMT

First off being tempted isn't the same thing as sinning. Not even close - it is not a sin to be tempted. Never has been, never will be - get over it. So, yes, Jesus was tempted. No, He didn't sin.

Now that we got that straight, let's take a quick peek at the temptations. First up, bread, as in food. Not a biggie on the hit parade unless you've been fasting for 40 days. When your stomach is trying to chew up your spine bread suddenly becomes incredibly tempting.

This is, in Christian terms, a fleshly temptation. Of all the temptations you'd think Satan could come up with something more, well, tempting, to use against the Son of God. After all, Satan is correct - Jesus need only say the word and the rocks become literally sliced bread. So, is this just a warm up or was Satan bringing his B game - what?

It's his A game. Satan is well aware that Jesus is fully human as well as fully God. Tempting God is tough so the smart move starts by tempting the man. Satan understands human frailty and uses it effectively against people all the time. He is skillfully trying to get Jesus to think with His stomach - to get the flesh in the driver's seat which would make the game much easier for Satan. Jesus doesn't fall for it - but that doesn't mean He isn't tempted by it.

By the end of forty days He's hungry - really hungry. His body is now going into full on rebellion as it does what it's designed to do - try to survive. Forty days is as far as the body can be safely pushed and it knows it's in trouble. I can't say I know what it must have felt like but I can say that the human body and mind have a way of uniting against the human spirit (will) when they think the spirit is going too far. His body must have been aching for food and His brain going into overdrive trying to get Him to eat - wave a loaf in front of that and the temptation must be enormous.

Definitely Satan's A game. It's just a tiny step out of line - a natural step toward survival. But Jesus recognized what Satan really wanted - to get Jesus out of step with the things of God. He came to fast. He intentionally put Himself through that in order to get closer to God - what would it mean to then toss the whole thing for a couple loaves of pumpernickel? See, the bread isn't the issue - it's not even important. What's important is that to give in and do what Satan said was a step to the flesh and away from God.

This is why little sins aren't so little - they begin the process of walking in our own way and not God's. It's just bread - it isn't wrong to eat bread. But it is wrong to reject God's will. Had God said 'go for it' it would have been fine for Jesus to turn the whole Sinai into rye. But Satan is after the separation that comes when we listen to him and not God. There isn't enough French Toast on Earth to be worth that and Jesus knew it.

But that doesn't mean He didn't want it. He did. Christ teaches us by example that what we want and even need isn't always what is best for us. Sometimes, it's best to say no. There's a lot more to life than bread pudding and to get it we put God first and foremost always.

Say Good-bye, Roe V Wade!

Teallaura — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:03:25 GMT

The shot across the bow occurred Friday when the Alabama Supreme Court found for the Plaintiff in Hamilton v Scott. The lower courts had rule that the plaintiff could not sue because the child she lost in utero was not viable at the time of its death. The viability standard - as stupid as ever - comes straight out of Roe v Wade. The Alabama Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling in part, namely the finding that viability mattered. Justice Parker, speaking for the court, wrote, "Roe's viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development."

This is huge. The viability rule is one of the central pillars of Roe. It�s the basis for the whole trimester versus state interest platform - that�s the reason states can�t just act on their own accord. In Roe, the Court finds that the individual state�s interest in protecting its unborn citizenry varies as viability varies (hence the first trimester the states have little power to regulate but the last trimester is fair game). No viability rule, no limitation on the state�s power to protect the unborn - and as a practical matter, no real basis for continuing unrestricted abortion in any trimester.

So, will Hamilton be the case we teach in schools as finally ending Roe�s reign? Time will tell. But the fact that a state�s high court has rejected Roe at least in part means that the long, hard fought race is finally turning for home. Roe�s days are now officially numbered.

_
*Yes, it's also on my FB page.
**Debate in a thread, not my comments section.