Are You A Good Man....

[shunyadragon]

Tell that to Planned Parenthood.

The definition of 'wrongful death' is indeed problematic and inconsistent in Hebrew and Christian history.

[seer]

But, but, but . . . there is where we have a problem here.

Why? Is it unjust or immoral for God to take back the life He gave?

[JimL]

Why? Is it unjust or immoral for God to take back the life He gave?

If it is immoral to take a life, and as you say, god is the standard of that morality, then yes it would be immoral for god to take a life, otherwise your moral standard is willy nilly, and not a standard at all.

[Starlight]

Yes and you can kill a living child and call it altruistic. I'm sure that the Maoist and Stalinist believed they were serving the greater good! Your definitions are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

This post is like the perfect exemplar of seer-assertions. Where you don't try and construct a reasoned argument, but just repeat your same-old dumb assertions over and over.

Incidentally, your face is arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.

[Tassman]

I am sure the people who did those things did not think they were bad, did they? Like the Nazis, they thought they were doing good.

No doubt the Inquisition’s de Torquemada and the Salem witch-burners and Moses did too. But, their behaviour is now recognised as an unacceptable abuse of human rights and the International Court of Justice has been set up by the UN to deal with such abuses of power.

[Tassman]

Why? Is it unjust or immoral for God to take back the life He gave?

Morality is absolute according to you. And if it's absolute then it applies to the deity too

[Starlight]

Morality is absolute according to you. And if it's absolute then it applies to the deity too

His "morality" is just that God has the biggest stick: If you don't do what God wants he'll hit you with it, but God can do what he likes because nobody can hit God back. So if you swapped God and Satan around and Satan was the one with the bigger stick, then what is now "evil" would be "good" and what is now "good" would be "evil", or if you swapped out Yahweh and put in Allah then they'd be a different set of "good" and "evil" again, and Seer seems to be deeply deeply troubled by the arbitrary nature of this morality so he does a loooot of projection in this forum by accusing other people's morality of being arbitrary.

So when you hand him a simple explanation like "humans are social animals, so they put a lot of effort into trying to judge the motives and intentions of others, particularly with regard to whether other humans are acting altruistically or selfishly, and they regularly use the term 'morality' to refer to altruism", Seer struggles to cope. Because people's levels of altruism is something that can be measured and discussed by scientists, and something that can exist in different cultures, and something humans throughout history have talked about with words like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself", and that all societies in human history due to being societies -which by definition involve people working together and interacting- have been concerned about the levels altruism or selfishness of the people in their midst, it is objective/inter-subjective in a way that Seer wishes morality wasn't as he prefers his arbitrary my-imaginary-God-has-a-big-stick morality. And this objectively measurable morality of altruism, that has been pervasive in human history, that doesn't rely on the arbitrary whims of a deity, and most of all doesn't rely on the deity threatening people with a big stick, scares Seer because he knows it would rate him as a pretty bad person.

[Tassman]

His "morality" is just that God has the biggest stick: If you don't do what God wants he'll hit you with it, but God can do what he likes because nobody can hit God back. So if you swapped God and Satan around and Satan was the one with the bigger stick, then what is now "evil" would be "good" and what is now "good" would be "evil", or if you swapped out Yahweh and put in Allah then they'd be a different set of "good" and "evil" again, and Seer seems to be deeply deeply troubled by the arbitrary nature of this morality so he does a loooot of projection in this forum by accusing other people's morality of being arbitrary.

So when you hand him a simple explanation like "humans are social animals, so they put a lot of effort into trying to judge the motives and intentions of others, particularly with regard to whether other humans are acting altruistically or selfishly, and they regularly use the term 'morality' to refer to altruism", Seer struggles to cope. Because people's levels of altruism is something that can be measured and discussed by scientists, and something that can exist in different cultures, and something humans throughout history have talked about with words like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself", and that all societies in human history due to being societies -which by definition involve people working together and interacting- have been concerned about the levels altruism or selfishness of the people in their midst, it is objective/inter-subjective in a way that Seer wishes morality wasn't as he prefers his arbitrary my-imaginary-God-has-a-big-stick morality. And this objectively measurable morality of altruism, that has been pervasive in human history, that doesn't rely on the arbitrary whims of a deity, and most of all doesn't rely on the deity threatening people with a big stick, scares Seer because he knows it would rate him as a pretty bad person.

Yes! God is just a substitute daddy for grown-ups...all loving, all powerful and to be obeyed or else.

[seer]

Morality is absolute according to you. And if it's absolute then it applies to the deity too

You have never once heard me say that morality is "absolute."

[seer]

If it is immoral to take a life, and as you say, god is the standard of that morality, then yes it would be immoral for god to take a life, otherwise your moral standard is willy nilly, and not a standard at all.

No Jim, it is not always immoral to take life, I never made that argument.

[seer]

This post is like the perfect exemplar of seer-assertions. Where you don't try and construct a reasoned argument, but just repeat your same-old dumb assertions over and over.

Incidentally, your face is arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.

Except you did not show where my argument was actually off. How many times have you told us that altruism was at the core of your moral principles? Yet, that principle allows for the killing of children, both born and unborn. If that is the case then any behavior could be plugged in under the guise of altruism. The Maoist and Stalinist were perfectly justified as they murdered for the greater good!

[seer]

No doubt the Inquisition’s de Torquemada and the Salem witch-burners and Moses did too. But, their behaviour is now recognised as an unacceptable abuse of human rights and the International Court of Justice has been set up by the UN to deal with such abuses of power.

LOL! Like the UN is dealing with abuses of power in Muslim countries? In China? You really are deluded Tass...

[Meh Gerbil]

His "morality" is just that God has the biggest stick: If you don't do what God wants he'll hit you with it, but God can do what he likes because nobody can hit God back. So if you swapped God and Satan around and Satan was the one with the bigger stick, then what is now "evil" would be "good" and what is now "good" would be "evil", or if you swapped out Yahweh and put in Allah then they'd be a different set of "good" and "evil" again, and Seer seems to be deeply deeply troubled by the arbitrary nature of this morality so he does a loooot of projection in this forum by accusing other people's morality of being arbitrary.

If the engineers at Ford design an engine to power the new Bronco and that engine takes 6 quarts of oil in order to run efficiently then 'good' would be providing the engine with 6 quarts of oil and 'evil' would be providing 4 quarts of bacon grease. The engineers at Ford aren't hitting anyone with a stick and right and wrong for the engine isn't a matter of whether the bacon grease guy has a bigger stick. The 'good' and 'evil' in this situation are built into the design of the engine - there is no power play, no threats, nothing arbitrary or confusing and certainly nothing malevolent on the part of the Ford engineers.

But Starlight would be the guy reading the owners manual: "Use 6 quarts of oil" and his response would be "Wow, those pushy engineers at Ford and threatening and everything."

[Starlight]

If the engineers at Ford design an engine to power the new Bronco and that engine takes 6 quarts of oil in order to run efficiently then 'good' would be providing the engine with 6 quarts of oil and 'evil' would be providing 4 quarts of bacon grease. The engineers at Ford aren't hitting anyone with a stick and right and wrong for the engine isn't a matter of whether the bacon grease guy has a bigger stick. The 'good' and 'evil' in this situation are built into the design of the engine - there is no power play, no threats, nothing arbitrary or confusing and certainly nothing malevolent on the part of the Ford engineers.

The moral of your silly story seems to be that we should do what works.

I'm 100% all for doing what works. That's what makes me so interested in politics, and economics, and positive psychology, etc, because it's important to learn what works, and learn what makes people happy, in order to be able to turn a desire to act altruistically into successful altruistic actions. It's all well and good to have a desire to help others, but knowing what works and what doesn't is essential to being able to put that desire into practice. That's why careful scientific study of what works in societies and in people's lives and what doesn't is so important. That's why I could give you a two hour lecture off the top of my head about what is scientifically known about human happiness, the definitions of it, the causes of it, and how it can be increased... because I care about altruism I study topics relating to improving people's lives and improving society in detail.

[Bill the Cat]

But Starlight would be the guy reading the owners manual: "Use 6 quarts of oil" and his response would be "Wow, those pushy engineers at Ford and threatening and everything."

Nah. I find people like Starfruit don't particularly like cars.