Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by seer; 01-17-2018, 07:25 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI may have a disagreement for any number of reasons, but not because I'm trying to be accommodating to the culture at large. Which was Tass' point.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, so King and Gandhi were immoral or evil according to the mores of the day. And again, what is better for humankind, or whether that is even the goal, would be no less subjective than anything else.
Originally posted by seer View PostWell I still think of gay rights (certain aspects at least) as evil or morally wrong. In keeping with Scripture and Church tradition. But it could easily turn the other way, especially if Islam keeps spreading as it is.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut that is merely your definition. What is harm? What is a benefit? Nevermind we could never really know the long term consequences of these things. For instance I see no good coming from the sexual revolution. More abortions, out of wedlock births, no fault divorce leading to more broken homes, more STDs etc...
All in all, it's not a neat and tidy process, which is (I believe) one of the reasons that absolutists/universalists find their approach so much more appealing: it seems simple and black/white, seemingly avoiding the need to do a lot of thinking or reflection. All that is really necessary is to think through how the moral norm applies in each case, rather than to question the moral norm itself. But that is largely an illusion. Even "absolute/universal" moral norms have shifted over time. I believe that is because they are not actually absolute OR universal - they are merely claimed to be and projected on a god to lend them authority. It is, essentially, a form of monarchical morality (i.e., the individual submits their moral code to that professed by the monarch).The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes. But they are not universal moral definitions, they evolve as societies evolve.
Yes. This is what I think seer and other theists are doing.
I agree with all of this, but I have the impression that you think you are arguing against me.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell of course, because what King believed and did was not good in and of itself, its goodness, or badness, depends on the social mores of the day. In one social context he was good, in another social context he was evil. If you are right...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo you were accommodating to...?
I do not share your concerns about Islam. Although it is not happening in the Middle East, the transition concerning gay rights that is happening in the Christian world (more slowly than the secular world) is also beginning in the Islamic world, though definitely even more slowly. If history repeats itself, the coming generations will accelerate that process.
It is essentially how we identify good vs. evil, and you are right that it is not an exact science. It is riddled with conflicts and confusion. Some things that are harmful in the short term are beneficial in the long term. Some things that are beneficial in the short term are harmful in the long term. What one person sees as "harmful" another may see as "beneficial." Each of us makes those decisions on the basis of our own perspective of the world, and shares our thoughts/reasons/ideas with others. Eventually, the idea either becomes widespread and incorporated into the social moral norm, or it doesn't and falls away.
All in all, it's not a neat and tidy process, which is (I believe) one of the reasons that absolutists/universalists find their approach so much more appealing: it seems simple and black/white, seemingly avoiding the need to do a lot of thinking or reflection. All that is really necessary is to think through how the moral norm applies in each case, rather than to question the moral norm itself. But that is largely an illusion. Even "absolute/universal" moral norms have shifted over time. I believe that is because they are not actually absolute OR universal - they are merely claimed to be and projected on a god to lend them authority. It is, essentially, a form of monarchical morality (i.e., the individual submits their moral code to that professed by the monarch).Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThis is an inevitable result of a subjective moral framework. Something may be consider moral by one group in one time, and immoral by a different group in a different time, or even the same group in a different time. Is it possible that some future society will look back on Ghandi and MLK and again see them as "harmful" and "ungood?" There are people existing today who feel that wayAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI wasn't accommodating anyone, the point is that there can be disagreement about certain texts
Originally posted by seer View PostWe will see. I can't think of any Muslim country that supports gay rights - can you?
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, the eternal moral mess...
Originally posted by seer View PostWell that is your opinion. Mine is that we intuitively gravitate towards the idea of universal moral truths because they do in fact exist. Even if we don't fully understand them - "For now we see through a glass, darkly..."
But I think we've already been down this road...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo no behavior is actually good or bad, just good or bad relative to the situation. So in one context it is possible that child rape could be considered a moral good...
My moral codes are real - they are actual. I simply cannot claim them to be universal or absolute.
As for your question, it has a number of problems. First, you appear to be confusing the definition of a moral norm with the application of a moral norm to a particular circumstance. Is it possible that "rape" might be defined as a "moral good?" I cannot deny that there is a possibility that some future society could adopt that view. It would require the majority of the members of that society to individually come to that conclusion. However, possibility is not plausibility. For that to happen, an individual would have to see the a forceful sexual act on their own person as "beneficial" or "desirable." I cannot even begin to imagine that ever happening, ergo I cannot imagine a society in which that happens. So theoretically: possible; practically: impossible. It's like asking if it's possible for a single person to guess a 400 digit base-ten number that someone else has written down on the first try. Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
As for whether rape can ever be a "moral good" in any circumstance, it depends on how you evaluate moral codes comparatively. If someone could contrive a scenario (I cannot think of one) where raping a single child would save the lives of 3,000 innocent children, some people might evaluate it as a "moral" good on the basis of being the best of the available choices. I do not evaluate that way. When faced with two immoral choices, choosing the lesser of the two does not, IMO, make the act moral. It simply reflects a very nasty decision that needs to be made, and trying to minimize harm. The act remains immoral, IMO.
This is essentially what I was trying to say in another thread on abortion. Abortion pits the death of an innocent against the temporary enslavement (and I know that word is not accepted by folks here) of an independent woman. It is a "lesser of two evils" calculation that is amoral quandary, IMO. Because I do not see a significant moral distinction between death and enslavement, I cannot choose in either direction, which is why I advocate for pre-choice alternatives, so we reduce the number of times when that mora choice has to be made. But when it comes to legality, I HAVE to come down on the side of pro-choice. If the law permits a thing that has an immoral element to it, the morality of the choice falls on the shoulders of the person making the choice. If I proactively endorse laws that have an immoral component, I am complicit in those laws and that immoral choice.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not speaking of that, I'm speaking of Christians changing their beliefs to conform to the culture, as you suggested. I have not, and many bible believing Churches have not.
No, you again are trying to have it both ways. King and Gandhi in their time would have to be considered evil since good, defined by you, was that which conformed to the social mores of the day. They may not be considered evil in our present moral climate, but that could change too...“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThat’s exactly what Christians have done over the millennia, e.g. the largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention supported slavery until relatively recently based upon what it saw to be biblical precepts. Thus, bible believing Churches have changed their beliefs to conform to the culture.
“Good” as defined by me, is not absolute, this is the point. What is deemed “good” by society is not static it’s evolving. And moral giants such as Ghandi and MLK influence the process.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostBut I think we've already been down this road...Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNonsense, there were just as many Christians who did not support slavery, here and in England. And owning slaves is not a Biblical moral command. It was allowed, but it was not required or commanded.
That does not change my point, in their time, especially early on , they were bucking the culture and according to you that would have been evil since "good" is what conforms to the moral norms.
And I'm not sure why you see them as moral giants - because they agree with you?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThat’s not the point. Christianity has a history of biblical interpretation that comports with the social mores of the day...as was the case during several centuries of slavery in the USA.
You are erroneously viewing the culture at any one time as absolute and unchanging, whereas culture is always evolving...often influenced by notable reformers such as Ghandi and MLK.
They are seen as “moral giants” because, although initially resisted, their views came to be accepted and implemented throughout much of the world.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are missing my point Tass, there are things in Scripture that are not moral commands. Biblically it makes no difference if a culture accepts slavery or not. Now if a culture decided that adultery was a moral good, we as Christians should counter that.
Originally posted by seer View PostSee, you can not even agree with your own standard! If "good" is defined as that which conforms to social norms, as you said, then in their time King and Gandhi were evil. By your own definition. What came ten or twenty years later is not relevant.
Originally posted by seer View PostSure, and one day we could see Ayatollah Khomeini as a moral giant. Meaningless...
As for "meaningless," it is meaningless to you because it lacks a universal/absolute basis that you require. Moral positions, in your framework, are not "real" unless they are absolute/universal. You are, again, assuming your conclusion.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are missing my point Tass, there are things in Scripture that are not moral commands. Biblically it makes no difference if a culture accepts slavery or not.
Now if a culture decided that adultery was a moral good, we as Christians should counter that.
See, you can not even agree with your own standard! If "good" is defined as that which conforms to social norms, as you said, then in their time King and Gandhi were evil. By your own definition. What came ten or twenty years later is not relevant.
Sure, and one day we could see Ayatollah Khomeini as a moral giant. Meaningless...Last edited by Tassman; 01-20-2018, 04:20 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
595 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment