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
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    And how is that meaningful? A society accepts slavery another society doesn't. You like apples, I like pears... So?
    Despite your "objection from incredulity" and alignment of morality with food preferences, morality is better aligned with legal systems, with the same ramifications. One country has X illegal, another doesn't. Each country finds their law valid and meaningful within it's context. You are (again) objecting because it's not "universal/absolute." And you still have not made the case.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Since when are you the arbiter of what is coherent? You don't like the analogy because of what it portends. I mean if you think that my preference for pears is meaningful - well more power to ya...
    I am the arbiter of what is coherent to me - as you are to you. I find your argument from assertion/incredulity/outrage largely incoherent, so it does not convince me. If you find it coherent, then it will convince you. I do not like the analogy because it does not fit, not because of what it portends. The analogy to legal systems is far more obvious and far more coherent, IMO. The attempt to link it to mathematical principles is forced; the two are not even similar.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    OK, you win, my preference for pears is of utmost meaning!
    Presumably it is meaningful to some degree for you. It governs some of your buying decisions, at least.
    But nowhere have I suggested that "moral preferences" are analogous to "food preferences." You are, again, arguing from incredulity/outrage/assertion. You STILL have not made the case.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right, I assume that we are not merely meaningless specks, on a insignificant planet, in an indifferent cosmos. So sue me...
    I do not beleive we are meaningless specks on an insignificant planet either. Since I do not attribute sentience to the cosmos, I have to admit that the cosmos is largely indifferent to our presence.

    Seer, you are apparently not seeing the problem with your argument. It is simple: you don't have one. All you have is the repeated assertion that a thing ONLY has meaning if it is universal/absolute, and several flawed analogies to attempt to link subjective morality with whimsical preferences. You are arguing from incredulity and outrage. You are not making, IMO, a coherent argument for why morality must be universal/absolute or it fails. You are not making an argument at all - you just assert, over and over and over again.

    I have found this to be true, in general, of most people who hold this absolute/universal moral stance. At the end of the day, all they can do is repeat some variation of the same mantra: "subjective morality is meaningless because it's not universal/absolute." The vast majority of your statements boil down to this - but you have never shown, in any argument, why this must be so.
    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 Post
      Despite your "objection from incredulity" and alignment of morality with food preferences, morality is better aligned with legal systems, with the same ramifications. One country has X illegal, another doesn't. Each country finds their law valid and meaningful within it's context. You are (again) objecting because it's not "universal/absolute." And you still have not made the case.
      Incredulity? Really? I find my preference for pears meaningful why are you trying to minimize my preference? All my pear loving friends need to get together, vote, and outlaw apples! Will my preference become meaningful then, if I make it legal?


      I am the arbiter of what is coherent to me - as you are to you. I find your argument from assertion/incredulity/outrage largely incoherent, so it does not convince me. If you find it coherent, then it will convince you. I do not like the analogy because it does not fit, not because of what it portends. The analogy to legal systems is far more obvious and far more coherent, IMO. The attempt to link it to mathematical principles is forced; the two are not even similar.
      See Carp, your legal analogy is only more coherent because you think it is so. There is no indisputable logical argument to say it is.


      Presumably it is meaningful to some degree for you. It governs some of your buying decisions, at least.
      But nowhere have I suggested that "moral preferences" are analogous to "food preferences." You are, again, arguing from incredulity/outrage/assertion. You STILL have not made the case.
      Of course my analogy works, you just don't like it. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


      I do not beleive we are meaningless specks on an insignificant planet either.
      Really, why not?
      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 Post
        Incredulity? Really? I find my preference for pears meaningful why are you trying to minimize my preference? All my pear loving friends need to get together, vote, and outlaw apples! Will my preference become meaningful then, if I make it legal?
        I'll leave this aside as another example of argument from outrage/ridicule. I note you STILL have not put forward an argument to show how meaning/value/reality is limited to things that are universal/absolute. This is the heart of your argument, and you have not made it. I suspect that, simply reading the sentence, you can see the problem with the claim.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        See Carp, your legal analogy is only more coherent because you think it is so. There is no indisputable logical argument to say it is.
        It is more coherent (to me) because it compares two things that are like in kind: both are rules about actions that ought or ought not be performed; both require interpretation to determine application to circumstances. Your analogy compares rules about actions that ought or ought not be performed with principals that govern how objects are counted and areas determined, etc. If you do not see how the first analogy fits and the second does not, then I have to leave you to it. From my perspective, it appears to me you are trying to force an analogy because the analogy that fits better has consequences you do not want to examine, and the analogy that fits poorly fits a narrative you are trying to put forward.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Of course my analogy works, you just don't like it. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
        Emphasis mine: My point exactly, Seer.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Really, why not?
        Because my life is filled with meaning and purpose. I work to support my family. I volunteer to help better the lives of others. I love my wife and children. I study to improve my mind. I build my house to be more comfortable and warm. I have become more politically active to have more of an influence on the political direction of my town, my state, and our country. The list goes on and on and on. Presumably, you do similar things for similar reasons.

        I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that your response will have something to do with the fact that I will eventually die, the earth will eventually end, so all of this is "ultimately meaningless." That is, yet again, another form of your pervasive argument that meaning/value/purpose are limited to things that are universal/absolute or (in this case) eternal. If you're going to go in that direction, you will have to make the case that meaning/value/purpose are limited to universal/absolute/eternal things - not just assert it.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-23-2018, 11:00 AM.
        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 Post
          I'll leave this aside as another example of argument from outrage/ridicule. I note you STILL have not put forward an argument to show how meaning/value/reality is limited to things that are universal/absolute. This is the heart of your argument, and you have not made it. I suspect that, simply reading the sentence, you can see the problem with the claim.
          I think you are missing my point Carp. Let's camp on this point. Is my preference for pears less meaningful than a preference for or against slavery? If so, why? Must I make it a legal question before it becomes meaningful?
          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 Post
            I think you are missing my point Carp. Let's camp on this point. Is my preference for pears less meaningful than a preference for or against slavery? If so, why? Must I make it a legal question before it becomes meaningful?
            I'm not missing your point, Seer - I'm pointing out that you do not have an argument. You now have turned to yet another question instead of actually make an attempt to frame an argument that makes the case that meaning/value/purpose are limited to universal/eternal/absolute things. I suspect you do this because it is a way to sidetrack the discussion yet again, and avoid actually tackling the central question: are meaning/value/purpose limited to eternal/absolute/universal things?

            I may be projecting on you, but I went through a similar process when someone first pointed out this flaw to me. I ducked, dodged, questioned, denied, and did everything I could to avoid the central question. Ultimately, I had to face the fact that I had no answer for the central question. All I had was my strong assertions, and my argument from incredulity - of COURSE it has to be that way. This is what I am hearing from you - so it is very familiar to me.

            When I finally confronted that flaw head-on, I had to face the fact that my beliefs needed some attention. From my perspective - your beliefs need some attention. I'm sure you do not see it in the same light.
            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 Post
              I'm not missing your point, Seer - I'm pointing out that you do not have an argument. You now have turned to yet another question instead of actually make an attempt to frame an argument that makes the case that meaning/value/purpose are limited to universal/eternal/absolute things. I suspect you do this because it is a way to sidetrack the discussion yet again, and avoid actually tackling the central question: are meaning/value/purpose limited to eternal/absolute/universal things?

              I may be projecting on you, but I went through a similar process when someone first pointed out this flaw to me. I ducked, dodged, questioned, denied, and did everything I could to avoid the central question. Ultimately, I had to face the fact that I had no answer for the central question. All I had was my strong assertions, and my argument from incredulity - of COURSE it has to be that way. This is what I am hearing from you - so it is very familiar to me.

              When I finally confronted that flaw head-on, I had to face the fact that my beliefs needed some attention. From my perspective - your beliefs need some attention. I'm sure you do not see it in the same light.
              There is no ducking or dodging Carp. You know that 2+2 would be meaningless if sums were changed according to cultural dictates (whether you believe that mathematics were universal truth or not). Yet, magically, ethics (which are much more important to our daily lives) are meaningful even though they change according to cultural or personal mores. And you know that my preference for pears over apples is really a meaningless distinction. But if we pears lovers could get this preference codified into law, then magically again, pear preference becomes meaningful (your legal point). Sorry none of this logically follows.
              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 Post
                There is no ducking or dodging Carp. You know that 2+2 would be meaningless if sums were changed according to cultural dictates (whether you believe that mathematics were universal truth or not). Yet, magically, ethics (which are much more important to our daily lives) are meaningful even though they change according to cultural or personal mores. And you know that my preference for pears over apples is really a meaningless distinction. But if we pears lovers could get this preference codified into law, then magically again, pear preference becomes meaningful (your legal point). Sorry none of this logically follows.
                And you still have not made a case that meaning/value/purpose are only real when they are universal/absolute/eternal. You keep coming back to a failed analogy (I outlined why the analogy is flawed) and insist it is saying something. You take something that is absolute/universal (mathematic principles), claim (rightfully) that it would be meaningless if it could change, then declare that ethics is the same (apparently on the basis that it's even more important to humans), so it is also meaningless if it changes. Except you are once again arguing by assertion. You have not shown that ethics/morals ARE absolute/eternal/universal, or are the same as mathematics, nor have you shown that value/meaning/purpose is ONLY associated with something that is absolute/eternal/universal - you have simply declared it to be the case.

                This is the flaw in your reasoning, Seer. Your argument is not going to convince until you actually MAKE an argument. Assertions/declartions are just not going to cut it - not if you want to convince. You need to address the core issue. Otherwise, it's just another assertion. And simply declaring that ethics is akin to mathematics because it's even more important fails for obvious reasons. If "importance to humanity" is what makes ethics like mathematics, then food must be like mathematics - it's pretty darned important. Air must be like mathematics - it's pretty darned important. You can't say, "this must be like that because it's even more important." It just doesn't make any sense.

                And no one is saying that "ethics magically become meaningful." Many things that change, and I gave several examples, are meaningful. So once again, "changing" and "meaningless" are being equated by you with absolutely no justification: you are just declaring "it is so" and that's the argument. It's not an argument.

                Your path is fairly clear, Seer. Your claim is essentially that changing/subjective things are meaningless; eternal/absolute/universal things are the only things that have meaning/purpose.

                That is the case you have to make in order to convince.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-23-2018, 01:23 PM.
                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 Post
                  And you still have not made a case that meaning/value/purpose are only real when they are universal/absolute/eternal. You keep coming back to a failed analogy (which I outlined why the analogy is flawed) and insist it is saying something. You take something that is absolute/universal, claim (rightfully) that it would be meaningless if it could change, then declare that ethics is the same (apparently on the basis that it's even more important to humans), so it is also meaningless if it changes. Except you are once again arguing by assertion. You have not shown that ethics/morals ARE absolute/eternal/universal, nor have you shown that value/meaning/purpose is ONLY associated with something that is absolute/eternal/universal - you have simply declared it to be the case.
                  Just as 2+2 is only meaningful if it is connected to a universal truth.

                  This is the flaw in your reasoning, Seer. Your argument is not going to convince until you actually MAKE an argument. Assertions/declartions are just not going to cut it - not if you want to convince. You need to address the core issue. Otherwise, it's just another assertion. And simply declaring that ethics is akin to mathematics because it's even more important fails for obvious reasons. If "importance to humanity" is what makes ethics like mathematics, then food must be like mathematics - it's pretty darned important. Air must be like mathematics - it's pretty darned important. You can't say, "this must be like that because it's even more important." It just doesn't make any sense.
                  Don't you see that you are doing Carp? You are merely asserting meaning. Guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.
                  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 Post
                    Just as 2+2 is only meaningful if it is connected to a universal truth.
                    Again - argument by assertion and (unjustified) association.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Don't you see that you are doing Carp? You are merely asserting meaning. Guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.
                    Now the argument has devolved to "I'm rubber, you're glue?"

                    I am using the terms as they are conventionally used in language, by most people, Seer. Even you have to admit that words have "meaning," yet that meaning changes over time. The word "gay" once meant simply "happy." Now it may still be used that way, but usually it means "homosexual." Yet no one questions whether the word has meaning. My laptop has a purpose, yet the laptop is finite - not eternal. And my laptop's purpose changes from one moment to another depending on my need. One moment it's purpose is to do my job, the next it is to balance my budget, then it is to chat online, then it is to play a game or watch a movie. Yet it continues to have purpose. My FMA account has value, measured in dollars. Yet that value keeps changing, and it certainly is not eternal. These are perfectly acceptable and common uses of these terms.

                    So I am using language just as everyone uses language - including you. But you are proposing a concept that is NOT widely accepted: that purpose/meaning/value only exist when a thing is eternal/absolute/universal. You are constraining language without providing a justification for that constraint. You are introducing a principle that is NOT widely held, and not the conventional way people view these things - merely by asserting it is so. Yet I strongly suspect you continue to use "purpose" and "value" and "meaning" in your normal life in the same way the rest of us do - limiting it only for this discussion in this context.

                    You have forced yourself into that conflicting position because to do otherwise opens up the possibility that ethics/morality may also be meaningful though NOT universal/eternal/absolute, just as laws have meaning in their context, though they are not universal/absolute/eternal. But you have forced yourself into an inconsistent position. To maintain it, you have to hold the position that laws, likewise, have no meaning/purpose/value. There is no such inconsistency to my position.

                    And you STILL have not provided an argument for why you have adopted this position.
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-23-2018, 02:07 PM.
                    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 Post
                      Again - argument by assertion and (unjustified) association.



                      Now the argument has devolved to "I'm rubber, you're glue?"

                      I am using the term as it is conventionally used in language, by most people, Seer. Even you have to admit that words have "meaning," yet that meaning changes over time. The word "gay" once meant simply "happy." Now it may still be used that way, but usually it means "homosexual." Yet no one questions whether the word has meaning. My laptop has a purpose, yet the laptop is finite - not eternal. And my laptop's purpose changes from one moment to another depending on my need. One moment it's purpose is to do my job, the next it is to balance my budget, then it is to chat online, then it is to play a game or watch a movie. Yet it continues to have purpose. My FMA account has value, measured in dollars. Yet that value keeps changing, and it certainly is not eternal. These are perfectly acceptable and common uses of these terms.

                      So I am using language just as everyone uses language - including you. But you are proposing a concept that is NOT widely accepted: that purpose/meaning/value only exist when a thing is eternal/absolute/universal. You are constraining language without providing a justification for that constraint. You are introducing a principle that is NOT widely held, and not the conventional way people view these things - merely by asserting it is so. Yet I strongly suspect you continue to use "purpose" and "value" and "meaning" in your normal life in the same way the rest of us do - limiting it only for this discussion in this context.

                      You have forced yourself into that conflicting position because to do otherwise opens up the possibility that ethics/morality may also be meaningful though NOT universal/eternal/absolute. But you have forced yourself into an inconsistent position. There is no such inconsistency to my position.

                      And you STILL have not provided an argument for why you have adopted this position.
                      Carp, all you are doing is asserting meaning, nothing else. Let me put it this way, Joe a Nihilist, of a particular brand, says that life has no meaning. Nothing he does has meaning. Ed comes along and says his life does have meaning, the things he is engaged in are meaningful. Carp - which man is right?
                      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 Post
                        Carp, all you are doing is asserting meaning, nothing else. Let me put it this way, Joe a Nihilist, of a particular brand, says that life has no meaning. Nothing he does has meaning. Ed comes along and says his life does have meaning, the things he is engaged in are meaningful. Carp - which man is right?
                        I am using language conventionally. You are making an assertion that defies conventional use of language, and asserts a position that actually contradicts what I am fairly sure you do and say each day. As I noted, to hold your position, you have to likewise claim that laws, which are changable, regional, not universal/absolute/eternal, have no meaning, value, or purpose. Yet you will obey those laws when you leave your home. You will explain what the law "means" if someone asks about it. You will even explain the purpose the legislators had for passing the law, and perhaps even the value it brings to the society that operates under that law. And anyone listening to you will understand the purpose of the law, the meaning of the law, and the value of the law as you explain it.

                        Your stated position with respect to ethics is contradictory with your actions as well as conventional use of the language, Seer - and you dodge it by consistently returning to questions and not putting forward an argument to substantiate why you hold this amazing view for ethics/morality, but then do not consistently use that language or hold that view for other things. At this point, I have to assume it is because you cannot defend the position (I frankly have no idea how you would even begin to). As I said, you have backed yourself into a rather absurd place in order to hold to a particular view. I cannot see into your head to know if you simply don't see it, or refuse to acknowledge it. Only you know that. But you are too smart to miss the import of the problem.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-23-2018, 02:43 PM.
                        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 Post
                          I am using language conventionally. You are making an assertion that defies conventional use of language, and asserts a position that actually contradicts what I am fairly sure you do and say each day. As I noted, to hold your position, you have to likewise claim that laws, which are changable, regional, not universal/absolute/eternal, have no meaning, value, or purpose. Yet you will obey those laws when you leave your home. You will explain what the law "means" if someone asks about it. You will even explain the purpose the legislators had for passing the law, and perhaps even the value it brings to the society that operates under that law. And anyone listening to you will understand the purpose of the law, the meaning of the law, and the value of the law as you explain it.

                          Your stated position with respect to ethics is contradictory with your actions as well as conventional use of the language, Seer - and you dodge it by consistently returning to questions and not putting forward an argument to substantiate why you hold this amazing view for ethics/morality, but then do not consistently use that language or hold that view for other things. At this point, I have to assume it is because you cannot defend the position (I frankly have no idea how you would even begin to). As I said, you have backed yourself into a rather absurd place in order to hold to a particular view. I cannot see into your head to know if you simply don't see it, or refuse to acknowledge it. Only you know that. But you are too smart to miss the import of the problem.
                          Carp right along you have accused me of asserting, yet you are doing the very same thing. So let me try one more time to get a straight answer: Let me put it this way, Joe a Nihilist, of a particular brand, says that life has no meaning. Nothing he does has meaning. Ed comes along and says his life does have meaning, the things he is engaged in are meaningful. Carp - which man is right?
                          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 Post
                            Carp right along you have accused me of asserting, yet you are doing the very same thing. So let me try one more time to get a straight answer: Let me put it this way, Joe a Nihilist, of a particular brand, says that life has no meaning. Nothing he does has meaning. Ed comes along and says his life does have meaning, the things he is engaged in are meaningful. Carp - which man is right?
                            I think we are at an impasse, Seer. I know you tend to be the one asking questions, and it gives you a degree of control over the conversation. But you consistently refuse to answer the questions that I am asking, and instead turn around and ask yet another question.

                            I'd like an answer to the question I have asked, about how you can support the claim that meaning/purpose/value do not exist unless the thing in question is eternal/absolute/universal, and how you square that with your everyday use of those exact same terms. You can use "law" as the example. Defend the proposition, which is an inevitable outgrowth of your position, that law has no meaning, value, or purpose because it is not universal/absolute/eternal.

                            If I can get that question answered, I'll be happy to respond to your question, you will find I am capable of doing so consistently with the rest of my worldview.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-23-2018, 03:29 PM.
                            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 Post
                              Carp right along you have accused me of asserting, yet you are doing the very same thing. So let me try one more time to get a straight answer: Let me put it this way, Joe a Nihilist, of a particular brand, says that life has no meaning. Nothing he does has meaning. Ed comes along and says his life does have meaning, the things he is engaged in are meaningful. Carp - which man is right?
                              I missed the window to add the following...

                              -------------------

                              upon reflection, I'm not treating you with a great deal of trust here. So I'm going to answer your question, trusting that you are not going to simply use it as a springboard to yet another question, and are actually going to answer my question.

                              The answer to your question is, of course, they are both right. If Joe sees no meaning to his life, then for Joe his life has no meaning. If he sees no meaning in Ed's life, then for him, Ed's life has no meaning. Ed, meanwhile, may see enormous meaning in Joe's life, and may see enormous meaning in his own life. Meaning is largely subjective. Even the meaning of words is subjective. If you ask someone in the south what a grinder is, they probably would never think to describe a sandwich. Someone in the north, being asked what a po boy is, would likewise be somewhat clueless. The term is meaningless (to them). Language works because we generally agree on the definition of words, but there are always local variants. And while we strive to agree on the denotation of words (by publishing dictionaries, etc.), we have vast disagreement on the connotation of words. Words with little or no emotional content to one person may have enormous emotional content to another. As an example, I give you the incredible reaction to my use of "slavery" in the abortion discussion. To successfully communicate, we often have to stop and clarify meaning to something we can all agree on before we can proceed. The same is true of purpose, and value.

                              That is perfectly consistent with my worldview and the way we use language and terminology on a daily basis. It is even consistent with how YOU you use language on a daily basis.
                              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 Post
                                Again Tass, it was never commanded by the Lord. There are ethical questions that scripture does not address. I know Bible believing Christians who have opposite opinions on social welfare for instance, or gun rights.
                                Slavery was endorsed by Christians for centuries and justified by the interpretation of scripture. This speaks to the point that the social mores of the day determine morality. Scripture is interpreted in such a way as to support the social mores. This applied to slavery, it’s applied increasingly to divorce, the role of women and civil rights for gays etc.

                                So what? I fully agree with Jesus, but what is worse, an adulterer in the the White House
                                Who are you to make that judgement? According to Jesus, divorce and remarriage, whilst the other party is still alive, is adultery...you can’t get more scriptural than Jesus’ own, unambiguous words.

                                or one who supports killing unborn human beings by the truck load. No contest...
                                Christianity is supposedly based upon the words of Jesus, NOT what seer personally judges to be worse. You are an example of how personal views on morality are justified as scriptural...happens all the time.

                                Yes divorce is wrong, except for certain reasons that both Jesus and Paul laid out.
                                These “certain reasons that both Jesus and Paul laid out” re divorce do not apply to the man 80% of Evangelicals voted into office. Trump is a thrice divorced adulterer living in sin who boasts about molesting women and who conducts extra-marital affairs. So much for Evangelicals supporting ‘family values’.

                                And if you don't get that killing unborn human beings, who never did any harm, is wrong, you are morally retarded.
                                Jewish law does not share the belief common among modern Evangelicals that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Presumably, this accounts for why Jesus never talked about abortion.

                                Furthermore, until c. 50 years ago this was also the position of most Christians...including Evangelicals.

                                “When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

                                https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

                                For now, but since ethics are always evolving, who knows what the future will bring.
                                True, 'twas ever thus. Social mores have never remained static.

                                How can it even be close to universal when only a minority of the world's countries have signed on? With a number of the signatories not even following the mandates.
                                Universal human rights are an ideal to be aspired to, not one that is yet in force...other than in the more developed countries.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 01-23-2018, 10:59 PM.
                                “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
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X