Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[seer]

You declare relative/subjective moral reasoning "meaningless" because it can sometimes result in differing outcomes for different people in different places. Laws do this all the time, but I have not seen you decry them as "meaningless" and I suspect you follow them for your particular location. So why the difference?

How is legal reasoning valid when it can result in differing codes of law for different places?

You seem to be avoiding this question, Seer. I've asked it multiple times - and you are simply not responding to it.

Of course they are meaningless Carp, as they relate to moral questions as most laws do. If you think otherwise, tell me which law is meaningful - the law that protects free speech and expression, or the law that murders or sends dissidents to gulags. Which one is meaningful as it relates to understanding what is ethical or not? And how is the respective moral reasoning in either case better, more right, or insightful that a 2,000 year old ethical system?

[carpedm9587]

Of course they are meaningless Carp, as they relate to moral questions as most laws do. If you think otherwise, tell me which law is meaningful - the law that protects free speech and expression, or the law that murders or sends dissidents to gulags. Which one is meaningful as it relates to understanding what is ethical or not? And how is the respective moral reasoning in either case better, more right, or insightful that a 2,000 year old ethical system?

All laws are meaningful to the societies that create them. They are not agreed to by all members of that society, but I am reasonably sure that you pay your taxes, (mostly) observe the speed limit, follow the laws related to property usage, traffic signals, and so forth. And I did not say anything about laws that pertain to morality. You seem to be trying to reduce "laws" to that set, perhaps because you need to hold on to your "relative/subjective is meaningless" position? But laws run the gamut from ethical to procedural to behavioral. Most populations encode their ethics in their laws, but they also encode their social processes and compromises.

I am also reasonably certain your life is full of relative/subjective things that are meaningful to you: the art you chose for your home, your love for family and friends, the importance you place in doing your job well so people will be safe, and the list goes on.

Unless, of course, you mean "ultimately meaningless," in which case you just fell back into your only objection: relative/subjective things cannot produce absolute/objective conclusions. To hold that position, you have to declare anything that is not "absolute/objective" to be "meaningless." But if you look up the word "meaning" or "meaningful" or "meaningless," I don't think you will find any reference to "eternity" or "absolute" or "objective."

So you appear to be defining your way to a position. You are free to do that - but it doesn't make your belief true or an accurate representation of "how things work."

[seer]

All laws are meaningful to the societies that create them. They are not agreed to by all members of that society, but I am reasonably sure that you pay your taxes, (mostly) observe the speed limit, follow the laws related to property usage, traffic signals, and so forth. And I did not say anything about laws that pertain to morality. You seem to be trying to reduce "laws" to that set, perhaps because you need to hold on to your "relative/subjective is meaningless" position? But laws run the gamut from ethical to procedural to behavioral. Most populations encode their ethics in their laws, but they also encode their social processes and compromises.

I am also reasonably certain your life is full of relative/subjective things that are meaningful to you: the art you chose for your home, your love for family and friends, the importance you place in doing your job well so people will be safe, and the list goes on.

Unless, of course, you mean "ultimately meaningless," in which case you just fell back into your only objection: relative/subjective things cannot produce absolute/objective conclusions. To hold that position, you have to declare anything that is not "absolute/objective" to be "meaningless." But if you look up the word "meaning" or "meaningful" or "meaningless," I don't think you will find any reference to "eternity" or "absolute" or "objective."

So you appear to be defining your way to a position. You are free to do that - but it doesn't make your belief true or an accurate representation of "how things work."

Carp, you are not understanding what I'm saying. A while back you suggested that "true moral reasoning" was some how better or more valid than relying on a 2,000 years old book and its ethical system. But why should we think that is so? It is meaningless since moral reasoning does not lead to the desired ends that you suggest, at all. It can and does lead to completely opposite ethical conclusions depending on ones premises and moral goals.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are not understanding what I'm saying. A while back you suggested that "true moral reasoning" was some how better or more valid than relying on a 2,000 years old book and its ethical system.

I believe what I said was that actual moral reasoning is better than just trying to align with the herd.

But why should we think that is so?

Because it involves considering the issues, and reasoning to a conclusion. "Following the herd" simply locks one into someone else's moral point of view with no thought actually given to the issues. The distinction between those is, IMO, vast.

It is meaningless since moral reasoning does not lead to the desired ends that you suggest, at all.

Interesting. I'm not having any difficulty with "moral reasoning" achieving the ends I seek. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

It can and does lead to completely opposite ethical conclusions depending on ones premises and moral goals.

And you are back to "it can produce different outcomes" which means "it does not achieve absolute/objective outcomes" which means "it's not relative/subjective" and you have provided us with yet another definition of "relative/subjective" without actually making an argument.

Seer - the situation is simple. There are two current approaches to morality:

1) Consider the issues and what is valued and reason to a moral position
2) Try to align with what other people are saying to "fit in."

Both approaches produce variable results. Both approaches can even produce opposing results (e.g., Christians who affirm homosexuality and Christians who decry homosexuality). Both approaches lack any means for resolving the discrepancies. One approach - mine - is actual reasoning. The other is nothing more than herd mentality.

Which of these is "better" is, as far as I am concerned, reasonably self-evident. Your defense is that the "herd" you are aligning to essentially led by the very powerful, all-knowing, supreme being of the universe, so why WOULDN'T you follow it? If that being actually existed, I'd be tempted to agree. But you cannot show that it does. All of my experience and history tells me it does not. So - from your perspective, you're "following your god" and from my perspective your following the unsubstantiated religious beliefs of an ancient culture - locking yourself into some reasonable moral codes - and some really bad ones as well. But you cannot entertain even the possibility of the latter - because to do so would require you to actually question the moral principles involved - and your morality is limited to "what does the book say?" Because you believe the book is "inspired" and "inerrant" and must be taken literally - you are locked in.

I'm sure you see that as a good thing. I can understand that. I once did too (though I cannot say I was ever as literal as you apparently are). But I do not see it as a good thing. I see it as very limiting, and unfortunate. If I have a bad moral principle in my library of principles, there is at least a chance I will escape it because I am open to discussion/argumentation about the issues. You cannot - so long as the book says "X" you will cling to "X."

[Sparko]

You and Seer are aligned in your misunderstanding on this point. So I will repeat: my position from the outset is that there are differing positions within Christianity on these issues, and each "side" believes it is "right." I have absolutely no position on which side is actually right. If you think I do - then you have incorrectly "read my mind." You can either accept my word for it, or not. It's up to you.



I take no position on "which has the correct interpretation." My position is merely that there are different views and each claims to be the correct one. I will note, however, that "correctness" is not necessarily a function of "which view has been held for the longest." History is not a "fixed thing" and "revisionist history" is not a bad thing. Indeed, any historian worth their salt will tell you that our understanding of history SHOULD change as we uncover more and more information. A static history is closed to new discoveries.



I don't need to "dismiss the moral teachings of the bible as irrelevant" on the basis of being "fuzzy" Sparko. I place the moral teachings of the bible on thw same plane as I place the moral teachings of any group, culture, time, or area: it is fodder for consideration as I engage in my own moral reasoning. It is not a "script" to which I am trying to align. As a consequence, it's "original meaning" or "what the authors thought" is no more or less informative to me that what you think, or what my Mother thinks, or what my neighbor thinks, or what anyone else thinks. Unlike you and Seer - it is not the basis for my moral decision-making. Ergo I do not need to defend or refute it.

What you are trying to do is obfuscate the fact that Christianity is indeed a cohesive religion with a pretty clear morality. AFTER you already admitted to me that even with all of the denominations you mention, they all pretty much agree on the moral teachings of Christ.

You are just trying to blow smoke into the situation in order to keep from admitting that if people followed Christ's teachings, the world would be a better place.

[carpedm9587]

What you are trying to do is obfuscate the fact that Christianity is indeed a cohesive religion with a pretty clear morality.

I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. ANY human group or society will be aligned on a large percentage of its moral code. That is one of the bases for forming the group or society. And ANY human group or society will see variation in its moral code. Christianity is no exception to that. You see numbers like 95/5 tossed around all the time. I have no idea if anyone has ever studied it, but personal experience suggests that pretty much what I see - for any religion - any group.

AFTER you already admitted to me that even with all of the denominations you mention, they all pretty much agree on the moral teachings of Christ.

See above. And note that we don't actually have direct access to the "moral teachings of Jesus." What we have is what was reported by his biographers 2-8 decades after he preached. So we are seeing Jesus and his teachings through the lens of a developing theology of the early Christian church, strongly influenced by Pauline leadership.

You are just trying to blow smoke into the situation in order to keep from admitting that if people followed Christ's teachings, the world would be a better place.

If people followed the moral leadership of any of our "great leaders" - the world would be a better place. I count Jesus (as his position is reported) among those. I also count Gandhi, Mandela, Buddha, and others in these ranks. Throughout human history - we have had great moral leaders.

And if you read my posts, I don't believe I ever denied that following most of the mainstream moral tenets of Christianity would result in a better world (a few of them not withstanding). What I denied was that Christianity had a unique claim to this reality. Most of the moral tenets embraced by Christianity pre-date Christianity and even Judaism, and are captured in even older moral and legal codes. The problem with following religious moral codes is that it encourages "conformance" over "consideration." It is morality rooted in "what the book says" rather than morality rooted in truly considering the issues. As such, any horrendous moral principles (i.e., the stance against homosexuality) are locked in and cannot be re-examined, because "the book says so" and conformance is the quest.

[Sparko]

I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. ANY human group or society will be aligned on a large percentage of its moral code. That is one of the bases for forming the group or society. And ANY human group or society will see variation in its moral code. Christianity is no exception to that. You see numbers like 95/5 tossed around all the time. I have no idea if anyone has ever studied it, but personal experience suggests that pretty much what I see - for any religion - any group.



See above. And note that we don't actually have direct access to the "moral teachings of Jesus." What we have is what was reported by his biographers 2-8 decades after he preached. So we are seeing Jesus and his teachings through the lens of a developing theology of the early Christian church, strongly influenced by Pauline leadership.



If people followed the moral leadership of any of our "great leaders" - the world would be a better place. I count Jesus (as his position is reported) among those. I also count Gandhi, Mandela, Buddha, and others in these ranks. Throughout human history - we have had great moral leaders.

And if you read my posts, I don't believe I ever denied that following most of the mainstream moral tenets of Christianity would result in a better world (a few of them not withstanding). What I denied was that Christianity had a unique claim to this reality. Most of the moral tenets embraced by Christianity pre-date Christianity and even Judaism, and are captured in even older moral and legal codes. The problem with following religious moral codes is that it encourages "conformance" over "consideration." It is morality rooted in "what the book says" rather than morality rooted in truly considering the issues. As such, any horrendous moral principles (i.e., the stance against homosexuality) are locked in and cannot be re-examined, because "the book says so" and conformance is the quest.

Christianity doesn't just teach "what," but why.

We forgive others because God forgives us. We love our neighbor because we want to be treated the same and because God loves us. etc. The whole point of the parables was to give a "why" to the moral codes.

[seer]

I believe what I said was that actual moral reasoning is better than just trying to align with the herd.



Because it involves considering the issues, and reasoning to a conclusion. "Following the herd" simply locks one into someone else's moral point of view with no thought actually given to the issues. The distinction between those is, IMO, vast.



Interesting. I'm not having any difficulty with "moral reasoning" achieving the ends I seek. So I have no idea what you are talking about.



And you are back to "it can produce different outcomes" which means "it does not achieve absolute/objective outcomes" which means "it's not relative/subjective" and you have provided us with yet another definition of "relative/subjective" without actually making an argument.

Seer - the situation is simple. There are two current approaches to morality:

1) Consider the issues and what is valued and reason to a moral position
2) Try to align with what other people are saying to "fit in."

Both approaches produce variable results. Both approaches can even produce opposing results (e.g., Christians who affirm homosexuality and Christians who decry homosexuality). Both approaches lack any means for resolving the discrepancies. One approach - mine - is actual reasoning. The other is nothing more than herd mentality.

Which of these is "better" is, as far as I am concerned, reasonably self-evident. Your defense is that the "herd" you are aligning to essentially led by the very powerful, all-knowing, supreme being of the universe, so why WOULDN'T you follow it? If that being actually existed, I'd be tempted to agree. But you cannot show that it does. All of my experience and history tells me it does not. So - from your perspective, you're "following your god" and from my perspective your following the unsubstantiated religious beliefs of an ancient culture - locking yourself into some reasonable moral codes - and some really bad ones as well. But you cannot entertain even the possibility of the latter - because to do so would require you to actually question the moral principles involved - and your morality is limited to "what does the book say?" Because you believe the book is "inspired" and "inerrant" and must be taken literally - you are locked in.

I'm sure you see that as a good thing. I can understand that. I once did too (though I cannot say I was ever as literal as you apparently are). But I do not see it as a good thing. I see it as very limiting, and unfortunate. If I have a bad moral principle in my library of principles, there is at least a chance I will escape it because I am open to discussion/argumentation about the issues. You cannot - so long as the book says "X" you will cling to "X."

First I said nothing about following the heard, as a matter of fact those who see homosexuality as immoral are the minority in the US and and the West in general. And I don't know what you mean by reasonable moral codes as opposed to bad ones. What does that even mean in your relativism? Reasonable just happens to conform to the heard or your opinion at the moment. On what rational basis is that valid? There is nothing self-evident about anything you said, it certainly is not self-evident that moral reasoning is better, more valid, or produces a more insightful or correct understanding of ethics than following the heard or from what comes from a 2,000 year old book.

[carpedm9587]

First I said nothing about following the heard, as a matter of fact those who see homosexuality as immoral are the minority in the US and and the West in general.

I don't think I ever said that you said you were "following the herd," Seer. I'm sure you don't see yourself in those terms. I was describing the nature of what might be called "alignment morality," which is what any morality that seek to align itself to what someone else says reduces to.

And I don't know what you mean by reasonable moral codes as opposed to bad ones. What does that even mean in your relativism?

As with all sentient beings - a "reasonable" moral code will be one that aligns to my own moral code - and a bad one is one that does not. We are not different in that respect. The only difference between us is that you have relatively/subjectively decided to align your moral code with your interpretation of what is written in the books of the Christian bible.

Reasonable just happens to conform to the heard or your opinion at the moment.

I think you mean "herd." And my morality is not an "align to the herd" morality, Seer. The difference is intention. There is a vast difference between someone who intentionally seeks to align with the herd, and someone who thinks through their moral positions and arrives at conclusions that are similar to, or the same as, the other members of their herd.

On what rational basis is that valid?

To you - it will not be. You have arbitrarily decided to reduce "validity" to things that align with what you perceive as an absolute. In reason, an argument is valid if it is sound (i.e., can be expressed in syllogistic form) and the premises are true. The premises do not have to be objectively true - they merely have to be true. Some statements are objectively true - and some are subjectively true. Either can be used to create a valid argument.

There is nothing self-evident about anything you said, it certainly is not self-evident that moral reasoning is better, more valid, or produces a more insightful or correct understanding of ethics than following the heard or from what comes from a 2,000 year old book.

If you can say that, Seer, then I fear you are caught in a very juvenile form of morality. I don't mean that to be pejorative - though I know it sounds that way. But I think the vast majority of humans would see someone who is actively seeking to understand and reason their way to a moral conclusion as more morally mature than someone who is simply trying to align to someone else's morality. You might want to explore Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. What your describing is a combination of Stage 1 and Stage 4 moral reasoning. I am suggesting that "Stage 6" is a more mature form of moral reasoning. I'm not 100% in agreement with Kohlbergs model mind you - but it's not a bad starting place.

[carpedm9587]

Christianity doesn't just teach "what," but why.

We forgive others because God forgives us. We love our neighbor because we want to be treated the same and because God loves us. etc. The whole point of the parables was to give a "why" to the moral codes.

OK - granted. But they are "authority-driven" why's. Most of Christian morality (or any religiously-rooted morality) is ultimately rooted in punishment/reward, or trying to please an authority figure. I understand you believe this authority figure (i.e, god) actually exists. I believe it doesn't. Therefore, from my perspective, you are trying to align to a moral framework articulated by several men who were part of an ancient society. To me, that is no different than "trying to align to what Fred thinks." The only difference is that you have no actual access to Fred to verify what Fred thinks. You have to make do with what survives of the writings of these men.

[Sparko]

OK - granted. But they are "authority-driven" why's. Most of Christian morality (or any religiously-rooted morality) is ultimately rooted in punishment/reward, or trying to please an authority figure. I understand you believe this authority figure (i.e, god) actually exists. I believe it doesn't. Therefore, from my perspective, you are trying to align to a moral framework articulated by several men who were part of an ancient society. To me, that is no different than "trying to align to what Fred thinks." The only difference is that you have no actual access to Fred to verify what Fred thinks. You have to make do with what survives of the writings of these men.

No that is still wrong Carp. Christianity teaches you can't please God with actions. Our best is like filthy rags compared to him. It is about sharing the love and mercy he gives us.

[carpedm9587]

No that is still wrong Carp. Christianity teaches you can't please God with actions. Our best is like filthy rags compared to him. It is about sharing the love and mercy he gives us.

...which you do via your actions.

Even the authors of the epistles struggled with this one, Sparko. Solo fide is usually balanced with "by their works/fruits you will know them," and the importance of works that match faith.

But even without that struggle - whether it is faith or love or physical action that pleases god - the quest is to appease this god - to gain favor and be seen as one of the "saved" (or "chosen" - dependent on the particular Christian sect in question).

[Sparko]

...which you do via your actions.

Even the authors of the epistles struggled with this one, Sparko. Solo fide is usually balanced with "by their works/fruits you will know them," and the importance of works that match faith.

But even without that struggle - whether it is faith or love or physical action that pleases god - the quest is to appease this god - to gain favor and be seen as one of the "saved" (or "chosen" - dependent on the particular Christian sect in question).

Read Romans 3 Carp. It is about God saving us despite us being unable to please him.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+3&version=ESV

[carpedm9587]

Read Romans 3 Carp. It is about God saving us despite us being unable to please him.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+3&version=ESV

As I noted, Sparko - solo fide has long had to be held in balance with "know them by their works." Faith takes precedence - and nobody can "earn" salvation, according to the epistles, but apparently we can "earn" damnation - so avoiding damnation is still an attempt to "fit in" - to "appease," or at leas to not so "displease" as to get "eternal damnation." And this is reflected in....the works of the person.

It ends up in the same place.

[Sparko]

As I noted, Sparko - solo fide has long had to be held in balance with "know them by their works." Faith takes precedence - and nobody can "earn" salvation, according to the epistles, but apparently we can "earn" damnation - so avoiding damnation is still an attempt to "fit in" - to "appease," or at leas to not so "displease" as to get "eternal damnation." And this is reflected in....the works of the person.

It ends up in the same place.

sigh.