Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[JimL]

First of all Jim, in WW2 we did not just kill soldiers, we intentionally targeted population centers - like Tokyo and Dresden. And if God doesn't say so who does? The Nazis? The Commies? The Hutu? You?

What is good is that which is done to support the best interests of the doer without exacting unnecessary harm to another. We, as moral agents certainly didn't want to kill innocent civilians, we call it collateral damage, and perhaps we sometimes get it wrong, choose the wrong option, or perhaps there are some who are just immoral and choose to exact unnecessary harm to the other. But yes, imperfect human beings ultimately decide what is good and what is evil. Btw, we humans make those moral decisions whether or not there is an objective moral code, and we make those decisions based on reason. So, even if there were one, an objective moral code, it would be useless to us. And whose fault would that be?

[seer]

What is good is that which is done to support the best interests of the doer without exacting unnecessary harm to another. We, as moral agents certainly didn't want to kill innocent civilians, we call it collateral damage, and perhaps we sometimes get it wrong, choose the wrong option, or perhaps there are some who are just immoral and choose to exact unnecessary harm to the other. But yes, imperfect human beings ultimately decide what is good and what is evil. Btw, we humans make those moral decisions whether or not there is an objective moral code, and we make those decisions based on reason. So, even if there were one, an objective moral code, it would be useless to us. And whose fault would that be?

No Jim, actually we did target civilians in WW2 in an attempt to break the will of the people. Japan and Germany did the same. Second, your moral reasoning is subjective to you and relative. The Maoist has has reasons for executing dissidents. Reason can not be used for doing good and evil so reason can not be the guide.

[seer]

They're not the same. Logic is based on reasoning according to strict rules of validity, whereas morality is based upon evolved behavior that enhances our survival as a species. It varies from culture to culture.

That is not my point or what I was asking. Try giving a straight answer:If humans did not understand the laws of logic or failed to follow them does that mean that said laws are not universal? YES OR NO.

ALL Christians read the bible through the ever-changing lens of their own culture and experiences. So, it’s up to the Christians that perpetrated slavery and racism for centuries to justify it, not me.

Again Tass, there are no scriptures that justify racism so they are not getting that idea from the Bible. Period.

The same applies to your supposedly godly world – as history shows us.

No Tass, things like racism shows that men are sinners. That there is something really wrong with us. In your world, at bottom, racism (tribalism) is merely a biological adaptation. No big deal, just animals acting as animals.

[Tassman]

That is not my point or what I was asking. Try giving a straight answer:If humans did not understand the laws of logic or failed to follow them does that mean that said laws are not universal? YES OR NO.

This is a false analogy. Logic is based on reasoning according to strict unchanging rules of validity. Conversely, there are no unchanging rules of behavior outside of the evolved principle of cooperative intelligent social behavior necessary for humanity to survive.

Again Tass, there are no scriptures that justify racism so they are not getting that idea from the Bible. Period.

Really. The Dutch Reform Church justified apartheid in South Africa from scripture. And the SBC justified it. After a century and a half, in 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a formal apology for its earlier support of slavery and segregation based upon racism. Typically, Christians have read the bible through the ever-changing lens of their own culture and interpret it accordingly.

just animals acting as animals.

Indeed. Humans have evolved to behave as cooperative, intelligent social animals. This is the basis of their morality.

[seer]

This is a false analogy. Logic is based on reasoning according to strict unchanging rules of validity. Conversely, there are no unchanging rules of behavior outside of the evolved principle of cooperative intelligent social behavior necessary for humanity to survive.

The reason you don't answer Tass is because youiu know that the laws of logic remain valid even is we mess them up. Our lack of understanding makes no difference, and never could. Try being honest Tass,

Really. The Dutch Reform Church justified apartheid in South Africa from scripture. And the SBC justified it. After a century and a half, in 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a formal apology for its earlier support of slavery and segregation based upon racism. Typically, Christians have read the bible through the ever-changing lens of their own culture and interpret it accordingly.

Tass I don't care what denomination did this or that - I asked for scriptural references. And obviously you have none.

Indeed. Humans have evolved to behave as cooperative, intelligent social animals. This is the basis of their morality.

Just as humans evolved to be racist. Now what?

[Tassman]

The reason you don't answer Tass is because youiu know that the laws of logic remain valid even is we mess them up. Our lack of understanding makes no difference, and never could.

The reason is that it is a false analogy. Logic is a procedure of reasoning in accordance with strict unchanging rules. Whereas morality consists of rules of behavior which change from culture to culture over time.

Tass I don't care what denomination did this or that

They did it in the name of Christianity.

- I asked for scriptural references. And obviously you have none.

Scriptural references can be interpreted to mean whatever people want them to mean, e.g. slavery can be justified, women can be kept subservient to men, witches can be killed and heretics burnt at the stake etc. In short, society sets the rules and invokes scripture to justify them..

Just as humans evolved to be racist. Now what?

Not quite. Humans evolved to live in community. Initially they were tribal and racist (“God’s chosen people” etc.) and now they are more universal (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Civil Rights Act etc.).

[seer]

The reason is that it is a false analogy. Logic is a procedure of reasoning in accordance with strict unchanging rules. Whereas morality consists of rules of behavior which change from culture to culture over time.

This is false Tass, universal moral truths do not change over time even if we do not follow them or understand them, just as logical truths do not change over time even if we do not follow them or understand them. So your argument is bunk...

They did it in the name of Christianity.

Scriptural references can be interpreted to mean whatever people want them to mean, e.g. slavery can be justified, women can be kept subservient to men, witches can be killed and heretics burnt at the stake etc. In short, society sets the rules and invokes scripture to justify them..

Again, you are avoiding the question - what Scriptures justify racism?

Not quite. Humans evolved to live in community. Initially they were tribal and racist (“God’s chosen people” etc.) and now they are more universal (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Civil Rights Act etc.).

What are you talking about? Most countries have not signed on to the Declaration of Human Rights, and Civil Rights Act does not make men non-racist. Racism is a perfectly natural condition in man. And why you think that is morally wrong is beyond me - do you bring a moral judgement to indigestion?

[carpedm9587]

[JimL]

No Jim, actually we did target civilians in WW2 in an attempt to break the will of the people. Japan and Germany did the same. Second, your moral reasoning is subjective to you and relative. The Maoist has has reasons for executing dissidents. Reason can not be used for doing good and evil so reason can not be the guide.

The existence of an objective moral code, being that said code is unknowable, would be useless to humans beings anyway. So, why argue about the possible existence of a code which is unknowable, and so useless?

[seer]

The existence of an objective moral code, being that said code is unknowable, would be useless to humans beings anyway. So, why argue about the possible existence of a code which is unknowable, and so useless?

Why are the teachings of Christ unknowable? Why is our intuitive moral sense unknowable?

[JimL]

Why are the teachings of Christ unknowable? Why is our intuitive moral sense unknowable?

I guess that "why" is a question you'll have to ask Christ.

[carpedm9587]

I guess that "why" is a question you'll have to ask Christ.

Intuitive moral sense = written on our hearts.

I called it!

[JimL]

Intuitive moral sense = written on our hearts.

I called it!

Yes, you did. I guess I kinda saw it coming as well. But you notice his reply wasn't affirmative, but a question.

[Tassman]

This is false Tass, universal moral truths do not change over time even if we do not follow them or understand them

You assume that “universal moral truths” exist but how do you know they exist if you don’t understand what they are? In fact, they don’t exist. Morality consists of rules of behavior which change from culture to culture according to societal need.

, just as logical truths do not change over time even if we do not follow them or understand them. So your argument is bunk...

Logic is a procedure of reasoning, not “unchanging truths” in and of themselves. So, your analogy is “bunk”.

Again, you are avoiding the question - what Scriptures justify racism?

You tell me. You’re the Christian and Christians justified racism for centuries. Just as they justified keeping women subordinate to men or banning miscegenous marriages etc. etc. etc. Moral rules have always been determined by society and scripture has long been invoked to justify them.

What are you talking about? Most countries have not signed on to the Declaration of Human Rights, and Civil Rights Act does not make men non-racist.

Universal Human Rights is an aspiration recognized by your country and mine just as the golden rule has been an “aspiration” for millennia – long predating the bible.

Racism is a perfectly natural condition in man.

What is the most “natural condition” for a social species like us is communal living that eschews racism and best helps us avoid killing each other and allows us to value life

[seer]

You assume that “universal moral truths” exist but how do you know they exist if you don’t understand what they are? In fact, they don’t exist. Morality consists of rules of behavior which change from culture to culture according to societal need.

Again that is a category error Tass. You are confusing ontology with epistemology. How or if we know something does not bear on whether the thing exists or not. Look, if there were no sentient beings in the universe to understand the laws of logic that would not bear on the idea of whether the laws of logic are valid or not. If all beings were born color blind the color red would still exist. Just as the moral law of God would exist even if we all ignored it.

Logic is a procedure of reasoning, not “unchanging truths” in and of themselves. So, your analogy is “bunk”.

Are you really saying that the law of non-contradiction is not an unchanging truth? So in theory your above statement can be both true and false?