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

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    I wasn't assuming that all subjectivist positions were 'equally good." I was assuming each one set its own standard for goodness. The way you describe your morality is not the way I experience my morality. When I'm deciding on what to do, I'm not looking at the world through the 'lens of my own moral framework.' I'm not even sure what that means. When I'm thinking about what to do or who to be, I'm trying to discover what is right and/or good.
    "Good" is a value judgment. It requires a valuer. "Right" is likewise a value judgment. It requires a valuer. If you want to understand how morality is subjective, start there. How do you go about determining if something is "good?" You will find that you end up at your own valuing. Good is not a concept "out there" somewhere. It is an assessment you make based on criteria you have. A thing is not "good" - it is "good for X."

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Of course I can't help but look at the world through the lens of who I am, but that's far less important than what it is I'm trying to find. Like focusing on the scratches on my cornea as opposed to the Grand Canyon in front of me, it seems oddly solipsistic. There's a tacit assumption there, as I think there is with most people who don't have an overt ideology, that there is something from outside to be found rather than something from within. And I like I said, I really don't think it's a religious thing. Most moral realists are atheists. But if you don't experience it, probably no argument can make you experience it.
    I have to admit I am always slightly amused to have a form of morality that no one can demonstrate actually exists called "moral realism."

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    It is "wrong" how, by what criteria?
    By the criteria of the evaluator, whatever that might be.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    By threatening the things that you value?
    Yes.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    What if another framework awakens in you doubts about whether you ought to value the things you do and instead value other things?
    Then my moral framework will likely shift. This happens all the time.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Then you're in the realm of normativity and subjectivity starts to loosen its grip(?)
    No. I am in the realm of valuing differently. It's analogous to my wife's experience with sushi. She tried it and hated it. It was "awful." It was "bad." I took her back and started her slowly on California Rolls and other cooked sushi, then slowly introduced her to new tastes and flavors. Now she is a sushi lover and it is "great" and "good." That doesn't make her assessment "objective." It means her taste changed.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    The problem is we're talking about metaethics, not just about ethics. We're talking about the theoretical underpinnings of ethics. Why be moral?
    This is like asking "why prefer the good thing?" The question is backwards. What we are drawn to and find happiness we call good because we are drawn to it or see value/benefit in it. What we see as actions that protect/enhance/support what we most deeply value we call "moral" and naturally choose those actions.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Why follow the law?
    That is a different question. We generally follow the law because of our social contract. Some follow the law out of fear of punishment. For the religious with an authoritative model of morality (i.e., god says so), that it often also the motivation for "being moral."

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    that sort of thing. For most occasions, you're right and our everyday commonalities will probably see us through. But humans are very contentious. Lots of strife and wars and stuff. Ethics and law and such will all be severely stress-tested and it's good to have a deeper theoretical understanding than just "we'll probably get by because we're so much alike and we've gotten by up to now."
    And yet, we've survived with subjective morality since the dawn of man. Jim, I doubt any two people have EVER 100% agreed on moral principles. Religions keep fragmenting (in part) over differing moral principles. Some religiously inclined so-called moral realists will attribute this man's sinful nature. Some to our inability to completely grasp the objective moral truth. Has it ever crossed your mind that this same variation can be easily explained by observing that no one has ever demonstrated the existence of an objective moral truth - and the reason for the fragmentation is because morality is actually subjective, not objective? As I noted before - it's analogous to law - not to logical or mathematical principles.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    It won't be enough to ignore, isolate and separate. Walling off and compartmentalizing has been too often the too-convenient solution and a big part of why things are getting worse. Morality is meant to act as a counter-force to that tendency which is becoming more and more prevalent.
    And yet, we've been doing these three things since the dawn of man. One has to ask "enough for what?" Are you expecting perfection?

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    It hasn't been established that it's subjective, remember? That's what we're debating.
    Oh it has long since been "established" for me, Jim. It fits with my experience, aligns with what I observe around me, makes exquisite sense, and no one has ever been able to logically defend the claim that morality is objective or establish the existence of an absolute moral framework. Perhaps you are not convinced, and I leave that to you.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    And no, it's not clear that what you value has to be about you. You are necessarily the medium of experience but not necessarily the object of valuing.
    I would consider that statement to be nonsensical. What "I value" is exactly that: what I value. I am the valuer. I am the one assessing. It will have value to me.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Why be moral? Why follow the law? Where does the law derive its authority from? Don't these questions ever occur to you?
    The answer for morality and law are slightly different; the two are analogous, not equivalent. And the answer about morality is above. The answer about law will likely be slightly different for different people. Some follow the law to avoid punishment. Some out of a sense of civic duty. Some follow the law because they assume that the laws are crafted by people who know what they are doing and we will all be better of if we do. Some follow the law out of a sense of social contract (same as civil duty?).

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Only some sentient minds. My cat doesn't moralize. And again, it's only certain kinds of 'ought do' and 'ought not do' actions. Yes, it's natural to rational, social minds, but so is wondering why, as in why do we do it and what does it mean?
    Agreed about the cat. It appears that a certain "degree" of sentience is required - sentience that can grasp principles (like logic and mathematics) and reflect on the self and action. And I have already noted that we tend to reserve the word "moral" for the most valued things. We value on a continuum, with some things valued profoundly (i.e., life, liberty) and other things valued trivially (i.e., shoe styles and pizza toppings). We don't tend to use "moral" for things on the "trivial" end of our valuing. But if you were to encounter someone for whom "pizza topping" is shifted to the "profound" end of the scale, you would suddenly hear expressions of moral outrage if the pizza topping is not valued similarly. Consider India and the bovine. Suddenly the common cow is "sacred" and shifted to the profound end of the spectrum, and actions with respect to the lowly cow become "moral" or "immoral."

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    I never said there was an 'absolute yardstick,' only that there is an objective framework. You have absolutely no evidence for anything you've asserted here, but your opinions are noted.
    Actually, I have an enormous body of life experience as evidence, Jim. However, it is not evidence that is easily conveyed to someone else, so what I really lack is a means to prove any of this to you. Can you prove to someone that you like pizza? Subjective things are difficult to prove. On the other hand, you are claiming (I think) the existence of an objective moral framework. It should be fairly easy for you to prove the existence of such a thing, and establish it as objective to all. Yet I have never seen such a proof. Odd, that.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    You miss the point of the analogy again. The theist is looking at the world through the lens of her ideology and seeing it as a transparent revelation of said ideology. It's right there in front of her! You are looking at the empirical data of human behavior and institutions and hypothesizing based upon your ideology as to the causes of the data you're experiencing. For you, the causation is immediately clear. Why can't everyone see it?! It's right there! Ideologies are transparent to those inside of them.
    Yeah...not so much. Look, Jim, I was not always a moral subjectivist. I was a moral realist for most of my life. My stance slowly shifted as part of my shift from Christianity to atheism. Like so many others, I saw morality as objective and rooted in god. When you realize god doesn't exist, you find yourself having to figure out the whole morality thing. Many atheists, as you note, stay "moral realists" and find something else to root morality in. JimL roots it in "what is good for society," failing to see that there is no objective basis for "what is good for society." To make that assessment requires a metric by which "good" is measured, and that will always be subjectively selected. Tass wants to root it in evolution. I'm less clear on exactly how he sees that working, but he still seems to be clinging to morality as an objective thing, like there is "the correct moral framework out there" waiting to be discovered and aligned to - like laws of logic and mathematics.

    And I don't subscribe to the statement "Ideologies are transparent to those inside of them." They can be, to those not willing to look for the ways in which their subjective relationship to the world may be coloring their view. But for those willing to accept that their view is colored, there are ways to help see past that "coloration." It will never be perfect - we will always experience "coloration," but if ideology was truly transparent to us, we would never have a means for changing it.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    FYI, I don't think it's immoral. I have a friend who is a Christian who has an MDiv and a website who doesn't believe it's immoral either and who takes a different perspective on it.
    Nice to hear/know. I am aware that there are a lot of Christians who do not have the same perspective on homosexuality as Seer and Sparko and CP and so many others here. I wasn't sure what side you came down on because I frankly know very little about your moral framework and what you value.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    I like to think of morality like color. Colors depend upon creatures with visual systems in order to perceive them. If all the creatures with visual systems in the universe disappeared, all color would disappear too, unless God of course perceives color and/or is the source of color, but let's set that aside for now since you're an atheist. Color would be what's called a 'synergistic' or 'emergent' entity. It emerges out of the fusion of various factors coming together in just the right way. Despite all this, color is still 'objective' because it doesn't depend upon choice or preference. It's not up to me or anyone else what is red or blue or yellow. Those things are fixed by laws of physics and optics. It's not a subjective matter or a matter of opinion.
    So let's use "color" as an example here. Despite your statement above, the experience of color is subjective. That is why all color would disappear if all visual equipment disappeared. Your experience of color will never be exactly the same as mine. For one thing, even when looking at the same object, we cannot be in the same place at the same time making that observation. Second, "color" is a function of our brain and depends on our receivers (eyes), transmitters, (optic nerve) and processor (brain). No two of us have these things exactly the same, coloring (pun intended) our experience. What is objectively real is not "color," it is the wavelength(s) of the light that is impacting our eyes.

    Morality is analogous. No two of us experience it the same way or assess action by the same framework. Our framework is influenced by our culture, religion, family, social circle, and personal experiences. The objective reality is the behavior/action we are assessing. HOW we assess it is entirely subjective. The analogy breaks down, however, when we imagine all sentient minds disappearing. With color, if all visual equipment disappears so too does color, but the wavelengths remain. With morality, if all sentient minds disappear, the concept of morality ends and so too do the actions being assessed.[/QUOTE]

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    It's getting late. I'll finish tomorrow!
    I'll be around.

    I have to admit to some curiosity. A few posts back I had the distinct sense you were getting irritated. Now I don't have that sense anymore. All in my mind? If not, what explains the change? I ask because I find irritation to be a common response to my posts on this site. It only happens here. I'm trying to figure out why.
    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
      Cool. So when you claim to have the right to choose how you're governed and who governs you, I'll remember that. So much for your complaints about the majority.
      Carp, I'm not making an argument for or against any particular form of government. I'm saying that any government has the AUTHORITY to enforce their laws whether you or I consent or agree with those laws or not.


      The King is stating an opinion about his right to rule over others. I am stating my position about the right of someone else to rule over me. As autonomous, sentient beings, we each have the right to make this decision for ourselves. The founders called it an "inalienable right." This might be familiar to you:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


      While I do not agree with the FFs on the basis of those rights being rooted in a "creator," I do agree with the general observation. I would have written:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are equal under law, possessing certain essential rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


      And if you don't believe in "might makes right," why do you keep advocating for it in the moral sphere? You have made no other argument so far...
      Nonsense in our past debates you said rights were not self evident nor unalienable, and if you take God out of the picture unalienable rights go out the window and your "essential rights" is just gobbledygook with no objective meaning. And remember as the Founders said in the Declaration they were relying on Divine Providence (i.e. the control and rule of God).

      One born in the country automatically becomes a citizen - and has the option of renouncing that citizenship and going elsewhere. Same principle holds.
      Again not the point, if you break a country's laws that government has the authority and right to punish you WHETHER YOU CONSENT OR AGREE WITH THAT AUTHORITY OR NOT. Your consent makes NO DIFFERENCE.
      Last edited by seer; 08-13-2019, 07:43 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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        You just can't help yourself, can you...



        No one is claiming that "logic is merely a description of how Carpe's brain functions." (I can just hear the comments now... )

        That is how you are describing god. Therefore, if logic is simply "how god's mind works" and "God cannot act other than how his mind works," then the claim "god cannot act irrationality" reduces to "god cannot act other than how god can act."

        The logic is fairly straightforward - and the statement is shown to be a tautology. It ultimately says nothing. It's like saying "green is green" or "the walking man is walking."
        No, this all depends on how you word it. To say that God is perfectly and immutably rational is not a tautology.
        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 Jim B. View Post
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Take the current debate around same sex intimacy. My position is that it is morally neutral - subject to the same moral evaluations as opposite-sex intimacy. Seer's position (and possibly yours?) is that it is immoral. My reasoning is grounded in my valuing for life, privacy, and love. I cannot see any argument that suggests love is better/worse between two people solely on the basis of their genetic make-up (XX vs. XY). Seer's position is grounded in "that's what the bible says." His core value is "obeying his god" and he believes the bible is this god's word and his specific interpretation of that bible is the correct one. I once tried to convince him (and others) of the inconsistency of saying "OK between Bob and Pat but not OK between Sam and Chris" when the only difference between the two is the genetic make-up of the participants. In other words rooting morality in genetics is simply not supportable. But I was wrong. The basis of their prohibition was not genetics - it was "what does the bible say." The only way I could possibly sway them is to a) convince them not to value their god (unlikely), b) convince them their god does not require this type of obedience (also unlikely), c) convince them that the bible is not this god's word (still unlikely), or d) convince them that the bible does not say what they think it says (still unlikely). In other words, I don't have a prayer of swaying their moral position on this topic. That leaves me with ignore (which is fine most of the time), isolate/separate (which is happening naturally since we only know one another online) and/or contend (which I do in the voting both, and by working hard to convince the next generation not to adopt a moral position I find immoral).
          FYI, I don't think it's immoral. I have a friend who is a Christian who has an MDiv and a website who doesn't believe it's immoral either and who takes a different perspective on it.
          For the record, as I've previously explained to carpedm here, this is not usually how Christians on this forum deliberate and resolve moral issues.

          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          ...I don't think I've ever heard anyone [on TheologyWeb] start or end a discussion with "because the bible says so." Very few people here are that black and white fundamentalist in their thinking. Most people here spend great amounts of time reading their Bibles in light of deep theological and philosophical deliberation. They don't simply say, "I believe it because they Bible says it." They ask "why do I believe what I believe," or "why is this in my Bible, what was God's ultimate intention or goal here?"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Carp, I'm not making an argument for or against any particular form of government. I'm saying that any government has the AUTHORITY to enforce their laws whether you or I consent or agree with those laws or not.
            And you are wrong, Seer. Our government has the authority (i.e., right AND power) because we consent. If we did not consent, it would not have the right, even if it did have the power.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Nonsense in our past debates you said rights were not self evident nor unalienable, and if you take God out of the picture unalienable rights go out the window and your "essential rights" is just gobbledygook with no objective meaning. And remember as the Founders said in the Declaration they were relying on Divine Providence (i.e. the control and rule of God).
            My position about "inalienable" has never changed. Inalienable means "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." There is no such right. But that does not mean there are no basic rights that every human being claims for themselves and, in order to be consistent, must grant to others as well. Life - liberty - pursuit of happiness are among these. I don't need a "god" to give me these rights - I claim them for myself. You don't have to respect them or even agree that I have them. They do not have to have "objective meaning" to have "meaning." This has already been established. And you an call them gobblygook all day long if you wish, but I will defend them when I need to.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Again not the point, if you break a country's laws that government has the authority and right to punish you WHETHER YOU CONSENT OR AGREE WITH THAT AUTHORITY OR NOT. Your consent makes NO DIFFERENCE.
            If I break a country's laws, and I am willingly in that country - then I have consented and the government has the right and power (hence the authority) to punish me. If I have no consented, then the government has the power but not the right - so it lacks the authority. Not a single thing you have said refutes this. You simply keep asserting, over and over again, that they have the authority - ignoring what gives the government it's authority )the consent of the governed), reducing authority to "power." Repeating it over and over again does not solve your problem, or show your argument (such as it is) to be correct. It simply shows you to be tenacious (as Adrift accurately pointed out) but lacking any real argumentation substance.
            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
              No, this all depends on how you word it. To say that God is perfectly and immutably rational is not a tautology.
              You have missed the argument by quite a lot. I suggest you go back and reread it.
              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 Adrift View Post
                For the record, as I've previously explained to carpedm here, this is not usually how Christians on this forum deliberate and resolve moral issues.
                Adrift, you're not really making a strong differentiator. The position is still rooted in "because the bible says so." Some more introspective people will still try to figure out "what is god's intent here?" but that will not cause them to EVER (in my experience) say, "that doesn't make any sense - this claim in the bible HAS to be wrong." Instead, they will find a way to justify "what the bible says" so they can hold that moral position. At least, that is my experience here, on this forum.

                I am aware of many Christians who do not hold the bible in the same fundamentalist view, and see it as a collection of books written by different people in different times and even different places, so capable of containing contradiction and conflict that needs to be reasoned through. Many of those will see passages about homosexuality as a record of the mindset at the time, and turn to passages about love, acceptance, etc. as the key messages. Some of these positions have taken root and even whole sects have become accepting of same-sex marriages and intimacy. Those sects would be denounced by most I have encountered here as "defying the word of god" (i.e., "what the bible says").

                I was frankly surprised by JimB's statement about same-sex relationships. I think he might be the first Christian I've encountered on this site that voiced that moral position.
                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
                  Adrift, you're not really making a strong differentiator. The position is still rooted in "because the bible says so." Some more introspective people will still try to figure out "what is god's intent here?" but that will not cause them to EVER (in my experience) say, "that doesn't make any sense - this claim in the bible HAS to be wrong." Instead, they will find a way to justify "what the bible says" so they can hold that moral position. At least, that is my experience here, on this forum.

                  I am aware of many Christians who do not hold the bible in the same fundamentalist view, and see it as a collection of books written by different people in different times and even different places, so capable of containing contradiction and conflict that needs to be reasoned through. Many of those will see passages about homosexuality as a record of the mindset at the time, and turn to passages about love, acceptance, etc. as the key messages. Some of these positions have taken root and even whole sects have become accepting of same-sex marriages and intimacy. Those sects would be denounced by most I have encountered here as "defying the word of god" (i.e., "what the bible says").

                  I was frankly surprised by JimB's statement about same-sex relationships. I think he might be the first Christian I've encountered on this site that voiced that moral position.
                  You're wrong. And what's horrifying about how wrong you are is that you actually attended a couple years of seminary and still came away with this wrongheaded belief (I'm constantly amazed at how unChristian your Christian background was). While I don't doubt that a number of Christians do voice their morality in so many words "because the bible says so," you're simply not going to find that fundamentalist type of moralizing among Christian philosophers, theologians, students, and introspective laymen like the ones you'll find on Theology web forums. That's typically NOT how it works. Rather these sorts of people tend to have great sensitivity to the intrinsic value of life, and a deeply held moral intuition well before they ever picked up a Bible. Heck, for some thinkers, their moral worldviews were shaped in some ways by adherence to a previous faith, or no faith at all. What the Bible often does for many Christians is help contextualize some of the how, where, and why. But it doesn't stop there of course, the Bible is part of a rich and complex tapestry of an overall moral and ethical worldview. If you truly think the moral and ethical worldviews of Augustine of Hippo, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Stanley Hauerwas, and the like boil down to "because the bible says so," then I highly suggest seeing if you can get your money back from that seminary you attended.

                  The second paragraph of your post is you just soapboxing, and doesn't really have much to do with the current discussion.

                  JimB is far from the only Christian on this forum who has voiced this particular moral position since you've been on a member of this site. Sam, and kiwimac come immediately to mind, though I know there are a few other posters here who hold similar views. And before the crash when we had more than a dozen regular members, it was a fairly commonly espoused view.
                  Last edited by Adrift; 08-13-2019, 01:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Morality is not like logic or mathematics, or even the laws of physics. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - a thing would still be itself. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - a solar system with four solid planets and four gas planets would still have eight planets in all. If every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - objects with mass would still have a gravitational attraction to one another that is proportionate to their mass and the distance between the objects. But if every sentient mind in the universe ceased to be - there would be no actors and the entire concept of morality would cease to exist. As previously noted - morality is like law - it is not like logic, mathematics, or even the basic operational principles of the universe.
                    You're setting up a "straw man argument" in which it's either absolute unchanging moral principles or moral subjectivism. As I've said repeatedly, those aren't the only alternatives.


                    No. First, because morality is rooted in what we value, I can come to a "wrong" moral position by flawed reasoning on what I value, adopting a moral position that actually harms what I value rather than affirming it. Second, if what I value shifts, then a moral position I previously held as "right" can become "wrong" and will shift accordingly. This can also happen if the relationship between things I value shifts (i.e., I value life above liberty - but then an experience causes me to value liberty above life).
                    You're moving the goalposts now. You said that whatever one's subjective position happened to be was one's moral position. Now you're saying that one can be 'wrong' about one's subjective position, that your reasoning can be flawed or what you value can change. If your reasoning can be flawed, then this is a deviation from subjectivism because you're admitting that there are rational criteria beyond your subjective reaction that your subjective reaction 'ought' to be judged by. Your sliding now into an "Ideal Observer" theory of morality. In other words, you're suggesting to take your immediate desires and judge them in the light of reasons and rationality, so that you end up not with what you want but with what you ought to want in the light of reason and calm reflection. If it's all subjective, why is your immediate reaction less valid than your reasoned reflection? Why not 'go with your gut'? In the second case, if your values shift, does that mean that before they shifted, those values didn't represent your 'true' subjective position? And can't your values always shift in the future? So how can you tell when they've shifted into their permanent position and when you're in your 'true' subjective state? If your values are always subject to shifting, you will never be in that state.


                    Sorry, Jim, but this is just false. If I say "same-sex intimacy is morally neutral" and you say "same-sex intimacy is always immoral," then we have a moral disagreement about same sex intimacy. Why we disagree may vary - but we are disagreeing on a moral position, and can do so in a subjective moral world. Indeed, we do so every day.
                    No, because according to subjectivism, we are not arguing about same-sex intimacy at all, but our subjective reactions to it. How can there be a genuine disgreement about the moral issue itself when the assumption going in is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' on any moral issue beyond individual subjective responses? It would be like arguing over whether it feels hot in here or not, or whether licorice is a pleasant flavor.



                    Now who's begging the question...
                    No, my point followed from the argument I just made. If what i just said is right, if subjectivism precludes moral disagreement, then subjectivism isn't really a moral theory at all but rather a psychological tendency masking itself as a moral theory.



                    So murder is a bad choice, because "murder is wrong" a tautology. Murder is wrong by definition. The term "murder" means "an illicit (or wrongful) killing." So "murder is wrong," by substitution, becomes "an illicit (or wrongful) killing is wrong." That is a tautology. It doesn't actually tell us which act constitutes a murder.
                    Okay, murder is a bad choice, but then anything would be a bad choice since I don't believe in absolute, exceptionless moral principles other than maybe one. What about "Killing an innocent person." (?)

                    I think we agree that someone to evaluate whether or not a particular act is moral/immoral does not make morality subjective. All I need is a moral framework, and I can make that evaluation. Indeed, I can say "sex between Chris and Pat (two men) is immoral to Seer," because I know Seer's moral stance on this. I can say "sex between Chris and Pat (two men) is morally neutral to Carpe," because I know Carpe's moral stance on this. That type of assessment is subjective, and NOT what is meant by noting that morality is subjective. When I say morality is subjective, I mean arriving at a particular moral framework is always a subjective act. There is no universally objective moral framework to which we should all be subscribing. It doesn't exist - has never been shown to exist - and doesn't NEED to exist.
                    You're interpreting it in a way that's very prejudicial to your case. Again, you're begging the question. Why can't we phrase it in a more neutral way that avoids question begging? For instance, "Seer believes..." "Carpe believes..." Arriving at a particular moral framework is a subjective act just as arriving at a belief set about the physical world is a subjective act (Please note: no further analogy between morality and the physical world is intended beyond this analogy!!!)
                    But that doesn't mean that they are not normative and are not necessarily aiming at some frame of reference beyond satisfying their own subjective conditions.

                    Whether it does or doesn't exist is what we're debating. BTW, who has the burden of proof? What evidence and/or argument has ever been offered in favor of subjectivism other than "It's there all around us!" And who gives a fig whether it NEEDS to or not? I care about whether it DOES or not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      You have missed the argument by quite a lot. I suggest you go back and reread it.
                      So again: God is perfectly and immutably rational - is that a tautology? If not that is all we are saying.
                      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 Post
                        "Good" is a value judgment. It requires a valuer. "Right" is likewise a value judgment. It requires a valuer. If you want to understand how morality is subjective, start there. How do you go about determining if something is "good?" You will find that you end up at your own valuing. Good is not a concept "out there" somewhere. It is an assessment you make based on criteria you have. A thing is not "good" - it is "good for X."
                        "Blue" is a color. It requires a viewer. It is too simplistic to say that blue is 'in here', ie in the visual apparatus of an organism. It is both 'in here' and 'out there'. No simple story can account for it.



                        I have to admit I am always slightly amused to have a form of morality that no one can demonstrate actually exists called "moral realism."
                        How much do you know about it? Not much, from what I can tell from our exchanges. Maybe if you learned a little more about it, you'd be better qualified to say.



                        By the criteria of the evaluator, whatever that might be.
                        It's the evaluator's only because it happens to be occurring in his or her mind. If it's a logical argument, it's not a subjective criterion except trivially in the way that 1+1=2 would be subjective if I happen to think it.



                        Yes.
                        Doesn't tell us anything, once again. "E-MC2" was something Einstein valued but it wasn't strictly subjective.



                        Then my moral framework will likely shift. This happens all the time.
                        Yes, and it can always shift in the future. When is it ever your true moral framework, because it can always shift again?



                        No. I am in the realm of valuing differently. It's analogous to my wife's experience with sushi. She tried it and hated it. It was "awful." It was "bad." I took her back and started her slowly on California Rolls and other cooked sushi, then slowly introduced her to new tastes and flavors. Now she is a sushi lover and it is "great" and "good." That doesn't make her assessment "objective." It means her taste changed
                        Yeah, that's taste, which is kind of a bad example. Taste isn't normative. We were talking about reasons, I thought. Taste is what I am saying you're trying to reduce morality to. Tastes can change, but how can reasons-based action change, assuming that you think that morality falls under that category?



                        This is like asking "why prefer the good thing?" The question is backwards. What we are drawn to and find happiness we call good because we are drawn to it or see value/benefit in it. What we see as actions that protect/enhance/support what we most deeply value we call "moral" and naturally choose those actions.
                        No, it's like asking "What is the good thing?" Is it self-interest? Is it virtue? What is virtue? Can we know? It's not nearly as simple as you make it. Morality isn't just looking at what we're drawn to and saying "Yep, that's all there is to it." It's normative as well. It's about valuing rightly. That's what made me think maybe you're a Randian, no offense.



                        That is a different question. We generally follow the law because of our social contract. Some follow the law out of fear of punishment. For the religious with an authoritative model of morality (i.e., god says so), that it often also the motivation for "being moral."
                        Again, I don't think it's that simple. The general idea is that the law is r ideally should be based on what is morally right, whether that's religiously derived or not. Without that presumption, the notion of civil disobedience and moral reform movements lose their meaning. The legitimation of law devolves ultimately to power and convention.



                        And yet, we've survived with subjective morality since the dawn of man. Jim, I doubt any two people have EVER 100% agreed on moral principles. Religions keep fragmenting (in part) over differing moral principles. Some religiously inclined so-called moral realists will attribute this man's sinful nature. Some to our inability to completely grasp the objective moral truth. Has it ever crossed your mind that this same variation can be easily explained by observing that no one has ever demonstrated the existence of an objective moral truth - and the reason for the fragmentation is because morality is actually subjective, not objective? As I noted before - it's analogous to law - not to logical or mathematical principles.
                        Will you ever stop begging the question? You're espousing the "diversity principle," that because there has been a diversity of opinion about morality, that is proof against moral objectivity. But just because there is diversity of opinion on a subject doesn't mean there isn't a fact of the matter. The diversity principle has never been accepted as a compelling argument by ethicists. It's a bad argument. And it ignores the fact that there is great unanimity among nearly all cultures as to basic moral principles, such as non-harm,truth-telling, gratitude, promise-keeping and fidelity, etc. What differences there are are usually attributed to differences in factual (non-moral) beliefs. Core moral principles can be likened to a core set of vitamins that all hmans need; there are differences in the regimens depending on context but the core set is generally the same.

                        I never said morality is like math or logic. It's more like space and time. There are no absolute spatial or temporal locations but there is an objective spatio-temporal framework. It's not like law; that's clearly not true. The legislature can change the speed limit tomorrow but can't make torturing kids permissible.



                        And yet, we've been doing these three things since the dawn of man. One has to ask "enough for what?" Are you expecting perfection?
                        Enough for an increasingly interdependent world of shrinking resources.



                        Oh it has long since been "established" for me, Jim. It fits with my experience, aligns with what I observe around me, makes exquisite sense, and no one has ever been able to logically defend the claim that morality is objective or establish the existence of an absolute moral framework. Perhaps you are not convinced, and I leave that to you.
                        Yes, I've picked up on that. You don't want for certainty. That's why you fit right in here. What I meant was for the purposes of debate and philosophical exchange. When you're debating something, it's just considered part of the basic 'rules' that you try to check your certainty at the door and at least try not to beg the question. But if you're not particular about fairness, that is if it doesn't protect your values, then what the heck. Beg away!


                        I would consider that statement to be nonsensical. What "I value" is exactly that: what I value. I am the valuer. I am the one assessing. It will have value to me.
                        Of course it will have value to you, but you are not necessarily the beneficiary or the object of the value. If I throw myself on a hand grenade to save my buddies, I am not the object, unless i'm thinking posthumously....


                        Actually, I have an enormous body of life experience as evidence, Jim. However, it is not evidence that is easily conveyed to someone else, so what I really lack is a means to prove any of this to you. Can you prove to someone that you like pizza? Subjective things are difficult to prove. On the other hand, you are claiming (I think) the existence of an objective moral framework. It should be fairly easy for you to prove the existence of such a thing, and establish it as objective to all. Yet I have never seen such a proof. Odd, that.
                        I have offered arguments, which you haven't answered. Odd that. And you haven't offered any evidence at all yourself other than bald assertions and one bad argument the "Diversity thesis" which doesn't even rate as an argument at all. I believe the burden lies with you. Moral sentiment lies overwhelmingly on the side of moral realism, as do moral reform movements, civil disobedience and the entire nature of morality which is predicated on rational critique of oneself and others, none of which is coherent under subjectivism.

                        If child rape and torture became morally permissible, you'd have to say that this change was a moral regression only from the perspective of those who disapprove of such things. From the standpoint of any reasonable person, the burden of proof would be on you to establish such an extreme position.



                        Yeah...not so much. Look, Jim, I was not always a moral subjectivist. I was a moral realist for most of my life. My stance slowly shifted as part of my shift from Christianity to atheism. Like so many others, I saw morality as objective and rooted in god. When you realize god doesn't exist, you find yourself having to figure out the whole morality thing. Many atheists, as you note, stay "moral realists" and find something else to root morality in. JimL roots it in "what is good for society," failing to see that there is no objective basis for "what is good for society." To make that assessment requires a metric by which "good" is measured, and that will always be subjectively selected. Tass wants to root it in evolution. I'm less clear on exactly how he sees that working, but he still seems to be clinging to morality as an objective thing, like there is "the correct moral framework out there" waiting to be discovered and aligned to - like laws of logic and mathematics.
                        Yeah, that might be the root of the problem. Why do the two things have to go in lock-step? Moral realism doesn't require a 'metric' like God. You might familiarize yourself more with the literature. You might be throwing 'the baby out with the bathwater.' And when you do that, as Michael McKean said, you end up with a wet floor and a critically injured baby.








                        So let's use "color" as an example here. Despite your statement above, the experience of color is subjective. That is why all color would disappear if all visual equipment disappeared. Your experience of color will never be exactly the same as mine. For one thing, even when looking at the same object, we cannot be in the same place at the same time making that observation. Second, "color" is a function of our brain and depends on our receivers (eyes), transmitters, (optic nerve) and processor (brain). No two of us have these things exactly the same, coloring (pun intended) our experience. What is objectively real is not "color," it is the wavelength(s) of the light that is impacting our eyes.
                        I agree that color experience will never be the same under most circumstances. the point of the analogy was that it's not subjective because it's not a matter of choice. I cannot choose to make the colors I'm seeing right now in this screen different than they are. And we can see basically the same color if we sit in the same spot and look at the same object, assuming there's no inverted spectra or other metaphysical weirdness. No, I can't see inside your head, but i can't see inside your head about anything; that's the empiricist's dilemma. We have to set that aside. assume that what i see as "red' you see as "red." That phenomenon is fixed by physics and by physiology.

                        Morality is analogous. No two of us experience it the same way or assess action by the same framework. Our framework is influenced by our culture, religion, family, social circle, and personal experiences. The objective reality is the behavior/action we are assessing. HOW we assess it is entirely subjective. The analogy breaks down, however, when we imagine all sentient minds disappearing. With color, if all visual equipment disappears so too does color, but the wavelengths remain. With morality, if all sentient minds disappear, the concept of morality ends and so too do the actions being assessed.
                        Color is close enough for my point. Our physiologies are similar enough and physics is the same to where the blue you see on this card under this light is basically the same blue that I see, The point is that it is NOT my choice and NOT your choice what color we are seeing; the analogy is not meant to extend beyond that! But beyond that, we DO experience the "same' or close enough colors for the analogy to be extended. What I see as 'wrong' you see as 'wrong'. Fine-gained differentiation is not required beyond that assessment. If all visual systems disappear, all color disappears. If all valuers disappear, all morality disappears. But this dependence doesn't alter the fact that neither are subjective. That's the point I hope you understand.



                        I have to admit to some curiosity. A few posts back I had the distinct sense you were getting irritated. Now I don't have that sense anymore. All in my mind? If not, what explains the change? I ask because I find irritation to be a common response to my posts on this site. It only happens here. I'm trying to figure out why.
                        Just your subjective reaction.:)
                        Last edited by Jim B.; 08-13-2019, 04:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          You're wrong. And what's horrifying about how wrong you are is that you actually attended a couple years of seminary and still came away with this wrongheaded belief (I'm constantly amazed at how unChristian your Christian background was).
                          I'm sure you are not surprised to hear that this is a fairly regular refrain. But then again, it's a refrain within Christianity as well. Anyone who's theology doesn't align is "not Christian" or "Unchristian." But it is curious that you would say "you're wrong" about my reported experiences. Apparently I have'nt experienced what I've experienced. Odd that.

                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          While I don't doubt that a number of Christians do voice their morality in so many words "because the bible says so," you're simply not going to find that fundamentalist type of moralizing among Christian philosophers, theologians, students, and introspective laymen like the ones you'll find on Theology web forums.
                          And yet that is a common response. Seer has used it. Sparko has used it. Well.. I gave you a list before. If there are people here who think/discuss differently, I have not met them or had that type of discussion with them.

                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          That's typically NOT how it works. Rather these sorts of people tend to have great sensitivity to the intrinsic value of life, and a deeply held moral intuition well before they ever picked up a Bible. Heck, for some thinkers, their moral worldviews were shaped in some ways by adherence to a previous faith, or no faith at all. What the Bible often does for many Christians is help contextualize some of the how, where, and why. But it doesn't stop there of course, the Bible is part of a rich and complex tapestry of an overall moral and ethical worldview. If you truly think the moral and ethical worldviews of Augustine of Hippo, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Stanley Hauerwas, and the like boil down to "because the bible says so," then I highly suggest seeing if you can get your money back from that seminary you attended.
                          I believe my comments were about people here, on this forum that I have had exchanges with, Adrift. I'm not sure how it got projected to the entire population of Christians. Indeed, I was fairly clear that I am aware some Christians exist who DO question the bible statements and do NOT base their moral framework on it. Somehow, you seem to have missed that observation.

                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          The second paragraph of your post is you just soapboxing, and doesn't really have much to do with the current discussion.
                          Well, I guess that explains how you missed the observation...

                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          JimB is far from the only Christian on this forum who has voiced this particular moral position since you've been on a member of this site. Sam, and kiwimac come immediately to mind, though I know there are a few other posters here who hold similar views. And before the crash when we had more than a dozen regular members, it was a fairly commonly espoused view.
                          I can only speak to what I have observed. If I have not met them, or discussed with them, then I cannot know about them.
                          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 Jim B. View Post
                            You're setting up a "straw man argument" in which it's either absolute unchanging moral principles or moral subjectivism. As I've said repeatedly, those aren't the only alternatives.
                            How did "absolute" get mixed up as the opposite of "subjective?" My point, Jim, is that there is no objective moral framework that is "the right one" we are all supposed to be subscribing to. About as close to "objective" that morality gets is that your moral framework is objectively real to me and vice versa, and the objective reality that sentient minds of sufficient complexity moralize.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            You're moving the goalposts now.
                            No, but you seem to continually come back to these little gems. I'm not sure why you feel a need to do that, but...

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            You said that whatever one's subjective position happened to be was one's moral position. Now you're saying that one can be 'wrong' about one's subjective position, that your reasoning can be flawed or what you value can change.
                            Jim...if I value life, and I conclude that randomly killing people is moral, it stands to reason that something is badly flawed in my reasoning; the moral position does not align with the underlying valuing. Someone can help me trace the path of reasoning and identify the flaw. As soon as I see it, my moral stance will change. The same thing will happen if the valuing changes. I too once valued god, and that valuing drove many of my moral positions. When I realized that there is no such being, my valuing shifted. Some of my moral positions shifted as well. I have never held any other position...or expressed any other position. Nothing has been moved.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            If your reasoning can be flawed, then this is a deviation from subjectivism because you're admitting that there are rational criteria beyond your subjective reaction that your subjective reaction 'ought' to be judged by.
                            Yes - the objective reality of the laws of reason. Most of us reason to our moral positions. The alternative is to hold moral positions without reasoning to them. But since the moral positions are rooted in what we value, and what we value is subjective, the resulting moral framework is subjective. Unless you'd like to argue that we can arrive at an objective moral framework on the foundation of subjective valuing?

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Your sliding now into an "Ideal Observer" theory of morality. In other words, you're suggesting to take your immediate desires and judge them in the light of reasons and rationality, so that you end up not with what you want but with what you ought to want in the light of reason and calm reflection. If it's all subjective, why is your immediate reaction less valid than your reasoned reflection? Why not 'go with your gut'?
                            I'm sure some people do indeed base their morality on unreasoned feelings. If someone does not reason to a moral position, then there is no way to reason with them about their moral position, leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. And the attempt to assign differing levels of "validity" in a subjective moral world is meaningless. It suggests an objective framework from which to make that assessment, and none has been shown to exist.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            In the second case, if your values shift, does that mean that before they shifted, those values didn't represent your 'true' subjective position?
                            No - it means my valuing has changed, and with it my subjective moral position. From the perspective of my new framework, I will assess my own framework as "wrong" just as I would assess ANY moral framework that does not align with my current one as "wrong."

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            And can't your values always shift in the future?
                            Yes- they can, though shifts in what we value at our core are not easily shifted. They are fairly well established by the time we enter adulthood, and it usually takes a significant event or paradigm shift to alter them thereafter - but they can and do change.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            So how can you tell when they've shifted into their permanent position and when you're in your 'true' subjective state? If your values are always subject to shifting, you will never be in that state.
                            You have slipped back into objective thinking. What "permanent position?" Our morality is what it is at the moment it is - and may shift at some future time. There is no objectively true ultimate destination or we would be back into the world of objective moralizing, which has not been shown to exist.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            No, because according to subjectivism, we are not arguing about same-sex intimacy at all, but our subjective reactions to it. How can there be a genuine disgreement about the moral issue itself when the assumption going in is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' on any moral issue beyond individual subjective responses?
                            Ahh... there it is...the "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" argument. Jim, there is no "objective right" or "objective wrong." But we know that because morality is subjective. There is a "subjective right" and "subjective wrong."

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            It would be like arguing over whether it feels hot in here or not, or whether licorice is a pleasant flavor.
                            As I said - it is all preference, but we don't encounter too many people that would elevate temperature or licorice flavors to the level of valuing that would have them making moral claims about related actions. But then again...there is that bovine thing.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            No, my point followed from the argument I just made. If what i just said is right, if subjectivism precludes moral disagreement, then subjectivism isn't really a moral theory at all but rather a psychological tendency masking itself as a moral theory.
                            If you believe pre-marital sex is immoral, and I do not, then we have moral disagreement. That our moral positions are subjective does not change this reality.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Okay, murder is a bad choice, but then anything would be a bad choice since I don't believe in absolute, exceptionless moral principles other than maybe one. What about "Killing an innocent person." (?)
                            I would consider "killing an innocent person" to be a morally wrong act in most circumstances. That takes us to the relative part...

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            You're interpreting it in a way that's very prejudicial to your case. Again, you're begging the question. Why can't we phrase it in a more neutral way that avoids question begging? For instance, "Seer believes..." "Carpe believes..." Arriving at a particular moral framework is a subjective act just as arriving at a belief set about the physical world is a subjective act (Please note: no further analogy between morality and the physical world is intended beyond this analogy!!!)
                            But that doesn't mean that they are not normative and are not necessarily aiming at some frame of reference beyond satisfying their own subjective conditions.
                            I frankly don't see how your rewording changes anything. "X is immoral to Seer" and "Seer believes X is immoral" are equivalent statements, AFAICT. Both are perfectly consistent with subjective morality.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Whether it does or doesn't exist is what we're debating. BTW, who has the burden of proof?
                            The burden of proof rests with the person who wants their view to be accepted. If you are expressing a view, and have no desire for me to accept your view as accurate, then you have no burden of proof. If you express a view and want me to accept it as true, then you have a burden of proof to achieve that. The same is true for me in reverse.

                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            What evidence and/or argument has ever been offered in favor of subjectivism other than "It's there all around us!" And who gives a fig whether it NEEDS to or not? I care about whether it DOES or not.
                            Jim - morality is about differentiating between "good" action and "bad" action. Or "right" action and "wrong" action. But an assessment of "good" or "bad" requires a metric by which that assessment is made. It is the selection of that metric that is subjective. This is the point being made earlier to JimL. He thinks morality is about "what is good for society." He wants to argue that there is some "objective good" that is at the basis for morality. But you cannot say "X is good" without including HOW that is measured and from who's perspective it is measured. Ergo - moralizing is a subjective act. It is a function of the sentient mind reflecting upon its own choice of actions.

                            If you want to attempt to refute that, you are going to have to do better than "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective." There is no demonstrable, external, objective, moral framework. No one has shown one to exist. No one has ever made a case against subjective moralism (to me) that doesn't reduce to "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective." As I noted before, there is no "proof" possible for subjective moralizing. I know of no way to prove what I value or why I value it. I also know that no one has ever been able to express a single objectively true moral proposition that does not trace back to their own valuing.

                            For me - that is more than adequate evidence that morality is subjective.
                            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
                              So again: God is perfectly and immutably rational - is that a tautology? If not that is all we are saying.
                              Again - you should reread what I actually said. I really have become tired of this type of discussion game with you, Seer. I have no desire to go on another round. If/when you respond to what I actually said, I'll go from there.
                              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


                              • Jim B - I see you have a second post. It's late and I'm tired. I'll try to jump on it tomorrow.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 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