Morality

[Jackie in AR]

All we have is relativism. There are no absolutes.

 

OK, you keep saying this. But . . .

 

Ok... so to expand on the earlier threads. I took some time and really thought about this. I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

So we should be working to alleviate suffering and increase the joy around us.

 

Does anyone see any reason why this is not a good way to live one's life?

 

Here, in your OP, you infer that suffering is bad and that happiness and joy are good.

 

How have you determined this? Are these absolutes for you?

[8filltheheart]

Wasn't sure where to put it in the thread.....since the above post is a book recommendation, I just decided to stick it here.

 

Since this is a classical board......just thought I would throw this quote in and see if any of you can identify it (without cheating and googling!!)

 

"one true opinion, real knowledge, real authority" BTW.......perhaps this is the reading source Phred should pursue.

[percytruffle]

I guess I haven't really seen Phred's threads as "baiting" us into combatant discussion. They are very broad topics and we have a diversity of opinions to share (Phred included). I could see my dh starting similar threads; he likes to "hairsplit".

 

It makes a nice balance to the boards. We have wonderful silly threads and deep, thought-provoking, and sometimes emotional threads.

 

Responding in these type threads often forces me to gel together my own thoughts on a particular subject in a way I may not have before. Defending your viewpoint in a written thread is an excellent mental exercise. In that regard I am thankful for them and to those of you who do take the time to respond. I am always challenged by the words and ideas of others and that is always a good thing. I am not so unsure of my own beliefs, nor so perfected in my own beliefs, that I feel in any way threatened by the differing opinions of others.

[8filltheheart]

You should have had a conversation with my dad. He believed there were 3 absolutes:

1-birth

2-taxes

3-death :)

 

Not making light of your position. It is simply that when people are talking from two diametrically opposed philosophies, there really isn't going to be resolution. Phred asked for only one identification of an absolute.....mine is that man is different from the rest of creation and therefore that life is sacred.

 

If sea turtle eggs are protected b/c they represent the possibility of life, it is illogical not to protect human life in the same state.

 

I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of abortion. I am simply discussing the logic in the law.

 

In this world, there is no "functioning" absolute morality. It doesn't exist and there will be no agreement. I think that there is a source for understanding absolute morality. If you reject that source, than there is no other basis on which to form a consensus.

 

Ultimately, it is why the discussion will only become circuitous.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

If sea turtle eggs are protected b/c they represent the possibility of life, it is illogical not to protect human life in the same state.

 

Another way to look at this is that NOT doing so represents the possibility of extinction. I think that would encompass my logic in this regard. (And this doesn't speak to my position on abortion, btw.)

[8filltheheart]

Of course, humans write laws. Animals don't. You don't see sea turtles out protecting their eggs. Human laws are meant to preserve humanity and the world, aren't they? Maybe I am too much of an idealist. I hope that the intention of laws, in this country anyway, is the fundamental protection of human rights.

 

If that is the case, the essence of the law lies in "potential" life, not extinction.

[j.griff]

Yep, that's what I was thinking. Humans are not an "endangered" species, on the brink of extinction. If we were, then yes- it would make sense (in this argument) to protect human life in the same state. ;)

[nancypants]

Here are some absolute statements. Phred, can you tell me if you have any arguments against any of them? All of these are absolute statements (not all moral) that I believe to be true regardless of what some people/cultures/times have believed. Many of them I believe most people, even those who say they believe there are no absolutes, would agree with me on... but some are or have been at one point in time (some presently) culturally acceptable, thereby making them "relative" to time and culture.

 

* Males are different from females.

 

* Fish cannot survive out of water.

 

* Babies need parents to care for them and provide for their needs.

 

* Grass grows.

 

* Someone who murders and eats infants is doing wrong.

 

* Bad things sometimes happen to nice people.

 

* Starving any person to death is cruelty.

 

* Some people are mean to the core. Others definitely are not mean to the core.

 

* Rape is despicable.

 

* A woman does not belong to her husband.

 

* Slavery is never a good thing.

 

* People are people so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?

 

(Oh, wait... that last one isn't an absolute statement. :lol:)

 

Anyways, would you agree or disagree with me on these points? Just because I really want to know if you truly and completely believe that there are no absolutes whatsoever.

[j.griff]

Then we would need to define rights, LOL. And that is a circular discussion also. But, there are many good points that could be made in such a discussion. ;)

[Jugglin'5]

Yep, that's what I was thinking. Humans are not an "endangered" species, on the brink of extinction. If we were, then yes- it would make sense (in this argument) to protect human life in the same state. ;)

 

 

Why is extinction bad?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Why is extinction bad?

 

There is a web of life that is affected by each extinction, and the worry about unintended consequences of the disruption of this web because of overdevelopment of habitats and poisoning of the same by direct or careless acts by humans drives some other humans to try to preserve species and as much diversity as possible.

 

Some would find it a morally compelling to prevent extinction. :D

[j.griff]

LOL.

male and females do have obvious differences, BUT they are not absolutely different. ;)

AND there are asexual beings, etc.

 

There are some fish that can and do survive out of water.

 

Not all babies need parents to care for them- it depends on the species. ;)

 

Grass does not always grow, sometimes the seeds don't sprout, the grass doesn't have enough water, or something else will cause it not to grow, or to stop growing, so grass in and of itself does not just grow.

 

Murders and eats the infants of what species?

 

Bad things do happen, but whether the people are "good" or not is relative.

 

It depends on the situation- why are they being starved? Is it because there is no food? Is it because they refuse to eat? Is it because there is only enough food for so many people, and someone had to decide who should live/survive?

 

I don't believe that some people are "mean to the core". You can't see someone's 'core' to discern whether it is good or bad.

 

What type of rape? What about the raping of the earth?

 

It's relative to the culture and laws of an area.

 

Define slavery. (*I* don't think it's ever a good thing, but some may find some "good" things that can come from it)

 

I don't think *we* get along awfully, LOL.

[j.griff]

What she said. :)

[Jugglin'5]

There is a web of life that is affected by each extinction, and the worry about unintended consequences of the disruption of this web because of overdevelopment of habitats and poisoning of the same by direct or careless acts by humans drives some other humans to try to preserve species and as much diversity as possible.

 

Some would find it a morally compelling to prevent extinction

 

I know why people generally believe it to be bad, and I generally agree. The point I was trying to make, (and making it badly :tongue_smilie:), is that there are whole chains of assumptions that keep getting pushed back one at a time like one curtain after another. Where is that last curtain, and what is behind it? Eventually you have to have a, dare I say it, Source of Morality and the Good.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I know why people generally believe it to be bad' date=' and I generally agree. The point I was trying to make, (and making it badly :tongue_smilie:), is that there are whole chains of assumptions that keep getting pushed back one at a time like one curtain after another. Where is that last curtain, and what is behind it? Eventually you have to have a, dare I say it, Source of Morality and the Good.[/quote']

 

And some would say that Source is Rational Man. (Who is not always rational at all. Dan Ariely, in a wonderful new book, says we are Predictably Irrational.)

 

I think the discussion is a good one for pushing back the curtains, though.

[Peek a Boo]

Ok... First, moral responsibility. I feel we have a responsibility to try prevent the suffering of another if it's going to suffer. That means a rock or a blastocyst does not come under the cover of that responsibility as defined that way. On the other hand, we do protect rocks and trees but not for their benefit, but rather for ours and for our children's. So let's be clear about that. Never in all the time I've been aware of the Sierra Club has the argument been made that man should not chop down trees because it hurts them.

 

ok, so you're admitting that this is all about how YOU "feel." Got it. because YOU decide that something has no value, YOU get to decide whether it lives or dies. okie dokie. I'm still waiting for [your] definition of "suffer" tho.....

 

Now does that mean this is an absolute? No... it's a guide. It's a guide we all live by whether we wish to admit it or not. In the case of a blastocyst it has about 16 cells. A fly has about 100,000 in its brain. It can move about and make decisions yet you can rob it of life without a thought if it lands on your table. Does it suffer? If you base your decision on the number of cells it contains then we're talking serious confusion.

 

That's EXACTLY why I don't base my decision on the number of cells. Thanks for driving that point home :)

 

Peek, you say abortion is absolute for you. That it's killing a human being at a stage of development. Yet, since more than half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant doesn't that make God the largest abortionist of all? And isn't this really about something called the "soul" that you believe we have? Something you believe we get upon implantation? Then tell me, what happens to twins? Does their soul split too? Or do they get an extra soul?

 

Except you'd have to get into a discussion about things God causes to happen vs things God allows to happen. Not to mention the whole "we're in a fallen world" discussion. Scientifically we have differentiated between a spontaneous abortion [miscarriage] and an induced abortion ["abortion on demand" or "medical" abortion]. So no, it doesn't "make God the biggest abortionist of all" :) As far as I'm concerned, no, it's NOT about a "soul" --it's about killing another human. But God IS the Giver of Life, so the Soul is His domain. I'm content w/ not overanalyzing it anymore than i do the exact timeline for Genesis 1. You'll have to ask soul questions to others who feel more strongly about it.

 

Stem cell research could hold the promise for some of the greatest advances medicine has ever seen and it's being held up because people believe that a three-day old group of 16 cells is the equivalent of a human being. Personally, I see no moral question whatsoever. You have people suffering right now who are dying (no pun intended) for those treatments and balls of cells that feel no pain that might have "souls" within them. They will sit in freezers until the clinics quietly get rid of them. My last point is this... if the clinic were to catch on fire and the firemen had a choice of rushing back in to save the freezer or a child.. what do you think they'd do?

 

All we have is relativism. There are no absolutes.

 

and when you don't have a moral compass spelled out by God, you are absolutely correct: You have no absolutes. Just relativism.

 

 

"three-day old group of 16 cells is the equivalent of a human being."

 

notice that i am refraining from using the term human "being" -- I really don't care HOW the human is being: that is a relative term if ever there was one.

We have subjective and arbitrary legal definitions. Scientifically speaking, you only have humans. old humans, young humans, humans in lots of stages of development. That 3-day old group of 16 cells are human cells. More than just a buncha cells, they are humans in a specific stage of development. That you choose to "feel" they are not worthy of life is your choice. That YOU choose to take their life so someone else "might" have a chance at living the rest of THEIR life is just that: how you FEEL.

 

How clinics deal with frozen embryos is certainly a pretty big issue in the pro-life community. If I was the one who had to choose whether to save a freezer or a child, I'd probably take the more-fully-developed child simply because of the critical time factor choice. But that's sinful me operating in a fallen world. We could sit down and introduce all kinds of variables on who we'd save first among a variety of choices, but in the end our decision on *which life to save* would certainly be relative.

 

The fact that there would be lives we DON't save is absolute: they would all die.

[j.griff]

Or, you come to a point where there either IS 'good' and 'bad', or there ISN'T 'good' and 'bad', except as it is applied/defined by individuals at specific times due to specific ideas/circumstances. In which case, it would still be relative to events/ideas/etc. ;)

[Jugglin'5]

:iagree:, otherwise it's just another person's opinion behind each curtain.

[8filltheheart]

Ok, you really have me chuckling b/c isn't that the very definition of moral relativism??!! :)

 

ETA: I know that was your point, BTW. ;) It really does boil down to philosophical differences. I am firmly entrenched on a different side. Since I am friends with too many that share your POV, I recognize futile paths of discussion. Obviously, I don't agree b/c I don't think morality is totally situational. But I don't mind disagreeing with you. ;)

[Jugglin'5]

That is, I agree with Peek. You were too quick for me, J. Griff ;-)

[j.griff]

See, it's all relative. :D Phred feels one way, you feel another (you feel that God exists,(and all that that entails) even though there is no solid 'proof')

[j.griff]

Pretty much, but I don't "get" the chuckling. *I* don't think that moral relativism is *bad*. *I* think it just *is*.

No matter what your beliefs are, it all boils down to relativism. Christian or not. Some believe x, some believe y, some do a, some do b- it's all relative to their interpretation. I will concede that ultimately there has to be one absolute, but so far there has been no way of proving that "absolute" either way. Either God is, or God isn't. But that falls under the 'existence' I mentioned earlier. Either you are, or you are not.

[Myrtle]

Would it be bad of me to contend that I don't equate happiness with joy? And that to find joy, one must sometimes sacrifice happiness. And sometimes to find joy, one must temporarily suffer. And sometimes, our suffering and sacrifice is not even for our own joy. And sometimes, we make others (I'm thinking of our children, generally) actually suffer in order to provide for their joy.

 

So I'm not sure I agree. But I get the general gist of it. And today, suffering in a very minor, inconvenient way physically, I hope this isn't coming across as contentious. I do promise, however, not to use the words "and" and "sometimes" together again for at least a week just to reduce the suffering of anyone reading my posts.

 

I'm going to agree with you, Pam.

 

And I'll add, it certainly was useful to have read Plato, Hume, Kant, Mill, Hobbes, etc to see that most of what we imagine is our original and modern thoughts about morality can be traced back hundreds if not thousands of years. If anyone thinks you are being contentious I'll say they are profoundly ignorant about how these ideas have been discussed in one of the longest discussion threads ever on the message board otherwise known as "Western Civ."

[Michelle in MO]

Well, hmm. I was looking at the thread in a different way. I know that when I was a Christian, I took pretty seriously (not that you don't!) the admonition to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you the reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." And honestly, I was baited many times (not that I'm accusing Phred of baiting!), but the exhortation was not to "decide whether or not the enquirer is sincere, then answer with meekness and fear." It was simply to answer.

 

Perhaps the right response is to simply respond with the right attitude, which I admit I may not have done. However, there are a couple of verses in Proverbs which encourage one to test or prove the heart of the inquirer.

 

I think with an honest search for the truth, discussions can actually get somewhere. If a discussion is for the sake of argumentation only, we all end up just building fences.

 

By the way, the Socratic method is for the purpose of discerning the truth. Socrates' goal was to arrive at the truth through a question-and-answer method. My husband's years in law school were almost entirely taught via the Socratic method, and there was always a purpose behind those discussions: to teach the students to think, and to teach them to arrive at the essential truth in a given problematic law case.

[Phred]

Phred, do have one of these?:lol:

I'm gonna have to get one. Whoo boy. Reading on...

[j.griff]

But I am a Christian. :)

[8filltheheart]

Pretty much, but I don't "get" the chuckling. *I* don't think that moral relativism is *bad*. *I* think it just *is*.

No matter what your beliefs are, it all boils down to relativism. Christian or not. Some believe x, some believe y, some do a, some do b- it's all relative to their interpretation. I will concede that ultimately there has to be one absolute, but so far there has been no way of proving that "absolute" either way. Either God is, or God isn't. But that falls under the 'existence' I mentioned earlier. Either you are, or you are not.

 

The chuckling is because you end up back at situational moral relativism and I end back up at absolute truth.

 

Like I stated earlier.....circuitous. BTW.....there are absolute truths other than existance. Man's existance within the world is unique in technology, education, growing crops, etc. Man questions his existance. All of that ultimatley leads to the other great absolute--Death. For me.....that circle of life begs the question why is man different? Which ultimately proves the absolute for me.

[Phred]

I'm not sure why you bothered to start this thread---or some of the other threads, like "Do you tithe?" or "Did Neil Armstrong land on the moon?" I'm not sure if you're really searching for answers or just trying to argue for argument's sake. If you're looking for answers, I'm sure that there are many on this board who will try to discuss these matters plainly with you. If you're just trying to argue for the sake of argument, then I personally see no point in engaging in this discussion.

Why does it seem to bother you so much to think? I personally enjoy it. I like twisting my thoughts in my head and finding out what happens. I like listening to other points of view and even learning things. Stop me if I'm wrong but you seem to be convinced that if you can't preach to someone there is no point. It's either all hallelujahs and amens or forget it.

 

I'll tell you what Michelle... if you don't want to post on my one thread or so a week... then don't. If you decide you should, then do. But quit putting me through an inquisition. I'm sick and tired of having the motives questioned on every post I make.

[Phred]

Sure, I'll try.

Example of an absolute: Rape of a child is wrong...anybody disagree?

I don't disagree but...

 

Numbers 18

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

Rape of a child is just fine as long as it's being ordered by Moses.

 

Example of something relative: Lying is wrong, however when people harbored Jews during the holocaust to prevent their murder, they would lie to the authorities at times so the Jews would not be taken in order to preserve life.

 

Am I making sense?

Sure you are. The choices we make every day are relative. There is nothing that we can make or say that isn't. Even when you say you have an absolute compass I have to ask what that absolute compass is... I hear constantly about "absolute truth" and yet there is not one example, not one iota of evidence that such a thing exists. So I'm wondering if there isn't a ... way of choosing that we all use ... sort of a moral postit note that we position as best we can given that culture and societies we find ourselves within.

 

That's why I said at the opening that I thought morality was our positioning between causing happiness and suffering. Maybe I should have left out happiness and just concentrated on skating across the surface of suffering?

[Phred]

mine is that man is different from the rest of creation and therefore that life is sacred.

I can only say that I find this to be wonderful. We are different, whether you believe it's because we're created in the image of a deity or that we've achieved, thru no fault of our own, intelligence. Well... more intelligence. I do tend to be rather species-centric when it comes to mankind.

 

If sea turtle eggs are protected b/c they represent the possibility of life, it is illogical not to protect human life in the same state. I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of abortion. I am simply discussing the logic in the law.

It's just that there are 80,000 sea turtles and 8,000,000,000 people. If we're talking about the reasons for protecting those eggs it doesn't translate to human beings. We're almost like a virus on this planet. We're so intelligent that we can't be stopped from reproducing. If only we were intelligent enough to realize that we can't be stopped from reproducing...

[nancypants]

 

Numbers 18

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

Rape of a child is just fine as long as it's being ordered by Moses.

 

 

 

 

I'm really looking for that passage Phred. Is it possible that it's somewhere other than Numbers 18 because I can't find it there. (Looking in ESV and NIV) I'm not suggesting that this verse isn't somewhere in the Bible but I'd like to read it in context before going any further. Can you think of another passage it might be in?

[Peek a Boo]

I'm really looking for that passage Phred. Is it possible that it's somewhere other than Numbers 18 because I can't find it there. (Looking in ESV and NIV) I'm not suggesting that this verse isn't somewhere in the Bible but I'd like to read it in context before going any further. Can you think of another passage it might be in?

 

It's Numbers 31:18 -- I googled the phrase :D

 

 

you get 'em, girl.... ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Maybe I should have left out happiness and just concentrated on skating across the surface of suffering?

 

but again.... what is your definition of suffering, and to what extent should we infringe on another's happiness to prevent this "suffering"?

[Phred]

Here are some absolute statements. Phred, can you tell me if you have any arguments against any of them? All of these are absolute statements (not all moral) that I believe to be true regardless of what some people/cultures/times have believed. Many of them I believe most people, even those who say they believe there are no absolutes, would agree with me on... but some are or have been at one point in time (some presently) culturally acceptable, thereby making them "relative" to time and culture.

The answers in blue are mine. Some of your statements are indeed absolutely true. Some... are not.

 

* Males are different from females.

 

* Fish cannot survive out of water.

And yet, some do.

 

* Babies need parents to care for them and provide for their needs.

Baby what? Babies of many species are left alone by their parents and they grow up just fine.

 

* Grass grows.

Unless it's dead.

 

* Someone who murders and eats infants is doing wrong.

Had veal lately?

 

* Bad things sometimes happen to nice people.

 

* Starving any person to death is cruelty.

Or justice... the Spanish Inquisition used starvation.

 

* Some people are mean to the core. Others definitely are not mean to the core.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

 

* Rape is despicable.

Today. See my earlier post. Numbers 31:15-18

 

* A woman does not belong to her husband.

Subservient and belong are not the same thing? I wonder if the FLDS would agree with you.

 

* Slavery is never a good thing.

In the 1700s people were convinced they were helping the negro because he was a subspecies of man that could never be more than a fieldhand at best. Just like a horse or a mule. By introducing them to Christianity they thought they were doing a good thing.

 

* People are people so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?

Sorry to be so picky... many of your statements would be absolute in thought. Someone who killed and ate my infant would doing wrong. Thing is, across a dinner table I bet we'd be fast friends. (unless you served brussels sprouts :001_huh: ) But see why absolute is impossible to reach? Absolute means that, not only now, but yesterday and forever this thing is either right or wrong. And not only to you and me but to everyone, everywhere. The cultures that proudly sent their daughters up a mountain to have their hearts ripped beating out of their chests thought that was an honor! That kinda punches a hole in an awful lot of absolutes.

 

(Oh, wait... that last one isn't an absolute statement. :lol:)

I sure hope not

 

Anyways, would you agree or disagree with me on these points? Just because I really want to know if you truly and completely believe that there are no absolutes whatsoever.

Only a couple made it through. Males are different from females. Anyone with more biology knowledge than I want to check in on that? RuPaul anyone? And bad things sometimes happen to nice people. That's an absolute I think. But I don't know what we can do with it...

[Phred]

 

.

So Peek... to save us all a buncha time. All you have to do is show me what a soul is. Where it is and how it functions. When you do I'll take you seriously and be concerned about what and how it gets implanted. Until then we have a blastocyst which is 16 cells and those cells can feel no pain. They are in a freezer in a clinic and are not going to become a human being barring extremely unlikely circumstances. To block their use because you believe in a deity and you believe in a soul and you believe in all sorts of things is... well, in my eyes a tragedy.

[Peek a Boo]

Males are different from females. Anyone with more biology knowledge than I want to check in on that? RuPaul anyone? And bad things sometimes happen to nice people. That's an absolute I think. But I don't know what we can do with it...

 

well.... definitely not a biology major here, but I think i'd phrase it as "*identifiable* males are different from *identifiable* females"

:)

 

 

no brussels sprouts?!?! that's it. I'm done here.

 

;)

[Phred]

Yes, Numbers 31:18... sorry, I chopped that part out.

 

Shall we?

 

Numbers 31

 

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

4Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

5So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[Peek a Boo]

So Peek... to save us all a buncha time. All you have to do is show me what a soul is. Where it is and how it functions. When you do I'll take you seriously and be concerned about what and how it gets implanted. Until then we have a blastocyst which is 16 cells and those cells can feel no pain. They are in a freezer in a clinic and are not going to become a human being barring extremely unlikely circumstances. To block their use because you believe in a deity and you believe in a soul and you believe in all sorts of things is... well, in my eyes a tragedy.

 

but Phred, i don't CARE what a "soul" is-- didn't you read that? Scientists have already proven that you are dealing w/ a living HUMAN blastocyst: a HUMAN at a specific stage of development. If it's dead then it's not much use to them.

 

YOU want to put some sort of difference on the value of a human life, so the ball is really in YOUR court as to what difference that is. Why 16 cells? Why not 60 million? why a number? again: why add "suffer" to the mix? Infanticide can solve a lot of the world's problems, no? euthanasia? killing stupid people quickly? instead of having people suffer thru a terminal disease, why not just kill 'em off quickly so they don't suffer?

 

why do you think there's such an importance on "suffer", and why do you want to put a value/ moral action on your subjective opinion of suffering?

 

I refuse to put such a value on a human life.

 

In the case of a time-critical decision of who to save, then yeah, I'll be forced to decide who lives and who dies. But that doesn't change the absolute that a human will DIE because of that decision.

[nancypants]

The answers in blue are mine. Some of your statements are indeed absolutely true. Some... are not.

 

* Males are different from females.

 

* Fish cannot survive out of water.

And yet, some do.

 

* Babies need parents to care for them and provide for their needs.

Baby what? Babies of many species are left alone by their parents and they grow up just fine.

 

* Grass grows.

Unless it's dead.

 

* Someone who murders and eats infants is doing wrong.

Had veal lately?

 

* Bad things sometimes happen to nice people.

 

* Starving any person to death is cruelty.

Or justice... the Spanish Inquisition used starvation.

 

* Some people are mean to the core. Others definitely are not mean to the core.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

 

* Rape is despicable.

Today. See my earlier post. Numbers 31:15-18

 

* A woman does not belong to her husband.

Subservient and belong are not the same thing? I wonder if the FLDS would agree with you.

 

* Slavery is never a good thing.

In the 1700s people were convinced they were helping the negro because he was a subspecies of man that could never be more than a fieldhand at best. Just like a horse or a mule. By introducing them to Christianity they thought they were doing a good thing.

 

* People are people so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?

Sorry to be so picky... many of your statements would be absolute in thought. Someone who killed and ate my infant would doing wrong. Thing is, across a dinner table I bet we'd be fast friends. (unless you served brussels sprouts :001_huh: ) But see why absolute is impossible to reach? Absolute means that, not only now, but yesterday and forever this thing is either right or wrong. And not only to you and me but to everyone, everywhere. The cultures that proudly sent their daughters up a mountain to have their hearts ripped beating out of their chests thought that was an honor! That kinda punches a hole in an awful lot of absolutes.

 

I sure hope not

 

 

Only a couple made it through. Males are different from females. Anyone with more biology knowledge than I want to check in on that? RuPaul anyone? And bad things sometimes happen to nice people. That's an absolute I think. But I don't know what we can do with it...

 

Thanks Phred for your answers. While you definitely did not read some of my statements as they were intended (on issues of justice where I implied there are absolutes, I was always and only speaking about humans, as opposed to veal) you did ultimately answer my main over-arching question which was do you really and truly believe that there are no absolutes and you very clearly answered, "Yes, there are some absolutes," which is really all I wanted to know.

 

I concede about the fish. I should have probably said, "Fish thrive in or near water." :tongue_smilie: Forgive me, as I didn't give that one as much thought as I probably should have. :D

 

Hopefully you will concede that there is grass growing (or dying back or going to seed or doing other grassy things) somewhere on earth. That's really what I meant. Not that all grass is always growing. ;)

 

As for many of your other objections, it seems you were afraid to answer on whether YOU believe these things to be absolutes. I was asking not about FLDS (whom I believe are absolutely wrong on a host of points --- in fact I daresay, I hardly agree with any of their teachings!) or what the Bible says (although for fairness' sake you really cannot even use the Bible in this conversation because it's a false book based mostly on legend and something that doesn't exist in your view so it's moot for your argument's purposes... I will argue theology and OT particulars with people who don't throw the whole thing out as silly, false and baseless from the beginning. Incidentally, I do believe you may have interpreted that passage wrongly, though I can understand how even what I might consider a right interpretation would cast doubt in your eyes (since the whole entire Bible casts a vast shadow of doubt, if I could use such a mild word as "doubt" to describe what I perceive your thoughts regarding the Bible are.)

 

Your counter-points actually made my point for me. My point was that in various times and in various cultures, many of these things which you and I find to be repulsive and yes, wrong no matter by whom or when they were/are being committed (I do believe you didn't counter that a man raping a woman is sometimes actually right, etc.) I am suggesting that some things (not all things by any stretch) are very clearly wrong even if people didn't always believe them to be, meaning there are in fact some absolute truths, not none as you first set forth. It's quite likely that some Nazi leaders (just for example) really thought they were doing the world some good but just because they thought they were doing good didn't actually make their actions good. It's quite likely that some people who participated wholly in the Crusades did so because they thought it was right for them to do so but that did not actually make it right (if it did, moral relativists should be the first to say that the crusades or the gassing of Jews was okay since it was acceptable at those times and in those cultures because the participants thought they were doing the right thing.)

 

But anyways, yadda yadda yadda. You did answer my question, "Do you really believe there are NO absolutes?" And you answered, "Some things are absolutely true."

[cricket1178]

you really cannot even use the Bible in this conversation because it's a false book based mostly on legend and something that doesn't exist in your view so it's moot for your argument's purposes... I will argue theology and OT particulars with people who don't throw the whole thing out as silly, false and baseless from the beginning. Incidentally, I do believe you may have interpreted that passage wrongly, though I can understand how even what I might consider a right interpretation would cast doubt in your eyes (since the whole entire Bible casts a vast shadow of doubt, if I could use such a mild word as "doubt" to describe what I perceive your thoughts regarding the Bible are.)

 

:iagree:

Obviously the Bible is not stating that these men should engage in s*x with children, sheesh.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, Numbers 31:18... 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

hang on a sec --

 

you had said that "Rape of a child is just fine as long as it's being ordered by Moses."

 

I think you are misreading this: it is not rape that is being ordered, but murder.

 

Moses is saying to kill any woman that is not a virgin, and to keep the virgins "for yourselves" --which means they would be bound to treat them under the law, which imposes specific penalties on rape.

 

so yes, God does order the murder -intentional killing of another human- of

an entire nation. At a time where a blood sacrifice was required and the entire land was defiled. The blood sacrifice was the nation itself.

 

more about the grace of God by allowing the women and children to live:

http://www.misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html

[Phred]

but Phred, i don't CARE what a "soul" is-- didn't you read that? Scientists have already proven that you are dealing w/ a living HUMAN blastocyst: a HUMAN at a specific stage of development. If it's dead then it's not much use to them.

 

YOU want to put some sort of difference on the value of a human life, so the ball is really in YOUR court as to what difference that is. Why 16 cells? Why not 60 million? why a number? again: why add "suffer" to the mix? Infanticide can solve a lot of the world's problems, no? euthanasia? killing stupid people quickly? instead of having people suffer thru a terminal disease, why not just kill 'em off quickly so they don't suffer?

 

why do you think there's such an importance on "suffer", and why do you want to put a value/ moral action on your subjective opinion of suffering?

 

I refuse to put such a value on a human life.

 

In the case of a time-critical decision of who to save, then yeah, I'll be forced to decide who lives and who dies. But that doesn't change the absolute that a human will DIE because of that decision.

But I already told you... I did put a value on it. It's going to be thrown away. It cannot suffer. Thus it should be able to be used for research. But it can't be because of your belief. Instead you throw nonsense like this at me. "Why not kill people"... we're not talking about people. If it were a person it would not be able to be thrown away.

 

You refuse to put a value on human life? Then why do you sit by while it's thrown away? Why do you sit by while the life that's already here suffers?

 

You put false choices before us and bold your words like it makes the choices clearer. They're still false. No one is talking about killing infants, no one is talking about euthanasia. We're talking about doing stem cell research on fertilized blastocysts three days old. They will never, ever become human beings because they will never, ever be implanted. Only religious fervor keeps us from finding out if we can help those people who are here, alive, suffering now. But for some reason you hold a group of 16 cells in higher regard than a fully grown person.

 

The argument that you use, that it could become a human... every cell in your body holds that possibility now with today's technology. (Do you save your fingernail clippings in a special basket?) So to hold research back... you can make the argument that a man must be killed for any number of reasons. Why can't you make the leap that these cells must be sacrificed for the greater good of all mankind?

[Phred]

Obviously the Bible is not stating that these men should engage in s*x with children, sheesh.

I would say that it quite clearly is stating just that very thing. And surely the Bible isn't stating that they murdered the young boys either... but they did.

[cricket1178]

I would say that it quite clearly is stating just that very thing. And surely the Bible isn't stating that they murdered the young boys either... but they did.

 

Which brings us back to why I am in agreement with Nancypants.

[Phred]

As to absolute truth... now... there are statements that are true. Men are different from females. But that has no moral implications whatsoever. There are no choices to be made, no thoughts to be had... how in the world does this vindicate statements that you follow an absolute Truth when you make decisions? We all take things like this statement into account. These things are called "facts" or "data". We use these things to make our decisions.

 

I guess it's important that we're talking about the same thing when we say "absolute truth". We're talking about morality so we're talking about something that would be true in terms of right and wrong to a person either in the past, present or future regardless of culture, society or circumstance.

[jacqui in mo]

There are agencies that specialize in the adoption of what they call "Snowflake Children". For many in the Christian community it is an ethical dilemma that embryos are created to just be left frozen & unwanted so these agencies have tried to help in that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children

 

we're not talking about people. If it were a person it would not be able to be thrown away.

 

Actually, couldn't you describe what Nazi Germany was doing with the Jews as "throwing them away." They treated them as sub human, & thus in many cases saw no problem with experimenting on them as Mengele did. (caveat: I am not calling you a Nazi).

 

Why can't you make the leap that these cells must be sacrificed for the greater good of all mankind? Today 07:14 PM

I don't think the embryonic stem cell research is necessary to find cures anymore. Adult stem cells seem to hold the same great promise, maybe even better as embryonic stem cells seem to have problems with becoming tumors from their rapid growth after being put into a patient. And with adult stem cells there is no question of morals. These embryonic cells are a unique developing human. Each & every one of us started out in that way. I think it is better to err on the side of protection of humans at all levels. Science is capable of coming up with new cures without destroying a unique human life.

Jacqui

[cricket1178]

As to absolute truth... now... there are statements that are true. Men are different from females. But that has no moral implications whatsoever. There are no choices to be made, no thoughts to be had... how in the world does this vindicate statements that you follow an absolute Truth when you make decisions? We all take things like this statement into account. These things are called "facts" or "data". We use these things to make our decisions.

 

I guess it's important that we're talking about the same thing when we say "absolute truth". We're talking about morality so we're talking about something that would be true in terms of right and wrong to a person either in the past, present or future regardless of culture, society or circumstance.

 

I propose that the definition of morality "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" is not subject to absolutes. It differs depending on where you have established your ideas of what right and wrong is. I propose that morality is established in a society based on what that particular society,culture, or circumstance has been taught. For instance, you believe you have no moral obligation to a rock. Does that also mean you have no moral obligation to a tree? If so you may find our Native Americans may disagree with you.

 

Whether we like it or not, morals are established in society through the majority. Whatever the majority believes to be true establishes the morals for a particular culture or society.

[jacqui in mo]

I would say that it quite clearly is stating just that very thing

 

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (NIV) When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman & are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home & have her shave her head, trim her nails & put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house & moruned her father & mother for a full month, then you may go to her & be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

 

I believe elsewhere, probably in Deuteronomy, rape would be forbidden but I'm too tired to look up much more stuff tonight.

 

It is hard to understand all that goes on in the OT. It is a description of God taking a people group to call his own. It is a progressive revelation of Himself & since He is starting with an ancient people group, you would expect them to behave like, well, ancient people groups did back then. This kind of warfare was a cultural norm but God imposed more & more progressive ideas on Israel as he led them to be different than the cultures around them. The verse above I think is an example. I don't think it was common in most cultures for women captives to be treated as Deuteronomy describes above.

 

Hopefully my tone is coming across as conversational rather than defensive or condemning.

 

Jacqui

[Soph the vet]

 

I would say that it quite clearly is stating just that very thing.

Numbers 31:18 is not saying the Israelites should then rape the female children or virgins they have captured. I'm not trying to pick on you, Phred, but your hermeneutics are sorely lacking here. I know you would not read a peer-reviewed journal this loosely right;)?

[Jugglin'5]

:iagree:

Right...the point of the passage is to regulate and make more humane the war practices of the ANE. Did anyone besides the Israelites give captured women a month to mourn, and status as wives? Nope and nope.