Morality

[Greta]

But of course, it's as good as any if there are no right answers. Right? :D

 

True. But I do believe there are right answers and wrong answers and hope I didn't come across as claiming otherwise. I am bad about needling people with questions and giving the impression that I believe in a certain answer. I *do* believe in moral absolutes. Well, one moral absolute anyway.

 

Why am I suddenly in the mood for Fajitas?:001_huh:

 

I was thinking of a green chile cheeseburger. :D

[jacqui in mo]

The idea that we should not willfully cause others to suffer is the foundation of Christian morality, Buddhist morality, Secular Humanist morality, and the morality of every religion on the planet. So I would submit that it's not an idea which should be dismissed lightly. I think it forms people's moral code more than they seem to realize.

It seems obvious, but aren't there degrees of suffering? Isn't some of it relative & subjective? Who determines what is suffering? Don't some religions teach that suffering is just a creation of the mind?

 

What do we do with people who break the moral code of "not causing suffering"? Do we cause some degree of suffering/punishment for them to teach them? Ignore them? Hope they learn sometime on their own not to do that anymore? Does the moral code break down if you have to punish someone (whether small offense or large- time outs, prison)?

 

Why do some people intentionally break the moral law of "not causing suffering"? Are we causing Phred to suffer by continually bringing God into the conversation?:D

 

But I do think it's rather unfair of Christians to claim an exclusive hold on absolute morals, when Christian morals can and do change with time, and did so even within the Bible.

I think the bible references you listed deal with my questions above. Yes, it says "Do not Kill" but then in other areas imposes punishments, including capital punishment, that don't seem fair to our 21st century eyes. I would say that maybe the degree of punishment has changed but the morals didn't.

 

BTW I'm not feeling any animosity here.:001_smile: Just enjoying the thoughtful conversation.

Jacqui

[nancypants]

Based upon our own individual beliefs. But our beliefs are as strongly held as yours.

 

But didn't I hear you say sometime in the last few weeks (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't actually have "beliefs" but rather that you are sure of certain "facts," such as there being no God (that incidentally most of the world does not share in*) beyond any shadow of doubt?

 

With belief meaning one of the following:

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

-----------

(*) World Population Percentages by Religious Group

religious 86%, non-religious and anti-religious 14%.

 

Religious Groups

monotheists 54%, reincarnationists 20%, ethno religions 10%

 

Monotheists

Christians 33%, Muslims 21%

 

Reincarnationists

Hindu 13%, Buddhist 6%

 

Ethno Religions Chinese 6.3%, tribal 4%

 

Non-religious groups

Non-religious and agnostic 11.9%, anti-religious and atheist 2.3%

[Jackie in AR]

But someone eating my child would be doing wrong TO ME... not to him. That's not an absolute truth. An absolute is something that is wrong to everyone at everytime at everyplace. No situation can make this truth change. We talked about things that are true as in facts. These are not moral truths but rather factual truths. The atomic number for Oxygen is 8. That's a fact, not an absolute moral truth.

 

 

I believe lots of things are right and wrong. But those are not absolute. And if another culture doesn't believe it then it isn't absolute.

 

Absolutes don't hinge on belief. Absolutes are, whether anyone believes in them or not.

 

So, yeah, Phred, it is WRONG for someone to eat a human child, anytime, anyplace.

 

You are getting ridiculous.

[nancypants]

No situation can make this truth change.

 

Ruh roh. You just set up an absolute truth.

 

:001_huh:

[jacqui in mo]

So doing wrong to you by eating your child does not affect the person who has committed this act?

[Greta]

It seems obvious, but aren't there degrees of suffering? Isn't some of it relative & subjective? Who determines what is suffering? Don't some religions teach that suffering is just a creation of the mind?

 

What do we do with people who break the moral code of "not causing suffering"? Do we cause some degree of suffering/punishment for them to teach them? Ignore them? Hope they learn sometime on their own not to do that anymore? Does the moral code break down if you have to punish someone (whether small offense or large- time outs, prison)?

 

Why do some people intentionally break the moral law of "not causing suffering"? Are we causing Phred to suffer by continually bringing God into the conversation?:D

 

These are all really great questions! I think some people have this idea that morality should be simple and straightforward and perfectly obvious. Personally, I do not have any such expectation. I don't see why something as important as morality should not be complex. Why shouldn't we have to stretch our brains a little to do the subject justice? :)

 

The only one of your questions that I can easily answer is: yes, there are varying degrees of suffering. And to my mind, that means some actions (such as murder) are even more immoral than others (such as stealing a car).

 

I really really want to talk about this more, but I'll have to come back later! Sorry!

[nancypants]

I think some people have this idea that morality should be simple and straightforward and perfectly obvious. Personally, I do not have any such expectation. I don't see why something as important as morality should not be complex. Why shouldn't we have to stretch our brains a little to do the subject justice? :)

 

You are so right on here GretaLynne! :thumbup:

[j.griff]

IMO, this thread pretty much proves that morality IS relative. *I* would say it's wrong to eat ANYone (even animals), because when it all boils down NO one WANTS to be eaten (okay, of COURSE there are some screwed up folks SOMEwhere, that may desire to be eaten, LOL, but that's not "normal", and of course, it just proves that this is something relative to our personal desires), to be eaten would mean you would suffer- suffer death, etc.

BUT, That is *my* opinion, and there are, in fact, cannibals in the world. For just about ANY thing a person here will deem as being "absolutely morally wrong", there is another out there who would think otherwise.

Legally speaking, the majority usually rules. That does not make the majority's opinion "absolute".

 

absolute-

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.

2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.

3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.

4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.

7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.

ETA: *<snipping redundant def.'s>

noun

14. something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).

15. the absolute, a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.

b. something that is independent of some or all relations.

c. something that is perfect or complete.

d. (in Hegelianism) the world process operating in accordance with the absolute idea *

 

 

 

 

When you are on earth, you are subject to gravity. :) You can find ways around it, but having to find a way to defy it still makes you subject to it. Gravity is. Facts are. Morality is relative. It if were an absolute that some action were morally wrong, then there would be NO debating it, there would not be people who think that it's NOT morally wrong, because it would be as absolute as gravity. It would just BE wrong, period. And those who decided to commit an immoral act, they would absolutely KNOW that they were doing "wrong". People who commit crimes (immoral acts) do not always KNOW they are doing something wrong. Thus, morality is not absolute. Now, there may indeed be some absolute spirtual consequence in an afterlife, for committing immoral acts, but we are all alive in the present life, so no one has any proof of this, if it is true. On earth, there is no absolute moral truth.

[Phred]

So you believe that it's okay to eat babies sometimes, as long as the parents aren't offended? (That, by the way, still puts an absolute moral declaration on something... "It's absolutely wrong to eat a baby if the parents don't want you to.")

 

Just trying to be clear on this.

 

Is female genital mutilation really okay because it is deemed okay in certain cultures today?

Of course that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying your use of the word "absolute" is incorrect.

 

By our standards female genital mutilation is incorrect. By the standards of the cultures that do it ... they feel it's necessary. We circumcise males in our culture. That's not necessary either. But we do it without a second thought.

 

Again, the word "absolute" is what's hanging us up. For something to be absolutely morally right it must be right 100% of the time in all places and times to all people. Be as graphic as you like and try to make me out to be a madman. Eating babies and mutilating genitals is not the issue.

[nancypants]

What you're saying is that you think there are some things that are OBJECTIVELY right or wrong regardless of what people think. Not absolute.

 

Sorry, but those are in fact pretty much the same things.

 

Absolute:

–noun

14. something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).

15. the absolute,

a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.

b. something that is independent of some or all relations.

c. something that is perfect or complete.

 

 

—Related forms

ab·so·lute·ness, noun

 

—Synonyms 2. unadulterated, sheer, unqualified, undiluted, uncontaminated. 4. total, unconditional. Absolute, unqualified, utter all mean unmodified. Absolute implies an unquestionable finality: an absolute coward. Unqualified means without reservations or conditions: an unqualified success. Utter expresses totality or entirety: an utter failure. 5. autocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian. 6. categorical. 7. unequivocal, definite, sure.

—Antonyms 1. imperfect, flawed. 2. mixed, diluted, contaminated. 4. qualified. 6. relative.

 

Objective:

adj.

 

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3.

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.

2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

3. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.

4. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.

5. Grammar

1. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.

2. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

 

 

n.

 

1. Something that actually exists.

2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.

3. Grammar

1. The objective case.

2. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.

4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

 

[nancypants]

*I* would say it's wrong to eat ANYone (even animals)

 

 

 

Does this mean that it's wrong for animals to eat animals even though many believe that "dog eat dog" is an intrinsically important part of the evolutionary process?

[genie]

You just set up an absolute truth.

 

:001_huh:

 

As a (up to this point) bystander in this conversation, it seems like you both are swimming around a few words. Nancy, you seem to be equating absolute truth with absolute morality or moral truth. Phred (I'm pretty sure) sees those as different things. So Nancy seems to keep thinking she is proving her point, but Phred doesn't see it that way because she is interchanging his words.

 

I think you guys need to address this and come to an agreement on what those mean before you can come to any agreement on what they may actually be.

 

Now carry on. :D

[Phred]

IMO, this thread pretty much proves that morality IS relative. *I* would say it's wrong to eat ANYone (even animals), because when it all boils down NO one WANTS to be eaten (okay, of COURSE there are some screwed up folks SOMEwhere, that may desire to be eaten, LOL, but that's not "normal", and of course, it just proves that this is something relative to our personal desires), to be eaten would mean you would suffer- suffer death, etc.

BUT, That is *my* opinion, and there are, in fact, cannibals in the world. For just about ANY thing a person here will deem as being "absolutely morally wrong", there is another out there who would think otherwise.

Legally speaking, the majority usually rules. That does not make the majority's opinion "absolute".

 

absolute-

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.

2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.

3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.

4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.

7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.

 

 

When you are on earth, you are subject to gravity. :) You can find ways around it, but having to find a way to defy it still makes you subject to it. Gravity is. Facts are. Morality is relative. It if were an absolute that some action were morally wrong, then there would be NO debating it, there would not be people who think that it's NOT morally wrong, because it would be as absolute as gravity. It would just BE wrong, period. And those who decided to commit an immoral act, they would absolutely KNOW that they were doing "wrong". People who commit crimes (immoral acts) do not always KNOW they are doing something wrong. Thus, morality is not absolute. Now, there may indeed be some absolute spirtual consequence in an afterlife, for committing immoral acts, but we are all alive in the present life, so no one has any proof of this, if it is true. On earth, there is no absolute moral truth.

Yeah... that right there.

[j.griff]

I said *I* would say that. That doesn't make it *so*. ;) All it means is that *I* think it is *wrong* to eat another person (and animals are people too ;) )

[nancypants]

 

By our standards female genital mutilation is incorrect. By the standards of the cultures that do it ... they feel it's necessary.

 

Again, the word "absolute" is what's hanging us up. For something to be absolutely morally right it must be right 100% of the time in all places and times to all people.

 

The issue is not how I'm using the word absolute. I am in fact using it correctly. I am saying that there are some things that are right all of the time and some things that are wrong all of the time no matter if those who are doing them, believe them to be right or wrong. The word, I suppose, that is hanging you up is the word "be". It must BE right (or wrong) 100% of the time for there to be an absolute moral truth. I am saying that there are certain things that ARE right and wrong all of the time no matter what the person who does them thinks about their correctness. I'm saying that some things ARE intrinsically and absolutely wrong even when they are deemed culturally acceptable.

 

Would you join causes or applaud those who do that are against things like female genital mutilation? (I'm not really trying to be graphic here, believe it or not... I'm merely trying to find points where most people agree that a practice is unacceptable under any circumstance.) Is there any circumstance where YOU, Phred, believe it is actually okay or good for something like female genital mutilation or baby eating to take place? Could YOU watch it happening and not try to stop it because you know that the society in which it is being conducted is convinced of it's moral rightness? My gut tells me that you could not, because you truly, in the core of your being believe that it is just plain wrong no matter how consecrated an act the practitioners believe it to be.

[Phred]

Now, let me interject this. Mahavira, the Patriarch of the Jains, an Indian sect who are known for their extreme care in not taking a life had this to say:

 

"Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.â€

 

One sentence. Whatcha think?

[j.griff]

Sounds like a good way to live. :D

[nancypants]

Now, let me interject this. Mahavira, the Patriarch of the Jains, an Indian sect who are known for their extreme care in not taking a life had this to say:

 

"Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.”

 

One sentence. Whatcha think?

 

I think following that to its logical conclusion would mean letting weeds grow, letting pine beetles eat forests, letting those who don't believe such noble thoughts kill anyone they want to for any reason, never kill mosquitos or try to stop the spread of malaria if it means doing so, never act in self-defense if it means someone might get hurt (even if that someone is trying to kill you).... you get my gist.

 

Those are my initial thoughts. :)

[Phred]

The issue is not how I'm using the word absolute. I am in fact using it correctly. I am saying that there are some things that are right all of the time and some things that are wrong all of the time no matter if those who are doing them, believe them to be right or wrong. The word, I suppose, that is hanging you up is the word "be". It must BE right (or wrong) 100% of the time for there to be an absolute moral truth. I am saying that there are certain things that ARE right and wrong all of the time no matter what the person who does them thinks about their correctness. I'm saying that some things ARE intrinsically and absolutely wrong even when they are deemed culturally acceptable.

 

Would you join causes or applaud those who do that are against things like female genital mutilation? (I'm not really trying to be graphic here, believe it or not... I'm merely trying to find points where most people agree that a practice is unacceptable under any circumstance.) Is there any circumstance where YOU, Phred, believe it is actually okay or good for something like female genital mutilation or baby eating to take place? Could YOU watch it happening and not try to stop it because you know that the society in which it is being conducted is convinced of it's moral rightness? My gut tells me that you could not, because you truly, in the core of your being believe that it is just plain wrong no matter how consecrated an act the practitioners believe it to be.

But it doesn't matter what I think. Yes, I think that mutilation of this sort is wrong. But the cultures that do it do NOT. Thus it is not absolutely wrong. While I can make a case to stamp it out and justify this with EVIDENCE I cannot just say, "It's wrong, let's go stop it because it's wrong." It's not morally right if it isn't supported by reason.

 

For example. Don't you think the KKK thinks that their cause is morally righteous? But when you sit down and examine them in the light of day... are they? No... and why is this? Because the cause is emotional and not supported by reason.

 

Reason is a part of any morally justifiable cause. So no... while I feel outrage just as you do I don't believe these things to be absolutely wrong.

[nancypants]

But it doesn't matter what I think. Yes, I think that mutilation of this sort is wrong. But the cultures that do it do NOT. Thus it is not absolutely wrong. While I can make a case to stamp it out and justify this with EVIDENCE I cannot just say, "It's wrong, let's go stop it because it's wrong." It's not morally right if it isn't supported by reason.

 

For example. Don't you think the KKK thinks that their cause is morally righteous? But when you sit down and examine them in the light of day... are they? No... and why is this? Because the cause is emotional and not supported by reason.

 

Reason is a part of any morally justifiable cause. So no... while I feel outrage just as you do I don't believe these things to be absolutely wrong.

 

Okay, so then they are sometimes right (as far as you're concerned.)

 

Wait a minute, ETA a question... so do you feel no moral compunction about these things? Outrage is an emotion, after all... Outrage is rarely, if ever, purely reasonable. Or are your reasons for disliking these practices purely logical (and if so, upon what logic are they founded)? Have you no emotions on these subjects? Because if you do then part of your beliefs that these are wrong are also based on feelings and emotions. (I imagine seeing any of these things happen would make either of us sick to our stomachs on an emotional level.)

[Greta]

Don't want you to think I'm picking on you because I actually agree with you much of the time. But not about this:

 

For something to be absolutely morally right it must be right 100% of the time in all places and times to all people.

 

Ideas don't have to be agreed upon by all people in order to be true. There was a time when most people thought that the sun orbits the earth. They were just plain wrong. There have been times and cultures where people thought that human sacrifice was morally good because they thought they were protecting the greater good. They, also, were just plain wrong. People who mutilate their daughter's sex organs may think they are doing they right thing. But they are just plain wrong. Fact vs. myth doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on it. And moral vs. immoral doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on it.

 

Editing: I should have said "take issue with your statement" not "take issue with you" -- it's nothing personal!

[Greta]

What do we do with people who break the moral code of "not causing suffering"? Do we cause some degree of suffering/punishment for them to teach them? Ignore them? Hope they learn sometime on their own not to do that anymore? Does the moral code break down if you have to punish someone (whether small offense or large- time outs, prison)?

 

These are really important questions. And not ones that I have answers to! I think we would all agree that we have a moral obligation to act to prevent suffering that someone else is trying to cause (to stop a rapist before he attacks his next victim, for example). But then what? Do we punish him? It's an interesting question right now with regards to the threads about punitive parenting. Is punishment an effective teaching tool? Are there others that might work better? Buddha never punished anyone or advocated any sort of punishment. But few, if any, of us have the kind of wisdom and compassion he did, with which he was able to turn some very evil people to goodness. (I mention this not to be preachy, but just because I hold Buddha to be the perfect example of both wisdom and morality. I can't help but think about him when thinking about these issues!)

 

Why do some people intentionally break the moral law of "not causing suffering"?

 

The Buddhist answer to this would be because they are suffering from the illusion of separateness and ego. But I'm not sure if you were interested in the Buddhist answer! :) The non-religious answer *might* be that we are all a collection of conflicting needs: instincts to preserve ourselves and provide for our own needs, delicately balanced against a desire to live in harmony with those around us. And some people simply have a better balance (brain chemistry) than others. I'm not sure. What do you think the answer is?

 

I think the bible references you listed deal with my questions above. Yes, it says "Do not Kill" but then in other areas imposes punishments, including capital punishment, that don't seem fair to our 21st century eyes. I would say that maybe the degree of punishment has changed but the morals didn't.

 

You're certainly right that these particular admonishments to kill were in response to specific "crimes" (although personally I have a very hard time with the notion that not being a virgin on your wedding night is a crime!). But when the punishment is worse than the crime, surely we've crossed the line into immorality. And responding to immorality with more immorality certainly isn't going to do any body any good. Were the criminals in these cases, the rebellious son and the non-virginal bride, turned to goodness by these punishments? Were other people protected from harm to such an extent that these drastic measures were necessary? The answer to both questions is surely no, so how could we label these punishments "moral" in any objective way?

 

BTW I'm not feeling any animosity here.:001_smile: Just enjoying the thoughtful conversation.

Jacqui

 

Yay! Me too! :D

[Jugglin'5]

You're certainly right that these particular admonishments to kill were in response to specific "crimes" (although personally I have a very hard time with the notion that not being a virgin on your wedding night is a crime!)

 

Just to clarify, and forgive me if you already knew this, but not being a virgin on your wedding not was not the crime, it was the adultery. Being betrothed was more serious than our modern "engagement". There was money, land, treaties, etc involved, and it was considered to be a serious betrayal. This was why Joseph had to quietly "divorce" or "put away" Mary even though they weren't married yet.

 

If a unbetrothed virgin was "seduced" then the man had either marry her and pay the bride price if she and her father wished it, or pay the bride price if they didn't wish it. It was not a crime.

[Phred]

Okay, so then they are sometimes right (as far as you're concerned.)

That is not what I said. You're still hung up on this universal scorecard where something is RIGHT or it's WRONG. No, I don't think they are "sometimes" right... I think that I think they are wrong and they think they are right and nobody is a referee who can say which side is right. That's where reason steps in with a reasonable argument backed by evidence.

 

Wait a minute, ETA a question... so do you feel no moral compunction about these things? Outrage is an emotion, after all... Outrage is rarely, if ever, purely reasonable. Or are your reasons for disliking these practices purely logical (and if so, upon what logic are they founded)? Have you no emotions on these subjects? Because if you do then part of your beliefs that these are wrong are also based on feelings and emotions. (I imagine seeing any of these things happen would make either of us sick to our stomachs on an emotional level.)

I go back the the KKK. They feel moral outrage and a moral compunction to do something. Are they right? I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief". I feel moral outrage when I see moments of silence inserted in our schools. I feel moral outrage when I see corporations being given a pass on pollution standards because it will cost them money. I feel moral outrage when I see my country doing the things it's doing in my name and there's nothing I can do about it. There are a lot of things I feel morally outraged about. But after I get my dander up I think about why and if I'm wrong I try to put it aside.

[Greta]

I'm not offended by the correction, because indeed I did NOT understand that. Thanks for taking the time to explain, though I'm still not 100% sure I understand. If she had had sex with someone else before she ever met or heard of him, that would not be punished by death, but only if she had betrayed a promise of fidelity to him?

 

Either way, I still don't think it justified killing her. But I do want to understand what was meant.

[Phred]

Don't want you to think I'm picking on you because I actually agree with you much of the time. But not about this:

 

 

 

Ideas don't have to be agreed upon by all people in order to be true. There was a time when most people thought that the sun orbits the earth. They were just plain wrong. There have been times and cultures where people thought that human sacrifice was morally good because they thought they were protecting the greater good. They, also, were just plain wrong. People who mutilate their daughter's sex organs may think they are doing they right thing. But they are just plain wrong. Fact vs. myth doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on it. And moral vs. immoral doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on it.

 

Editing: I should have said "take issue with your statement" not "take issue with you" -- it's nothing personal!

moral vs. immoral does not require that everyone agree upon it, you're correct. For something to be an absolute... which is what we're skating around here. What we're trying to get to is that Christians want the Bible to be a source of ABSOLUTE MORALITY. Something that is so pure, so righteous that it cannot be questioned. But there is no absolute right or wrong. Nothing that is absolutely right or wrong morally. It. Just. Doesn't. Exist.

 

Now if we are talking about moral vs. immoral then we're talking about context, aren't we?

[8filltheheart]

 

I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief". I feel moral outrage when I see moments of silence inserted in our schools. .

 

 

That is the summation of the entire thread. I wish I had heeded the posts at the beginning of the thread.

 

You have accused me of positions I do not believe nor profess. (believing that others that don't believe the same as me go to hell and that homosexuals are somehow inferior to the rest of humanity. I only mentioned that homosexuality caused a lengthy debate on the forum.....one in which I did not participate or even read)

 

You have lumped me in with your pre-conceived notion of Christians though in this thread I have never identified myself as anything other than believing in God and that human life has intrinsic value.

 

Your outrage is not about morality. Your outrage is not that intelligent discourse cannot be conducted. Your outrage is focused on the fact that people have the audacity to believe in a Creator.

 

I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief".

I cannot help but wonder if you are mentally capable of identifying the irony of your statement.

 

It was obvious to me from the beginning of this thread that you would land in your quarter and me in mine. At least I am honest about it and up front about it from the beginning. I attempted to conduct a rational conversation (and yes, believing in a Creator is a rational thought........I would hope that even you can acknowledge the philosophical contributions of Augustine, Aquinas or the love of Ghandi). I didn't diminish your posts. I simply disagreed and presented an alternative perspective. (though I did become obnoxious in my response after your justification of your complete and total distortion of my POV after your tirade.)

 

But it is completely obvious from this post that the only position that is acceptable to you is that your atheistic position dominate society at large and that people of faith celebrate it in the privacy of their bedrooms and don't come out of the closet.

[jacqui in mo]

So everyone gets to set up their own boundary line "stakes" as to where they want their morality to exist? No one's morality is superior to someone else's? Does that encompass part of what you're saying?

[Phred]

So everyone gets to set up their own boundary line "stakes" as to where they want their morality to exist? No one's morality is superior to someone else's? Does that encompass part of what you're saying?

Wouldn't you say? Except that everyone thinks their own morality is superior to everyone else's... or why in the world would they choose it?

[jacqui in mo]

Okay, that speaks to people as single entities & "chosing" their morals. Who then or what should decide what are the moral boundaries (I mean laws) of a group of people. In a town, in a state, in a country? What happens when one person's set of morals impinges on someone else's?

[Phred]

That is the summation of the entire thread. I wish I had heeded the posts at the beginning of the thread.

Or the other three times when you took your ball and went home?

 

You have accused me of positions I do not believe nor profess. (believing that others that don't believe the same as me go to hell and that homosexuals are somehow inferior to the rest of humanity. I only mentioned that homosexuality caused a lengthy debate on the forum.....one in which I did not participate or even read)

Then why are you bothered by it? Simply say what you just said and I'll apologize profusely... like this, "I'm sorry if I said anything to you that was aimed at another. These threads get kinda busy."

 

You have lumped me in with your pre-conceived notion of Christians though in this thread I have never identified myself as anything other than believing in God and that human life has intrinsic value.

 

Your outrage is not about morality. Your outrage is not that intelligent discourse cannot be conducted. Your outrage is focused on the fact that people have the audacity to believe in a Creator.

Then please, say what you mean to say. Are you upset by this? Am I wrong about Christians in the vast majority? Have I misread our political candidates pandering to someone that isn't there?

 

I cannot help but wonder if you are mentally capable of identifying the irony of your statement.

mmmm... I admit it can easily be misread. Let's try again.

 

I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief". As in... I feel moral outrage when I see homosexuals being discriminated against by Christians simply because they believe they have a basis to justify their hatred in scripture.

 

I didn't mean what you think I have the mental capacity to be ironic about.

 

But it is completely obvious from this post that the only position that is acceptable to you is that your atheistic position dominate society at large and that people of faith celebrate it in the privacy of their bedrooms and don't come out of the closet.

OH irony sweet irony.

[j.griff]

Then the mob/majority rules. Or the stronger one rules (survival of the 'fittest' LOL).

[nancypants]

That is not what I said. You're still hung up on this universal scorecard where something is RIGHT or it's WRONG. No, I don't think they are "sometimes" right... I think that I think they are wrong and they think they are right and nobody is a referee who can say which side is right. That's where reason steps in with a reasonable argument backed by evidence.

 

 

I go back the the KKK. They feel moral outrage and a moral compunction to do something. Are they right? I do feel moral outrage when I see people diminishing others for no reason but their "belief". I feel moral outrage when I see moments of silence inserted in our schools. I feel moral outrage when I see corporations being given a pass on pollution standards because it will cost them money. I feel moral outrage when I see my country doing the things it's doing in my name and there's nothing I can do about it. There are a lot of things I feel morally outraged about. But after I get my dander up I think about why and if I'm wrong I try to put it aside.

 

 

Phred, I think our conversation is over. :) You clearly believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (as you have stated that something, even something as heinous as baby eating can simply be wrong for you and not truly wrong for someone who thinks it's perfectly okay), even though, you yourself who doesn't (don't?) believe right and wrong exists persist in believing that some things are wrong! The circular reasoning is just not workin' for me. You just can't have it both ways. Either eating babies (since that is one of my chosen examples) is flat out wrong or it is sometimes okay. You just cannot get away with saying, "It's relative" because in saying that you are saying that people decide what is right for them and wrong for them, which ultimately means nothing can ever be wrong (so get over your feelings that eating babies is wrong... cause it can't be with the way you view right and wrong as purely subjective.)

 

To quote the man in black, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." :tongue_smilie:

[Greta]

moral vs. immoral does not require that everyone agree upon it, you're correct. For something to be an absolute... which is what we're skating around here. What we're trying to get to is that Christians want the Bible to be a source of ABSOLUTE MORALITY. Something that is so pure, so righteous that it cannot be questioned. But there is no absolute right or wrong. Nothing that is absolutely right or wrong morally. It. Just. Doesn't. Exist.

 

Now if we are talking about moral vs. immoral then we're talking about context, aren't we?

 

I looked up the definition of "moral absolutism" and found out that it didn't mean what I thought it meant. I retract my statement -- I do not believe in moral absolutism. What I believe in is either "moral objectivism" or "moral universalism", but I have to do some more reading before I can figure out which one best describes what I'm trying to get at.

 

Let this be an important lesson . . . to me! One must understand the definition of a term as used by the professionals in the field (in this case philosophers) rather than just the layman's understanding of the word if one is to have anything approaching a meaningful discussion of it.

[Phred]

Okay, that speaks to people as single entities & "chosing" their morals. Who then or what should decide what are the moral boundaries (I mean laws) of a group of people. In a town, in a state, in a country? What happens when one person's set of morals impinges on someone else's?

In the United States we have a constitution that sets up a pretty good standard for this. The individual's freedoms trump the group's desires. Morals are a concept left to the individual to decide. And, by leaving it to the individual we find that groups of like-minded individuals tend to congregate. Whether it be in assemblies of churches or camera clubs. The problems we are constantly legislating is the desire by some to infringe the freedoms of others. But the overarching desire is to preserve freedom.

[jacqui in mo]

Yep! And is that moral? :o) Is it a good way to decide morals? On the individual basis, what is the outcome of 2 individuals conflicting morals when it affects each other as in Phred's example of someone eating his child?

[Greta]

I also read about "moral relativism" and I know I'm not that either. I think it's between "moral objectivism" and "moral universalism" but I want to take some time to explore these two and really think about them, and also find out of there are any other moral philosophies that I'm not familiar with.

 

Thanks for starting this discussion, Phred. I'm looking forward to doing some reading on this topic.

[Phred]

Phred, I think our conversation is over. :) You clearly believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (as you have stated that something, even something as heinous as baby eating can simply be wrong for you and not truly wrong for someone who thinks it's perfectly okay), even though, you yourself who doesn't (don't?) believe right and wrong exists persist in believing that some things are wrong! The circular reasoning is just not workin' for me. You just can't have it both ways. Either eating babies (since that is one of my chosen examples) is flat out wrong or it is sometimes okay. You just cannot get away with saying, "It's relative" because in saying that you are saying that people decide what is right for them and wrong for them, which ultimately means nothing can ever be wrong (so get over your feelings that eating babies is wrong... cause it can't be with the way you view right and wrong as purely subjective.)

 

To quote the man in black, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." :tongue_smilie:

Nan... honestly... you don't understand what you're talking about. I believe very clearly in right and wrong. Just not an absolute right and wrong. Something I may believe in very strongly one way others may believe in just as strongly the other way. And there are no rights or wrongs that everyone believes in either way.

 

Please, it's not me... you're conflating terms right and left.

[j.griff]

Yep! And is that moral? :o) Is it a good way to decide morals? On the individual basis, what is the outcome of 2 individuals conflicting morals when it affects each other as in Phred's example of someone eating his child?

 

No, I don't think it IS moral for a large group of people to force their personal moral beliefs onto another group of people, or an individual. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the right to self defense, :D It's the part where a certain majority gets to legislate what is legally "moral", with no interest in even acknowledging the fact that another set of morals are just as valid as their own. They may disagree, but that shouldn't give them the right to force their morals onto another, unless they are being personally physically threatened (in which case *I* believe they have a right to self defense).

 

IMO, the outcome of two individuals having a conflict over whether or not one can eat the other's baby, would end with the "hungry" party being shot in the head. The end. No more conflict.

[jacqui in mo]

What about my 2nd question? What is the outcome of 2 individuals conflicting morals when it affects each other as in Phred's (your ;o) example of someone eating his child?

[Phred]

Yep! And is that moral? :o) Is it a good way to decide morals? On the individual basis, what is the outcome of 2 individuals conflicting morals when it affects each other as in Phred's example of someone eating his child?

Of course your freedom to move your hand stops at my nose. Morally I'm also able to defend myself.

[nancypants]

Nan... honestly... you don't understand what you're talking about. I believe very clearly in right and wrong. Just not an absolute right and wrong. Something I may believe in very strongly one way others may believe in just as strongly the other way. And there are no rights or wrongs that everyone believes in either way.

 

Please, it's not me... you're conflating terms right and left.

 

But Phred... I think you're wrong! And you think I'm wrong... so which of us is right? And how can you decide that if you don't really know what is ultimately right?

[genie]

But Phred... I think you're wrong! And you think I'm wrong... so which of us is right?

 

I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong here, but I do think you are misunderstanding what Phred is saying.

[nancypants]

I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong here, but I do think you are misunderstanding what Phred is saying.

 

The whole thread is based on the idea of right and wrong. I really am understanding Phred, Genie (though clearly he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is "way out of their league" and possibly even a numbskull...). I merely disagree with him! But thanks for your thoughts! :D

 

Weeeelllll....... I have got to run and my "sit and do nothing but read the boards" vacation is over as of today... we are going away on a mini-vaca. and then it is back to the books. So, I'm signing off... Now be good and don't decide to end it all with an insult, okay Phred. That just wouldn't be right.;)

 

Thank you for a thought provoking and insightful conversation.

[genie]

I really am understanding Phred, Genie (though clearly he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is "way out of their league" and possibly even a numbskull...). I merely disagree with him! But thanks for your thoughts! :D

 

 

 

Okay. I'm just going by the words you wrote, which seem to indicate otherwise. But you're welcome.

[genie]

Okay. I'm just going by the words you wrote, which seem to indicate otherwise. But you're welcome.

 

And at least I write my words in public, where everyone can see them. And I haven't negative repped you even though I don't agree with you.

[nancypants]

And at least I write my words in public, where everyone can see them. And I haven't negative repped you even though I don't agree with you.

 

Genie, I used the rep. system exactly as it was designed. I disapproved of your comment, and I signed my name. I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in that.

[genie]

Genie, I used the rep. system exactly as it was designed. I disapproved of your comment, and I signed my name. I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in that.

 

Actually, these are the listed reasons for giving negative rep:

 

Reasons to give bad rep:

Negative experience on the Sale & Swap board (as a buyer or a seller)

Someone displaying a pattern of “bad†behavior (thread hijacking, combativeness, aggression, negativity)

Outright offensive posts (name-calling, racial slurs, etc)

 

 

I don't see where it says to give negative rep just because you disapprove of someone's comment. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is one reason that the admins have said was not a good reason to leave negative rep.

 

Oh well. All I said was that it seemed to me, from your words, that you misunderstood Phred. I'm sorry that it bothered you so much.

[cricket1178]

WOW! I just happened over to my rep page and discovered that someone was kind enough to let me know they didn't agree with my agreeing with a previous poster's comments. I appreciate the eye opening remarks. Please don't be afraid to sign your name next time.

 

In light of that, I apologize to Phred.

 

That is all.:D