Err, I don't think the CC is in any way worse than the Protestant churches as a whole. Actually, if anything I would say the CC is meddling less in national political affairs than the Protestant ones.Yes, because look at all of those Crusades started by Lutherans and Methodists.
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religion
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religionThis. He despised it so much, so much that He, personally, founded the Catholic Church. Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing like this token of anger.
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religion
What do you honestly think Jesus would have thought about what I witnessed today?
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religionNah, I wouldn't go that far. Jesus told the apostles to establish the Church. What we've done to it is another subject.
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religion
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religionThis. He despised it so much, so much that He, personally, founded the Catholic Church. Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing like this token of anger.
@OP: you were wrong.
They are opposed to free health care because it will mean more access to rape checks for little boys.
All kidding aside, walking out was certainly the most appropriate action. For all anyone knew you had to go to the bathroom REALLY bad. Causing a disturbance wouldn't have been the answer, and hopefully one or two people figured out what you were doing and you got them to think independently for a minute.
Err, I don't think the CC is in any way worse than the Protestant churches as a whole. Actually, if anything I would say the CC is meddling less in national political affairs than the Protestant ones.Yes, because look at all of those Crusades started by Lutherans and Methodists.
This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religionNah, I wouldn't go that far. Jesus told the apostles to establish the Church. What we've done to it is another subject.
To the op, it was good of you to leave. As to his fear of having his rights violated, I doubt anything would come of it. The Catholic Church would jump up the legal system's ass, and a judge would probably strike down any mandatory requirement on religious grounds. That's if Obama care is ever fully implemented.
Right. The passage (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV#en-NIV-23691) is pretty clear, isn't it?This is a sad example of why Jesus despised religionNah, I wouldn't go that far. Jesus told the apostles to establish the Church. What we've done to it is another subject.
To the op, it was good of you to leave. As to his fear of having his rights violated, I doubt anything would come of it. The Catholic Church would jump up the legal system's ass, and a judge would probably strike down any mandatory requirement on religious grounds. That's if Obama care is ever fully implemented.
Maybe I am missing a passage but I don't remember Jesus asking to establish the church. I remember jesus saying he will build his church in mt 16. I think this distinction is the root of the problem
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
eh, Catholics can still not get abortionist right? nobody is forcing them? If it's about the tax money being used than they shouldn't just start with this health care plan... 'their' money also funds public schools who teach evolution/safe sex, research using stem cells and scholarships which are used to educate new abortion doctors...etc
I think it's insane that Christians in particular are so much against this health care plan, I thought they were all for helping the sick and poor.
Maybe not, but you've got somebody else filling that role. Everybody does.
I don't need some clergyman setting my moral compass for me.
Maybe not, but you've got somebody else filling that role. Everybody does.
I don't need some clergyman setting my moral compass for me.
Maybe not, but you've got somebody else filling that role. Everybody does.
I don't need some clergyman setting my moral compass for me.
Your moral compass should have been, for the most part, set in your upbringing, and only really requires some fine tuning here and there as an adult. I can easily do that by myself. I dont need anyone to do it for me. Someone elses moral compass is not infallible, and can have biases and agendas...which will affect their advice to you.
Your moral compass, and your actions, as you age and experience new and different scenarios.
Your moral compass, and your actions, as you age and experience new and different scenarios.
How do you know, exactly, when it is, if I may, "pointing north"?
Your moral compass, and your actions, as you age and experience new and different scenarios.
How do you know, exactly, when it is, if I may, "pointing north"?
I can never know for sure. But I will know more than some guy in a robe that I watch preach an hour a week and that knows me less than my mailman does.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
This so much. You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.
To think that people who are not religious can't have a good sense of morals is kind of weird.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?
What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?
7 string already answered this.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
This so much. You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.
What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?
7 string already answered this.
On this thread?
You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas.
What about it? They obviously have their own moral compass that is not in line with the majority.
I think it is OK to fap to porn, have sex before marriage, not believe in Jesus Christ, gays can go to a heaven if one exists, and for people to have abortions. Those would all be diametrically opposed to any "good" catholic. Morals are subjective, upbringings and environments are different, making everones compass read differently.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
This so much. You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.
What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?
Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.
Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong).
Were the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.
Would you want someone to do that to you?I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
This so much. You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.
What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?
Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.
Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.
If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?
Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong).
I dont make the objective claim that murder is wrong. There are scenarios where killing someone is considered morally correct. A soldier protecting his country. I would kill someone to protect my family. Killing someone is not always morally wrong.
Were the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.
If society deems something to be morally OK, then those opposing it would be considered morally not OK.
Would you want someone to do that to you?I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
This so much. You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.
What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?
Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.
Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.
If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?
Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong).
I dont make the objective claim that murder is wrong. There are scenarios where killing someone is considered morally correct. A soldier protecting his country. I would kill someone to protect my family. Killing someone is not always morally wrong.
Point is that in moral relativism, no one is right or wrong. Actions lose all moral meaning.QuoteWere the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.
If society deems something to be morally OK, then those opposing it would be considered morally not OK.
Exactly. So what if society deems child rape moral? Is it still immoral, regardless of what the majority deems it to be? Or is it now moral because the majority deems it to be?
If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?
If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?
Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?
If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?
Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?
Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.
Murder is not always wrong and charity is not always right.If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?
Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?
Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.
If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?
Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?
Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.
Maybe not, but you've got somebody else filling that role. Everybody does.
I don't need some clergyman setting my moral compass for me.
I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.
This so much. You just do what feels right. Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings. Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.
What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?
Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.
Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.
If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?
Wow, where to start...
First of all, you seem ot be completely unaware of who psycopaths are, what it entails, etc. Read through this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy). Religion will be irrelevant.
Secondly, you seem to be completley ignorant of all the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion. You see, the thing about eternal damnation and eternal rewards is those two things can lead to some very unsavory and horrible ends. TO take your example, perhaps my religion honestly believes that that homeless guy getting the lottery is unjust, evil, and that he is an evil man. It then becomes my duty to kill the evil person. Or, perhaps as is the case in some religions, I'm supposed to "talk to God" personally, which basically amounts to listening to what you want, which could lead to me honestly thinking God wants me to kill that person, and for me to get the money. God set it up so that the homeless man would win, and come talk to me, to show me what I"m supposed to do. There's so many instances of this through out history, I won't even bother to list them for you.
Secondly, AS someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't think God exists, and isn't afraid of eternal damnation or eternal bliss, I can tell you that my disposition and beliefs are completely abhorrent to the idea of killing someone for money. I could put this in a very selfish light, saying that I couldn't kill someone because that action would haunt me for the rest of my life, and I couldn't live with myself.
And seeing as how I don't think I go anywhere when I die, I want this life of mine to be as good as possible, meaning I"m not going to kill someone and self-torture myself.
There's also the fact that, as I would contend, all you're doing by following religious teaching is following someone elses moral compass, not even your own. You listen to the book, that some other guy wrote, or you listen to the preacher, who is simply giving you his opinion on the book, or his personal beliefs on the manner.
Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.
Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.
Why?
Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.
Why?
It is probably because the belief society holds (which may only be a segment of the society) does not align with his personal beliefs. This is evident with issues like abortion, birth control, etc.
Society or a group does not make objective morals. The morals of the individual and groups are subjective.
Serious question.
In the H thread, it appeared you had absolutely zero intent to entertain any scenario other than your belief in BVG.
It is clear that you believe in objective morals, and not subjective ones. You continue to ask about our views of morals, and instead of accepting what we are saying, you continue to ask questions that you know have either already been answered, or cant be answered.
Are you really interested in how we view morals subjectively, or are you trying to prove your view is correct?
The reason I ask is that you are just asking the same questions and arent accepting our answers.
As a broad example, you keep asking how we know our view or belief is superior/inferior, or right/wrong. We hasve answered several times. We feel that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that each view is affected by many individual factors, and we make our own personal judgement. Yet you continue to ask the same question as if you are trying to prove objective morals.
This thread is not a debate on objective or subjective morals.
Youre not getting a logical answer? No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs. The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical. It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.
Youre not getting a logical answer? No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs. The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical. It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.
No, I have not been getting a logical answer. For example, evidently unbeknown to you, the responses you have provided are re-affirming my point.
QuoteSecondly, AS someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't think God exists, and isn't afraid of eternal damnation or eternal bliss, I can tell you that my disposition and beliefs are completely abhorrent to the idea of killing someone for money. I could put this in a very selfish light, saying that I couldn't kill someone because that action would haunt me for the rest of my life, and I couldn't live with myself.
So the reason you wouldn't kill the man is for guilt? Why would you feel guilt if all you are doing is merely ending the life of some schmuck whom no one knows are cares about? Why would you be impelled to feel guilt if you are merely killing another animal to your gain? Why would you feel guilt if you believed that the man you killed was nothing more than mere matter organized into a human that would eventually die anyways?
QuoteThere's also the fact that, as I would contend, all you're doing by following religious teaching is following someone elses moral compass, not even your own. You listen to the book, that some other guy wrote, or you listen to the preacher, who is simply giving you his opinion on the book, or his personal beliefs on the manner.
This is a common misconception. Most theists don't believe that morality is derived from a text or from sermons; most believe that an objective moral code is inscribed in the very "soul," psyche, or intellect of every human by a divine moral prescriber. This moral code is ultimately what we would call a conscience. We recognize what is objectively wrong and what isn't, yet we are free to ignore our conscience, rebel against our own morality, and commit immoral acts.
You say that like it's a bad thing.Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.
Why?
It is probably because the belief society holds (which may only be a segment of the society) does not align with his personal beliefs. This is evident with issues like abortion, birth control, etc.
Society or a group does not make objective morals. The morals of the individual and groups are subjective.
Exactly. Moral assertions have been reduced to mere individual opinions. Similar to asking for an opinion as to which color you think is the coolest. Why would one answer (say black - the coolest color, btw) be superior or inferior to another (say baby blue...eww)?
In an atheistic / naturalistic worldview, on what basis can you make a value judgment that a society which embraces slavery is inferior or immoral as compared to one that doesn't?Because the Bible totally kept slavery from springing up all around the world... oh wait.
Why is our societal set of values that abhors slavery superior to a society which adheres to slavery?Common fucking decency for one. I wouldn't want to be enslaved, so I can assume most other people don't as well. I'm assuming you're probably not too keen on the whole getting enslaved against your will bit and I'm sure that has less to do with some book somewhere saying that 'getting enslaved is bad m'kay' and more with 'ouch, whips hurt!'
Why is a society that abhors slavery a moral improvement rather than a mere difference?Because you're not enslaving another living being. Seems pretty simple to me.
Youre not getting a logical answer? No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs. The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical. It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.
No, I have not been getting a logical answer. For example, evidently unbeknown to you, the responses you have provided are re-affirming my point.
My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:
On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.
My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:
On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.
Yet that is exactly their point! It's cultural relativism. Morals are relative to the culture that you live in. That is the point.
My, oh my, how the essential point has been missed:
On the one hand, you want to make value judgments like "murder is wrong," or "slavery is abhorrent," or "we have improved morally over this culture or that." Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence, you're lost in a sea of socio-cultural relativism.
Morals, to me, at least just come from social conditioning. If you were raised in a culture where it was normal to kill left handed people and you never heard anything different, then that is your moral truth right there. You would firmly believe that it was the correct thing to do.
Yup. Scenario #2. Dead on.
:facepalm:
Yup. Scenario #2. Dead on.
:facepalm:
?
I think it is very clear what is going on here, as it happens in other threads too. There is more than one view on a subject. In this case morals, and there are many different ways to think about them, but lets generalize them for this discussion into Objective and Subjective. When asked about our subjective views, we give clear and logical answers. The answers do not fit into the view of the person asking , who is clearly in the Objective camp. This person then says our answers are not logical, for what I can see are only two reasons.
In the first scenario, this person asking truly doesnt understand that the answers are logical as he cant remove himself from the mindset of objective morality, even in a hypothetical scenario, to see that in a morally subjective view, the answers are perfectly logical and valid.
The second scenario is that the person is fully aware of subjective morality and what it entails, and is perfectly capable to understand how our answers are logical and valid within the framework of subjective morality. This person then continues to re-ask questions and debate our answers to disprove our view and/or prove his. The answers are logical withing the subjective framework...and not logical only withing the objective one, and I think this person fully knows that.
I think the second scenario is happening here. It is likely a waste of time to continue sharing our view as I dont believe our answers and opinions are being used to understand our view or position, and are only being used in an attempt to validate his own view, or somehow invalidate ours. This person wants to win a debate, not have a discussion.
Yup. Scenario #2. Dead on.
:facepalm:
?I think it is very clear what is going on here, as it happens in other threads too. There is more than one view on a subject. In this case morals, and there are many different ways to think about them, but lets generalize them for this discussion into Objective and Subjective. When asked about our subjective views, we give clear and logical answers. The answers do not fit into the view of the person asking , who is clearly in the Objective camp. This person then says our answers are not logical, for what I can see are only two reasons.
In the first scenario, this person asking truly doesnt understand that the answers are logical as he cant remove himself from the mindset of objective morality, even in a hypothetical scenario, to see that in a morally subjective view, the answers are perfectly logical and valid.
The second scenario is that the person is fully aware of subjective morality and what it entails, and is perfectly capable to understand how our answers are logical and valid within the framework of subjective morality. This person then continues to re-ask questions and debate our answers to disprove our view and/or prove his. The answers are logical withing the subjective framework...and not logical only withing the objective one, and I think this person fully knows that.
I think the second scenario is happening here. It is likely a waste of time to continue sharing our view as I dont believe our answers and opinions are being used to understand our view or position, and are only being used in an attempt to validate his own view, or somehow invalidate ours. This person wants to win a debate, not have a discussion.
In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.
Moral accountability would be as absurd as condemning or punishing someone for their preference in color.
It doesnt invalidate your post, nor is it meant to. We understand your objective moral view, and respect it. We dont try to show how it is wrong or doesnt work just because we dont subscribe to it. My assessment just clearly illustrates your behavoir, thats all. Carry on.
We do not say "murder is wrong" from any other viewpoint than our own. Yes we make the judgement...that is exactly the point. We make the judgement for ourselves.
wow I don't even know how to reply at this point. I feel like I'm being trolled.
Moral accountability would be as absurd as condemning or punishing someone for their preference in color.
Uh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.
Just because someone thinks morals are subjective doesn't mean they have to be accepting of or put up with everyone else's moral views. You're still a part of a society, and if you want to fit in with that society then you had better follow the rules they set. That doesn't make the accepted morals of that particular society objective, though. It just means that those are the behaviors members of that society have collectively agreed to put up with, and if you deviate too far then you're done.
In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.
So far, fine. This is, you know.... exactly what subjective means.
I'm just going to post this again and ask Omega where he thinks I'm wrong with this reasoning:
look at it as unwritten social agreements that have developed over time (and are ingrained in us), nobody wants to live in a society where murder is looked upon the same way as playing a game of tennis.
And yes, these agreements are constantly changing although some core elements can be seen in every society on earth (even in (other) animals) even though they have been isolated from each other for thousands of years (things like; protecting/honouring your family, murder.. etc).
(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory )
So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.
All it would take to shatter a society of this type would be one simple individual who isn't at all concerned with society or of the consequences of his actions.
So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.
your description there sounds exactly like the description of a soldier (omg valuing murder suddenly becomes subjective, the nerve..).
your determination to equal 'subjective morals' to 'arbitrary morals' is ridiculous, the morals current civilisations developed can clearly be explained by the benefit they have on that society.... i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine... they are not random by any mean.
Somebody might say that it's in our self-interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But obviously, that's certainly not always true. We all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. We end up being confronted, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words "the bare, valueless fact of existence. Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning."
QuoteAll it would take to shatter a society of this type would be one simple individual who isn't at all concerned with society or of the consequences of his actions.
aka a psychopath, who are present in every society at an almost fixed percentage..
edit: you probably don't accept evolution, but these characteristics of behaving to fit into a group/society are deeply ingrained in our behaviour, so you simply knowing you would get away with it is not enough to do it... because again this would work against the evolutionary force... if you have two isolated societies, one where people would murder if they had the chance or one where people would not murder when given the chance.... which of these two would be more fruitful/successful?
Here is another problem with moral relativism: if a person's morals are completely subjective and arbitrary, if all actions ultimately have no moral dimension, if no action is prohibited or obligatory, then why categorize a person who chooses to believe that murder is moral (because, remember, all "morals" are completely arbitrary and subjective in moral relativism) as a psychopath at all rather than simply another individual with relative moral values? In moral relativism, one cannot condemn or praise any action, belief or opinion because in the end, there is "no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being." - Richard Dawkins
Here is another problem with moral relativism: if a person's morals are completely subjective and arbitrary, if all actions ultimately have no moral dimension, if no action is prohibited or obligatory, then why categorize a person who chooses to believe that murder is moral (because, remember, all "morals" are completely arbitrary and subjective in moral relativism) as a psychopath at all rather than simply another individual with relative moral values? In moral relativism, one cannot condemn or praise any action, belief or opinion because in the end, there is "no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being." - Richard Dawkins
We categorise a person who believes that murder is moral as 'wrong' because it goes against the grain of the rest of society who developed a moral where murder is not accepted.
I think you keep arguing semantics because your definition of 'wrong' is suppose to be an absolute 'wrong'... while in my view there is no absolute 'wrong', it differs between society/species/worldview.
(and I'm definitly acting according to my own worldview.. you are just not willing to understand it :P )
If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary. I'm not saying that atheists have no goals or purpose for living. On the contrary, life would be unbearable and unlivable without such beliefs. But given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions. They are mere appearance of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there isn't any. There is no reason to not live a life of self-interest; living such a life would actually ultimately prove to be a smart decision.
Vested interest in a society would be completely illusory and purposeless.
So the murderer isn't really doing anything wrong; he is merely acting out of fashion or in a way that merely inconveniences other individuals. So if a murderer kills someone who either doesn't inconvenience you or kills someone whose death would be convenient to you, there would be no good reason to end his life for the sole reason of simply being a nuisance.
So we are left with the same problem that moral relativism imparts; people making moral claims and judgments where morality is non-existent.
If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary. I'm not saying that atheists have no goals or purpose for living. On the contrary, life would be unbearable and unlivable without such beliefs. But given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions. They are mere appearance of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there isn't any. There is no reason to not live a life of self-interest; living such a life would actually ultimately prove to be a smart decision.
I'm a little confused here. I understand your reasoning to a point but what constitutes a meaningful life full of value and purpose?
Great, but that still doesn't answer my question.
I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.
And would it even matter if a majority of society deems murder as wrong? No. For example, the Nazis thought that genocide of Jews, etc, was moral or acceptable. That would simply mean that anyone in that society who didn't think that genocide of Jews, etc, was immoral or unacceptable would be deemed as immoral by the rest of society. To illustrate this in another example, imagine a society where child rape was considered moral by the majority. That would simply mean that anyone who considered child rape to be immoral would themselves be categorized as immoral by the society!
If there is no God, then our lives are not qualitatively different from that of an animals'. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be ascribed to life? Does it even matter whether man exists at all? An individual's life may be important relative to only certain other events, but what is the ultimate significance of any of those events? If everything is doomed to death, then what does it matter that you influenced anything? Man is no different than animals for their end is the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed man up will eventually swallow man whole again. Because he ends in nothing, man is nothing. And if life inevitably ends at the embrace of death, then what does it matter whether you lived as a Hitler or as a saint? Since our destiny is in the end unrelated to our behavior, then why not live as one pleases? If we are just a freak accident of nature, then the universe has no meaning. So an individual simply gives the universe an illusion of meaning. But then, who's to say which meaning is right, if all are relative?Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory. - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.
You assert there is no wrong, yet then go on to claim that a certain action is wrong.Yes.. that’s what I’m saying, your definition of wrong is an absolute wrong, while I claim that a certain action can be wrong from our perspective but not wrong from someone else’s .
And "subjective" is misleading, "perspective" is much more appropriate, as it is something we can all understand. From the same perspective, people agree, and there is consistency - thus it is not arbitrary. At the same time, this means you have to have the same perspective, and differing perspectives disagree - thus, there is no objectivity.
I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.
If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.
So, the only thing keeping us from turning into slave-owning, raping, murdering, nihilistic assholes is fear of damnation from a supposedly all-powerful being that crafted us in his image?I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.
If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.
Subjective = arbitraryHere's the problem. This seems to be your driving point, and it simply isn't true.
Subjective = arbitraryHere's the problem. This seems to be your driving point, and it simply isn't true.
The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion
The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion
The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion
No, they're a personal preference.
You keep equating the subjective morals to, say, color preference, but then you try to treat them differently at the same time. If someone prefers blue over red and then says blue is a better color, you wouldn't tell them that color preference is an illusion and that they shouldn't prefer one over the other since their preference is completely arbitrary. Because it's a preference, someone preferring one color over the other doesn't suddenly mean they're making an objective claim. But then once the discuss turns to subjective morality you try to do exactly that, even though earlier in the thread you tried to argue they there was no difference between the two.
Then you try to argue that someone's perspective on morality shouldn't "matter" any more than their preference in color, when that makes no sense. Even if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.
You can't argue that perspective morality is akin to any other personal preference like color or music then also try to treat it differently or make it work by different "rules" than any other personal preference.
In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.
So far, fine. This is, you know.... exactly what subjective means.
The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion
.. as we tried to explain, this is not always true.
Quote from: the CatfishmanThe point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion
.. as we tried to explain, this is not always true.
You did?
Why don't you try to explain again as I don't recall this ever taking place (or at least certainly not successfully).
Does that mean that just because the majority of a populace shares similar moral values that their values are objectively right or wrong?
I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.
If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.
so how does this work out;
1. you read about an afterlife thus you want to follow the rules that get you the ticket.
or
2. you believe God has ingrained his set of morals into us.
If 1. how do you explain that people who have never heard of your God/Afterlife (for example the average Chinese farmer) still follow pretty much the same values as you? they still follow all ten commandments except for believing in God (which is an incredibly vain commandment anyway). Where did he found those values?
and with 2. I argue that these ingrained morals are a product of our evolutionary/cultural environment.
Even monkeys roughly follow the ten commandments, is it because they want to have a cool afterlife? or does it make more sense that this arose as a beneficial strategy for them through thousands of generations?
Does that mean that just because the majority of a populace shares similar moral values that their values are objectively right or wrong?
No! That's the entire point and what people have been arguing to you this entire time! It's still subjective! A society is a group of people agreeing to live together and abide by a certain set of (illusory) rules/morals, and if they're broken certain punishments may or may not take place. That's it. If someone believes morals are all perspective and they call someone else immoral or "evil" then it's still just a subjective claim; they believe the other person is "immoral" based on their own perception of morality. Just like how me saying that ICP sucks is still just a subjective claim based on my musical preference and isn't a claim to objectivity.
If atheism is true, then yes, I would agree."Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an 'objective something', ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory." - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.
If atheism is true, then morals are merely meaningless personal opinions in which no one is either right or wrong.
In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.
Therefore, if you believe all morals are merely subjective, how can you earnestly condemn genocide, murder, rape, etc under a moral basis?
Uh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.
Even if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.
If atheism is true, then yes, I would agree."Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an 'objective something', ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory." - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.
If atheism is true, then morals are merely meaningless personal opinions in which no one is either right or wrong.
I agree with the quote you gave, but nowhere does he say that that means that no one is right or wrong.. that's something you added, he just says they all deeper meaning is illusionary... which I agree with.
In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.
That's what I'm saying... the reason we do not kill members of society is precisely because of this 'illusionary' sense of right and wrong (which again is for a large part ingrained in us), why can you not agree with this?
I really hope you don't truly believe these amount to arguments, much less for why an illusory moral code should be followed.Therefore, if you believe all morals are merely subjective, how can you earnestly condemn genocide, murder, rape, etc under a moral basis?
I've made multiple arguments on this very thing which you ignored. I'm not going to type them out again.QuoteUh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.QuoteEven if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.
Most people don't want to live in a society where random murder and rape is accepted, so of course they're going to condemn it.
What you are saying is that this "sense of right and wrong" is merely a fabrication of one's mind. If so, why should it ever demand that it be followed?
Is it, then, intrinsically "wrong" to rape? According to this worldview, no. Is it wrong, then, to murder? According to this worldview, no, regardless of how it would ever affect society.
Am I invisible?
I really don't want to lock this threadi