Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 01:33 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some knives are created for "show", for art, for adornment only, to signify rank and status. I carried one in military high school. Facepalm Weeping

Fcuk - I need to go take some opioids and lie down for a bit. I nearly broke my brain trying to picture you in military school. Shocking

I don't think you were created for that purpose, objectively speaking. No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
22-03-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 09:12 AM)claywise Wrote:  After listening recently to Matt Dillahunty on this subject, I got to wondering precisely what "moral absolutes" believers (or non-believers) might propose. In other words, what moral position might be so clear-cut that everyone agrees on it.

Thou shall not kill is obviously problematic, even if we allow for the common Christian assertion that it refers only to murder. According to Merriam-Webster, murder is the crime of deliberately, or unlawfully, killing a person or people, sometimes with the added frisson of malice aforethought.

It's pretty easy to come up with situations in which knowingly killing even an innocent person might be "moral" — say, for example, that a terrorist is holding a dirty bomb and hostages inside a building, and taking her out will result in the death of innocents, though far fewer than if the bomb is allowed to go off.

Thou shall not steal is easy to debunk, so I won't bother here. Ditto with false witness, adultery, and so on. Some might say hitting a child is always, absolutely morally wrong, but again one can see exceptions.

I thought "Rape is always wrong" might be an absolute, and for me, personally, I think it is. But what about a situation in which survival of the species was at stake - say, there is one fertile female left alive after an apocalypse, and she does not wish to propagate any more creatures who would one day bring down more destruction, or bring new individuals into a world of suffering (which strikes me as a perfectly moral position)? I still think that person's autonomy is more worthy of regard than the goals of the "community," certainly when it requires violence against her.

Even Dillahunty, who uses "wellbeing" as a yardstick for what should be considered "moral," falls short, in my opinion: Is it "moral" to raise tens of millions of highly intelligent animals - pigs, which have the cognitive abilities of a three-year-old human and obviously can suffer - because it promotes the "wellbeing" of humans who like to eat bacon?

I guess my point is, despite Christians' frequent yammering and teeth-gnashing about moral relativism, I don't think I see any "moral" position that's absolute. Curious to hear any proposals for a true absolute moral.

How about this: "Though shall not torture babies just for fun."

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some knives are created for "show", for art, for adornment only, to signify rank and status. I carried one in military high school. Facepalm Weeping

Fcuk - I need to go take some opioids and lie down for a bit. I nearly broke my brain trying to picture you in military school. Shocking

I don't think you were created for that purpose, objectively speaking. No

I did well there. I hated it, but they asked if I wanted to be a junior officer. I said "No, I won't be here next year".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:55 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 09:12 AM)claywise Wrote:  After listening recently to Matt Dillahunty on this subject, I got to wondering precisely what "moral absolutes" believers (or non-believers) might propose. In other words, what moral position might be so clear-cut that everyone agrees on it.

Thou shall not kill is obviously problematic, even if we allow for the common Christian assertion that it refers only to murder. According to Merriam-Webster, murder is the crime of deliberately, or unlawfully, killing a person or people, sometimes with the added frisson of malice aforethought.

It's pretty easy to come up with situations in which knowingly killing even an innocent person might be "moral" — say, for example, that a terrorist is holding a dirty bomb and hostages inside a building, and taking her out will result in the death of innocents, though far fewer than if the bomb is allowed to go off.

Thou shall not steal is easy to debunk, so I won't bother here. Ditto with false witness, adultery, and so on. Some might say hitting a child is always, absolutely morally wrong, but again one can see exceptions.

I thought "Rape is always wrong" might be an absolute, and for me, personally, I think it is. But what about a situation in which survival of the species was at stake - say, there is one fertile female left alive after an apocalypse, and she does not wish to propagate any more creatures who would one day bring down more destruction, or bring new individuals into a world of suffering (which strikes me as a perfectly moral position)? I still think that person's autonomy is more worthy of regard than the goals of the "community," certainly when it requires violence against her.

Even Dillahunty, who uses "wellbeing" as a yardstick for what should be considered "moral," falls short, in my opinion: Is it "moral" to raise tens of millions of highly intelligent animals - pigs, which have the cognitive abilities of a three-year-old human and obviously can suffer - because it promotes the "wellbeing" of humans who like to eat bacon?

I guess my point is, despite Christians' frequent yammering and teeth-gnashing about moral relativism, I don't think I see any "moral" position that's absolute. Curious to hear any proposals for a true absolute moral.

How about this: "Though shall not torture babies just for fun."

How about this : Don't spell "thou" as "though".
BTW, that's hardly objective morality. Many cultures sacrificed children/babies, including the Hebrews.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So...without God, what is the standard for morality? The best answer I have heard is "The popular opinion for the greater good". Which is completely fine if it worked for thousands of years. But let's call it like it is...a morality based on popular "opinion". It's subjective. Like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner that will result in the greater good.

Your last paragraph seems to indicate (to me) that you dont necessarily follow the evidence towards the existance of a "giver of objective morals" but rather "want" him to be true/real because you think relative morals arent the "ultimate" answer you are looking for.

So what you you prefer?
  1. Accepting that no absolute morals exist
  2. Make up some "objective moral giver", who wont solve your problem in the first place, being subjective (almighty nevertheless, but subjective) himself


In other words: Do you prefer living in a -harsh- reality or would you rather make up a fantasy to feel better?

If you like to prefer the former, we could start with a few simple values. Values that are admittedly pulled out of rather *thin* air (or my -sometimes not so- humble rear-end) and work out some basic morals ourselves, which can be evaluated objectively based on said values.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How about this: "Though shall not torture babies just for fun."

How about this : Don't spell "thou" as "though".
BTW, that's hardly objective morality. Many cultures sacrificed children/babies, including the Hebrews.
Just out of curiosity, could you show me your source for baby sacrifice by hebrews?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How about this: "Though shall not torture babies just for fun."

Consensus morality is not the same as objective morality.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
22-03-2016, 02:01 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
Quote:How about this: "Though shall not torture babies just for fun."

Why is it that so many people confuse being "moral" with "following orders" (of someone i hope is moral, because i dont have the intellect or balls to develop morals myself, and dont want to be held responsible for my own actions anyway = i am a pathetic pussy).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:56 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So...without God, what is the standard for morality? The best answer I have heard is "The popular opinion for the greater good". Which is completely fine if it worked for thousands of years. But let's call it like it is...a morality based on popular "opinion". It's subjective. Like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner that will result in the greater good.

Your last paragraph seems to indicate (to me) that you dont necessarily follow the evidence towards the existance of a "giver of objective morals" but rather "want" him to be true/real because you think relative morals arent the "ultimate" answer you are looking for.

So what you you prefer?
  1. Accepting that no absolute morals exist
  2. Make up some "objective moral giver", who wont solve your problem in the first place, being subjective (almighty nevertheless, but subjective) himself


In other words: Do you prefer living in a -harsh- reality or would you rather make up a fantasy to feel better?

If you like to prefer the former, we could start with a few simple values. Values that are admittedly pulled out of rather *thin* air (or my -sometimes not so- humble rear-end) and work out some basic morals ourselves, which can be evaluated objectively based on said values.
Obviously, I believe that objective morality exists because I believe that God exists. I could explain what those objective morals are, but I would have to use scripture. And you know that it is pointless to try to prove the existence of God by using the bible. The whole circular reasoning thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 02:10 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:56 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How about this : Don't spell "thou" as "though".
BTW, that's hardly objective morality. Many cultures sacrificed children/babies, including the Hebrews.
Just out of curiosity, could you show me your source for baby sacrifice by hebrews?

Ezekiel 20:25-26 directly indicates that YHWH actually commanded such sacrifices: “I [YHWH] also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live. I caused them to sin by their (own) gifts, by causing (them) to pass through (the fire) all who open the womb [i.e., the firstborn], in order that I might horrify them, in order that they might know that I am YHWH
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromot...nt-israel/

John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge oriental publications, no. 41 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. Journal for the study of the Old Testament supplement series, 43 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985); Paul G. Mosca, Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and Mlk (Unpublished Dissertation) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1975); and Jon Douglas Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...onite-god/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-ta...77340.html

http://christ.org.tw/bible_and_theology/...ildren.htm

http://www.usbible.com/Sacrifice/sacrifice_israel.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: