Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(14-04-2015 12:43 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  It's not that I haven't said a lot of these things to absolutists before. The part that gets me banging my head is how it always falls in the pattern of asking me which things are objectively wrong, then stating things that I flat-out agree with, and just... repeating.

They say something, I agree, and they restate it in a different way. So far as I can tell, they find the notion so weird that they feel simply stating it is a refutation in and of itself. I don't agree with them, but I wish they'd say it. I have to flat-out ask them if they feel that if morality were subjective if people would behave less morally, and they never actually bite. It's like they carry on 80% of a debate and either leave or go on an infinite loop.

I'm trying to get one guy right now to explain where intrinsic rights come from and how he knows they exist, and he's busy saying I'm the one being argumentative. He then goes on to "disprove me"... by saying things I 100% agree with. I cannot fathom how he sees this as a refutation. He just refuses to answer my questions, states things I agree with, then bitches that I'm being argumentative. What this is I don't even

"You agree with me that rape is bad therefore rights are objectively absolute QED".

Yeah. It's special all right.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-04-2015, 07:56 PM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Is the intentional act of killing someone murder ?

Dropping a bomb during war time ?
Killing someone who is trying to kill you ?
Helping a friend die who has been suffering for months from a terminal illness ?
A new born who survived childbirth but has too many deformities and won't last a week ?
Putting the BTK serial killer to death through lethal injection ?

Lets say I fire my hand gun at someone with the intention to kill and my life is not in danger.
This is intentional premeditated murder.

Why is this immoral and killing in self defense isn't ?
Its all about consequences of the action and not the action itself.

The consequences of intentionally murdering someone are that the person's life was ended prematurely and others will be emotionally harmed from the loss of that life.

The consequences of acting in self defense are that those you are defending get to keep on living.
Less value is placed on the one who is trying to kill you. More value is achieved by the public as a whole when a killer is killed because the consequences allow others in the future to also live.

When it comes to rape, there are grey areas.

A couple is engaging in sex and enjoying themselves for the past 30 minutes. The phone rings, she takes the call and asks him to stop. Instead of stopping he simply slows his stroke and waits for her to hang up the phone. He's done this before and she never said anything negative to him about it.

Did he rape her when he didn't stop when she said stop ?

The rest of the sexual encounter was very enjoyable.

If a man goes to a hooker and pays her for sex on a day when she doesn't really want to have sex, but she endures it until he finishes. Is that rape ?

Because murder and rape aren't the exact same act every time, we have to judge each act on a case by case method.

So if someone asks is murder wrong ?
Reply with "Is having sex wrong ?"

Hopefully that question will make them realize that right or wrong depends on the situation and not on the word that can be used to describe many different situations.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 09:21 PM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Someone asking of murder is wrong is being an idiot. The definition of murder is the unjust (ie, wrong) killing of one human being by another. That's why we don't consider soldiers to be mass murderers when fighting other soldiers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 09:40 PM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Robby, in what group are you debating? Are you on any Facebook groups?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2015, 05:28 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(14-04-2015 09:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Robby, in what group are you debating? Are you on any Facebook groups?

I've been on three Facebook groups. I'm currently in a small one that is supposed to be centered around civil discussion (it typically is). The last group I was in was pretty large, but had no shortage of morons and trolls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2015, 06:41 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(15-04-2015 05:28 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 09:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Robby, in what group are you debating? Are you on any Facebook groups?

I've been on three Facebook groups. I'm currently in a small one that is supposed to be centered around civil discussion (it typically is). The last group I was in was pretty large, but had no shortage of morons and trolls.

The reason I ask is because I keep getting thrown off these groups or they are just too ridiculous for me to stay. I wonder if I've been in your group yet.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
It is possible to argue for an absolute morality and then use commonly agreed to situations as being obviously moral to everyone, but this is not possible for a Christian who touts the Bible's objective moral correctness.

For the Bible to morally absolute and correct commonly agreed to conclusions like "genocide is wrong" have to be incorrect:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

This means that if there is an objective morality we don't know what it is and even people praised by the Bible itself get it horribly incorrect.

If objective morality is "written in our hearts" how could a religious people thinking themselves good say genocide was good? How could people who thought they had Gods objective commands do such horrible things?

Obviously thinking you have an objective morality doesn't make it so so how would we demonstrate one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
Continue asking your questions and demanding your answers. If he doesn't like you being "argumentative", that's his problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
(15-04-2015 08:19 PM)Variant Wrote:  It is possible to argue for an absolute morality and then use commonly agreed to situations as being obviously moral to everyone, but this is not possible for a Christian who touts the Bible's objective moral correctness.

Most apologists will say that whatever God says is morally right, and he's not bound by the rules he gives us. It might be logically consistent, but it does involve a god who kills babies when he's mad at their parents. It also involves apologists making excuses for this sort of behavior.

"You don't know Him like I do. He really loves us. He wouldn't treat us this way if we only listened."


(15-04-2015 08:35 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Continue asking your questions and demanding your answers. If he doesn't like you being "argumentative", that's his problem.

My last post to him was me asking him to defend his stance, and he never responded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
16-04-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.
If you can get them to admit that certain things in the bible were moral "at that time" or "in that society" then you win everything.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: