Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 10:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let me help you to cohere the concepts at hand:

Trust me. I don't need your help on that front.

(27-08-2015 08:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you believe as a juror an alleged rapist is actually guilty of rape, do you vote to convict or do you rather say, "I feel like rape could be okay so I'm unsure whether I should convict..."?

That isn't how either the law or subjective interpretations of morality work.

So you are continuing your line of argument that you hold a subjective opinion that rape is wrong? Or are you claiming instead a relative opinion. A relativist might say rape is wrong to them but not to another juror. Or perhaps you will establish truth and justice by saying something like "Rape is wrong, period." Certainly men and women everywhere would be uplifted by your sudden casting aside of ideology to embrace objective truth.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 10:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let me help you to cohere the concepts at hand:

Trust me. I don't need your help on that front.

(27-08-2015 08:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you believe as a juror an alleged rapist is actually guilty of rape, do you vote to convict or do you rather say, "I feel like rape could be okay so I'm unsure whether I should convict..."?

That isn't how either the law or subjective interpretations of morality work.

So you are continuing your line of argument that you hold a subjective opinion that rape is wrong? Or are you claiming instead a relative opinion. A relativist might say rape is wrong to them but not to another juror. Or perhaps you will establish truth and justice by saying something like "Rape is wrong, period." Certainly men and women everywhere would be uplifted by your sudden casting aside of ideology to embrace objective truth.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  So you are continuing your line of argument that you hold a subjective opinion that rape is wrong? Or are you claiming instead a relative opinion. A relativist might say rape is wrong to them but not to another juror. Or perhaps you will establish truth and justice by saying something like "Rape is wrong, period." Certainly men and women everywhere would be uplifted by your sudden casting aside of ideology to embrace objective truth.

You idiot. The jury is not supposed to act based on their opinion. They could *all* be convinced that the defendant did the deed, but simply voting based on their opinions is stupid. If they are convinced after *examination of the evidence* (and not their fucking *feels*, which is all you seem to think anyone ever uses to make judgements) that the law was broken then they must vote to convict. It's not about whether or not the law is right or wrong, simply whether or not it was contravened.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 10:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That isn't how either the law or subjective interpretations of morality work.

So you are continuing your line of argument that you hold a subjective opinion that rape is wrong?

Yes.

(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or are you claiming instead a relative opinion. A relativist might say rape is wrong to them but not to another juror.

In other words, that one's thoughts on rape are subjective, yes.

You appear to be attempting to force a distinction where none exists.

(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or perhaps you will establish truth and justice by saying something like "Rape is wrong, period."

Being emphatic about something wrong does not make it any less wrong.

"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
28-08-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 02:16 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  So you are continuing your line of argument that you hold a subjective opinion that rape is wrong? Or are you claiming instead a relative opinion. A relativist might say rape is wrong to them but not to another juror. Or perhaps you will establish truth and justice by saying something like "Rape is wrong, period." Certainly men and women everywhere would be uplifted by your sudden casting aside of ideology to embrace objective truth.

You idiot. The jury is not supposed to act based on their opinion. They could *all* be convinced that the defendant did the deed, but simply voting based on their opinions is stupid. If they are convinced after *examination of the evidence* (and not their fucking *feels*, which is all you seem to think anyone ever uses to make judgements) that the law was broken then they must vote to convict. It's not about whether or not the law is right or wrong, simply whether or not it was contravened.

I was a foreman on a jury a long time ago but I remember my instructions. I never said "it's about whether the law is right or wrong". Rather, I'm asking whether some atheists believe in moral absolutes or no atheists believe in moral absolutes.

Because I absolutely find rape repugnant, while some atheists seem to find an evolutionary adaptation and/or subjectively, possibly "okay". Yet another reason to abandon atheism.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(27-08-2015 06:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  So you are continuing your line of argument that you hold a subjective opinion that rape is wrong?

Yes.

(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or are you claiming instead a relative opinion. A relativist might say rape is wrong to them but not to another juror.

In other words, that one's thoughts on rape are subjective, yes.

You appear to be attempting to force a distinction where none exists.

(27-08-2015 12:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or perhaps you will establish truth and justice by saying something like "Rape is wrong, period."

Being emphatic about something wrong does not make it any less wrong.

I would agree, of course one's thoughts on a concept are "subject to subjectivity" if you will forgive the play on words.

However, I am wondering how you find rape "wrong" while insisting it cannot be objectively wrong. How do you hold those two views simultaneously?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(28-08-2015 08:58 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I was a foreman on a jury a long time ago but I remember my instructions. I never said "it's about whether the law is right or wrong". Rather, I'm asking whether some atheists believe in moral absolutes or no atheists believe in moral absolutes.

Oh, some atheists certainly do. Not all atheists are necessarily rational.

Moral absolutes still don't exist, though.

(28-08-2015 09:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, I am wondering how you find rape "wrong" while insisting it cannot be objectively wrong. How do you hold those two views simultaneously?

Morality is subjective. I am allowed to have my own thoughts on the subject.

For the record, I absolutely find rape appalling. I am just not so arrogant as to pretend that the universe at large gives a damn about what a handful of monkeys on a rather insignificant rock do to one another.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-08-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
I'm sitting here trying to figure out what a " Moral Absolute™ " might be.

Killing? (Well unless your government tells you to, or someone is attacking you, or it's a choice between running over one person with your car or slamming into a schoolbus at high speed.)

Assault and Rape? (Not popular with the people to whom it happens, as it's a form of dominance and control, and often involves physical violence, but is almost without exception defined by various cultures in various ways-- see e.g. the Age of Consent variation among the 50 U.S. states and the world. Because violent rape is a violation of bodily integrity, it does tend to be prohibited in almost every culture, but it's a product of our sense of self-worth projected onto the concept of everyone in society deserving this worth, rather than a "moral absolute".)

Harming children? (Again, it all depends on how a society defines such harm, and is by no means absolute. Even within societies, there is fierce debate about what actually constitutes "harm", or whether children should be seen as having special status. For instance, most of us here consider telling children about invisible demons that control the mind of others, eternal torture in fire, and that religion makes their natural instincts terrible sins, is a harmful thing. And don't even get me started on the spanking vs nonspanking debate!)

In short, I could keep going down the list to SHOW you that each "moral absolute" is anything but absolute, and instead is dependent upon cultural context and/or the individual valuation of personhood, which also varies within and among societies, but I think the point is made.

What YOU are doing is trying to point to things that OUR society considers "universal wrongs" and saying "well, then how can you defend this bad thing which you agree with because you don't believe in moral absolutes!?", when in reality you do the same thing based on the social constructs of a Bronze-Age desert tribal sheepherder society, as modified by Greek and Roman cultural ideas and interpreted through the lens of western civilization. You might not see it, but we do, because we have no "guide book", and thus must construct our own social-moral ideas essentially from scratch.

Indeed, I think that much of religious acceptance boils down to intellectual laziness. It's a lot easier to accept a predigested version than to work out each concept entirely on your own.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
04-09-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(28-08-2015 09:10 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 08:58 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I was a foreman on a jury a long time ago but I remember my instructions. I never said "it's about whether the law is right or wrong". Rather, I'm asking whether some atheists believe in moral absolutes or no atheists believe in moral absolutes.

Oh, some atheists certainly do. Not all atheists are necessarily rational.

Moral absolutes still don't exist, though.

(28-08-2015 09:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, I am wondering how you find rape "wrong" while insisting it cannot be objectively wrong. How do you hold those two views simultaneously?

Morality is subjective. I am allowed to have my own thoughts on the subject.

For the record, I absolutely find rape appalling. I am just not so arrogant as to pretend that the universe at large gives a damn about what a handful of monkeys on a rather insignificant rock do to one another.

You keep pointing out that you don't find the universe "cares". You are in total agreement with the Bible here, which states the universe is falling into corruption (or if you prefer in modern English, entropy)! Thanks for continuing to agree with the Bible and science both.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(28-08-2015 09:51 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm sitting here trying to figure out what a " Moral Absolute™ " might be.

Killing? (Well unless your government tells you to, or someone is attacking you, or it's a choice between running over one person with your car or slamming into a schoolbus at high speed.)

Assault and Rape? (Not popular with the people to whom it happens, as it's a form of dominance and control, and often involves physical violence, but is almost without exception defined by various cultures in various ways-- see e.g. the Age of Consent variation among the 50 U.S. states and the world. Because violent rape is a violation of bodily integrity, it does tend to be prohibited in almost every culture, but it's a product of our sense of self-worth projected onto the concept of everyone in society deserving this worth, rather than a "moral absolute".)

Harming children? (Again, it all depends on how a society defines such harm, and is by no means absolute. Even within societies, there is fierce debate about what actually constitutes "harm", or whether children should be seen as having special status. For instance, most of us here consider telling children about invisible demons that control the mind of others, eternal torture in fire, and that religion makes their natural instincts terrible sins, is a harmful thing. And don't even get me started on the spanking vs nonspanking debate!)

In short, I could keep going down the list to SHOW you that each "moral absolute" is anything but absolute, and instead is dependent upon cultural context and/or the individual valuation of personhood, which also varies within and among societies, but I think the point is made.

What YOU are doing is trying to point to things that OUR society considers "universal wrongs" and saying "well, then how can you defend this bad thing which you agree with because you don't believe in moral absolutes!?", when in reality you do the same thing based on the social constructs of a Bronze-Age desert tribal sheepherder society, as modified by Greek and Roman cultural ideas and interpreted through the lens of western civilization. You might not see it, but we do, because we have no "guide book", and thus must construct our own social-moral ideas essentially from scratch.

Indeed, I think that much of religious acceptance boils down to intellectual laziness. It's a lot easier to accept a predigested version than to work out each concept entirely on your own.

I'm neither saying "how can you think a bad thing is good" nor that you should accept my statements about morality at face value.

But I think it takes convoluted logic to make statements that many atheists make:

* There are no absolute morals

* There are no absolute truths

Do you agree or disagree, because if you agree, there are absolutes, so we can move the discussion along to the next point. But if you disagree, you are proposing a negative which must stand in opposition to a given affirmative.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: