Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Tomasia,

Why is it okay to have horses as slaves, but not people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Tomasia,

Why is it okay to have horses as slaves, but not people?

I don't know, is my horse a slave? My cat? My goldfish?

"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
11-09-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 12:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because normal people (not diehard secularists) instantly, willingly make statements regarding absolutes such as "rape is always wrong". Figure out whether rape is always or sometimes wrong--something I've asked you many times now without any response, really.

I already gave you my response.

I am of the subjective opinion that rape is wrong. This is not objective fact. "Objectively wrong" is a nonsense phrase.

And no, "I think that rape is always wrong" is not equivalent to "rape is objectively wrong", no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree. However, as I wrote, relativists like to make this a semantics argument. Most people we both know say "rape is wrong" and "rape is always wrong" rather than "rape seems wrong to me, but perhaps could be right, contextually speaking..."

Objectively wrong is not a nonsense phrase. 2+2 = 4 is right, which is an objective fact. The fact also is that 2+2=6 is wrong, objectively and not subjectively speaking.

Really, what we should be discussing, however, is how it is that IF objective right and wrongs exist that they point to some moral authority beyond/above people. Thankfully, this moral authority offers grace. MERCY is not being punished when punishment is deserved, grace is receiving a gift when punishment is deserved.

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
[+] 1 user Likes The Q Continuum's post
11-09-2015, 09:54 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 10:11 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 09:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I’m saying they view it relative or subjective to situations and stances. They don't believe moral actions are have an actual right/wrong situation or that you can boil it down to this was the right/wrong thing. Or whether it is always wrong to try to kill a person... I forget the name of that study but there are ones judging whether people think failed attempted murder is wrong or not wrong and it shifts based on variables added to the situation. It isn't the case that the actual certain majority/average person only views these things like, attempted murder objectively is wrong. It's situationally & relatively shifted.

We’ve already went over this. Moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t require than actions be wrong regardless of circumstances or situations, only Moral Absolutism requires this.

I think it’s wrong to lie, but it might be right to lie to save someone’s life. But I still mean right and wrong objectively, in the same way that i’d say 2+2=5, is wrong. And not “wrong” in the subjective way, like those shoes are so “wrong” for that outfit.

The point being that most people mean “wrong” in the same way that I do. Even for me situations and circumstances matter.

Quote:. And not subjectively viewing it. I have been for the last several points trying to say through study they are plenty of subjective people out there as well not making objective the majority…..

Is still there is a smattering of people that isn't insignificant that do view it subjectively. Enough people like that respond that way in mentally testing them and examining them.

There might be plenty of folks who subscribe to subjective morality, but they’re not the majority. In fact you’d be hard pressed to find folks outside of secular circles, that believe morality is subjective.

Objective is believing there is an actual Right/wrong. Like part of what i was saying that you just ignored only talking about the one part that was that.

When they say it..."X is wrong" yes they say it like you, but as I keep repeating because you don't contrast it with anything other than what they say, when you question them deeply and ask them ethical problem scenarios or judge their motives/actions you get a response that isn't reflective of that spoken it's wrong/right answer. To me what a person says and on the base level even might think they think, isn't as seriously defined as what they really believe.

When I say what they believe, it's what matters. What they really believe that will guide their actions and behaviors. What they respond to when you actually get them to think it out and respond with a coherent thought of grasping of human choice.

It's not just non-religious people who actually respond and react that way. It's people across the board, including across political positions too. Though people of different political or religious backgrounds do also share different moral positions.

When questions of ethics, harm, & majority survivorship are examined in tests. That's why we create and study these tests like the Trolley Problem,

For instance, is protecting the lives of the group over the individuals life morally right? Is there a yes/no answer to that?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 09:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Tomasia,

Why is it okay to have horses as slaves, but not people?

I don't know, is my horse a slave? My cat? My goldfish?

Your horse is a slave if it does work for you. Assuming your cat and goldfish don't do any work, then they are only prisoners. Big Grin

The reason for the question is to illustrate that it's only your preference to abolish slavery for humans, and condone slavery for horses. There's nothing objective about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I agree. However, as I wrote, relativists like to make this a semantics argument. Most people we both know say "rape is wrong" and "rape is always wrong" rather than "rape seems wrong to me, but perhaps could be right, contextually speaking..."

Which is irrelevant, since that is none of those are what "objective" means.

(11-09-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Objectively wrong is not a nonsense phrase. 2+2 = 4 is right, which is an objective fact. The fact also is that 2+2=6 is wrong, objectively and not subjectively speaking.

Fallacious equivocation between "wrong" meaning "factually incorrect" and "wrong" meaning "morally offensive".

The former is objective. The latter is not.

(11-09-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Really, what we should be discussing, however, is how it is that IF objective right and wrongs exist that they point to some moral authority beyond/above people.

No, not really.

I'm not interested in your baseless speculation about what the universe might be like if it were completely different.

"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
11-09-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 11:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Your horse is a slave if it does work for you. Assuming your cat and goldfish don't do any work, then they are only prisoners. Big Grin
Yeah but, for people who actually know how to "own" a cat, the cat can come and go as it pleases. It is never locked up, never on a leash.

It generally pops by for some free food, warmth and shelter and then goes out for hunting, or sex or whatever else it is that cats do.
The cat come back to the premises when it wants to. It is free to never come back if it so chooses.

Quite often it is the person that works for the cat, opening doors and windows, opening cans of cat food, putting milk in a saucer, getting the groceries etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
11-09-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 01:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 11:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Your horse is a slave if it does work for you. Assuming your cat and goldfish don't do any work, then they are only prisoners. Big Grin
Yeah but, for people who actually know how to "own" a cat, the cat can come and go as it pleases. It is never locked up, never on a leash.

It generally pops by for some free food, warmth and shelter and then goes out for hunting, or sex or whatever else it is that cats do.
The cat come back to the premises when it wants to. It is free to never come back if it so chooses.

Quite often it is the person that works for the cat, opening doors and windows, opening cans of cat food, putting milk in a saucer, getting the groceries etc.

I know what you mean, our dog is spoiled rotten. Smile My wife and I joke that if there were super-advanced aliens on earth, they might be dogs. My dog doesn't have to work, doesn't have to prepare her own meals, doesn't have to clean the house, etc......she's got SOMETHING figured out lol!

But..... I think the horse example is good to help people realize that it really boils down to preference. We capture horses against their will, we "break" them psychologically with physical force, and cage them and have them do work for us.

I'm not against ownership of horses or other animals BTW.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 01:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 11:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Your horse is a slave if it does work for you. Assuming your cat and goldfish don't do any work, then they are only prisoners. Big Grin
Yeah but, for people who actually know how to "own" a cat, the cat can come and go as it pleases. It is never locked up, never on a leash.

It generally pops by for some free food, warmth and shelter and then goes out for hunting, or sex or whatever else it is that cats do.
The cat come back to the premises when it wants to. It is free to never come back if it so chooses.

Quite often it is the person that works for the cat, opening doors and windows, opening cans of cat food, putting milk in a saucer, getting the groceries etc.

That's why they say it appears Cats may have actually tamed themselves more than humans tamed Cats like they did turning the wolf into dogs. It was just such a easier living situation for those cats so they survived living off human structured societies. I love cats for reasons other people say they hate cats, yeah they do their own thing and don't really care what you think of it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:54 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
Quote:I think it’s wrong to lie, but it might be right to lie to save someone’s life. But I still mean right and wrong objectively, in the same way that i’d say 2+2=5, is wrong. And not “wrong” in the subjective way, like those shoes are so “wrong” for that outfit.



When they say it..."X is wrong" yes they say it like you, but as I keep repeating because you don't contrast it with anything other than what they say, when you question them deeply and ask them ethical problem scenarios or judge their motives/actions you get a response that isn't reflective of that spoken it's wrong/right answer.

So you acknowledge that when the say x is morally wrong, that they mean it like I do above, in an objective way, like if they were say 2+2=5, is wrong. If you're conceding this point, then I don't know what is we're suppose to be arguing about. Are you claiming than when you dig deeper it shows there's a conflict between this objective perception and those deeper beliefs?

What you going and and on about? I would respond in similar way as them in regards to those scenarios. So what does that suggest? That I don't really believe morality is objective?

You're not being very clear at this point, and I'm not even sure what your objections are anymore.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: