Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(14-09-2015 02:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Do you think it would make a difference to them if it were accepted as "a choice"
Do you think they would then be compelled to interfere and stop other people making this choice?

If a variety of things are acknowledged as true by them it could make all the difference, but as we can see in nearly every discussion here, acknowledging what's true is the hard part.

"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
14-09-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(14-09-2015 02:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 02:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Do you think it would make a difference to them if it were accepted as "a choice"
Do you think they would then be compelled to interfere and stop other people making this choice?

If a variety of things are acknowledged as true by them it could make all the difference, but as we can see in nearly every discussion here, acknowledging what's true is the hard part.
Nah, I doubt it would make a difference. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. Regardless of whether gay sex is a genetic thing or a choice. Is is no-one's business but the participants.


"acknowledging what's true is the hard part."
Yes, it is difficult to work out what is truth. The scientific method has an amazingly accurate approach to working this out. All claims must be falsifiable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(14-09-2015 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 02:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Who said everything immoral requires a grand ritual?
This is often what you have been painting.

A picture that people need some sort of justification for doing "immoral" things.
Where-as for morally neutral things people don't need to justify their actions.

Let's not move goal post, from grand ritual, to some sort of justification.

But to clarify, on this new business of "some sort of justification. People justify both moral and immoral things, some justification we tell ourselves are lies, such as when we scapegoat. It's in those dishonest justifications we can see there's something more going on, something needing to be covered up, concealed not just to others, but often to ourselves, which reveals more than what appears at first sight.

"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
14-09-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(14-09-2015 02:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Nah, I doubt it would make a difference. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. Regardless of whether gay sex is a genetic thing or a choice. Is is no-one's business but the participants.

Then you don't pay very close attention. In moral debates both sides have their own series of facts, things they hold as true, some of which are in fact true, some of which are not, just like in arguments with creationists. Moral arguments parallel these arguments a great deal, something that's not hard to see when we're witness to them, or participating in them.

Quote:"acknowledging what's true is the hard part."
Yes, it is difficult to work out what is truth. The scientific method has an amazingly accurate approach to working this out. All claims must be falsifiable.

I don't know about the scientific method, but people are very lousy at working out the truth, particularly truth which grates at our very sense of being, at who we are. Whatever one may think of science, it will never transcend the limitations posed on it by us, by minds not particularly crafted for truth, but handicapped in a way that makes falsehoods just as appealing.

"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
15-09-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(14-09-2015 02:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 02:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Nah, I doubt it would make a difference. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. Regardless of whether gay sex is a genetic thing or a choice. Is is no-one's business but the participants.
In moral debates both sides have their own series of facts, things they hold as true, some of which are in fact true, some of which are not,
Moral debates are non definitive because "morality" is not well defined and is non discoverable, this is why the topic is ideal for debating. It comes down to how well the debator can connect with the audience, get them onboard with a particular stream of thought and lead their thinking towards a particular conclusion. It's about influencing the minds of the audience more than trying to resolve a question by showing objective facts.

Both sides have their own yardstick. Whether this is:
"a position that it is our purpose to please a particular god"
"a position that it is our purpose to maximise happiness and minimise suffering"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards our own personal benefit"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards the benefit of our own society"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards the benefit of all of humanity"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards the benefit of all sentient life forms within our influence"
"a position that we have no inherit purpose, no expectation that people ought to have an aligned purpose"
Facts can only be framed up within these contexts.
For example we can show that it is a fact that hitting someone can give that person pain. This "fact" is relevant for some of the above positions and irrelevant for others.
You can highlight the fact that your religion is built on a set of old books. This is relevent for some and irrelevant for others.
I can point to the fact that morality is undiscoverable, unverifiable, unknowable and this may be relevant to some and irrelevant for others.

(14-09-2015 02:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  just like in arguments with creationists. Moral arguments parallel these arguments a great deal, something that's not hard to see when we're witness to them, or participating in them.
I agree, creationists and moralists argue from a point of unjustified belief. But they don't consider their position to be unjustified. They have bought into it. They whole heartedly hold it as an important part of their own identity. To challenge that belief you are challenging this person's identity. People like to discover new and interesting facts, but they don't want to be told that their own life (identity) has been "wrong" or false.
(14-09-2015 02:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"acknowledging what's true is the hard part."
Yes, it is difficult to work out what is truth. The scientific method has an amazingly accurate approach to working this out. All claims must be falsifiable.
I don't know about the scientific method, but people are very lousy at working out the truth,
The scientific method offers a way to discover truth. By distinguishing falsehoods from non falsehoods.
Outside of the scientific method it is very difficult to discover truth. For example religious and theological positions have no way to verify their claims. It appears to me to be a pre-requisite for their claims that they be unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Hence it comes down to the people via an authoritative position. e.g. the Catholic church merely tell their people that they are guided by their god and hence infallible and what claims they make must be accepted or else face excommunication.
Before the scientific method was formulated people came up with many crazy ideas
(14-09-2015 02:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  particularly truth which grates at our very sense of being, at who we are. Whatever one may think of science, it will never transcend the limitations posed on it by us, by minds not particularly crafted for truth, but handicapped in a way that makes falsehoods just as appealing.
The scientific method has measures in place to overcome personal bias and beliefs. It is very good at achieving objectivity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(15-09-2015 01:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Moral debates are non definitive because "morality" is not well defined and is non discoverable, this is why the topic is ideal for debating. It comes down to how well the debator can connect with the audience, get them onboard with a particular stream of thought and lead their thinking towards a particular conclusion. It's about influencing the minds of the audience more than trying to resolve a question by showing objective facts.

Both sides have their own yardstick. Whether this is:
"a position that it is our purpose to please a particular god"
"a position that it is our purpose to maximise happiness and minimise suffering"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards our own personal benefit"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards the benefit of our own society"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards the benefit of all of humanity"
"a position that it is our purpose to act towards the benefit of all sentient life forms within our influence"
"a position that we have no inherit purpose, no expectation that people ought to have an aligned purpose"
Facts can only be framed up within these contexts.
For example we can show that it is a fact that hitting someone can give that person pain. This "fact" is relevant for some of the above positions and irrelevant for others.
You can highlight the fact that your religion is built on a set of old books. This is relevent for some and irrelevant for others.
I can point to the fact that morality is undiscoverable, unverifiable, unknowable and this may be relevant to some and irrelevant for others.

While all those features might be present in constructing some elaborate moral philosophy, they are almost entirely absent in actual moral debates between two sides, on actual issue, like abortion.

If a believer claims that abortion is immoral because a fetus has a soul, that claim involves a factual statement, that if convinced that it was false, his moral position will likely change along with it. Those who support abortion tend not to believe that fetus have souls either. Moral debates are not particularly like debates as to whether Indian food is better than Italian, but entails a series of competing factual beliefs, held by each side. They tend to involve disagreements on facts, none of them tend to involve a an agreement on these basic facts by both parties.

Quote:The scientific method offers a way to discover truth. By distinguishing falsehoods from non falsehoods.

And I’m guessing all those atheists that reject nihilism, or subscribe to some form of morality, are just not applying the scientific method properly? I’m guessing you imagine that all your beliefs, that things you hold as true, are by your applications of the scientific method? And the beliefs you find false including those held by other atheists, are not done with a proper application of it?

Is the scientific methodology a different way of thinking that we’re already biologically disposed to? If a man was scapegoating, could he apply this methodology to recognize his delusion? Can I apply the scientific method, if i’m not very good at introspection?

You keep forgetting that any applications of methodology of thinking, applies to faulty human minds, not particularly prone to distinguish truth from appealing falsehoods.

Quote:The scientific method has measures in place to overcome personal bias and beliefs..

I see no evidence that this is the case at all. As if scientist are any less bigoted, or less bias than my local mechanic.

"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
15-09-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(14-09-2015 02:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... acknowledging what's true is the hard part.

For some of us here with some formal training defining "truth" is the hard part, everything else follows.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 06:15 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  While all those features might be present in constructing some elaborate moral philosophy, they are almost entirely absent in actual moral debates between two sides, on actual issue, like abortion.
No, not absent at all.
Some Christians, particularly Catholics tell us that abortion is immoral because that is the position of their church. (i.e. supporting purpose to please a specific god by pandering to a perception of it's moral laws)
Some atheists say that it isn't immoral because they claim that the under developed fetus is incapable of feeling pain (ie. supporting purpose to minimise pain, maximise happiness)
I say it isn't immoral because nothing is immoral. It isn't our innate purpose to protect all the unborn humans. (i.e. supporting the position that there is no innate purpose)
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If a believer claims that abortion is immoral because a fetus has a soul, that claim involves a factual statement,
It isn't a fact that a person has a soul.
This is an entirely unsupported, unfalsifiable claim. It's an assertion rather than a fact.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  that if convinced that it was false, his moral position will likely change along with it.
The concept of a soul, the definition of a soul comes with no testible criteria. How can one become convinced that a soul doesn't exist? It isn't a position that comes from facts or observations. It is a position of belief.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Those who support abortion tend not to believe that fetus have souls either.
I can't speak for others but as far as I am concerned the soul concept is irrelevant. I don't really care if the fetus has a soul or not. I have never seen any atheist argue "because it doesn't have a soul then we can abort"
Atheists tend to argue one or more of the following:
It's only a potential person
It hasn't developed consciousness yet therefore its just a clump of cells.
It can't feel pain so no harm done.
It has no right to invade a woman's body, its practically a parasite.
You can't force a woman to stay pregnant
A baby might present more harm to the mother than an abortion
Moral concerns are irrelevant, a mother having an abortion presents no danger to me or society.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Moral debates are not particularly like debates as to whether Indian food is better than Italian,
Sometimes they are.
Sometimes they are tied into survival so they have more importance
Sometimes they are tied into a person's empathy for the plight of others so they have more importance to that person.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  but entails a series of competing factual beliefs,
Beliefs aren't factual.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  They tend to involve disagreements on facts, none of them tend to involve a an agreement on these basic facts by both parties.
It's not fact based. Facts can be observed and verified. These are assertions, beliefs, personal philosophies, very subjective things. No facts to be seen here, please move on folks.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The scientific method offers a way to discover truth. By distinguishing falsehoods from non falsehoods.
And I’m guessing all those atheists that reject nihilism, or subscribe to some form of morality, are just not applying the scientific method properly?
The scientific method does not apply to morality. Morality is a belief system, there are no facts, no truths to be found here.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m guessing you imagine that all your beliefs, that things you hold as true, are by your applications of the scientific method? And the beliefs you find false including those held by other atheists, are not done with a proper application of it?
I'm not a scientist in the strictist sense. Facts based on scientific publications are highly reliable facts.
Facts based on my own personal observations and interpretations are less reliable.
Evidentiary unsupported claims are not facts, they are beliefs.
If someone makes a claim, I am happy to point out that their claim isn't based on evidence.
e.g. if an atheist tells me that a fetus isn't a human being or isn't alive or isn't a person I am happy to point out that there is no evidence supporting their position (unless of course they go down the legal route of a person being whatever the government determine is a person)
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is the scientific methodology a different way of thinking that we’re already biologically disposed to? If a man was scapegoating, could he apply this methodology to recognize his delusion? Can I apply the scientific method, if i’m not very good at introspection?
The scientific method offers much that can be applied by people. I.e. insistenct that a claim is falsifiable, insistance that evidence is provided to support the claim, insistence that a description of why evidence supports the claim rather than supports and alternative to the claim. Documenting your claim, getting others to critique it, getting others to attempt to falsify it given that it includes falsifiable criteria. etc
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You keep forgetting that any applications of methodology of thinking, applies to faulty human minds, not particularly prone to distinguish truth from appealing falsehoods.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "faulty minds" but the scientific method allows for overcomeing personal bias, avoiding confirmation bias etc.
(15-09-2015 04:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The scientific method has measures in place to overcome personal bias and beliefs..
I see no evidence that this is the case at all. As if scientist are any less bigoted, or less bias than my local mechanic.
We are not talking about individual scientists, we are talking about the application of the scientific method. Many scientists come to conclusions without applying the scientific method. For example there are many scientists that believe in gods but have no evidence to support their belief and have not defined a falsifiable claim as to what a god is.
But when they make scientific claims they need to adhere to the method. If they don't then their claim isn't taken seriously or is refuted by pointing out their poor application of the method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 07:32 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 07:37 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(15-09-2015 06:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, not absent at all.
Some Christians, particularly Catholics tell us that abortion is immoral because that is the position of their church. (i.e. supporting purpose to please a specific god by pandering to a perception of it's moral laws)

Yea, I doubt any catholic has ever told you that, and the actual arguments made by them tend to mirror than non-catholic christian argument as well. They might agree with the Churches official stance, but not because that’s the churches position.

Quote:Some atheists say that it isn't immoral because they claim that the under developed fetus is incapable of feeling pain (ie. supporting purpose to minimize pain, maximize happiness)

And a typical theist response to this would be, to point out that they wouldn’t be okay with killing people who are incapable of feeling pain. That not-feeling pain is not a valid justification for taking someone’s life.

Than they would typically argue that the fetus is not a person, amounts to not much more than a lump of skin cells, therefore not having a right to life. And many like, Bernice Sanders, will say that even though even though abortions are a tragic thing, a woman should have a right to make that tough decision for herself.

Where as the other side, would argue for the personhood of the fetus, with their posters outside of abortion clinics showing fetuses that look much like newborns, and beliefs that if facts are shown, such as ultrascan images of the child a mother is about to abort, she would be less inclined to proceed with it.

In regards to the abortion debate, I have difficulty siding with one side or the other, because the reality here, makes the answer difficult. If it was a matter of likes and dislikes, this wouldn’t be the case, I’d just go with the position that appeals to me more on an aesthetic basis, and you wouldn’t be able to argue with me one way or the other, anymore so than you can argue with me that Natalie Portman is not a attractive woman.

As noted, if you look at basic patterns of moral debates, it doesn’t mirror argument over which dish tastes better, but mirror factual debates. Your inability to recognizing this, reveals that you're not using the scientific method properly. Smile

Quote:I say it isn't immoral because nothing is immoral.

Yes, and you’d be just like a man who enters an argument between two people regarding what is true. Stating that it’s isn’t true, because nothing is true.

Quote:The concept of a soul, the definition of a soul comes with no testible criteria. How can one become convinced that a soul doesn't exist? It isn't a position that comes from facts or observations. It is a position of belief.

It’s a true or false. Either we have a soul or we don’t. Unlike if I claim thats scrambled eggs are better than over easy. You could argue that claiming that you have soul, is the equivalent of claiming there is a tea pot orbiting the sun, or an invisible dragon in the closet. And I wouldn’t even have to argue that it wasn’t. Because all of these are factual claims, regardless if they are testable ones, or even falsiafable ones.

And all you need to recognize is the distinction between a factual claim like a tea pot orbiting the sun, from a claim that's no more than subjective opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi.

Quote:It's only a potential person
It hasn't developed consciousness yet therefore its just a clump of cells.
A baby might present more harm to the mother than an abortion

All factual claims.

Those opposed to abortion would likely argue to the contrary that the fetus is a person. Or present additional facts of their own, to support why abortion should be prohibited, even if they fetus is not-conscious. Or make exception for abortion when the mother’s life is endanger.

Quote:Beliefs aren't factual.

All statements, and claims about reality are factual statements. If a belief one holds is a claim about reality itself, it’s a factual belief. Regardless if these beliefs are true or not. It’s the fact that they are either true or not, that make them so. It’s also regardless of whether we have the current means to test these claims or not.

But let’s not get into a semantic argument here. The only thing you need to recognize is the distinction between statement like there was a historical Jesus, there’s invisible dragon in my garage, from a statement that Natalie Portman is better looking that Gwen Paltrow. I’m sure you can see the latter statements, as subjective claims, that are neither true nor false, and the former which are either true or false.

Quote:If someone makes a claim, I am happy to point out that their claim isn't based on evidence.

I’d happily point out to you, that anything one uses in support of a belief or truth they hold, is “evidence”. And that any attempt to define evidence by you differently, would be like a creationist trying to draw a distinction between “kinds. That you likely consider that which supports your own beliefs as evidence, and consider what others use to support their contrary beliefs as not evidence.

I’m also curious as to when do you believe the scientific method, which presupposes methodological naturalism, becomes ontological naturalism? If we apply the scientific method would we reach the conclusion that Materialistic Monism is true? Or is it methodology, unable to validate ontological beliefs?

Would we reach the conclusion drawn by atheists like Jerry Coyne, and Dennett, and Rosenberg, that we’re just molecules in motion? Or as Rosenberg claims here: ““IF WE’RE GOING TO BE SCIENTISTIC, THEN WE HAVE to attain our view of reality from what physics tells us about it. Actually, we’ll have to do more than that: we’ll have to embrace physics as the whole truth about reality.”

Are these the conclusions that are drawn by the scientific method?

Quote:We are not talking about individual scientists, we are talking about the application of the scientific method.

An application only possible with minds to apply it to. If individual scientists are not a testament of efficacy of the scientific methods, ability to transcend strongly held human biases, than I don’t know what is. The truth is it’s not. There’s no magical elixir, or formula to overcome personal biases, no methodology that transcends them.

Your belief is a myth.

It appears that way to you, for the same reason biases seem absent when my wife bakes a cake, or when my mechanic looks at my car. Some observations, some things we might be thinking about at a particular moment, like how does my iPhone work, might not come up against my biases. They don’t transcend them, but rather explore routes in which they are not so present.

The Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel was able to be honest and articulate his own bias, which he believed was present among many scientist: ““I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.”

I’d wager many scientist, particularly the most staunch and vocal atheists are inflicted with this condition, which they themselves will forever remain unable to acknowledge the way Nagel did.

Quote:But when they make scientific claims they need to adhere to the method. If they don't then their claim isn't taken seriously or is refuted by pointing out their poor application of the method.

This doesn’t even make much sense. The distinction between methodology and ontology are not apparent. Nor is there any evidence to support that even those things we discover as true, are the result of the scientific method, as opposed to critical thinking, or even common every day thinking, or just dumb luck. You’ve invested a great deal in this fiction, but I don’t think you’ve invested a great deal of thought into it.

What does the scientific method entail. Let’s try and guess at what you mean by it. It entails testable and measurable conclusions. Does it also entail that only tested and measurable conclusions can be held as true? Can you apply the scientific method to test whether you’re using the scientific method properly?

Does the scientific method incorporate methodological naturalism to limit the explanations it offers, or as to declare that claims outside these limits, are not to be held as true?

Quote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "faulty minds"

I'm talking about human minds, that we're not crafted by mother nature to discover truth, but for survival and reproductions. Minds severely handicapped in these pursuits by cognitive impairments like dissonance, delusions, and the attractions to deceptions, and biases. Attuned to short cuts. An history of human thought with an endless stream of false beliefs held dearly. Someone claiming that the they got this formula, called the scientific method, to transcend these limitations, is just peddling snake oil.

"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
16-09-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 09:54 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.


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?

No. Sharing a scenario where you feel there is a grey area (the needs of the many vs. the needs of the one, something The Q has more than a passing interest in, as well as Jesus Christ) has no impact on whether any absolute values exist.

The insistence that rape might be subjectively, gosh, perhaps wrong, is one reason why the many theists out there who know rape is wrong, inherently wrong, are frustrated with relativism as employed by atheists to discard commonly held notions of moral accountability toward God.

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: