Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(11-09-2015 12:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.

Your comments are off topic. Rather than go down your tangents, I will point out one error. I said earlier what objective means, several times on several posts, and now you are shifting the posts. An objective something is a factual something, and a subjective something is an opinion. It's not a mere opinion that rape and murder and adultery are wrong even if some people are "open" to them subjectively.

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
16-09-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 11:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Your comments are off topic.

Er, no. Commenting on the errors you make is entirely on topic.

If you're going to dodge, try to do so less blatantly.

(16-09-2015 11:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I said earlier what objective means, several times on several posts, and now you are shifting the posts. An objective something is a factual something, and a subjective something is an opinion.

I have shifted nothing.

I have, however, pointed out that "I cannot think of a situation in which I would approve of rape" does not make "rape is objectively wrong" true. "Objectively wrong" is still a nonsense phrase.

"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
16-09-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 07:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
I've been a visitor to a Catholic forum. These guys beat each other up if they don't tow the line. They remind each other of the official Church position they tell each other that if they don't tow the line then they aren't Catholic.

When they argue against us atheists they tailor their argument in a way that they think might appeal to us. Certainly appealing to the official Catholic church position would not appeal to an atheist.
So they make statements such that abortion is murder or that the fetus is a person. They think this means something to us.
And on the flip some atheists claim that it isn't murder because murder is a legal definition and that it isn't a "person" because either person is a legal definition or they tie certain developmental stages into their own personal definition of "person".

Really, its just an excuse on both sides rather than the real argument.
For Catholics, it's whatever the church tells them
For atheists, its the woman's decision unless in impacts us or society.

(16-09-2015 07:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.
But of course this dancing is all BS. The real crux of the matter for those religious folk is that their religious leaders tell them that it is wrong and a grave sin.

The sheep follow their shepherd.

(16-09-2015 07:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In regards to the abortion debate, I have difficulty siding with one side or the other, because the reality here, makes the answer difficult.
The answer is simple.
Why do you think it is your place to interfere in the lives of others?
In the decision of a pregnant woman? Who died and made you God? What justifies you using force and aggression on this pregnant woman in order to stop her having an abortion?
Can't you just leave her the fuck alone!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
16-09-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 01:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've been a visitor to a Catholic forum. These guys beat each other up if they don't tow the line. They remind each other of the official Church position they tell each other that if they don't tow the line then they aren't Catholic.

When they argue against us atheists they tailor their argument in a way that they think might appeal to us. Certainly appealing to the official Catholic church position would not appeal to an atheist.
So they make statements such that abortion is murder or that the fetus is a person. They think this means something to us.
And on the flip some atheists claim that it isn't murder because murder is a legal definition and that it isn't a "person" because either person is a legal definition or they tie certain developmental stages into their own personal definition of "person".

Really, its just an excuse on both sides rather than the real argument.
For Catholics, it's whatever the church tells them
For atheists, its the woman's decision unless in impacts us or society.

Yea, and I’m a person who follows catholic thought, whose own christian beliefs tend to mirror that of Catholic thinkers, and theologians a great deal. So your naive interpretation of whatever you’ve gathered for participating in a catholic forum, which I have as well from time time, is likely not to get you too far here. But as far as catholics using the official teachings of the Church as a means of reigning in positions that deviate from that, I tend to do the same when speaking with other Christians, by using the Bible.

In fact some atheists do the same, particularly ones on the strong side, who subscribe to some form of materialism, who are quick to reign in other atheists who express views even inadvertently outside of a certain materialist picture of reality, such as stink over Nagel, and in fact even criticism of Nagel that don’t extend the materialist picture far enough.

Of course appeals to the Bible, or official positions of the Church don’t work for you, anymore so than appeals to Physicalism work for me, but can for those who subscribe to it. What you don’t understand, is that even in regards to the official position of the catholic church ( which subscribe to a form of natural theology, a belief that right and wrong can be discernible through reason, ““Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.1796)), is that your friends are articulating the position of the church, that’s formulated to you, without appealing to the authority of the church, since it’s not the authority of the Church thats makes it immoral.

The church only articulates and codifies those positions as the official position of the church. Just as a physicalist, more thoughtful ones attempts to endorse beliefs that are consistent with it from those that are a not.

The point being, the reasons they oppose abortion, is not separate from the reasons they offer you as to why they oppose it. And you of all people should know why when speaking with people who subscribe to an opposing worldview, that we often adopt a different vocabulary to avoid certain confusions and equivocations.

I don’t expect you to really understand these distinction, since you’re not a catholic, or a christian, but your basic butchering of these positions, needs to be corrected. And that you likely haven’t garnered enough insight into catholicism, as you believe you have from your interactions on that forum.

Quote:So they make statements such that abortion is murder or that the fetus is a person. They think this means something to us.
And on the flip some atheists claim that it isn't murder because murder is a legal definition and that it isn't a "person”

It might not mean anything to you, since you don’t even believe in morality. But for folks who believe in morality, who believe that it’s wrong to take innocent life of a person, that it’s wrong to murder, these distinctions matter. And the argument is primarily along the aligns of declaring that the fetus is not a person, let alone an innocent one, that abortion is not murder, etc, that the autonomy of the woman should allow her to decide if an abortion is appropriate up to certain point in her pregnancy, etc… These positions, not matter which side one is on, are composed of a series of moral beliefs, that contain factual beliefs, as well as values, and often those values are agreed upon to a certain degree, and the underlying moral dictates as well, like murder is wrong, that a person would have autonomy over their own body, are all a present in the arguments as well, and are often the cause of these conflicts themselves.

The thing that you’re not acknowledging, is that no one is particularly claiming that they are for or against abortion because they like it they way I would when defending why I prefer indian food over Italian food. In fact arguments over subjective preferences don’t really exist, we just accept them for what they are. You’re gonna try and argue with me that I should like italian food more than indian food. Where as moral debates entail quite vocal disputes, in which the basic contentions of others are often considered and disputed.

If they are in essence reducible to likes and dislikes, it would be of an entirely different makeup than other likes and dislikes, it would be cloaked in the clothing of factual debates, the clothing of an argument over objective truths. Your inability to acknowledge this, leaves all your explanations wanting.

Quote:But of course this dancing is all BS. The real crux of the matter for those religious folk is that their religious leaders tell them that it is wrong and a grave sin.

The sheep follow their shepherd.

I apologize if I don’t take Stevil course on the motivations and basis of religious beliefs all that seriously. I think you’ve already acknowledged your inability to understand religion. So I’m not sure why you feel so confident in your interpretations of religious folks.

Quote:The answer is simple.
Why do you think it is your place to interfere in the lives of others?
In the decision of a pregnant woman? Who died and made you God? What justifies you using force and aggression on this pregnant woman in order to stop her having an abortion?
Can't you just leave her the fuck alone!

We could play with this of course. If morality doesn’t exist. Why shouldn’t I interfere in the lives of others? Why shouldn’t I play God? Why do I need to justifying using force or aggression, other than just because I want to?

Are you at this point going to appeal to some version of the ethic of reciprocity? That since I wouldn’t want that form of aggression and force laid upon me, I should avoid laying it upon others? Or some version of karma, that it’s gonna come and bite me as well one day?

"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, 03:14 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 02:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We could play with this of course. If morality doesn’t exist. Why shouldn’t I interfere in the lives of others? Why shouldn’t I play God? Why do I need to justifying using force or aggression, other than just because I want to?

Because society punishes those who step out of line. It's pretty simple.

The "why shouldn't I interfere with the lives of others" - you *do*, just by existing. But even if *absolute* morality is unattainable it's still possible for us to be nice to each other. There's no real reason I can give you other than that our current culture and customs are rather heavily invested in the idea of not being a complete dick to people for no reason. Of course if you can find a bullshit reason like "God said it was wrong" then you're good to go.

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
16-09-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 03:14 PM)morondog Wrote:  But even if *absolute* morality is unattainable it's still possible for us to be nice to each other.

Quite.

Nihilism is fact. Existentialism is how you deal with that fact.

"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
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-09-2015, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 05:13 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 03:27 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 03:14 PM)morondog Wrote:  But even if *absolute* morality is unattainable it's still possible for us to be nice to each other.

Quite.

Nihilism is fact. Existentialism is how you deal with that fact.

You could've saved me $1500 and 100 hours of study 30 years ago.

That's going here.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-09-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 02:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, and I’m a person who follows catholic thought, whose own christian beliefs tend to mirror that of Catholic thinkers, and theologians a great deal. So your naive interpretation of ...
You're not Catholic though eh? My comment was regarding Catholics rather than those that like to mirror Catholics
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 05:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You could've saved me $1500 and 100 hours of study 30 years ago.

You could deal with this fact by giving me the remainder of your money.

"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
16-09-2015, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 06:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(16-09-2015 05:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 05:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You could've saved me $1500 and 100 hours of study 30 years ago.

You could deal with this fact by giving me the remainder of your money.

Remaining money's in the red not black. Are you saying you will assume my debt? 'Cause that would be big of you. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: