Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-08-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Read it again. Add prayer this time.

"Read it again, assuming that it is true from the beginning."

Sorry. That isn't how this works.

(19-08-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. Where did you learn morality is subjective?

Where did you learn otherwise?

(19-08-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Do you condone sexual rape, for any reason, under any circumstance?

No.

Morality is still subjective.

"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
20-08-2015, 04:22 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-08-2015 02:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Read it again. Add prayer this time.

"Read it again, assuming that it is true from the beginning."

Sorry. That isn't how this works.

(19-08-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. Where did you learn morality is subjective?

Where did you learn otherwise?

(19-08-2015 02:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Do you condone sexual rape, for any reason, under any circumstance?

No.

Morality is still subjective.

1. I never said, "As if the Bible is true" (or even partially true). I merely implied that if a god exists, unless this god is capricious or vindictive this god should be able to assist one in Bible study. Chas reading the Bible for himself, by himself, is limited in scope and power. He may have even read the Bible with a jaundiced eye, merely to cull ammunition to fight emotional battles against Christians and Jews.

2. You asked where I learned (as a fact) that there are moral absolutes. Where did you learn as a testable, verifiable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed fact that there are no moral absolutes?

3. I ask the question above because you speak, as does Chas, as if all morality is subjective. I did not ask you if the Bible condones rape. I did not ask you if you know some historical books that condone rape. I did not ask you if you know some fiction books that condone rape. I did not ask you if you know some rapists who condone rape. I'm asking if you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

Note that if you dodge the question by saying that you are voting to convict the rapist not on the basis of any objective morality but on the basis of violation of law, you are still affirming that anti-rape laws are objectively true. Jurisprudence, civil protest and other opportunities allow citizens of free countries to attempt to change laws that are considered incorrect. If you feel that rape laws are subjectively true, you would sometimes vote to convict, sometimes vote to acquit.

Or you may not answer my question if we can agree that some morality is subjective but also that some moral absolutes exist.

On another thread when challenged, Mark affirmed vigorously that all people, including atheists, are morally accountable. This would logically indicate that there are some absolute moral values. Or why would we have laws that apply to all, not some, criminals?

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
20-08-2015, 05:14 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Q, you're being a fucking idiot.

Laws are there for protection and development of society. They don't say anything at all about whether prohibited actions are *right*, just that they're illegal or not.

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
20-08-2015, 06:09 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(02-08-2015 08:25 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  I am a man of many theories; not all of them good, as is evident from my post "A Mathematical Argument Against Life Elsewhere in the Universe"

I would like to present a theory to my peers (other members of this forum) for your comments and opinions.

I think that much of the confusion surrounding religion is caused by the conflation of the concepts of "legalism" and "morality". I am defining legalism as obedience to a set of laws or rules with the express purpose of attaining a reward and/or avoiding punishment. A set of laws may be political, whereby they are given by a dictator or a legislature or they may be institutional, whereby they are established by the governing body of an institution, or they may be religious, whereby the "lawgiver" is claimed to be a supernatural being or beings, and revealed to a "prophet" by this supernatural being.

This can be contrasted with "morality" which, at least according to science, is the result of our evolution. The morality of an act is contained in the act, itself, not in the authority of the lawgiver. An act is not "moral" because it is stems from a political or institutional law or because it is the will of God, supposedly revealed to Abraham or Moses or Mohammad or John Smith.

To obey such rules or laws is mere legalism--not morality. We may not entirely understand what moral behavior is and what it is not, but we can be sure that that question of the morality of an act is an entirely different consideration from the question of what is a mere legality within the context of any particular religion. Morality can also be applied universally (cross-culturally). This is obviously not true of legal systems, whether political, institutional, or religious.

This cements my conviction that Human Rights (based on moral actions) must take precedence over religious freedoms (mere legalities).

Comments?

Morality is hope, law is censorship.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Morondog - And even then, people make their own moral judgments based on subjective (and changing) criteria, which is why jury nullification is a thing.

"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
20-08-2015, 08:25 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
I'll ask all three of you, then, since you all avoided my question:

If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

BEAR IN MIND that if you say "I think rape is wrong because it is one creature causing another to suffer," I will then ask you the following:

Is ALL suffering objectively wrong or is SOME suffering subjectively not wrong?

But be warned that if you answer:

1. All suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that absolute values exist and that therefore, suffering must be excluded/prevented and that therefore, some absolute moral values exist--it is always wrong to rape because the causing of suffering is always wrong.

but if you instead answer:

2. Only some suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that we should not judge God for causing/allowing suffering, since we may not know all His purposes and some suffering is essential, perhaps even beneficial.

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
20-08-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
I really wish you wouldn't write walls of text.

The whole concept of a jury I think is a bit ridiculous. However, since you've appointed me as a member of a jury the question is simply, does the person fulfil the legal criteria so that I should find him guilty?

The judge helps with that by deciding e.g. what is admissible as evidence.

Personal feelings should not enter into it.

What fucking stupid question did we allegedly avoid Q?

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
20-08-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 08:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'll ask all three of you, then, since you all avoided my question:

If you were on a jury and had reasonable evidence that someone had committed rape, would you:

1. Vote to convict the rapist every time since rape is absolutely, objectively wrong.

2. Vote to not convict the rapist if there were circumstances that make that rape appropriate (since all morality is subjective).

BEAR IN MIND that if you say "I think rape is wrong because it is one creature causing another to suffer," I will then ask you the following:

Is ALL suffering objectively wrong or is SOME suffering subjectively not wrong?

But be warned that if you answer:

1. All suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that absolute values exist and that therefore, suffering must be excluded/prevented and that therefore, some absolute moral values exist--it is always wrong to rape because the causing of suffering is always wrong.

but if you instead answer:

2. Only some suffering is wrong--you have agreed with me that we should not judge God for causing/allowing suffering, since we may not know all His purposes and some suffering is essential, perhaps even beneficial.

1. The rapist should be convicted every time (if there is a beyond a reasonable doubt that rape occurred) as rape is illegal per US law. That is the purpose of a criminal trial, to determine if a crime is committed.

2. This logic doesn't hold up:

Assume only some suffering is wrong.

Therefore, there exists suffering that is not wrong, and may even be beneficial.

God causes/allows all suffering due to His "mysterious ways" or divine plan.

Therefore, we cannot blame/judge God for wrong/non-beneficial suffering in the world.

God's still on the hook for allowing wrong/non-beneficial suffering.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
I find the rape analogy more than a little telling, as I have long compared the nature of Christianity's deity with that of a rapist:

1) I really really love you.
2) I want you to love and worship me.
3) You don't have to, but if you don't, I'll burn you alive.
4) But hey, you have Free Will, do what you like.
5) Just remember: Burnination if you don't do what I like.

How this is different from a man with a gun "requesting" sex, I can't see.

"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
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-08-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-08-2015 09:06 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I find the rape analogy more than a little telling, as I have long compared the nature of Christianity's deity with that of a rapist:

1) I really really love you.
2) I want you to love and worship me.
3) You don't have to, but if you don't, I'll burn you alive.
4) But hey, you have Free Will, do what you like.
5) Just remember: Burnination if you don't do what I like.

How this is different from a man with a gun "requesting" sex, I can't see.

And don't forget the denominations who scratch out 4# !
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cozzymodo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: