The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Amoral is an absence of moral decisions.

You STILL don't understand what I mean by this.

Refer to my math example. Is the person being told what to do, a mathematician?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 09:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, it's pointing out that your distinctions are just arbitrary, rather than a declaration of facts. You can only distinguish between right and wrong, in the way in which you distinguish good music and bad music, a good book from a bad book. You can't transcend a relativistic, subjective claim, to an objective sphere in which you don't believe in.

And don't think this problem magically revolves itself, when you're speaking about what's "amoral". Because it doesn't.

How do you reconcile this post with the post above in reply to Chas?

And instead of addressing my question, you edit your post to Chas to change what it says.

You really are dishonest.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 10:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Amoral is an absence of moral decisions.

You STILL don't understand what I mean by this.

No, I understand what you mean by it. But what you mean by it, is not factually true.

You believe that a person who believes morality is matter of adhering to a series of rules, and immorality is based on non-compliance to these rules, is not acting morally when he adheres to these rules. But this is not a factually true statement, and clearly not true for him, who operates on a different standard of what constitutes moral, immoral, amoral.

I know you want it to be factually true, and I know you want me to accept this is as true. But it's not. You're just sort of engaging in special pleading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 10:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Amoral is an absence of moral decisions.

You STILL don't understand what I mean by this.

No, I understand what you mean by it. But what you mean by it, is not factually true.

You believe that a person who believes morality is matter of adhering to a series of rules, and immorality is based on non-compliance to these rules, is not acting morally when he adheres to these rules. But this is not a factually true statement, and clearly not true for him, who operates on a different standard of what constitutes moral, immoral, amoral.

I know you want it to be factually true, and I know you want me to accept this is as true. But it's not. You're just sort of engaging in special pleading.

I'm not going to waste my time any more with you on this.

You run around in circles and dodge questions and points. Then you try and dismiss counterpoints and examples.

The last straw for my patience is that you are now editing your posts to change their meaning. This is wholly and transparently dishonest.

Your moral fortitude must come from religious platitudes

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 10:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And instead of addressing my question, you edit your post to Chas to change what it says.

What? I never edited Chas's post? So I'm confused by this allegation? I even went over and reviewed my post to see if somewhere along the lines, I inadvertnely altered it, but I didn't even see where I did that?

Quote:You really are dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest. I've been trying to respond to your post, in the best way that I can conceive of doing so, and I have been actively trying to understand your points the best I could, and respond accordingly to what I believe may be the source of the issues we're having.

But if you think you're deliberately being goaded, or needlessly provoked, this is not my intention. Perhaps we're operating on some fundamental misunderstandings that causes you to feel this way, and perhaps it may even be my fault for not being able to bridge this gap, but I can assure you that my intentions are honest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 09:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 08:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Morals are about how we treat each other. A solitary man can neither be moral nor immoral.

Given that, morality is a negotiation by the individual with society.
Your beliefs are only as important as how they drive your behavior; only your actions matter.

If you blindly follow a script (e.g. religion), then your actions may not be moral - they may harm others.

No, morality is none of these things. It's whatever each individual person wants it to be. A solitary man can just as well be a moral being, if he's in possession of all the virtues that makes a man moral, even if he has no one to convey this to. Just as one could be an excellent lover, in a world where there's no one left to make love to. You may disagree with this, but you're disagreement wouldn't be one in which I'm in factual error.

To assume that I am, is one presupposing some objective moral standard.

How is the solitary man moral?
What virtues make him moral? Who but himself can decide? Moral compared to what?

You are factually incorrect. Morality is meaningless except in one's treatment of others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-02-2015, 12:52 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 12:57 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 12:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  How is the solitary man moral?
What virtues make him moral? Who but himself can decide? Moral compared to what?

By being a man of moral character. By being a man who is loving, honest, humble, even if he is the last surviving individual on earth, with no one to convey these aspects of himself to. If I am possession of these virtues now, doesn't mean I lose possession of them absent of others.

This is virtue ethics, unlike the one you're presupposing which seems to be consequentialist, where judgments are based on actions, or deeds. Your questions assume a standard, one that needs comparison, one that needs others, one that needs someone else to decide beside himself. But if a person has a virtue ethics moral framework in mind, than your rules, and requirements don't apply.

What's true for you, is not necessarily true for me. And if morality has no objective foundation, to anchor in any particular standard, than my rejection of your particular standard, is not a denial of any moral fact, but a moral preference.

Quote:You are factually incorrect. Morality is meaningless except in one's treatment of others.

That's not a fact. Anymore so than a claim that music is only good if there's a violin.

Claiming that something can only be moral in regards to how we treat others, is not a factually true statement, unless we presuppose the standard in which you make such a judgment is objectively true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 01:07 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 10:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Amoral is an absence of moral decisions.

You STILL don't understand what I mean by this.

Refer to my math example. Is the person being told what to do, a mathematician?

That is an interesting perspective BeardedWonder and it warrants more consideration. My understanding has always been amoral implies the lack of any moral code by which to inform decisions. So it is something more than the absence of moral decisions. It is the inability to make moral decisions. Or equivalently, the inability to base any decision on a moral code.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 12:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 12:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  How is the solitary man moral?
What virtues make him moral? Who but himself can decide? Moral compared to what?

By being a man of moral character. By being a man who is loving, honest, humble, even if he is the last surviving individual on earth, with no one to convey these aspects of himself to. If I am possession of these virtues now, doesn't mean I lose possession of them absent of others.

They don't mean anything except in the presence of others.

Quote:This is virtue ethics, unlike the one you're presupposing which seems to be consequentialist, where judgments are based on actions, or deeds. Your questions assume a standard, one that needs comparison, one that needs others, one that needs someone else to decide beside himself. But if a person has a virtue ethics moral framework in mind, than your rules, and requirements don't apply.

Of course it's consequentialist. The only assumption is some understanding of empathy.

Quote:What's true for you, is not necessarily true for me. And if morality has no objective foundation, to anchor in any particular standard, than my rejection of your particular standard, is not a denial of any moral fact, but a moral preference.

Why do you conclude that there is no objective foundation? Not harming others is an objective basis. Does your morality include harm to others?

Quote:
Quote:You are factually incorrect. Morality is meaningless except in one's treatment of others.

That's not a fact. Anymore so than a claim that music is only good if there's a violin.

Claiming that something can only be moral in regards to how we treat others, is not a factually true statement, unless we presuppose the standard in which you make such a judgment is objectively true.

Morality is a meaningless concept except in regards to how we treat others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 01:18 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(16-02-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Morality is a meaningless concept except in regards to how we treat others.

Who or what we consider "others" is however ill-defined and individual.

(16-02-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course it's consequentialist. The only assumption is some understanding of empathy.

Just because the Bonobo appear particularly empathetic, are they moral? Do they have the capacity? And who the hell would know?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: