The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 01:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 10:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're bludgeoning constantly on this line trying to assert all moral positions are relative and the equivalence of musical taste... okay, so what? You've said a few things on it, but never actually indicated any issue as if there was an issue with this.

I bludgeon constantly on this line because hardly anyone besides Stevel seems to accepts this.

Bertrand Russell, expressed this predicament quite welll:

"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."

Suppose my claim is in fact true, that all moral positions are relative, and are the equivalent of musical taste, stating our likes and dislikes, why is this a hard pill to swallow?

Why are we in seeming denial? Particularly atheists who acknowledge that morality is subjective, but yet have trouble accepting what that would imply, and will resort to all sorts of incoherent arguments in protest. Like Bertrand Russell stated, he can't find a way to refute this, yet he finds himself incapable of accepting that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that he doesn't like it.

I think this question, will likely shed more light on the predicament being addressed by the OP than any other.

You're again hurting the lines of communication with how these discussions go when you say things like only stevil seems to accept this. It's because you keep communicating so poorly and labeling or defining things in not socially inductive ways.

This is more of this poor mental expounding manner of boiling this down to an all or nothing line of thinking that doesn't reflect society. It's Against or with, protest or agreement. This has been your problem for months in this discussion and despite being told you could do SO Much better in these discussions if you avoided it; you don't, you continue the same path. Not surprisingly, it continues to get nowhere new.

Even if it were true in the way you describe. It clearly DOESN'T reflect the different manners of how societal impacts shape and describe out actions in grouped manners. We don't exist in vacuums and you keep wanting to talk in manners that only apply if we did.

And again for another dramatically repetitive time, You didn't go to answer the point of the questions asked. Which are, WHAT would it imply REALLY, is what I'm asking. And you constantly don't go to anywhere upon that. You've gone to the "if true" hypothetical set up situation. We are adults who have years of knowing how to communicate. We don't need to repeat these silly placating set up concepts over a dozen times. You can speak about the ideas that are of consequence and you don't need this silly process.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-02-2015, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 02:11 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are just someone who thinks morality can exist in a vacuum.

Nothing can exist in a vacuum. Except for these fuckers.
[Image: bear-1.jpg]
There's God right there.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
17-02-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are just someone who thinks morality can exist in a vacuum.

No, I'm someone who thinks a man can be good, even if he lives a solitary existence. You may disagree, but it wouldn't be because I'm factually wrong.

Quote:And you are really bad at metaphors. Your music one is particularly poor.

Why? Because you believe morality is not subjective like musical taste are?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 05:32 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 11:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are just someone who thinks morality can exist in a vacuum.

No, I'm someone who thinks a man can be good, even if he lives a solitary existence. You may disagree, but it wouldn't be because I'm factually wrong.
Could you elaborate Tomasia?
In a hypothetical situation, how can a lonely person choose to behave immorally? What might constitute an immoral act in such a situation?
I know some Christians would consider masturbation an immoral act.
But let's say this person is all alone, there is no-one to offend, not even god.

Or perhaps this person has littered the beach with rubbish, spoiled its beauty even though there is no-one else to worry about the litter. Could this person deem themself to have behaved immorally in littering the beach?

I think they probably could.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I'm someone who thinks a man can be good, even if he lives a solitary existence. You may disagree, but it wouldn't be because I'm factually wrong.
Could you elaborate Tomasia?
In a hypothetical situation, how can a lonely person choose to behave immorally? What might constitute an immoral act in such a situation?

When the goodness of a person is a judgement of his character, immorality wouldn't be a judgement of a behavior, or an action, but a judgement of who a person is. It becomes a judgment of the quality of person's inner self, rather than one regarding his external actions and behavior.

The prime example in theistic beliefs would be God himself, that the God's Goodness is eternal, and not a quality he acquires when he creates beings that are beneficiaries of that goodness.

Or if Nelson Mandela were sentenced to solitary confinement for the last decade of his life, this doesn't mean that he's no longer a good person. Because his goodness is a part of who he is. The good things that he did, stem from his good character, his fruits. And it's his characters that makes the things he did good, rather than the things he did making him good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 01:57 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 06:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Could you elaborate Tomasia?
In a hypothetical situation, how can a lonely person choose to behave immorally? What might constitute an immoral act in such a situation?

When the goodness of a person is a judgement of his character, immorality wouldn't be a judgement of a behavior, or an action, but a judgement of who a person is. It becomes a judgment of the quality of person's inner self, rather than one regarding his external actions and behavior.

The prime example in theistic beliefs would be God himself, that the God's Goodness is eternal, and not a quality he acquires when he creates beings that are beneficiaries of that goodness.

Or if Nelson Mandela were sentenced to solitary confinement for the last decade of his life, this doesn't mean that he's no longer a good person. Because his goodness is a part of who he is. The good things that he did, stem from his good character, his fruits. And it's his characters that makes the things he did good, rather than the things he did making him good.

What is your working definition of Morality? I think this is potentially the biggest issue here if you're not going to try to work it around the other things that seem like issues. What you're describing here doesn't represent what "morality" by it's definition, not my view of it, is.

Do you deem morality a judgement on what something is good or bad? And that's what you think? It seems like THAT is your use of the term. When you go back to stating things about "goodness" of ones character.

The idea and concept of morality as I understand it's defined manner is along the lines of judgement of Actions and decisions.

When you say, oh well judging a character in a persons view of outside of actions, etc. You are not actually talking about a persons "Moral" ideas because you're not in the realm of what makes something a moral choice. It's not a matter of just what you think is good/bad, it's about actions, choices, decisions, etc.

This isn't a debate of "that's your take on morality" it's a manner of what the definition of the idea means. What actually is the defining points of what morality is.

"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
18-02-2015, 02:09 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 06:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When the goodness of a person is a judgement of his character, immorality wouldn't be a judgement of a behavior, or an action, but a judgement of who a person is. It becomes a judgment of the quality of person's inner self, rather than one regarding his external actions and behavior.

The prime example in theistic beliefs would be God himself, that the God's Goodness is eternal, and not a quality he acquires when he creates beings that are beneficiaries of that goodness.

Or if Nelson Mandela were sentenced to solitary confinement for the last decade of his life, this doesn't mean that he's no longer a good person. Because his goodness is a part of who he is. The good things that he did, stem from his good character, his fruits. And it's his characters that makes the things he did good, rather than the things he did making him good.
So you are saying that an entity is good because of who they are and not what they do?

That the Christian god can be called good despite intentionally drowning babies and kittens and puppies.
That Mandela is good and not bad?
If not through ones actions, how can you come to a judgement as to who is good and who is bad? What does good mean? What does bad mean? What does it mean to be a good person? What does it mean to be a bad person?
Can a bad person change from being bad to being good?

How did a person become bad in the first place? Did the god create good and bad souls just to make things interesting?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In a hypothetical situation, how can a lonely person choose to behave immorally?
They can't. Morality only exists when two or more people need to cooperate or coexist. It is the implicit and explicit negotiations concerning how we treat each other and our shared resources in ways that sustainably create and maintain the kind of civil society that most of us want to live in.

That doesn't mean that, e.g., littering a beach is in a solitary person's rational self-interest. There is still the implicit and explicit agreements one can have with oneself. But these cannot be properly termed "morality".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
18-02-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 01:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 10:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're bludgeoning constantly on this line trying to assert all moral positions are relative and the equivalence of musical taste... okay, so what? You've said a few things on it, but never actually indicated any issue as if there was an issue with this.

I bludgeon constantly on this line because hardly anyone besides Stevel seems to accepts this.

Bertrand Russell, expressed this predicament quite welll:

"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."

Suppose my claim is in fact true, that all moral positions are relative, and are the equivalent of musical taste, stating our likes and dislikes, why is this a hard pill to swallow?

Why are we in seeming denial? Particularly atheists who acknowledge that morality is subjective, but yet have trouble accepting what that would imply, and will resort to all sorts of incoherent arguments in protest. Like Bertrand Russell stated, he can't find a way to refute this, yet he finds himself incapable of accepting that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that he doesn't like it.

I think this question, will likely shed more light on the predicament being addressed by the OP than any other.

You have consistently ignored the point that our basic senses of fairness and of empathy are evolved traits common to all humans.

So, yes, the fact that 'I don't like it' is the basis for morality.

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
18-02-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(17-02-2015 06:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Could you elaborate Tomasia?
In a hypothetical situation, how can a lonely person choose to behave immorally? What might constitute an immoral act in such a situation?

When the goodness of a person is a judgement of his character, immorality wouldn't be a judgement of a behavior, or an action, but a judgement of who a person is. It becomes a judgment of the quality of person's inner self, rather than one regarding his external actions and behavior.

How is that determined? How is it manifested except through behavior?

Quote:The prime example in theistic beliefs would be God himself, that the God's Goodness is eternal, and not a quality he acquires when he creates beings that are beneficiaries of that goodness.

First prove there is a god, then we can discuss its attributes.

Quote:Or if Nelson Mandela were sentenced to solitary confinement for the last decade of his life, this doesn't mean that he's no longer a good person. Because his goodness is a part of who he is. The good things that he did, stem from his good character, his fruits. And it's his characters that makes the things he did good, rather than the things he did making him good.

His goodness was already established by his actions.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: