The moral argument - Commentless
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2017, 03:14 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(25-03-2017 05:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2017 04:16 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  The effects of pain and suffering and other emotions are the basic underlying objective facts that are foundational to morality.

But we humans have abstract reasoning abilities that make actually creating a moral system hard. And bad ideologies can easily undermine that The downside to emotions. hate, rationalization, distrust of the other, the alien. That can give us the holocaust, or slavery and Jim Crow law.

Religion has most definitely given us bad ideologies aplenty to consider. So reason has to rein in religion's bad tendencies. Nor is there a moral ism that settles all issues correctly.

Is health care a right or a privilege? This is right now an issue playing itself out in American politics and religious right politicians don't seem to think of health care as a right. Is that a moral failure?

Actually Anthropology does not necessarily agree with you.
And religions don't invent moral systems. They sanction pre-existing cultural systems and norms, (such as the stuff in the Bible merely regurgitated what was already extant in that culture). It's not always "pain and suffering" that morality attempts to minimize. It's the group's survival that's promoted, primarily .. and maybe secondarily, if possible, pain minimized. There are countless examples of this in world cultures.

Health care is already a right in the US. No hospital can refuse a sick patient that walks in, in need of care. If they do, they get sued, and their Medicare gets yanked. The politicians are just idiots, and what they are fighting about is how to pay for what is already a well-established right, in law.


Mohammed didn't invent a moral system with Islam? And of course numerous Molems added to it as years went by. Ibn Taymiyyah for example, whose "moral" system included killing those whom he deemed not Islamic enough. That code is killing many today in the world.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 04:16 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(26-03-2017 03:14 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(25-03-2017 05:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually Anthropology does not necessarily agree with you.
And religions don't invent moral systems. They sanction pre-existing cultural systems and norms, (such as the stuff in the Bible merely regurgitated what was already extant in that culture). It's not always "pain and suffering" that morality attempts to minimize. It's the group's survival that's promoted, primarily .. and maybe secondarily, if possible, pain minimized. There are countless examples of this in world cultures.

Health care is already a right in the US. No hospital can refuse a sick patient that walks in, in need of care. If they do, they get sued, and their Medicare gets yanked. The politicians are just idiots, and what they are fighting about is how to pay for what is already a well-established right, in law.


Mohammed didn't invent a moral system with Islam? And of course numerous Molems added to it as years went by. Ibn Taymiyyah for example, whose "moral" system included killing those whom he deemed not Islamic enough. That code is killing many today in the world.

No he didn't.
The moral system in the Quran was extant in Arabian culture, before whoever cooked up the Quran, did that. It may or may not have been someone named Mohamed. Religion sanctions extant cultural norms. Every society at the time, (even the *enlightened* Greeks) put people to death, if they rejected society's norms, which got embodied in the state religion. The fact that some Islamists still practice ancient cultural norms is irrelevant to the origins question.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(26-03-2017 04:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-03-2017 03:14 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  Mohammed didn't invent a moral system with Islam? And of course numerous Molems added to it as years went by. Ibn Taymiyyah for example, whose "moral" system included killing those whom he deemed not Islamic enough. That code is killing many today in the world.

No he didn't.
The moral system in the Quran was extant in Arabian culture, before whoever cooked up the Quran, did that. It may or may not have been someone named Mohamed. Religion sanctions extant cultural norms. Every society at the time, (even the *enlightened* Greeks) put people to death, if they rejected society's norms, which got embodied in the state religion. The fact that some Islamists still practice ancient cultural norms is irrelevant to the origins question.

Well, we had the bad verses of the Quran. Kill the idolaters, conquer and humiliate the peoples of the book and others. Stone adulterers, et al. Other than stuff like that......

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 05:37 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
I want to pretend that I am atheist. This is what I would say after watching "the moral argument" video:

How do they know that God is good? How can I know that God is good?
They talk about God's nature. How do they know what God's nature is?
If God exists and morality is so important then why does God allow many different moral standards to exist?
What if I never watched this video how would I know what is morally right and what is morally wrong according to God?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alla's post
26-03-2017, 06:50 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(26-03-2017 12:05 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(26-03-2017 11:06 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Only if one drops a lot of contexts.

The fact that people have different standards does not mean that any of the standards they have are right.
Nor does it mean that any of them are wrong. Or that it's even a binary question of right / wrong.

Just to pick an example that's top of mind because of another discussion I'm in the middle of, I tried to participate in my adult son's life in various ways to make sure he was getting full benefit of the social safety net, the mental health care system, health care generally, etc. I did this because he was demonstrably not fully responsible for himself nor accountable to anyone who gave a useful damn in these areas.

From my point of view, I was making sure that he did not make poor judgments that would harm him in the short or long term.

From my son's point of view, I was well meaning but intrusive of his intensely private nature and always pushing him to do things he was uncomfortable doing.

From the point of view of some of his doctors, I was infantalizing my son (apparently they did not realize he had already infantalized himself). Or I was just another controlling helicopter parent or some other sort of dipshit that I superficially resembled if you didn't really pay attention.

From the point of view of some of his handlers, he was a clueless but harmless and relatively functional young adult; because I was the only one who ever had an opportunity to partially see the whole picture, they did not share my view that he was a danger to himself and, under certain circumstances, such as if he ever got hold of a vehicle while self-medicating, he was a danger to others.

So he fell through the cracks and died, eventually, despite my best efforts.

Now ... WHICH of these contexts would you have to take into account, and how would you weigh them all, to arrive at an objective view of what was moral, ethical, right OR necessary in this situation? And how would you do all that while guaranteeing you aren't being biased in any way?

I submit that you can't do it. You can approach it, and it's a worthy effort to do so, but if you don't have the epistemological humility to admit that you don't and can't perfectly know the morality of many things, and that some situations just are inherently morally ambiguous ... then you will not be able to understand that sometimes your best efforts aren't enough to carry the day, and sometimes you make it up as you go, of necessity.

Who said anything about knowing anything perfectly. I'm talking about fundamental principles here. Now applying principles can be very difficult but at least starting with objective principles gives one a guide and a means of identifying and correcting one's errors.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 07:09 PM
RE: The moral argument - Commentless
(26-03-2017 04:47 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(26-03-2017 04:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No he didn't.
The moral system in the Quran was extant in Arabian culture, before whoever cooked up the Quran, did that. It may or may not have been someone named Mohamed. Religion sanctions extant cultural norms. Every society at the time, (even the *enlightened* Greeks) put people to death, if they rejected society's norms, which got embodied in the state religion. The fact that some Islamists still practice ancient cultural norms is irrelevant to the origins question.

Well, we had the bad verses of the Quran. Kill the idolaters, conquer and humiliate the peoples of the book and others. Stone adulterers, et al. Other than stuff like that......

Yes you do have that. It didn't originate with religious moral systems. They imported what was already common in every culture at the time.
What you consider "bad" was what everyone considered normal, at the time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: