|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Moral Judgments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member  Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Zhimbo writes: If Christians acted as if they loved God more than needing to judge others, people may become intrigued with the lifestyle. Then again, maybe the natural inclinations of humanity drift towards self rule and human deification under the guise of freethought. Again, from a Christian perspective, our fight is not against humanity. It is a spiritual battle, and it is fundamentally absolute. (Although a world full of non fundamental, non literal "Jar type" Christians would be just fine with me! One can both respect other people's moral choices AND fight for what one thinks is right. In fact, the second part is often more successful in conjunction with the first part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
contracycle writes: If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" I can argue against polygamy on any number of platforms, not least being womens rights. I can argue that homosexuality should not be persecuted by the state becuase it occurs between consenting adults. I can argue that paedophilia should be persecuted by the state because one party is incapable of giving informed consent. what is the source of state sanctioned morality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
robinrohan writes: For those who do not know, relative is defined relational to the culture as opposed to a standard independant of the culture.
The issue is as follows: If we believe that all morality is subjective, or relative, or culture-specific, is it reasonable for us to judge other subjective, relative, or culture-specific moralities?Tal writes: Tal, being a Christian, is asking for a definition of an absolute that transcends cultures. For him, it is his moral beliefs. The topic presupposes relativism, however. Can you define grounds for me?Zhimbo writes: By NOT being a fundamentalist, one can respect other religions and cultures. How can one fight for their own relative beliefs in preference to any others? I would guess that voting a popular vote would be one way. Gay marriage, for example, may ultimately pass as a result of a popular vote by a majority of relativists who respect the "relative belief and right" that gay marriage represents. The fundamental absolutists will, of course, never agree to this. They will need to learn to use love as opposed to threats of Hellfire to swing more votes their way! One can both respect other people's moral choices AND fight for what one thinks is right.
holmes writes: Holmes, correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that human reasoning and logic is by definition agreeable to a majority and is able to trump any other proposed absolute, including fundamental interpretations of Gods laws? If so, you are proposing that morality is derived through human law and interpretation.
I think you will first need to detail what goes into a morality. It is not simply a wall of rules... not even for the theist. It takes some amount of conceptions about the world and feelings about what has meaning. From there rules are derived.holmes writes: Well...we could pray about it, seeing as we theoretically COULD agree on such an absolute Creator.
I am still waiting for how you propose to delineate who is right even if we agree there is such a thing as moral absolutes.Shaz writes: Yes, Shaz. I also think taking a stand against something, or to assist someone is not an automatic implication that one can offer them a better alternative. So in all moral dilemmas again I come back to my already touted concept elsewhere, 'minimise harm' in all we do.Look at the Iraq situation. We took a stand against what they were yet cannot make them be as we are. Assuming that our way of life IS realistically better! robinrohan writes: Which brings up an interesting point. If the world took a vote, which absolute religious/moral system would win? Or would it be possible to construct an absolute non-religious value system? The ground would have to be an absolute ground; otherwise we have not advanced the argument.(I think that Christianity would lose.) Are humans capable of defining the best absolute value for a collective society? robinrohan writes: Yet how can a popular vote equal an objective absolute? Is absolute defined as majority belief? if you are saying that a moral system is based on some viewpoint we have about the nature of the world, and that this viewpoint may involve something that can be corrected objectively, which has nothing to do with morality per se, I think I agree with that.robinrohan writes: For a Christian, Christ is as objective and real as that math theorem. I don't at the moment think there are moral absolutes (but am eager to be proven wrong), so I will just take a stab at this.1. Suppose we came up with a rule that we thought absolute. 2. We would have to think up all sorts of scenarios in which the moral rule would be applicable. This rule has to be applicable in all situations, anywhere, anytime. 3. Through these scenarios, hypothetical or real, we should be able to intuit morally that yes, the rule should apply. 4. We have to assume that moral intuition is as valid as logical intuition. 5. This moral rule would be as objective as a mathematical theorem, and we would have to be able to intuit this. It would have to be obvious that yes, the rule applies. 6. If you could do all these things, you could convince a reasonable person of the truth of the absolute moral rule. He Himself is not applicable in all situations for those who do not surrender their internal right to define and make decisions. For those who surrender to Him, he solves the problem. He Himself states that the road is narrow and that few find it. Obviously not a popular vote. Lam writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, Lam, but you are in essence asserting that all ancient fundamental beliefs have deep yet inferior roots. That collective, rational, and educated human agreement and reasoning will ultimately lead society out of its dark ages. Am I right?
I'm just trying to point out that these "traditions" have deep roots. You have to attack the roots to kill the weeds.brennakimi writes: Is this similar to the Christian edict that "all have sinned", "none are righteous", yeat asserting that "my religion" is the only way? hypocrisy makes the world go round.This is the great paradox of humanity. Knowing what is right yet doing what one wants. Knowing that an absolute exists yet unable to live within this absolute. (Unless one wishes to lose their life, will, and rationale" in order to find peace within the absolute. The issue is trusting God. holmes writes: So you believe that an absolute is a necessity? A rule by definition is an absolute, is it not? Is this not why the Ten Commandments were asked for and needed by a people who have never lived by them since they were first given? Consistency is a logical or practical rule. Indeed one is allowed to have conflicting moral rules within a moral system as long as there is a logical or practical rule on how to sort them out (choose between the rules in conflict).holmes writes: And this puts us back on the topic premise, which was: It certainly would be convenient if there was a nice set of absolute morals. Too bad there are none.If we believe that all morality is subjective, or relative, or culture-specific, is it reasonable for us to judge other subjective, relative, or culture-specific moralities? Hangdawg brings up a point: Are we to conclude that murder, as long as it is committed by a true believer of Allah, is fine? What if the true believer of Allah is considered by Islamic fundamentalism to be a soldier? Do soldiers commit murder?Or are we seeing a war of ideas and ideologies? Relative cultures clashing for dominance. contracycle writes: Technically, however, a Christian does not see the State as their moral absolute. In the context of Jesus Christ, there is no edict to commit murder. Well, Aquinas decreed that a christian can and should commit murder on behalf of the state. Are we therefore to think that murder committed by a christian believer is fine becuase they are acting consistently with their moral system?holmes writes: To be continued..... Yes, cultures can have morals separate from nations. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-15-2005 00:53 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
holmes writes: It is interesting to bring up Galileo. My argument has been from the premise of God being a very real and living "absolute" which gives definition to morality. Legality is another issue, as we are nor in my opinion ever SHOULD be a theocracy. The use of threats can also include direct threats intended to force an opponent to recant, or "rethink", their statements regarding logic or evidence. This was quite effective on poor Galileo as well as many less famous people throughout history. Of course many that defied the threat, found it became a material reality and thus may not be known to history. Both uses of threats within debate are fallacies and not a sign of a skilled debater. It not only weakes ongoing debate, but stifles some debates before they occur. It also makes the debate arena a rather unpleasant one.In Galileos case, he was up against a church that professed absolute authority in the name of God yet was woefully ignorant soas to represent God. The same could be said of the far right Christians of today. Shaz writes: From a Christian point of view, I would assert that in theory,if I surrender my "self" on the internal throne of rationale, decision making, and moral belief, God as a living absolute then makes my view objective rather than subjective. Of course, my critics would rightly say that I would need to use the Bible as the objective lawbook, and that the Bible is anything but objective. The one thing I am picking up throughout this thread; is that morality tends to stem purely from ones subjective reasoning. Though it may be proposed that actions are regarded objectively, it still appears to me that judgment is done on a subjective basis, because we have no universal absolute of right or wrong. So therefore I propose that there can be no absolute judgment of morals (no matter whom is ones God), though there is judgment made against actions. Perhaps, but I would maintain that God as my internal Spirit is totally objective. So did the church that tried Galileo, however. Looking at the big, BIG picture:
holmes writes: Logically someone cannot say well clearly A and B are disimilar due to the presence of X, which is what they use for their own formulations, and so my system is right and yours is wrong. Tal can equally say A and B are similar based on Y, which is what he uses for his formulations, and so my system is right and yours is wrong. The Tree of Knowledge of God and A-Z would theoretically propose that without adapting the "Tree mentality" of choice, no relative freedom ever could have been given to humans. With the Tree mentality, God becomes as valuable as A, B, C, or Z! Thus, the tree by definition reduced Absolute morality forever to a relativistic concept. Perhaps it was mean't to be. At any rate, fundamentalists argue for an absolute standard based on Jesus as God---thus negating the A-Z options, yet are viewed by others as merely a far right definition that is within the A-Z set of values. This proves that all of our arguments will forever be relativistic. (I hope that you guys understood my weird logic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
