Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 83/22 Day: 24/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Relativism
jar
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 271 of 284 (135323)
08-19-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Dan Carroll
08-19-2004 4:39 PM


Re: Nope
For the very continuation of the human species, you rape them.
Wasn't there something like that in the Bible, Lot or someone?
Or some guy that killed his brother and slept with his sister(s), Cain or something like that?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 4:39 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 284 (135331)
08-19-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Dan Carroll
08-19-2004 4:23 PM


Re: Nope
You should probably specify that up front, then. If you're trying to establish absolute morals, you can't really leave room for exceptions.
True.
Of course even within these new boundaries... a rich person sets up a computer scam that will steal five dollars apiece from every customer of a bank. The poor are not specifically targeted, but the majority of the bank's customer's are definitely in the very-low-income bracket. The rich person covers his tracks well, gets away with it, and uses the money to build an orphanage. The orphanage in no way helps those who had money stolen from them to build it, as they are not orphans. The price of the orphanage was such that the rich man, despite his wealth, would not have been able to build it without the initial bank scam.
Do the ends justify the means? He still should not have stolen.
A virulent plague wipes out everyone on Earth, except for you, your neighbor, and his wife and two daughters. Your neighbor is impotent. Additionally, he flies into a furious rage every time to you attempt to procreate with his wife and daughters, and swears that if you manage to somehow impregnate any of them behind his back, he will abort the child. You kill him, in order to ensure the future of mankind.
Upon killing him, you discover that his wife and daughters refuse to sleep with the man that killed their husband/father. You exhaust every possible avenue of courtship, until it becomes clear that they would rather let the human race die out than have sex with you. For the very continuation of the human species, you rape them.
Very clever, I must admit. However, what he did is still wrong.
Wasn't there something like that in the Bible, Lot or someone?
Or some guy that killed his brother and slept with his sister(s), Cain or something like that?
Maybe, I don't remember. Even if there was, I doubt that the Bible commended it - it was probably just reporting the events.

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 4:23 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 5:44 PM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 274 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2004 4:57 AM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 280 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 4:35 AM General Nazort has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 284 (135345)
08-19-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 5:27 PM


Re: Nope
Do the ends justify the means?
In a fifty-fifty split? Probably not. But for five bucks of suffering per person, the lives of the orphans can be made immensely better, or maybe even saved altogether.
How could the rich man in the scenario not do this, if he could get away with it? Five bucks of suffering? For the lives of orphans? Sweet, innocent little orphans, who are probably nice to puppies?
Very clever, I must admit.
Thanks. I'm a clever guy.
However, what he did is still wrong.
How come? He did it to save mankind. To save frikkin' mankind. With something like the future of mankind on the line, how can conventional morality even apply?

"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 5:27 PM General Nazort has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 274 of 284 (135564)
08-20-2004 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 5:27 PM


Do the ends justify the means?
To some people yes, for example remember all of the poor Iraqis that some rich men just had killed and a previous group of rich men had impoverished, just to get at the pocket book and power base of another rich man.
Hmmmmm. Were you for Gulf War 1, the following economic sanctions, or Gulf War 2?
If yes, then you DO believe that in some circumstances ends justify means, even up to rich stealing from poor and murder.
Indeed it seems ironic that someone calling themself "general" would not recognize most of society has found loopholes in morality for both theft and murder.
By the way you said there was a moral absolute. Can you explain why the rich person in your hypothetical did such a thing, or how he would explain such a thing if there is a universal moral truth?
If he comes up with an explanation at all, how do you determine the difference between his being immoral against the absolute rules, and his simply having a different moral system because there are no absolutes?
I doubt that the Bible commended it - it was probably just reporting the events.
Heroes in the Bible...
GENESIS 19:1-8 & JUDGES 19:22-29: In both passages when confronted with a mob of men looking to violate male guests the "heroes" offer their wives and or daughters to be raped instead. In the first case the mob declines and Sodom is destroyed, in the second the mob agrees and the "heroes" get a good night rest before waking to find the corpse of the raped and murdered wife of one of the "heroes". He cuts her body into pieces and scatters her around Israel.
God...
EZEKIEL 23:20: God gets pissed off at some girls who have been whoring it out to people he doesn't like and so has them gangraped and murdered, and admits to his enjoyment of this.
I suppose you can say that in no case has the protagonist taken direct action in the rape, but isn't forcing rape upon a woman just as bad?
And I couldn't remember the passage off hand but do I really need to find the biblical passage where it gives rules for how to handle slave women you have caught in battle and want as a wife?
I can only assume the girl's husband and or father was killed in that battle of course.... and so your hypothetical in specific is addressed in the bible as a doable, within certain parameters. You just let me know if you forgot that part of the Bible and don't believe me that it's there.
Ah well, it's all relative.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-20-2004 04:06 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 5:27 PM General Nazort has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by contracycle, posted 08-20-2004 6:03 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 284 (135582)
08-20-2004 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Silent H
08-20-2004 4:57 AM


quote:
Well, there could be other factors - such as education and the wealth inheritance cycle. It has been prostulated, for example, that the rich are more knowledgable in how to make their money grow (or in avoiding taxes).
Absolutely true. And that is where a moral criticism is levelled at property-owning societies: wealth begets wealth, and the wealthy are a ruling, self-perpetuating class. Thus for example you later say:
quote:
But you can create your own company under Capitalism.
While this is notionally true, if the existing wealthy class has both the resources and the knowledge to best succeed, then their success is going to drive out the start-up companies; its more likely that a start-up will enter debt straight away and less likely to be able to procure good deals through contacts or nous. Some 70% of start-ups fail in the first year.
quote:
Ok, there is sense in this. May I ask what resources (aside from land) would be considered "public"? And also, what happens when this resource (or any other) is being used at maximum capacity?
The communist formulation is "the means of production". That is, the resources we exploit and the tools we use to exploit them. Its a distinction between the tools by which we produce the things we use, and the things we use themselves.
If a common resource is being exploited at capacity, AND this causes some sort of conflict among would-be exploiters, a committee could be established to arbitrate, by one of several established democratic mechanisms.
quote:
So I have been taught a lie. Hmmmmm....reminescence of my Anglican primary school days.
Yes. Capital explicitly shows how people of different abilities get to control differeing quantitites of wealth in its demonstration of the labour theory of value.
quote:
So there ARE property rights, but only stuff that you are using, right?
In a sense, yes, but we are talking of a social contract relationship so distinct from orthodox property rights that its worth making a terminological distinction. One formulation that is used is to distinguish between personal property and private property.
This also shows why the assertion that if I am a communist I should give my house and goods over to whoever demands it is also a misrepresentative lie. Communism does allocate to me the right to exclusive use of these assets.
quote:
Question:
1) Can you build your house as big as you want it? (How much is exploit-able?)
No; that is exactly the consequence of private property, and results in the steady elimination of communal property. For example originally in Rome the Ager Publicus was free grazing ground, but was steadily appropriated by private owners and major landholders.
So here is the relevant question for your house: how many beds can you sleep in at one time? How many toilets can you use at one time?
Exploitation limits your right to socially enforced exlusive access; it does not limit the wasteful expenditure of your own wealth surplus to your survival requirements. It is highly unlikely that anyone else will NEED to make use of your second bed or second toilet and demand these from you, but equally you have little personal NEED for a 200-room mansion.
quote:
2) Can you buy a TV for every room in your 200-room mansion?
Assuming that through your efforts you had generated such a quantity of social value equivalent to the production costs of all those TV's, yes you could.
quote:
3) Does this mean you can own as much money as you can earn but you can't buy more things than you can use?
Stuff you can have; what you cannot do is limit access to the means of production.
The kind of problem this model attemopts to solve is this: a factory producing widgets falls below the ROI the owner would like or considers worthwhile; therefore they close the plant and throws the workers out on their ear. That facility could still have been productive, and the workers may still have been able to do socially valuable work; even if the ROI was nominal they might have remained self-sufficient.
quote:
Also, your ability to make money for the company increases your worth to it, and thus increases your income. (If this does not happen, you can change over to another company that recognises your worth)
This only demonstrates that it is not my own ability which brings me my wealth, but my ability to persuade other people, who control wealth, to give me some. Its not much different from feadalism, is it? Capital is actually a late medieval analysis. The worker is a vassal dependant on the lords good will (and arguably wage workers have fewer rights than feudal serfs).
Therein lies the second moral criticism of property-owning societies: not only does wealth beget wealth and the ruling class sustain itself, but tyhat very factor makes the rest of society dependant on the whim and will of these large owners. Property owning societies are inherently unfree.
quote:
So under your system, all the companies would be state owned, and your wages would be performance-tagged? (Everyone owns everything + direct incentives to work harder)
Well, I dislike yu reference to "state" to indicate "collective action by the people", but your formulation is essentially correct. The state however is a particulatr entity with particular fetaures - such as standing armed bodies anf the monopoly of violence - that are not necessary in non-properties societies.
quote:
I won't buy into the idea of charity supporting the elderly and disabled on the grounds that charity is not guaranteed to generate sufficient funds. If you say taxes, then the issue is moot, yes.
Too bad, I'm afraid. People often accuse communism of being feelgood hippy shit, but it aint. The two key concepts are: "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" and "He who does not work does not eat."
But again, this is a theory being advanced specifically for an INDUSTRIAL society that finds it trivially easy to over-produce foodstuffs. It is, in other words, well within our ability to feed those that need food, and we can freely do so without jeopardising our own sustenance. FUNDS are not the issue because funds only indicate the ability to mobilise socially-held resources.
quote:
Is it ok if I come over to your house and take your Porsche out for a spin while you are watching TV, and so obviously not exploiting it?
In principle, yes it is OK, but equally it will be OK if I punch you in the nose when you bring it back. Its a matter between you and me, not the armed might of the state. I would have the right to ask why you made a point of using my vehicle rather than some other vehicle. OTOH, if you were rushing your pregnant wife to hospital and speed was of the essence, your decision would be more sensible and I would be less likely to find it offensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2004 4:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2004 10:55 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 279 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 08-21-2004 9:43 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 276 of 284 (135628)
08-20-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by contracycle
08-20-2004 6:03 AM


The MOST contradictory yet!
Hey contra, I have NO IDEA who you are replying to, but it ain't me and my post. The quotes you put on there were definitely NOT from me.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by contracycle, posted 08-20-2004 6:03 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by contracycle, posted 08-20-2004 11:37 AM Silent H has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 284 (135645)
08-20-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Silent H
08-20-2004 10:55 AM


Re: The MOST contradictory yet!
Right, it was a reply to Sleeping Dragon's post 263. Dunno what happened there, I composed offline.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-20-2004 10:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2004 10:55 AM Silent H has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5267 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 278 of 284 (135843)
08-20-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by General Nazort
08-12-2004 10:51 PM


Re: Nope
GN,
Sorry about the delayed reply. I've been extra busy at work because I had to leave town for 5 days.
Back to your questions. Some people have already addressed some of these issues quite well so I will be brief.
quote:
In it the main character, for no discernable reason, shoots a stranger to death. Was this right or wrong?
I think the key word in this example is "discernable". Just because the observer did not know the motives of the main character does not make it murder.
quote:
While at first this seems like a good alternative to "whatever makes the most people happy," I believe it is essentially the same. For example, it would make it ok under this morality to kill a rich man and take all his money and give it to a bunch of poor people. Only one man was harmed, but hundreds of poor were helped.
I don't see it as the same. The happiness of the individuals involved is not at issue, harm reduction is. In your example it could be argued that the murder of one man is far more harmful than the good that is done by distributing his money to poor people. In fact our society has laws that address similar situations that reflect the enlightened self-interest of the people making laws. If you say it is OK to kill someone to divide their goods who is to say that one day you will not be the one whose goods are being divided?
quote:
The idea of a "Real right" that exists is inherent in every one of us, in the way that we think about things. This "Real Right" is a moral absolute - it is not morally relative to a given culture.
I agree that there is a sense of right in every one of us, we often call it a conscience. However, I think that with extremely few exceptions, there is no moral absolute. All actions are within a context and even our judicial system understood this at one time. The judge had discretion to impose a sentence based on the situation: relative morality. Same crime, different situation, different morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by General Nazort, posted 08-12-2004 10:51 PM General Nazort has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 284 (136020)
08-21-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by contracycle
08-20-2004 6:03 AM


To contracycle:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
Any points I do not challenge I concede.
While this is notionally true, if the existing wealthy class has both the resources and the knowledge to best succeed, then their success is going to drive out the start-up companies; its more likely that a start-up will enter debt straight away and less likely to be able to procure good deals through contacts or nous. Some 70% of start-ups fail in the first year.
If memory serves, the high number of failures in small companies is not due to competition with competitors, but is rather attributable to the lack of business management skills on the part of the business owner.
Entering into debt is the most likely scenario for any small company when it starts off - one of the chief difficulties of sole ownership and partnerships. Perhaps you are referring to the company's inability to pull inself out of debt - which again can be attributable to poor management skills.
wealth begets wealth, and the wealthy are a ruling, self-perpetuating class
This occurs under Communism also, though perhaps to a smaller extent. The wealthy will still be better educated (education is a product that can be "bought" by the wealthy) and they will still have more powerful contacts, etc.
Prohibiting restricted exploitation of resources reduces the rich-poor discrepancy, granted, but some self-perpetuating factors are still in place.
If a common resource is being exploited at capacity, AND this causes some sort of conflict among would-be exploiters, a committee could be established to arbitrate, by one of several established democratic mechanisms.
Their decision rule would be based on...? If this is not set in concrete, there is room for corruption and bias.
Capital explicitly shows how people of different abilities get to control differeing quantitites of wealth in its demonstration of the labour theory of value.
Haven't read Capital. Pity.
In a sense, yes, but we are talking of a social contract relationship so distinct from orthodox property rights that its worth making a terminological distinction. One formulation that is used is to distinguish between personal property and private property.
...can you explain this "social contract relationship" please? This ties in with the Porshe example further down.
Exploitation limits your right to socially enforced exlusive access; it does not limit the wasteful expenditure of your own wealth surplus to your survival requirements. It is highly unlikely that anyone else will NEED to make use of your second bed or second toilet and demand these from you, but equally you have little personal NEED for a 200-room mansion.
Errrr...nope, this I don't understand.
Your argument against the building of a huge mansion (a product) is that it overuses the "Land" (resource) that is my fair share. Granted.
But doesn't owning 200 TVs (products) overuse the metal/plastic/silicon/energy (Resources) etc. that is my fair share? All natural resources are, ultimately, means of production - especially if they are irreplacable. (Note: by "quantity of social value", I assumed you meant wealth)
Question: does it mean that although exclusive access to "personal goods" are not socially enforced, it may be personally enforced?
The kind of problem this model attemopts to solve is this: a factory producing widgets falls below the ROI the owner would like or considers worthwhile; therefore they close the plant and throws the workers out on their ear. That facility could still have been productive, and the workers may still have been able to do socially valuable work; even if the ROI was nominal they might have remained self-sufficient.
Some would argue that a department producing public goods would have to produce it even if the ROI is negative. If all the companies are people-owned, ROI doesn't really come into the equation, does it now? Who makes the subjective call between consumer surplus and producer surplus - the price of the product?
Stuff you can have; what you cannot do is limit access to the means of production.
This assumes I can't limit the means of production by buying products.
I can purchase all the diamonds in the world (and any that is mined out of the ground thereafter) and I will control the natural resource.
This only demonstrates that it is not my own ability which brings me my wealth, but my ability to persuade other people, who control wealth, to give me some.
Stop. How would this differ in a Communist country? How do you objectively tag reward to performance in a people-owned company? It still seems like "it is not my own ability which brings me my wealth, but my ability to persuade other people", but these people, instead of controlling wealth, controls my pay.
Well, I dislike yu reference to "state" to indicate "collective action by the people", but your formulation is essentially correct. The state however is a particulatr entity with particular fetaures - such as standing armed bodies anf the monopoly of violence - that are not necessary in non-properties societies.
Granted. Please see question above on performance-tagged-reward system.
"From each according to their ability to each according to their need" and "He who does not work does not eat."
Not to claim that these two concepts are wrong, but they are really subjectively considered and measured (ability and need?). Plus, "he who does not work, does not eat" will fail under: 1) corruption (he who does not work will still eat because he has powerful supervisors who reckons he works), and 2) below full employment of resources (unemployment).
But again, this is a theory being advanced specifically for an INDUSTRIAL society that finds it trivially easy to over-produce foodstuffs. It is, in other words, well within our ability to feed those that need food, and we can freely do so without jeopardising our own sustenance. FUNDS are not the issue because funds only indicate the ability to mobilise socially-held resources.
Oh. I understand. So this will not apply to any society, but only those which can't feed itself but has the obvious means to do so, right?
In principle, yes it is OK, but equally it will be OK if I punch you in the nose when you bring it back. Its a matter between you and me, not the armed might of the state. I would have the right to ask why you made a point of using my vehicle rather than some other vehicle. OTOH, if you were rushing your pregnant wife to hospital and speed was of the essence, your decision would be more sensible and I would be less likely to find it offensive.
Ok, please explain the difference between private and personal properties. Must I protect all my properties with a 12-gauge?
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by contracycle, posted 08-20-2004 6:03 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18649
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 280 of 284 (136063)
08-22-2004 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 5:27 PM


The future of Humanity rests on [Ends justifies Means]
General Nazort writes:
A virulent plague wipes out everyone on Earth, except for you, your neighbor, and his wife and two daughters. Your neighbor is impotent. Additionally, he flies into a furious rage every time to you attempt to procreate with his wife and daughters, and swears that if you manage to somehow impregnate any of them behind his back, he will abort the child. You kill him, in order to ensure the future of mankind.
Upon killing him, you discover that his wife and daughters refuse to sleep with the man that killed their husband/father. You exhaust every possible avenue of courtship, until it becomes clear that they would rather let the human race die out than have sex with you. For the very continuation of the human species, you rape them.
I would be repulsed! Who am I to play God with the future of the species? If we were that warped to begin with, I certainly could care less if the species continued. Life without a Creator is just as unthinking as the non brain in a blade of grass that attempts to push through the blacktop and live on a sweltering parking lot!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 5:27 PM General Nazort has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2004 5:00 AM Phat has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 281 of 284 (136064)
08-22-2004 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Phat
08-22-2004 4:35 AM


Re: The future of Humanity rests on [Ends justifies Means]
Who am I to play God with the future of the species? If we were that warped to begin with, I certainly could care less if the species continued.
I feel I should point out that God's command is be fruitful an multiply. In the described scenario, the husband, wife, and daughters are acting against God's will in NOT allowing you to have sex with either the wife or the daughters.
There is even a passage in the Bible where a man's brother dies and his duty is to go to make his brother's wife pregnant. When he doesn't he is in pretty huge trouble...
So I am uncertain whether God would not find it worthy to punish the husband with death, and then the women with rape, while carrying out his overriding orders in THAT particular instance.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 4:35 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 11:06 AM Silent H has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18649
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 282 of 284 (136091)
08-22-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Silent H
08-22-2004 5:00 AM


Re: The future of Humanity rests on [Ends justifies Means]
holmes writes:
So I am uncertain whether God would not find it worthy to punish the husband with death, and then the women with rape, while carrying out his overriding orders in THAT particular instance.
The OT God, while technically the same yesterday, today, and forever, was described by a people with quite a different worldview than we have today. I too am uncertain how God would view such a scenario.
I DO know that the God whom I pray to and relate with, through Jesus Christ, again the same Deity==has shown me no such similar behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2004 5:00 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2004 12:45 PM Phat has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 283 of 284 (136102)
08-22-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Phat
08-22-2004 11:06 AM


Re: The future of Humanity rests on [Ends justifies Means]
I DO know that the God whom I pray to and relate with, through Jesus Christ, again the same Deity==has shown me no such similar behavior.
Now doesn't that very statement raise the possibility that the God people pray to and relate with, through Jesus Christ, again the same Deity... has shown them no behavior to condemn gays and gambling and adultery and prostitution?
I note this only because you had mentioned them as condemnable in another reply to me, yet some gays etc etc claim the same moral leeway and acceptance (ie moral system) you just availed yourself to here.
In particular you condemned Prostitution, which Jesus definitely used as an example for people NOT to condemn.
Anyway, with what you have just outlined... different worldview gives different morality of God, yet still is the same God... is about as close to the definition of moral relativism as I think one can get.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 11:06 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 7:22 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18649
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 284 of 284 (136152)
08-22-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Silent H
08-22-2004 12:45 PM


no wise man has the power to reason away...your logic.
Good answer! It made me think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2004 12:45 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024