Claiming Moral Authority

[Tiribulus]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you believed what I believe? How could it be otherwise?
[/quote]To be clear, I’m not attacking you for what you believe or trying to tell you that you shouldn’t believe it. I’m simply making the point that my disbelief is exactly as legitimate as your faith on the evidence available to me and using the tools–by definition flawed and mired in uncertainty, yes–available to me.[/quote]And I’m telling you that the evidence and the tools are not the problem. The fingerprint and signature of the god who designed them is on every last bit of reality there is or ever could be. Of all things there is or ever could be evidence for, the evidence for the triune God of Christianity is literally infinitely and eternally greater. It is not possible for there to exist anything that is NOT evidence for both His existence and man’s moral responsibility. Why doesn’t everybody see it that way then? They do, but they hide it from themselves in, with, through and by their own sin. The theological term is “depravity”. Do I keep driving at this because i Think I can jsut say it the right way and you’ll be convinced. No. I can’t convince anybody. I do it in an effort to use His gifts to me in obedience to him. Whether you ever savingly believe or not is now between you and Him. I do not nOT NOT judge my success by whether anybody listens to me or not. I judge my success each night before going to sleep by how faithfully I have served Him that day. The results are His problem. That’s the problem with today’s pathetic powerless church. They are so busy tripping over themselves trying to find ways not to offend anybody that they’ve made the gospel of none effect. Witness the flaming tailspin of the United States whose landscape is cluttered with multitudes of just such worthless churches who are actually worse than no churches at all.

[undoredo]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…
Of all things there is or ever could be evidence for, the evidence for the triune God of Christianity is literally infinitely and eternally greater.
…
[/quote]
Tiribulus:
If you would indulge me, I am curious as to your position on each of the following (on the first one I think already know your position, but I want to see it next to your position on the second one and the third one):

1. Proposition: if an adult human being of average intelligence were without sin and without any internal effects of sin, he would be able to see proof of the existence of God in the natural world around him. Yes; no; maybe; you don’t know; other.

2. Proposition: if an adult human being of average intelligence were without sin and without any internal effects of sin; and if he were familiar with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: he would be able to see proof of the existence of One God in Three Persons in the natural world around him, confirming the Christian doctrine. Yes; no; maybe; don’t know; other.

3. Proposition: if an adult human being of average intelligence were without sin and without any internal effects of sin; and if he were not familiar with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: he would be able to see proof of the existence of One God in Three Persons in the natural world around him, matching the Christian doctrine. Yes; no; maybe; don’t know; other.

Regards and Thanks.

[Tiribulus]

I am dead tired man, but I’ll try.

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…
Of all things there is or ever could be evidence for, the evidence for the triune God of Christianity is literally infinitely and eternally greater.
…
[/quote]
Tiribulus:
If you would indulge me, I am curious as to your position on each of the following (on the first one I think already know your position, but I want to see it next to your position on the second one and the third one):

1. Proposition: if an adult human being of average intelligence were without sin and without any internal effects of sin, he would be able to see proof of the existence of God in the natural world around him. Yes; no; maybe; you don’t know; other. >>>[/quote]Yes. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

[quote]undoredo wrote:<<< 2) Proposition: if an adult human being of average intelligence were without sin and without any internal effects of sin; and if he were familiar with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: he would be able to see proof of the existence of One God in Three Persons in the natural world around him, confirming the Christian doctrine. Yes; no; maybe; don’t know; other. >>>[/quote]In the natural world around him as analyzed through the unbroken image of God within Him, yes. God’s intact internal logic applied to God’s external universe would provide ipso facto confirmation of what he had already known. It’s vital to understand though that creation especially includes man which is the only part of it said to include God’s very image. So when you say “natural world around him”, I include man himself.

[quote]undoredo wrote: 3) Proposition: if an adult human being of average intelligence were without sin and without any internal effects of sin; and if he were not familiar with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: he would be able to see proof of the existence of One God in Three Persons in the natural world around him, matching the Christian doctrine. Yes; no; maybe; don’t know; other. >>>[/quote]The multi-personal nature of God? Yes. Whether it would be exactly three if not seen specified in scripture which may or may not exist in a world without sin? I’m not sure, but I’m inclined to say yes to that too though admittedly I haven’t spent a ton of time on this question. What the history of philosophy calls “the problem of the one and the many” Thuogh not a problem in a sinless world would still manifest itself in a necessity for a foundational one and many.

Kamui has asked ALL the right logical questions. Answers them correctly for a while, right up to the part where he’s about to look right into the face of a God whom he would be morally responsible to and then falls back on a rather ingenious, but wholly arbitrary sort of pantheistic/deterministic universal mind to escape the God who would hold him accountable for his sin. Of course he will deny this vociferously and claim that he is simply following his logic to the most satisfactory conclusion available.

He has however very thoroughly read my system of thought (one of the very very few who has here) and expressed his respect for it’s internal consistency and coverage of all the major philosophical questions. Though not a believer I regard his praise as high honor indeed. If he were to be subdued by the Spirit of God tonight, redeemed in Christ and show up here tomorrow, he would tell you himself that the only thing keeping him from seeing the God into whose face he had been staring for a long time was sin.

As I told Fletch the other day. Kamui has, even from a what I believe to be a biblical perspective, pursued truth along the exactly correct philosophical path asking all the correct philosophical questions. I on the other hand actually had ALL the answers before I knew ANY of the questions they were the answers to. Did not plan it that way, but that’s how it happened. The only hiccup I’ve had in well over 20 years was provided by JoabSonofZeruiah who I still owe an answer to after months though that only addresses one part of the theological side of my system and not the epistemological/philosophical arena.

In my considered opinion, every true Christian knows all this intuitively even if they haven’t specifically thought about or expressed it in these terms. Whenever I ask them a couple key questions they always answer correctly though they usually haven’t thought through to the conclusions at that point.

[pat]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Seems to me that moral absolutists are just one personal situation away from being a situational ethicist. Is there really such a thing as ABSOLUTE morality? [/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Then tell me, what are these absolute values?
[/quote]

There is good and there is evil.[/quote]

What is good? What is evil?[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere. I think the impetus is on those who think it’s relative to define it. Because those are far funnier attempts.
The question is a meta ethical one and the terms while having meaning are technically undefinable. Not because they don’t have one, but there is a chasm in the language in our ability to express what it is versus what it actually is. Therefore, the only thing we can do is express them in metaphor and example.

Morality is expressed in will and action. From a sentient being to another. The result of the action is the determinant of it’s morality. If the action causes harm to another being, then that is an immoral action. If it helps or benefits the other being in someway, then that is a good action.
Now, will is important to the equation because you cannot have morality without will. If you had no choice in the matter, you could not have chosen to do otherwise therefore the action is morally neutral.
So the agent of the action has to will the action for it to be a good or evil one.
People often bring up knowledge with respects to morality, if you didn’t know something was immoral, then it was not immoral. This is incorrect. There is still a willing of the action, knowledge of good and evil may reduce culpability, but it does not make the action less moral or immoral. The agent doing the action is still culpable, but less so because of their ignorance. It does not change the effect of the action, or the effect on the recipient.

Morality can only be doled out on sentient beings, however the recipients of the action do not have to posses freewill, they only have to experience benefit or harm. You can punch a pillow until your blue and do no harm. You punch a dog, you are doing harm. The dog can react, but it cannot will evil upon you.
Evil doled out for the sole purpose of being evil is the purest form of it we can experience, and good for the sake of good is the purest form of good that can be doled out.

What cannot be said, is that evil things can be made good things simply by acceptence or perception, the problem is you still have a victim. If you have a victim, you cannot make an evil action good, no matter how hard you try.

[countingbeans]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve been reading about Alinsky’s model, his rules lately…

After the chapter on morals, and then some of the posts here…

So much, makes so much more sense. [/quote]

Can you sum it up in 20 words or less ?[/quote]

20 words? lol, not yet. I’m not an expert by any means, but I’ll try:

Alinsky was a “utopianite”, marxist if you will. His model revoles around the action.

The rub is that the actions required to get from A to B are often immoral in his model, but in his mind the ends are somehow more moral than the current state.

So he has to justify and rationalize the action. He does this by basically stripping morals down to man made constructs and fluid. To him man can not be moral or immoral, but only both, and that the ends justify the means.

I don’t know that he ever rationalizes that his ends are actually immoral but are somehow superior, and he doesn’t have to. His model doesn’t appeal to those with morals.

[BrianHanson]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Seems to me that moral absolutists are just one personal situation away from being a situational ethicist. Is there really such a thing as ABSOLUTE morality? [/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Then tell me, what are these absolute values?
[/quote]

There is good and there is evil.[/quote]

What is good? What is evil?[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere. I think the impetus is on those who think it’s relative to define it. Because those are far funnier attempts.
The question is a meta ethical one and the terms while having meaning are technically undefinable. Not because they don’t have one, but there is a chasm in the language in our ability to express what it is versus what it actually is. Therefore, the only thing we can do is express them in metaphor and example.

Morality is expressed in will and action. From a sentient being to another. The result of the action is the determinant of it’s morality. If the action causes harm to another being, then that is an immoral action. If it helps or benefits the other being in someway, then that is a good action.
Now, will is important to the equation because you cannot have morality without will. If you had no choice in the matter, you could not have chosen to do otherwise therefore the action is morally neutral.
So the agent of the action has to will the action for it to be a good or evil one.
People often bring up knowledge with respects to morality, if you didn’t know something was immoral, then it was not immoral. This is incorrect. There is still a willing of the action, knowledge of good and evil may reduce culpability, but it does not make the action less moral or immoral. The agent doing the action is still culpable, but less so because of their ignorance. It does not change the effect of the action, or the effect on the recipient.

Morality can only be doled out on sentient beings, however the recipients of the action do not have to posses freewill, they only have to experience benefit or harm. You can punch a pillow until your blue and do no harm. You punch a dog, you are doing harm. The dog can react, but it cannot will evil upon you.
Evil doled out for the sole purpose of being evil is the purest form of it we can experience, and good for the sake of good is the purest form of good that can be doled out.

What cannot be said, is that evil things can be made good things simply by acceptence or perception, the problem is you still have a victim. If you have a victim, you cannot make an evil action good, no matter how hard you try.[/quote]

Pat,

“The result of the action is the determinant of it’s morality. If the action causes harm to another being, then that is an immoral action. If it helps or benefits the other being in someway, then that is a good action.”

• You might want to rethink this. For example if I decide I want to kill my neighbor, and I hide in a tree with a rifle and wait for him to go to work, according to the above definition I have not as of yet acted immorally (there is no result), let’s say I shoot at him and miss, he is unaware that I fired at him, there are no witnesses, nobody is the wiser, I have still not acted immorally (there is no direct harm to anyone, not even any hurt feelings). Wouldn’t your definition actually allow for positive outcomes of negative intents to be viewed as moral and wouldn’t it allow negative outcomes of positive intents to be immoral? SO if the intent doesn’t matter (only the result) aren’t you in fact arguing that the “the end justifies the means” which seems like a very relativist way of dealing with things.

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

“Whether you were taught something being bad or good is irrelevant to that thing being bad or good. What you think about it does not matter”

• This right here shows that you are the one that doesn’t understand the argument I am making. For you to be right (that things are either good or bad) I have to subscribe to the belief that things have that inherent value (being good or bad). Since I don’t subscribe to that belief, and since you have done nothing to demonstrate that such a thing exists I think you might be the one that doesn’t grasp the subject matter.
  [/quote]
  It doesn’t matter what you believe, it only matters what it is. It doesn’t matter what think, it only matter what is. So it doesn’t give a hardy fuck what you subscribe to. Reality exists independently of what you think it is. You are not the arbiter of what reality is… You can be right about it or wrong about it. You cannot make 2+2=5 just cause that’s what you think reality is.

“Case-in-point…WTF? Ad campaign? What the hell are you talking about now? What the hell do adverts have to do with morality? What Red Herring are you trying to drag in now?”

• If you are too slow to understand this I apologize. religion is essentially an ad campaign for morality, that is why religion exists, it’s goal is to get people into line with the fear of eternal damnation as its’ punishment. If good and evil were clear and obvious why would we have to write down morality guidelines?

What does that have to do with anything? Why did you even bring it up? Proof positive you don’t know what the fuck your talking about. Nor do you know shit about religion if that’s what you think. Like I said, you demonstratively express ignorance about the whole matter. You are so anxious to get to your talking points, you avoid the crux of the matter to run some sort of political horseshit that nobody is interested in. If all you have is talking points with no basal knowledge on the subject matter, then you don’t know what the hell you are talking about and you are running on purely emotive thinking, sans logic and reason of any kind.

Religion being right or wrong about morality has nothing to do with the existence of morality. What part of that do you not get?

"So if man makes slavery, murder, rape, or any other assortment of abominations ok, they are okay? You don’t see the fault in this reasoning at all? Again, doesn’t the victim get a say? Who is to decide if it’s man made? Who’s the “Moralianator”? "

• I hope you don’t actually believe I said this. I said good and evil are man made, I never said any of this behavior was OK, as I said I am a product of the here and now, my outlook on the world is based in a very western view of things, that being said dismissing what other cultures do simply because it is against my beliefs is the height of cultural arrogance.

Your outlook is very poorly informed. Unfortunately this willful ignorance is all to common. How is morality man made, yet unalterable by man. If slavery, for instance, was evil and always has been despite the acceptance by society or people or anything. Thinking it’s ok, didn’t make it ok. The proof is in the fact that you had victims who suffered greatly. The general acceptance of slavery only made their suffering worse not better, and you cannot do shit about that. If morality were a man made construct, then the slaves would have been ok with being slaves and been happy about it, because it was morally good and they know it. But it isn’t, it wasn’t and it never has been. So you just proved yourself wrong.

"If it doesn’t it starves, it’s acting out of nature not freewill. And you wonder why I think you don’t understand the subject matter at all? Where in the hell did the lion come from? "

• The lion story is an analogy. The lion doesn’t kill the cubs so it doesn’t starve, it kills the cubs so that the lioness will be ready to breed again and carry on its lineage. We don’t seem to cast a moral condition on the lion (because it’s not human) but in reality if good and evil exist as immutable laws of the universe shouldn’t they affect everything? And if they don’t, and subsequently need to be taught and/or learned, how can they really be considered as universal?

You’re really bad at analogies among other things. A condition of morality is will. If a rock falls on you, it may be tragic, but the rock is not immoral. A lion cannot go against it’s natural instincts, it was made that way sans will. Therefore, the action of said lion is neither moral or immoral.
The law of morality is, what it is whether the universe exists or not, BTW.

“Nope, it needs an action and a recipient of the action.”

-Well that’s interesting, for something to be good or evil there needs to be an interaction. Is there a third choice? Something morally neutral? Can something change from one to the other?

Yes, there are morally neutral actions. When will is absent.

“Let’s go back to slavery, the topic you conveniently evaded since you know you have no leg to stand on. Simple questions:
-Is slavery evil?
-Was it evil when it was accepted in society?”

-Is slavery “evil”? Well I know it is bad, and with that in place I can happily judge all existing slavery as bad as well (it still exists in some form or another to this day). Going back in time to when slavery was widely practiced and accepted it is easy to look at it and say it’s a bad thing, a bad system, at least for the slaves, but it appears that most people thought it was not only acceptable but also moral. Hell even those great thinkers like Aristotle and Plato thought slavery was moral and just and even natural. Socrates, although seemingly anti-slavery at some points did make a good point in “The Nature of Justice” pointing out that while deceit, theft and slavery were all bad things:

"“But,” said Socrates, “if a man being chosen to lead an army, should reduce to slavery an unjust and hostile people, should we say that he committed an injustice?”

“No, certainly,” replied he.

“Should we not rather say that he acted justly?”

“Indisputably.”

“And if in the course of the war with them he should practice deceit?”[300]

“That also would be just,” said he.

“And if he should steal and carry off their property, would he not do what was just?”

I’m sure you get the point. I find slavery awful and abhorrent, but I have only been alive since the 1960’s I do not presume to know what or why people felt hundreds or thousands of years ago.

The fact that there were victims and people who suffered for it, is proof of it’s evil. Granted, “slavery” in those times and places weren’t what we came to know as slavery later on, which was a complete dehumanization. However, ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies will not help you make your case. It doesn’t matter what the master feels, it’s the slave’s experience that makes it immoral. If it weren’t immoral, then the slaves would never have had a problem with it.

You need to do a lot of research. When I said moral relativity has been a dead theory for centuries, that wasn’t an opinion. Feel free to do some research. Go do some study into ethics and moral philosophy. Nobody who is worth their salt academically would dare touch it because they know it’s a fail. It has no legs, it has to justify that which is clearly evil and there is nothing you can do about that.

[BrianHanson]

Pat,

“If morality were a man made construct, then the slaves would have been ok with being slaves and been happy about it, because it was morally good and they know it.”

• Are you using the deductive powers of a six year old for this statement? Just because something is “morally good” does not make it pleasant. It is “morally good” to protect your children from a pack of wild dogs, I’m sure that it is not pleasant. Additionally just because something is “morally bad”, for example cheating on a spouse or girlfriend doesn’t mean it is unpleasant, I’m sure the pleasant part is why people do it.

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

“If morality were a man made construct, then the slaves would have been ok with being slaves and been happy about it, because it was morally good and they know it.”

• Are you using the deductive powers of a six year old for this statement? Just because something is “morally good” does not make it pleasant. It is “morally good” to protect your children from a pack of wild dogs, I’m sure that it is not pleasant. Additionally just because something is “morally bad”, for example cheating on a spouse or girlfriend doesn’t mean it is unpleasant, I’m sure the pleasant part is why people do it.
  [/quote]

Where did I say that it’s related to ‘feelings’? Where did I say pleasant? A six year old could seriously out reason you… LOL!
Is it possible for you at all, for you to not bring in completely irrelevant shit in to a conversation? I mean, I wonder how like thoughts pop into your head. I think you should review what you are going to type, before you type it.
OR are you saying that slavery was just merely unpleasant?

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Seems to me that moral absolutists are just one personal situation away from being a situational ethicist. Is there really such a thing as ABSOLUTE morality? [/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Then tell me, what are these absolute values?
[/quote]

There is good and there is evil.[/quote]

What is good? What is evil?[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere. I think the impetus is on those who think it’s relative to define it. Because those are far funnier attempts.
The question is a meta ethical one and the terms while having meaning are technically undefinable. Not because they don’t have one, but there is a chasm in the language in our ability to express what it is versus what it actually is. Therefore, the only thing we can do is express them in metaphor and example.

Morality is expressed in will and action. From a sentient being to another. The result of the action is the determinant of it’s morality. If the action causes harm to another being, then that is an immoral action. If it helps or benefits the other being in someway, then that is a good action.
Now, will is important to the equation because you cannot have morality without will. If you had no choice in the matter, you could not have chosen to do otherwise therefore the action is morally neutral.
So the agent of the action has to will the action for it to be a good or evil one.
People often bring up knowledge with respects to morality, if you didn’t know something was immoral, then it was not immoral. This is incorrect. There is still a willing of the action, knowledge of good and evil may reduce culpability, but it does not make the action less moral or immoral. The agent doing the action is still culpable, but less so because of their ignorance. It does not change the effect of the action, or the effect on the recipient.

Morality can only be doled out on sentient beings, however the recipients of the action do not have to posses freewill, they only have to experience benefit or harm. You can punch a pillow until your blue and do no harm. You punch a dog, you are doing harm. The dog can react, but it cannot will evil upon you.
Evil doled out for the sole purpose of being evil is the purest form of it we can experience, and good for the sake of good is the purest form of good that can be doled out.

What cannot be said, is that evil things can be made good things simply by acceptence or perception, the problem is you still have a victim. If you have a victim, you cannot make an evil action good, no matter how hard you try.[/quote]

Pat,

“The result of the action is the determinant of it’s morality. If the action causes harm to another being, then that is an immoral action. If it helps or benefits the other being in someway, then that is a good action.”

• You might want to rethink this. For example if I decide I want to kill my neighbor, and I hide in a tree with a rifle and wait for him to go to work, according to the above definition I have not as of yet acted immorally (there is no result), let’s say I shoot at him and miss, he is unaware that I fired at him, there are no witnesses, nobody is the wiser, I have still not acted immorally (there is no direct harm to anyone, not even any hurt feelings). Wouldn’t your definition actually allow for positive outcomes of negative intents to be viewed as moral and wouldn’t it allow negative outcomes of positive intents to be immoral? SO if the intent doesn’t matter (only the result) aren’t you in fact arguing that the “the end justifies the means” which seems like a very relativist way of dealing with things. [/quote]

No, go back and reread. Action has been taken and there is a victim, the victim does not have to be aware he is a victim for you to be an evil piece of shit. Prior to your firing of said rifle, action was taken. Before you ever go in the bush, you already took action to do harm to your neighbor. You’re a very two dimensional thinker.

Got anymore “Ha! I got you now moments!”?

You’re not going to you know. You are on the losing side of an argument. I’ll give you as much abuse as you want, but you will lose. Logic and reason has long since one the day, it’s got nothing to do with me. I just made better choices.

[BrianHanson]

Pat,

“No, go back and reread. Action has been taken and there is a victim, the victim does not have to be aware he is a victim for you to be an evil piece of shit. Prior to your firing of said rifle, action was taken. Before you ever go in the bush, you already took action to do harm to your neighbor. You’re a very two dimensional thinker.”

• There is an action taken, but there is no victim (clearly there is no victim in this scenario), without a victim there is no (im)morality, this is your very definition, not mine. You can change your definition if you like, I am okay with that. The fact that you think that planning the action is the real immorality deals with intent, so are you now saying that it is not the action that creates the victim but instead the intent?

"Where did I say that it’s related to ‘feelings’? Where did I say pleasant? A six year old could seriously out reason you… LOL!
Is it possible for you at all, for you to not bring in completely irrelevant shit in to a conversation? I mean, I wonder how like thoughts pop into your head. I think you should review what you are going to type, before you type it.
OR are you saying that slavery was just merely unpleasant? "

• You presented a very weak and silly argument, I was just pointing out how weak and silly it was using examples that contradicted yours. I was under the impression that being “happy” was a feeling as was being “OK” with something (to a lesser degree), you mentioned that is slavery were moral the slaves would be happy to be enslaved. It is just as weak an argument as saying that prison is immoral because prisoners are unhappy. lets replace slaves with prisoners in your statement:

“If morality were a man made construct, then the prisoners would have been ok with being prisoners and been happy about it, because it was morally good and they know it.”

Well that’s pretty fucking stupid, but it is your argument so feel free to prove/explain it with something other than a plane crash picture or an LOL, you may not know it but you kind of suck at this. Good luck.

[Tiribulus]

I can’t take it anymore Brian. Please believe that I am really only being helpful and I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t happen to share Pat’s view you that are @#%$@$%!&(% moron., but I gotta do this. Please note that what you see here: http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/pix/1bh.jpg will render on this site as the following single quote nested post:

Pat: said:“No, go back and reread. Action has been taken and there is a victim, the victim does not have to be aware he is a victim for you to be an evil piece of shit. Prior to your firing of said rifle, action was taken. Before you ever go in the bush, you already took action to do harm to your neighbor. You’re a very two dimensional thinker.”

• There is an action taken, but there is no victim (clearly there is no victim in this scenario), without a victim there is no (im)morality, this is your very definition, not mine. You can change your definition if you like, I am okay with that. The fact that you think that planning the action is the real immorality deals with intent, so are you now saying that it is not the action that creates the victim but instead the intent?

[quote]Pat: said"Where did I say that it’s related to ‘feelings’? Where did I say pleasant? A six year old could seriously out reason you… LOL!
Is it possible for you at all, for you to not bring in completely irrelevant shit in to a conversation? I mean, I wonder how like thoughts pop into your head. I think you should review what you are going to type, before you type it.
OR are you saying that slavery was just merely unpleasant? "[/quote]

• You presented a very weak and silly argument, I was just pointing out how weak and silly it was using examples that contradicted yours. I was under the impression that being “happy” was a feeling as was being “OK” with something (to a lesser degree), you mentioned that is slavery were moral the slaves would be happy to be enslaved. It is just as weak an argument as saying that prison is immoral because prisoners are unhappy. lets replace slaves with prisoners in your statement:

Pat: said"If morality were a man made construct, then the prisoners would have been ok with being prisoners and been happy about it, because it was morally good and they know it. Well that’s pretty fucking stupid, but it is your argument so feel free to prove/explain it with something other than a plane crash picture or an LOL, you may not know it but you kind of suck at this. Good luck. "

[BrianHanson]

Tribulus,

Thanks for the assist, someone else showed me how to do that once before but honestly I never cared much for it, I organize my thoughts the way I like to. However, if it will make reading it easier I will try to remember to do it in the future. By the way you quoted Pat as saying something that he didn’t technically say (I was modifying it for an argument/example.)

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

“No, go back and reread. Action has been taken and there is a victim, the victim does not have to be aware he is a victim for you to be an evil piece of shit. Prior to your firing of said rifle, action was taken. Before you ever go in the bush, you already took action to do harm to your neighbor. You’re a very two dimensional thinker.”

• There is an action taken, but there is no victim (clearly there is no victim in this scenario), without a victim there is no (im)morality, this is your very definition, not mine. You can change your definition if you like, I am okay with that. The fact that you think that planning the action is the real immorality deals with intent, so are you now saying that it is not the action that creates the victim but instead the intent?
  [/quote]
  I did not say there was no victim. I said the victim does not have to be aware that he is a victim to be one. Awareness isn’t necessarily part of the equation, it can be, but it doesn’t have to be. And in your idiotic scenario there are already two victims. I’d tell you but it’s funnier to watch you stew.

"Where did I say that it’s related to ‘feelings’? Where did I say pleasant? A six year old could seriously out reason you… LOL!
Is it possible for you at all, for you to not bring in completely irrelevant shit in to a conversation? I mean, I wonder how like thoughts pop into your head. I think you should review what you are going to type, before you type it.
OR are you saying that slavery was just merely unpleasant? "

• You presented a very weak and silly argument, I was just pointing out how weak and silly it was using examples that contradicted yours. I was under the impression that being “happy” was a feeling as was being “OK” with something (to a lesser degree), you mentioned that is slavery were moral the slaves would be happy to be enslaved. It is just as weak an argument as saying that prison is immoral because prisoners are unhappy. lets replace slaves with prisoners in your statement:

“If morality were a man made construct, then the prisoners would have been ok with being prisoners and been happy about it, because it was morally good and they know it.”

And that’s one of the many flaws in your argument. You assume way to much. Your ‘impression’ was incorrect. That comes from a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
And in no way have you even remotely shown that ‘morality is a man-made construct’. the reason why is you can’t. I figure you’ll figure that out sooner or later. Or perhaps I am presuming to much that you will figure it out.

The only reason I can imagine you want to alter the scenario is because you don’t have shit to back up your notions. Prisoners /= Slaves. And yes, slaves tended to know the were be mistreated. Even if they did not, it would not make a difference. They were being harmed whether they were aware of it or not.

Well that’s pretty fucking stupid, but it is your argument so feel free to prove/explain it with something other than a plane crash picture or an LOL, you may not know it but you kind of suck at this. Good luck.

The plane crash picture was a metaphor for your lousy attempt at a counter argument. You haven’t actually made one by the way, all you’ve done is avoid it like the plague. I can only figure it’s because you know you are screwed. Plain and simple, if morality is a man-made construct, then anything can be considered moral, from the worst abomination on ward. That’s why it’s a fail. When you look at the purest evil man can display, there is no justification. In a relative system, though, there has to be.
This is actually quite simple, I don’t know what you are missing about that.

To be a moral relativist, you have to, at least hypothetically, justify the worst of atrocities as moral. Why can’t you simply demonstrate that? Why is that so hard? It is your stance is it not?
Make your argument for relativism.

[Tiribulus]

Sorry, I just took the text as it was. You’re obviously under no obligation, but it is easier to read in my opinion.

[BrianHanson]

My argument is that morality does not exist in a state outside of the here and now. Moral relativism doesn’t justify abhorrent behavior, it attempts to put actions in line with cultural norms (norms which may be the exact opposite of ours) my argument is a little different.
I can agree that things are terrible, because that is how I was raised (murder bad, slavery bad etc) it doesn’t mean that morality is inherent in people.
Morality, much like reading, was invented by man and is taught by man, the cultural variances of time and place influence morality. If you say killing is always bad, and then you justify some killing (self defense, war, death penalty etc), then killing is not always bad, so then some killing is bad,and some is not but which type of killing is bad? Typically the type that whoever is in charge at the time (culturally) says. So if murder is bad, but state sponsored genocide is good, and that is what you are taught then are you moral?

My argument is that morality is not a real thing, it varies from generation to generation and culture to culture, pre-marital sex is commonplace here, most people consider it morally neutral if they consider it at all, seriously who cares if two 25 year old consenting adults have sex? But now make that a gay couple and 50% of America finds it immoral, pretty much an even split, so what is it, moral or immoral? In Afghanistan they would behead the woman and the man (or both men I guess), so over there it is beyond question immoral.

You have said I evade, but the fact is that I have been very clear from the beginning, you have yet to answer a question. You have also changed your stance, changed the meaning of the word “happy” and been far from upfront this whole time. Proof of morality existing without mans involvement take more than saying “Morality is because it is…” That is not an answer.

[Tiribulus]

Does this mean that in 1930’s Germany Naziism was moral? In other words at what percentage of a citizenry’s approval does a previously immoral belief, act or practice become moral. Are there limits on this standard. Could violent murderous pedophilia become normal if a high enough percentage of a culture’s citizens decided they enjoyed raping and murdering children? If not why not?

[BrianHanson]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Does this mean that in 1930’s Germany Naziism was moral? In other words at what percentage of a citizenry’s approval does a previously immoral belief, act or practice become moral. Are there limits on this standard. Could violent murderous pedophilia become normal if a high enough percentage of a culture’s citizens decided they enjoyed raping and murdering children? If not why not?[/quote]

Tiribulus,

I am glad you asked because it sort of sums up my point nicely.

Do I think Nazism is/was moral? Nope, not even close, hell I don’t even believe in Morality and I think it was immoral, because that is the way I was raised. However if you were to look at Nazi Germany you would probably find an overwhelming level of belief that Nazism was moral, they thought their actions were so moral in fact that were willing co-conspirators in a fucking genocide.
Think about that for a second, imagine someone claiming in the US today that we need to perpetrate a genocide on any group, even Muslims, a group which some bizarre sub-set of America thinks we are at war with. Imagine trying to get popular support for that insane of an idea. Would it work? Could it work? No, because our cultural morality is different in 2012 in the US than in Germany in the 1930’s-40’s. Somehow Hitler convinced people that genocide was moral and necessary, their intent was to rid the world of the Jews, thereby making the world a better place. They (the people) thought they were doing the right thing, the leaders, the ones that fashioned this morality, may have had different motives entirely, based around power, conquest, revenge, bigotry etc. But the everyday German anti-semite that identified his Jewish neighbors to the SS, thought he was doing a good thing. Of course he was wrong, but still…

You also ask about the normalization of violent pedophilia if enough people agree that it is good. Sure, I suppose it could be a possibility if the culture could drum up some reasonable explanation for it (think a nation built by Warren Jeffs), but in reality it is hard to imagine it simply because “children” are not a group you can “other” (if you understand the idea of “othering”). Pedophilia is harder to sell I think because if you are a parent, unless you are a pedophile, you would die before you let someone hurt your child, it is not like genocide where you decide that the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Asians etc are the source of your problem, and a threat to your world/god/livelihood whatever.

I am not making the case for moral or immoral, I think lots of things/people are bad, and I would happily assist in the destruction of these things and/or people, mostly for my (and my childrens) well being, I don’t claim that as moral though, I just look at it as self-interest. My belief is that if morality is so easy to manipulate, it has to be a man-made construct, if people can be convinced en masse that something that we find abhorrent (genocide) is actually moral, then how can it be anything but?

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
My argument is that morality does not exist in a state outside of the here and now. Moral relativism doesn’t justify abhorrent behavior, it attempts to put actions in line with cultural norms (norms which may be the exact opposite of ours) my argument is a little different.
[/quote]
No, by nature, to be true, it has to be able to justify anything. Otherwise it’s a concession that it is wrong, period.

I can agree that things are terrible, because that is how I was raised (murder bad, slavery bad etc) it doesn’t mean that morality is inherent in people.
Morality, much like reading, was invented by man and is taught by man, the cultural variances of time and place influence morality. If you say killing is always bad, and then you justify some killing (self defense, war, death penalty etc), then killing is not always bad, so then some killing is bad,and some is not but which type of killing is bad? Typically the type that whoever is in charge at the time (culturally) says. So if murder is bad, but state sponsored genocide is good, and that is what you are taught then are you moral?

I figured you couldn’t help but to drag in a bunch of irrelevant shit. I made no claim that situations cannot alter the moral affect. That actually doesn’t matter, I already explained how when you do what you have to, you are not making a moral choice. That’s why you have to simplify. Look at singular things and examine them alone. It’s there you can see it. You have to be able to know the basis for morality to understand then whether certain scenarios fit a moral, immoral or amoral model.
You cannot constantly muddy the waters and expect to see clearly. And it is clear that man is not the creator or moral law for man has accepted a lot of horrible practices that were as immoral then as they are now.

My argument is that morality is not a real thing, it varies from generation to generation and culture to culture, pre-marital sex is commonplace here, most people consider it morally neutral if they consider it at all, seriously who cares if two 25 year old consenting adults have sex? But now make that a gay couple and 50% of America finds it immoral, pretty much an even split, so what is it, moral or immoral? In Afghanistan they would behead the woman and the man (or both men I guess), so over there it is beyond question immoral.

If morality weren’t a real thing, then no one can do you any harm. So technically I could do anything I wanted to your or your family and it’s ok, because there is no morality. Any harm you therefore perceive is incorrect for I thought it was ok and therefore it is. If morality does not exist, I can do you no wrong. If morality does not exist, then nobody can do anybody any harm.

[quote]
You have said I evade, but the fact is that I have been very clear from the beginning, you have yet to answer a question. You have also changed your stance, changed the meaning of the word “happy” and been far from upfront this whole time. Proof of morality existing without mans involvement take more than saying “Morality is because it is…” That is not an answer.[/quote]
You haven’t been clear at all. You have been all over the place. Now you’re dragging emotion into the question. Who said anything about being happy? You can be delusionally happy for any reason at all, being happy does not make morality. You can be happy about being raped, that doesn’t make the rape morally justifiable.

But in your world there is no morality, so I take it anybody can sleep with your wife and there would be no harm to it, right? Any 'feeling’s you have about it are just therefore misplaced.
Anything goes.

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I am not making the case for moral or immoral, I think lots of things/people are bad, and I would happily assist in the destruction of these things and/or people, mostly for my (and my childrens) well being, I don’t claim that as moral though, I just look at it as self-interest. My belief is that if morality is so easy to manipulate, it has to be a man-made construct, if people can be convinced en masse that something that we find abhorrent (genocide) is actually moral, then how can it be anything but?[/quote]

And you don’t see where you’re wrong? You cannot think that ‘lots of things/people are bad’ because no such thing exists, you just said so. Do you seriously not see the conflict in your answers?