18 Jan 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDo you personally have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
Humans are not moral islands Joe. We don't generate individual morality out of thin air. Morality is the outcome of society, upbringing, education etc.- Moral law is not ordained, it is socially and culturally developed.
The real elephant in the room is the belief that man would have no morality if God is taken out of the equation. (A belief I find degrades the moral development of man).
18 Jan 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI would say they are wrong, but that of course would just be my opinion. They may very well respond that I was wrong, based on the ethics of their own society.
Firstly if another society views things differently would you say they are wrong? And if society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?
The majority in a given society tend to set the moral guidelines. For example, a minority in a given society may consider it okay to steal property, but the majority may view theft as immoral and this majority view will be reflected in the law,social norms and education etc.(And yes, the minority who view theft as okay will be obligated to adhere to the moral law of their society or face punishment or imprisonment).
18 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf the morals derived in society are obligatory, then from where do you derive the right to impose them on people? Also, if you say that society has the right to impose its morals on its people, then how can you legitimately complain against Nazi Germany or the Jews of the Old Testament since both societies imposed their morals on people?
I would say they are wrong, but that of course would just be my opinion. They may very well respond that I was wrong, based on the ethics of their own society.
The majority in a given society tend to set the moral guidelines. For example, a minority in a given society may consider it okay to steal property, but the majority may view theft as immor ...[text shortened]... ll be obligated to adhere to the moral law of their society or face punishment or imprisonment).
18 Jan 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI won't be answering questions anymore that demonstrate you haven't been listening.
Do you personally have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
I have just explained personal morality is a culmination of social upbringing and influences. So yes, this forms my mindset of what is right and wrong. - This mindset may have been very different had I been brought up in a different society and had a different upbringing.
18 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its society, just like yours?
I won't be answering questions anymore that demonstrate you haven't been listening.
I have just explained personal morality is a culmination of social upbringing and influences. So yes, this forms my mindset of what is right and wrong. - This mindset may have been very different had I been brought up in a different society and had a different upbringing.
18 Jan 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI can only speak for my own morality, derived from my own society. The fact Nazi Germany thought it was morally right only goes to demonstrate that there are no moral absolutes. How could there be when there is no moral law giver, divine or otherwise.
If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its society, just like yours?
I'm logging out now. Don't bump.
18 Jan 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf there are no moral absolutes, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
I can only speak for my own morality, derived from my own society. The fact Nazi Germany thought it was morally right only goes to demonstrate that there are no moral absolutes. How could there be when there is no moral law giver, divine or otherwise.
I'm logging out now. Don't bump.
18 Jan 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't need a moral absolute to condemn Nazi Germany or reject your particular God.
If there are no moral absolutes, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
I condemn Nazi Germany based on my own morality. I make no claim to speak for the rest of humanity. (Why do you keep talking about 'the right?' )
And again, I don't believe in God and therefore do not acknowledge a moral law giver, and can only apply my own (socially developed) moral judgement on the nasty stuff in the OT. (And please don't ask 'what nasty stuff' as I have already provided you with a list).
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"...if God is taken out of the equation."
Humans are not moral islands Joe. We don't generate individual morality out of thin air. Morality is the outcome of society, upbringing, education etc.- Moral law is not ordained, it is socially and culturally developed.
The real elephant in the room is the belief that man would have no morality if God is taken out of the equation. (A belief I find degrades the moral development of man).
Ok then, let's do that. Imagine there is no moral law giver. No creator of life.
Who here has the arrogant audacity to explain how life began, and how morality developed? Big Bang? Random chance? Who here was there at the beginning, or even before that, that can testify of a personal experience of the origin of anything in existence?
The knowledge and experience of man cannot fathom but a minuscule amount of all there is to know. It's pure speculation to assert that man can know the origin of anything in a scenario that excludes an omniscient creator.
It's all chasing shadows in the dark.
19 Jan 17
Originally posted by josephwI'm not sure you actually understand what is being suggested about your behaviour when you are compared to Dasa. You characterize me talking about my moral beliefs as me "filling the pages of these forums" with my "tripe about [my] opinions derailing anything said that contradicts them".
FMF is channeling FMF again.
"Derailing"? You mean 'disagreeing', surely? This is a debate and discussion forum, josephw. It is intended for people to share their opinions and perspectives. Who else's opinions am I to put forward if not my own? The pages of this forum are filled with the ideas of people who agree and disagree to varying degrees.
These disagreements and differences between us are the lifeblood of what goes on here. Again and again, you describe crystal clear explanations of things you disagree with as "obfuscation"; again and again, you describe people saying things you don't agree with as them "derailing" discussions; again and again, you describe people you disagree with as "illogical" when it is disagreement that is the issue and not logic.
Dasa behaved in a similar way; rarely has there been a poster here less able to tolerate or process dissent and diversity in a discussion. You often come across in a similar way.
If your blurt "FMF is channeling FMF again" means I am participating in discussions by contributing my viewpoints and observations, then all well and good, but it seems more as if you don't have a clue what the comment "josephw is channelling Dasa again" is actually getting at with regard to your own behaviour.
19 Jan 17
Originally posted by josephwAren't you also a "man" who "cannot fathom but a minuscule amount of all there is to know" and yet here you are asserting that you "know the origin" of everything and that it is, supposedly, an omniscient creator that you just so happen to believe in. It is also, very clearly, "pure speculation to assert" this, and yet you do it anyway.
The knowledge and experience of man cannot fathom but a minuscule amount of all there is to know. It's pure speculation to assert that man can know the origin of anything in a scenario that excludes an omniscient creator.
You ask "Who here has the arrogant audacity to explain how life began"? And then you proceed to exhibit the self same "arrogant audacity" by, you yourself, "explaining how life began" and brooking no dissent.
The fact that humans don't know the exact origins of life entitles you to speculate, of course, but it does not empower you to fill that gap with your own speculation, brand it "The Truth", and then mutter and snarl at people whose speculations have not brought them to the same beliefs as yours.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf the morals derived in society are obligatory, then from where do you derive the right to impose them on people?
I don't need a moral absolute to condemn Nazi Germany or reject your particular God.
I condemn Nazi Germany based on my own morality. I make no claim to speak for the rest of humanity. (Why do you keep talking about 'the right?' )
And again, I don't believe in God and therefore do not acknowledge a moral law giver, and can only apply my own (s ...[text shortened]... in the OT. (And please don't ask 'what nasty stuff' as I have already provided you with a list).
Surely if you condemn Nazi Germany based on your own morality you think that your morality is right and theirs is wrong. So how is that even possible without moral absolutes?
Originally posted by FMFIt's as if FMF is deliberately pretending not to have read anything that FMJ has said to Ghost of a Duke, or he has read it - but is studiously ignoring it - or he did read it but just doesn't understand what their conversation is about. It's as if he has run off and now plans to jump back in to derail the conversation.
It's as if Fetchmyjunk has deliberately not read anything Ghost of a Duke has said, or he has read it - but is studiously ignoring it - or he did read it but just doesn't understand it.