Good sci-fi is about the present

@fmf said
My moral compass. Just like you do.

LOL, you really only see the things you want when you want them.

@kellyjay said
morally sound You use that term more than once as if it is accepted verbiage that everyone agrees with because they all know and understand its meaning.

How morally sound some behaviour is depends on what harm is or isn't done what deception there is or isn't, whether or not there is coercion, and whether or not some benefit gained has been to someone else's detriment. I am sure you have your own way of defining "morally sound", right?

@kellyjay said
LOL, you really only see the things you want when you want them.

LOL?

Why LOL?

You don't use your moral compass to figure out what is morally sound?? Why the "LOL"? Surely you do. Do you not think I have a moral compass too,?

@kellyjay said
That isn't the case it is no different than a politician talking about common-sense gun control; what is common sense to one is not to another, but everyone who hears it without thinking about it all walks away thinking they agree with the speaker because of how they, not the speaker is thinking when he says common-sense gun control.

You'll just have to use your moral compass to figure out what you believe is common sensical when it comes to gun control. Does your Bible give you guidance on the morality of gun control?

@fmf said
How morally sound some behaviour is depends on what harm is or isn't done what deception there is or isn't, whether or not there is coercion, and whether or not some benefit gained has been to someone else's detriment. I am sure you have your own way of defining "morally sound", right?

So you use a term to define something that everyone gets to make up as they go (subjective) to judge something everyone should know is accurate (objective)? If each has their standard, disagreeing is meaningless because there is no 'real' correct answer? Then how could hell be a bad thing? It doesn't matter.

@kellyjay said
If each has their standard, disagreeing is meaningless because there is no 'real' correct answer?

The "correct answer", in terms of human interactions, which is what morality is about, will be rooted broadly speaking in doing no harm, not deceiving, and not coercing.

@fmf said
The "correct answer", in terms of human interactions, which is what morality is about, will be rooted broadly speaking in doing no harm, not deceiving, and not coercing.

Where did you get those rules from?

@kellyjay said
Then how could hell be a bad thing? It doesn't matter.

I agree that your personal opinion about "Hell" "doesn't matter" when it comes right down to it [aside from it being an interesting conversation topic]. Neither does mine, to you, presumably. It's not so much that "Hell" is "a bad thing". It's more a case of what you describe just seems ludicrous.

@kellyjay said
Where did you get those rules from?

From a blend of "nature" and "nurture".

That's why those rules resonate with you as well.

You have internalized the efficacy of and need for those rules too, and you have have derived them, like me, from your innate conscience [nature] and your accumulated experience of socialization and interaction with others [nurture].

@fmf said
From a blend of "nature" and "nurture".

That's why those rules resonate with you as well.

You have internalized the efficacy of and need for those rules too, and you have have derived them, like me, from your innate conscience [nature] and your accumulated experience of socialization and interaction with others [nurture].

In other words, more subjective verbiage to justify your subjective point of view?

Everything would be permissible to us if we were the only ones writing our rules because we could, on a whim, change "do not murder" to do not murder except for X whatever the X we want to use to justify our desire to kill someone. You see it here with people who mistreat others endlessly; they have what they think are justifications for doing so, so they do.

@kellyjay said
In other words, more subjective verbiage to justify your subjective point of view?

Yours is a subjective point of view as well.

@kellyjay said
Everything would be permissible to us if we were the only ones writing our rules because we could, on a whim, change "do not murder" to do not murder except for X whatever the X we want to use to justify our desire to kill someone.

Murder is against the law everywhere.

@kellyjay said
Everything would be permissible to us if we were the only ones writing our rules because we could, on a whim, change "do not murder" to do not murder except for X whatever the X we want to use to justify our desire to kill someone.

If the only thing that's preventing you from murdering people is your Christian beliefs, then let's hope you don't stop being a Christian

@fmf said
LOL?

Why LOL?

You don't use your moral compass to figure out what is morally sound?? Why the "LOL"? Surely you do. Do you not think I have a moral compass too,?

You are your moral compass, you can pick and choose whatever you want, as much or as little as you please.

@kellyjay said
You are your moral compass, you can pick and choose whatever you want, as much or as little as you please.

Some people might be like this, I suppose, even Christians. People are different; people make choices. We use our moral compasses to evaluate one another. That's life I suppose.

But for most people, I think, their moral compass keeps them in check and is an inner "voice" that they feel they must obey. That's how it works with me, and I am pretty sure that's how it works for you.

You may remember that Jordan Peterson clip I shared recently where he argued, influenced by Jung, that that "inner voice" is "God" regardless of whether you are a believer. As it happens, I don't agree with such a broad non-religiouscdefinition of "God" but it's an interesting idea and food for thought.