- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat does not mean that I do not believe in conditional rightness, or democracy, rightness as defined by the masses.
I answered that I do not believe there to be [b]absolute rightness w.r.t. morality. That does not mean that I do not believe in conditional rightness, or democracy, rightness as defined by the masses. After all, that's what all our laws are based on. You get locked up killing someone intentionally, but get off if they were going to kill you. Conditional rightness in action.
What a dramatist you are.[/b]
So why would you expect anyone to live according to the standards that the masses choose to set up?
What will happen when society begins to disintegrate into self-centered individualism, and the population becomes vulnerable to the tyranny of what philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche called "the will to power"?
A disintegrating society adrift with no bedrock of morality will be at the mercy of those in power, who with no true guide to right and wrong, will impose their own will on the rest. It is the 'might makes right' concept. Right will be solely what those who wield the power want it to be.
The strong victimizing the weak and the majority oppressing the minority is the ultimate result when society thinks it can legislate morality to fit its own whims.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerPlease explain how the picture you are painting differs from most societies in the world today and in the past? Although in some instances you are talking specifically about democracies and not dictatorships.
So why would you expect anyone to live according to the standards that the masses choose to set up?
What will happen when society begins to disintegrate into self-centered individualism, and the population becomes vulnerable to the tyranny of what philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche called "the will to power"?
A disintegrating society adrift with no be ...[text shortened]... is the ultimate result when society thinks it can legislate morality to fit its own whims.
Do you know of a 'better' system of government? If so, what is 'better' about it and why?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhere did I say that? It is, in fact true, but the conscience, as I already explained, inflicts pain on us when we inflict it on others, and gives us pleasure when we give pleasure to others. Thus we are capable of altruism.
[b]According to your utalitarian position each person must maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain.
Where did I say that? It is, in fact true, but the conscience, as I already explained, inflicts pain on us when we inflict it on others, and gives us pleasure when we give pleasure to others. Thus we are capable of altruism.
[ ...[text shortened]... conscience is what makes us capable of intentionally doing good. It's a wonderful thing.[/b]
Do you mean to say that it is impossible for the conscience to be seared?
And God changes this how?
If God exists, then absolute truth exists.
Sure we can. The existence or lack of God doesn't make a difference here either.
But why would anyone listen to you?
People choose their own standards and have their own values. There is no proof that one thing is "better" than another since betterness is an opinion. This is no different if God exists.
If God exists, then what God says it the best.
See? Christians are just as selfish as anyone else. You do things because you want a better afterlife.
A true Christian lives a life of self-denial. What is selfish about that?
Every human being, from me to you to Ghandi to Hitler to Jesus has always done exactly that. You cannot do otherwise. It's built into you.
So you mean to say that Jesus was maximizing his own pleasure by carrying all the sins of the world upon himself and dying one of the cruelest possible deaths on the cross???
Unless your conscience is strong enough to prevent you from doing this. The conscience is what makes us capable of intentionally doing good. It's a wonderful thing.
So you mean to say the conscience cannot be seared?? You say the conscience makes us capable of doing good? Good in what sense? If good as you define it is relative, then it has absolutely no meaning.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSociety cannot survive its attempts to make its own morality. When we try to determine right for ourselves, we become guided solely by our immediate needs and wants. We lack the wisdom to see the long-term results of our choices. When we take it into our own hands to decide what is right and wrong, we are like a bug on the floor so desperately seeking shelter that it runs for cover into the trap of the exterminator.
Please explain how the picture you are painting differs from most societies in the world today and in the past? Although in some instances you are talking specifically about democracies and not dictatorships.
Do you know of a 'better' system of government? If so, what is 'better' about it and why?
The universal, worldwide moral code does not take into account our immediate urges. We may want our neighbor's car or bank account or wife, but the moral code says we can't have it. We may think that a little white lie may enhance our reputation, but that old morality says we can't tell it. The moral code concerns itself not with our immediate wants but with our long term good. To see beyond the satisfaction of our immediate impulses takes more knowledge of the workings of the human organism than any human has. True morality embodies that knowledge because it comes from God who created humankind and knows the inner workings of the human heart.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd God changes this how?
If God exists, then absolute truth exists.
But why would anyone listen to you?
Because they agree with me?
If God exists, then what God says it the best.
'Best' is relative. What you mean to say is it is 'best' in your opinion.
In my opinion it might not be best. There is no reason to believe that it would be the most beneficial (however that may be evaluated) for me anyway.
A true Christian lives a life of self-denial. What is selfish about that?
You already answered that. You want a better afterlife. That is selfish. If given the opportunity would you go to hell in order to get someone else into heaven?
So you mean to say that Jesus was maximizing his own pleasure by carrying all the sins of the world upon himself and dying one of the cruelest possible deaths on the cross???
He probably doesn't believe that Jesus did that. Neither do I.
So you mean to say the conscience cannot be seared?? You say the conscience makes us capable of doing good? Good in what sense? If good as you define it is relative, then it has absolutely no meaning.
Just because something is relative does not mean it is devoid of meaning. However the good he was talking about is probably absolute as it could be defined as 'to the benefit of all' which is absolute.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhitehead'Best' is relative.
And God changes this how?
[b]But why would anyone listen to you?
Because they agree with me?
If God exists, then what God says it the best.
'Best' is relative. What you mean to say is it is 'best' in your opinion.
In my opinion it might not be best. There is no reason to believe that it would be the most beneficial (however that may ...[text shortened]... is probably absolute as it could be defined as 'to the benefit of all' which is absolute.[/b]
Is that an absolute statement?
PS: Please forgive me if I ignore your illogical posts in the future.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have never heard of the concept of searing a conscience. I have no idea what that means. As a conscience is not a material object, it cannot be burned, but the parts of the brain that create it can be.
[b]Where did I say that? It is, in fact true, but the conscience, as I already explained, inflicts pain on us when we inflict it on others, and gives us pleasure when we give pleasure to others. Thus we are capable of altruism.
Do you mean to say that it is impossible for the conscience to be seared?
And God changes this how?
If God exi ...[text shortened]... ood in what sense? If good as you define it is relative, then it has absolutely no meaning.[/b]
If God exists, then absolute truth exists.
Why? And why doesn't it exist without God?
But why would anyone listen to you?
Why would they anyway? Because I claim to have God on my side? Is that what your religion is to you - a source of authority so you can condemn peoples' lives and make demands about what they must do with respect to society? Why don't you live and let live? What's with the need to be condemning and demanding?
For those case in which one absolutely must stop another, saying "God is on my side" doesn't work. Police and armies do.
If God exists, then what God says it the best.
That sentence is grammatically incorrect and I don't understand the meaning of it. I did earlier agree that an omniscient God would know what is best for everyone.
A true Christian lives a life of self-denial. What is selfish about that?
Because he does it in order to have a better afterlife.
So you mean to say that Jesus was maximizing his own pleasure by carrying all the sins of the world upon himself and dying one of the cruelest possible deaths on the cross???
I haven't studied the Bible well enough to critically evaluate what you say, but let's assume he did these things. Jesus, first of all, assuming Christianity is correct, came back to life in a couple days and now spends his time being alive and a god. He would have suffered great pain, but that's a temporary thing. He, supposedly, loved humanity tremendously, and so improving everyone's life and afterlife by "taking on their sins" (whatever that means) would give a great rush of pleasure, as helping and loving others generally does, which did not end the day he "died". If he had not done so, I imagine he'd have felt a horrible guilt and sorrow. There is a lot more to the ideas of pain and pleasure than simple physical pain and pleasure.
Good in what sense?
In the sense of being able to increase the total pleasure and decrease the total pain of the world at the expense of personal pleasure or pain. The conscience compensates us for our personal sacrifice by making us feel good about ourselves when we help others.
20 Feb 07
Absolute truth is a logical necessity. You can't argue against it without using an absolute truth as the basis for your arguement.
"Truth is relative" is an absolute statement implying that truth is absolutely relative. Suppose the statement is true and "truth is relative", everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes I think so. But I don't see the relevance.
'Best' is relative.
Is that an absolute statement?
PS: Please forgive me if I ignore your illogical posts in the future.
You are welcome to ignore what you like and there is nothing to forgive as I wont be particularly offended. However there was nothing illogical in my post and I challenge you to back up your claim that there was.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt can and it does, otherwise there would be no society. Whether it will continue to do so into the future remains to be seen.
Society cannot survive its attempts to make its own morality.
When we try to determine right for ourselves, we become guided solely by our immediate needs and wants.
That is a false statement. Many people are capable of and do, plan for the future.
We lack the wisdom to see the long-term results of our choices.
We cant predict the future to 100% accuracy but we mostly have a fairly good track record. I would say we are pretty wise.
When we take it into our own hands to decide what is right and wrong, we are like a bug on the floor so desperately seeking shelter that it runs for cover into the trap of the exterminator.
I am sorry but I just cant see the analogy. What are we running away from again?
The universal, worldwide moral code does not take into account our immediate urges. We may want our neighbor's car or bank account or wife, but the moral code says we can't have it. We may think that a little white lie may enhance our reputation, but that old morality says we can't tell it. The moral code concerns itself not with our immediate wants but with our long term good. To see beyond the satisfaction of our immediate impulses takes more knowledge of the workings of the human organism than any human has.
Three cheers for evolution!
True morality embodies that knowledge because it comes from God who created humankind and knows the inner workings of the human heart.
Thats your opinion which you are welcome to have.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs you believe in absolute truth, your illogical reasoning should be very obvious to you. I can't imagine how you can overlook it.
Yes I think so. But I don't see the relevance.
[b]PS: Please forgive me if I ignore your illogical posts in the future.
You are welcome to ignore what you like and there is nothing to forgive as I wont be particularly offended. However there was nothing illogical in my post and I challenge you to back up your claim that there was.[/b]
Let us say there are two people, A and B talking about situation X.
Let us say that situation X is the murdering of an innocent 2 year old baby.
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person B says "Situation X is morally wrong"
Now seeing you believe in absolute truth, (or at least you say so), would you care to demonstrate how both these condradictory statements can be absolutely true at the same time?
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerTo say that something is morally right means that it matches a specific moral code. It could be a personal moral code or a generally agreed upon societal moral code.
As you believe in absolute truth, your illogical reasoning should be very obvious to you. I can't imagine how you can overlook it.
Let us say there are two people, A and B talking about situation X.
Let us say that situation X is the murdering of an innocent 2 year old baby.
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person B says "Situa emonstrate how both these condradictory statements can be absolutely true at the same time?
If, in your example, Person A and Person B are talking with reference to their individual moral codes then their statements are not contradictory and they can be absolutely true.
If they are talking with reference to the same moral code then their claims are contradictory and one of them is false.
The situation itself is not absolutely morally wrong or right without reference to any moral code, and there is no such thing as an absolute moral code (moral codes are relative by definition).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk we are making some progress it seems.
To say that something is morally right means that it matches a specific moral code. It could be a personal moral code or a generally agreed upon societal moral code.
If, in your example, Person A and Person B are talking with reference to their individual moral codes then their statements are not contradictory and they can be absolutely true.
If they ...[text shortened]... , and there is no such thing as an absolute moral code (moral codes are relative by definition).
Moral code A: X is morally right
Moral code B: X is morally wrong
It is not logically possible for both moral code A and B to be absolutely logically true at the same time, if you belive in the existence of absolute truth.
Face it friend.
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerMoral codes are neither true nor false. They are simply codes.
Ok we are making some progress it seems.
Moral code A: X is morally right
Moral code B: X is morally wrong
It is not logically possible for both moral code A and B to be absolutely logically true at the same time, if you belive in the existence of absolute truth.
Face it friend.
In the language of logic:
A moral code is a definition of moral right and wrong.
When an entry in a moral code is compared with a particular situation a logical conclusion can be drawn. Thus, making a statement about the morality of the particular situation in reference to the code in question can be true or false.