18 Feb 22
1 edit
@fmf saidThere is no authority overall if there isn't an authority overall; therefore, anything goes. We can create whatever morality we wish, from cannibalism to hating people for various reasons, each defensible because this is the way we think. Who is to judge between two opposing views, but what we see is that we all argue for one view over the other when we think we have been slighted, when we think we have been wronged, when we think something occurred that isn't fair. Appeals are made to justice, and we do this because clearly, we assume the other is also aware of right and wrong. They may disagree, but they will also disagree with others who they think wronged them too, so, above us all, there is a standard we are all aware of and acknowledge by our actions and words.
The answer is clearly no.
Our foundations play a significant part in this, how we view the world each other, if we think nothing of others, then it is simply what we can get from them matters, if we love them, we will do what is best for them, and some float between those two extremes. We also feel the need to justify ourselves when we do something that we think needs explaining because it is wrong; we never feel the need to justify the good we do, that we can pat ourselves on the back for.
18 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidI’ve read this post by you three times KellyJay and it’s just ramble.
There is no authority overall if there isn't an authority overall; therefore, anything goes. We can create whatever morality we wish, from cannibalism to hating people for various reasons, each defensible because this is the way we think. Who is to judge between two opposing views, but what we see is that we all argue for one view over the other when we think we have been sl ...[text shortened]... wrong; we never feel the need to justify the good we do, that we can pat ourselves on the back for.
FMF said “clearly no” to the question god is not required for morality. I’m not clear what your counter position is other than people will disagree on what’s moral, therefore god decides.
18 Feb 22
@divegeester saidWe are all aware of the need to be just, so we justify ourselves; there would be no need to do that if it wasn't required, and we were aware of that. This need to justify ourselves is because we know justice matters; if it were simply up to us, what we say is all we need to say, no need to reason, no need to prove. We disagree because we know it is required.
I’ve read this post by you three times KellyJay and it’s just ramble.
FMF said “clearly no” to the question god is not required for morality. I’m not clear what your counter position is other than people will disagree on what’s moral, therefore god decides.
18 Feb 22
1 edit
@kellyjay saidIf, without your religious beliefs, you'd be a "hater" and a "cannibal" etc. then, so be it.
There is no authority overall if there isn't an authority overall; therefore, anything goes. We can create whatever morality we wish, from cannibalism to hating people for various reasons
18 Feb 22
@fmf saidYou can not justify one set of beliefs over another, one culture over another without a means to measure them both equally. It is no differently than saying Paul is taller than Bill because we have a standard of measurement that everything is subject to.
If, without your religious beliefs, you'd be a "hater" and a "cannibal" etc. then, so be it.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidThe moral compass each of us has is "a means to neasure".
You can not justify one set of beliefs over another, one culture over another without a means to measure them both equally. It is no differently than saying Paul is taller than Bill because we have a standard of measurement that everything is subject to.
If, in your subjective opinion, navigating your way through complex human environments is [somehow] "no different than saying Paul is taller than Bill"...
and if you insist some ancient scripture is telling you that this is true...
and if, in your subjective opinion, "everything is [somehow] subject to" the dictates generated by your personal speculation about supernatural causality...
and if, in your subjective opinion, your moral logic is superior to mine because you subscribe to a religion...
then be my guest.
We can agree that that is the subjective basis of your moral compass.
We can agree to agree about that.
Meanwhile, we can agree to disagree about your subjective perspectives being "objective"...
and we can agree to disagree about how religious dogma like 'You must not worship false Gods' is somehow rooted in "absolute truth".
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
19 Feb 22
2 edits
@fmf saidWhat moral compass? Why are you -- of all people -- introducing fantastical elements and unprovable assertions into the discussion?
The moral compass each of us has
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidWell if the "wrong" rises to some level of damage or harm or detriment that breaks the law, then society's legal system is the recourse and that will be the mechanism "to judge between two opposing views".
Who is to judge between two opposing views, but what we see is that we all argue for one view over the other when we think we have been slighted, when we think we have been wronged, when we think something occurred that isn't fair.
If it is ~ as you say, above ~ just your feelings of having been "wronged" or that you "think [you] have been slighted", or you "think something occurred that isn't fair", then you can just take solace in your self-righteous religious beliefs.
Furthermore, if you want to, and if it makes you feel better, you can mutter darkly about how the mean people who "slighted" you will stand in judgement after they die before your God figure.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidIf, without your "foundation" or religious beliefs, you [1] would think nothing of others, [2] would think only in terms of what you get from them, [3] would not be able to love them, [4] would not be able to do what's best for them etc. etc. then that is a matter for you.
Our foundations play a significant part in this, how we view the world each other, if we think nothing of others, then it is simply what we can get from them matters, if we love them, we will do what is best for them, and some float between those two extremes.
If, without your belief in Jesus, you would be unable to behave in a morally sound way, then I suppose those around you will just welcome the effect your belief has on you.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
19 Feb 22
@fmf saidIt seems you are discussing KellyJay instead of the principles involved in your OP.
Well if the "wrong" rises to some level of damage or harm or detriment that breaks the law, then society's legal system is the recourse and that will be the mechanism "to judge between two opposing views".
If it is ~ as you say, above ~ just your feelings of having been "wronged" or that you "think [you] have been slighted", or you "think something occurred that isn't fair", ...[text shortened]... mean people who "slighted" you will stand in judgement after they die before your God figure.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
19 Feb 22
@fmf saidThis seems even more blatantly to be discussing KellyJay in particular.
If, without your "foundation" or religious beliefs, you [1] would think nothing of others, [2] would think only in terms of what you get from them, [3] would not be able to love them, [4] would not be able to do what's best for them etc. etc. then that is a matter for you.
If, without your belief in Jesus, you would be unable to behave in a morally sound way, then I suppose those around you will just welcome the effect your belief has on you.
Do you put your wife and children through the same kind of analytical psycho-semantic torture that you so freely deploy here, on a chess site of all places?
What is wrong with you, and why are you still allowed to post in the forums?
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
Let's say someone holds certain beliefs and those beliefs, though you consider them to be fictional and wrong, help that person get through some horrible life events -- yet you are somehow driven to undermine those beliefs -- to what end?
To disturb someone else's mental and spiritual ecology for your own gratification?
Please talk us through the dodgy internal ethical scaffolding that would make you do such a thing.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidWhat you’re sort of describing is having one’s own moral compass which is exactly the point FMF is making, surely.
We are all aware of the need to be just, so we justify ourselves; there would be no need to do that if it wasn't required, and we were aware of that. This need to justify ourselves is because we know justice matters; if it were simply up to us, what we say is all we need to say, no need to reason, no need to prove. We disagree because we know it is required.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidYou seem to now be inadvertently agreeing with people whom you have been stubbornly disagreeing with.
You can not justify one set of beliefs over another, one culture over another without a means to measure them both equally. It is no differently than saying Paul is taller than Bill because we have a standard of measurement that everything is subject to.
Unless you can demonstrate that your “measure” is more accurate than another person’s measure, then you are just a clanging gong, your measure , the Bible, appears flawed to me.
Despite me being and remaining a Christian, I don’t need a book which I see as continuing deep flaws, or at least aspects of it interpretation which are deeply flawed, in order to decide that those interpretations as morally wrong.
You ignore the moral aberrations not because you have the spirit of Christ, but because you have been indoctrinated to believe that this book is utterly infallible and if you question that then you are questioning god.
19 Feb 22
@kevin-eleven saidThis is just a silly strawman argument.
Let's say someone holds certain beliefs and those beliefs, though you consider them to be fictional and wrong, help that person get through some horrible life events -- yet you are somehow driven to undermine those beliefs -- to what end?
To disturb someone else's mental and spiritual ecology for your own gratification?
Please talk us through the dodgy internal ethical scaffolding that would make you do such a thing.