This no good or evil

Originally posted by Palynka
Then I'm (honestly) sorry I misread your intents. I'll be back on this subject latter, if you are still interested in discussing it with me.

Be well,
N

As you say, an honest mistake.

My good friend, I am always willing to discuss these issues with you. You're obviously quite intelligent and have obviously given a great deal of thought to what you espouse. That alone is worthy of anyone's respect. Your being willing to discuss this in the face of cross-examination is a sign of moral courage, again a virtuous thing.

By the way, I will respond to PMs as well if you are interested in a more private discourse. "Where there are so many all speech becomes a debate without end. Two together may, perhaps, find wisdom." (So said Tolkien)

God bless, and my fondest wishes and regards go with you,
R

Originally posted by dj2becker
In the end it all boils down to your personal preference, based purely on your own feelings?

No. Try reading the post.

Originally posted by Ristar
Once again, my friend, many thanks for the stimulating conversation and for making me think as well. I think we have both accomplished good things in the course of this conversation.

Just a quick clarifying comment or three, so as not to take up too much more time.

* Terms such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient" are not, as you say, explicitly stated, bu ...[text shortened]... u prefer the sentence, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?"

Regards,
R

As far as the question-begging, would you prefer the sentence, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?"

Within the dimensionality of the universe, yes (with a requisite nod to some things that seem to happen at the quantum level; I’ll let a physicist weigh in there...). Outside that time-space dimensionality, the word “begins,” for example, loses all meaning.

Once we get to the limits of the cosmos, I think we have to take Wittgenstein’s counsel against seeking metaphysical explanations, and—stop. Or, if we do choose to go on, to realize that we are wondering and speculating without the tools with which to find sure answers, and perhaps also to ask meaningful questions. Whether or not this necessarily means that moral considerations are “relative,” it does mean that any grounding we might find for them is in the conditionality of our existence.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]As far as the question-begging, would you prefer the sentence, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?"

Within the dimensionality of the universe, yes (with a requisite nod to some things that seem to happen at the quantum level; I’ll let a physicist weigh in there...). Outside that time-space dimensionality, the word “begins,” for example, ...[text shortened]... does mean that any grounding we might find for them is in the conditionality of our existence.[/b]

I agree with the first part of your post entirely. That fits in with my chain of reasoning.

The second part I would say is partially correct. However I would want to ammend is the idea that we do not have the tools to discuss things outside of the universe. Philosophy, metaphysics, and theology (all sciences in their own right), can speak to things that transcend the universe. They can speak of things that would exist whether or not the universe existed. For example, the laws of logic.

EDITed: Sorry about that, I'm posting this after midnight, and I'm a bit tired. Silly me. 😀

Also your argument does not allow for revealed truth to come from "outside." I realize that materialism denies the "outside," but since the transcendant element can neither be disproved nor studied by physical science, it remains an element to consider.

Originally posted by Ristar
I have a question regarding your latest comment: assuming that you are defining "morality" as a moral doctrine or system, do you believe that this system is created by you/society, or do you believe that the system transcends humanity itself?

Also, to bring the debate down to cases (please forgive me if this sounds offensive, but I can think of no better c ...[text shortened]... and chopped that baby into bits, would you say that I had done something evil?

Regards,
R

Apologies for the late reply 🙂...
Now if you'd allow me , may I take the liberty of answering your question with another question, which will hopefully lead us to a debate beyond good and evil..

What do you think of infanticide?

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
Apologies for the late reply 🙂...
Now if you'd allow me , may I take the liberty of answering your question with another question, which will hopefully lead us to a debate beyond good and evil..

What do you think of infanticide?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you speaking of infanticide's strict denotation or a specific connotation regarding underlying motives (or perhap something else entirely)?

Originally posted by Ristar
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you speaking of infanticide's strict denotation or a specific connotation regarding underlying motives (or perhap something else entirely)?

There are no underlying motives for infanticide, its propents are more than honest as to their reasons, none the less it is the act of killing an infant, but does that make it wrong.... And a word to the wise 'when it comes to writing, less is more', ie:

Are you referring to the reason for the action of infanticide or are you refferring to some underlying construct.

Not

Are you speaking of infanticide's strict denotation or a specific connotation regarding underlying motives

This sounds like a first year university student who is just geting to grips with the linguistics of academia, if you want a discourse please show me some more respect 🙂

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
There are no underlying motives for infanticide, its propents are more than honest as to their reasons, none the less it is the act of killing an infant, but does that make it wrong.... And a word to the wise 'when it comes to writing, less is more', ie:

Are you referring to the reason for the action of infanticide or are you refferring to some under with the linguistics of academia, if you want a discourse please show me some more respect 🙂

Sir, please believe me when I tell you that it is not my intent to show disrespect to any person. I hope my behavior on these forums hitherto has established at least that much. As I have said before, I merely wish to comprehend your point of view. No disrespect is intended. The Socratic method of asking clarifying questions is my only intent. Please let us be civil.

The word "construct" refers to that which is created by the mind or by ideology, history, or social circumstances. As such, it is imprecise when speaking of deeds and that which precipitates those deeds. It could easily refer to something completely unrelated to morality.

Meanwhile, motive is defined as something (usually a need or desire) that forms the impetus for action and must be taken into account when judging any deed.

Forgive me if this seems obvious, but I have every reason to believe that some fundamental truths must be firmly established (or at least defined) when faced with sensitive issues and people's reaction to them. An action taken by itself cannot usually be judged good or bad aside from the motive which drives it. Cutting a person open is an action, but until you know the "whole story," you cannot judge its goodness or badness. Perhaps the knife-wielder was a murderer, but perhaps he was a life-saving surgeon.

As you may recall: in my scenario of dismembering that innocent baby, I assumed it was alive, not a cadaver to be dissected. If you wish more specifics, let us assume it is fully healthy and free from dangerous diseases, even free from any crippling genetic defects. What could be my motive for chopping up this baby? Insanity? Perhaps, but another possibility presents itself; may not an intellectual who subscribes sincerely to nihilism also do the deed and feel no guilt because he does not believe in good or evil actions, only actions alone? After all, Hitler and Stalin killed many in the name of materialism, defining it as the strong dominating or obliterating the weak.

So I must reiterate my previous question: do you refer to merely an act or, in addition, the motive behind the act? Furthermore, are you asking how I feel about it or you asking for merely intellectual data? Again, I mean no disrespect, but my answer to your question must be rooted and grounded in what I think of the motive, not the act. When we debate publicly affecting issues, let us tread very carefully. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

Warm regards,
R

Hi again,

Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm probably going to be taking a vacation from the forums for a while. I've got another internet-related activity in the works and it may be that I have to devote the lion's share of my on-line time to that activity. I'll still try to respond to PMs, but responses may be a bit sporadic. Sorry, nature of the beast. 🙂

Just to touch the topic at hand on last time, if we are referring to a motive of killing an infant, purely for malice's or selfishness' sake, I, being a follower of Christ, am against it with all vehemence. That perspective necessarily flows from the biblical worldview and I have chosen to adopt it.

I realise that relativism denies the rightness or wrongness of any action in an absolute sense. That is their right under pluralism. My task is not to persuade the hard-nosed skeptic, but only to present the counterperspective for any curious seekers of hope and meaning.

For the record, and with all sincerity, I want to say that everyone on this forum who has presented well thought out arguments has my permanent respect. You shall all be in my prayers and in my thoughts. Forgive me if this offends (it is not meant to do so, but to edify), God has blessed you with incredible intellects. I have learned a lot in our discussions and count it an honor to have discoursed with you.

As a final word, if I may, I'd like to paste in a quote from Malcolm Muggeridge, a very erudite journalist and originally an atheist, who was a "late-comer" to Christ. Again, this quotation is not meant to convince utterly, but only to present the allure of the transcendant. Enjoy or debunk at your pleasure:

In this Sargasso Sea of fantasy and fraud, how can I or anyone else hope to swim unencumbered? How I can learn to see through and not with the eye? How can I take off my own motley, wash away my makeup, raise the iron shutter, put out the studio lights, silence the sound effects and put the cameras to sleep, watch the sun rise on Sunset Boulevard and set over Forest Lawn? How can I find furniture among the studio props, silence in a discotheque, love in a striptease, read truth off an auto queue, or catch it on a screen, chase it on the wings of muzak, view it in living color with the news, hear it living sound along the motorways? Not in the wind that rent the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks, not in the earthquake that followed, nor in the fire that followed the earthquake, but in that still small voice. Not in the screeching of tires either, or the grinding of brakes, or the roar of jets, or the whistle of sirens, or the howl of trombones, the rattle of drums or the chanting of demo voices. Again and again and again, it’s that still small voice, the voice of God. If one could only catch it!

Well, that's it for now, everyone. As always, if you want to ask honest questions, feel free to PM me. I just don't know how long it will be before I can respond.

Okay, I'll shut up now. 😀

Yours with all blessing and fond regards,
Ristar

Originally posted by Ristar
Sir, please believe me when I tell you that it is not my intent to show disrespect to any person. I hope my behavior on these forums hitherto has established at least that much. As I have said before, I merely wish to comprehend your point of view. No disrespect is intended. The Socratic method of asking clarifying questions is my only intent. Please let let us tread very carefully. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

Warm regards,
R

To digress, this is merely rhetoric,can we not move past Socratic rhetoric!? Rhetoric merely proves who the greater wordsmith is amidst the discourse at hand, nothing more, it does not move towards a truth if indeed a truth exists.


Now back to the matter at hand, are you saying that motive defines whether an action is good or evil? In turn does that infer/defer to an intrinsic state of good and evil that exists in an eternal suspension emancipated from social/culturally infused forms of morality?

ahhh, I just saw your last post, so you are a Christian so therefore you do believe in an intrinsic good and evil, that is where our thought differs..