P
PRmerger
Guest
Wow. Just wow.
And there is no way for you to stop this horrific act because it’s illogical and unreasonable for any person to stop another person from doing something that is moral.
Wow.
- Status
And there is no way for you to stop this horrific act because it’s illogical and unreasonable for any person to stop another person from doing something that is moral.
Wow.
I
inocente
Guest
Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. He fought the Ammonites, and “the Lord gave them into his hands”, allowing him to devastate twenty towns. Jephthah believed that he must kill his daughter to remain true to the Lord, and he did.
To him it was a fact that anyone who makes a vow to God has a moral obligation to make good on the promise. It wasn’t just his opinion, even his daughter agreed it was an objective fact. So this is an example of objective morality.
Perhaps your Muslim father had the same objective morality.
I’m saying that your Muslim father is not a great example.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
I’m making an argument, not proposing a code to govern action. I’m doing this because I enjoy, but because there’s duke law written into the universe commanding it.
A comparable statement from me would be “all logical actors are obligated to accept logically supported propositions.” But as with morals, I don’t see Abby e basis for that statement. I personally would like it if everyone was logical and moral, but the universe need not conform with my preferences.
P
PRmerger
Guest
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Where exactly did I state that? It’s entirely possible for my personal morals to require that I protect innocent people from harm, no matter what the attacker believes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, then, you believe in imposing your morality on others?
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
… I’m hoping some other Catholics will chime in to confirm that this level of conduct/intellect hasn’t become the norm since I left.
There’s a vast difference between arguing for a proposition, and arguing that a particular proposition governs all moral actors.
If you believe they’re equivalent, then perhaps your should post an argument to that effect.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Did you forget what was being discussed? We were discussing moral agents, which (you agreed) refers simply to objects that have some sense of morality. There’s no reason to impose the assumption that such objects want anything, let alone to assert something.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It wasn’t sarcasm.
If that’s what you “believe in*” with respect to my position , go with it.
Though it differs from what I’ve declared in previous conversations.- thinking about #457 as I write that.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
To the extent that it protects the rights of others (as I understand them), certainly.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here is your proposition: [AnimalSpirits said] "I do not believe that people are inherently compelled to do anything, let alone follow some “truth.” "
Is it a truth you are proposing? Yes or no?
That should be a fairly simple question to answer.
Then we can go from there.
I
inocente
Guest
Of course not. Please take a moment to consider (meaning more than a cursory glance) that your Muslim father is acting in precisely the same way as Jephthah in the bible, so your Muslim father’s action is not a great example for objective morality.Then you objectively believe that it is moral to slay your daughter?
Unless perhaps you’re saying that Judges is not inspired (theopneustos? costanostras?).
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
I hold what I’ve proposed to be true. That is, I don’t see any reason to believe that moral actors are inherently compelled to do anything.Here is your proposition: [AnimalSpirits said] "I do not believe that people are inherently compelled to do anything, let alone follow some “truth.” "
Is it a truth you are proposing? Yes or no?
That should be a fairly simple question to answer.
Then we can go from there.
I can’t comment on whether or not it’s “a truth” as I’m now quite wary of using imprecise terms in this discussion. If a truth is just a true proposition, then we’re all good.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So it’s curious that you are citing an example of something that is ostensibly objectively moral–a man killing his daughter because 2 people putatively agreed that it was (J and his daughter), but not recognizing that there are at least 3 people on this forum who see it as immoral.
How can it be objectively moral to kill your child because 2 people have declared it to be so?
Egg-zactly.
Our discernment that his action is immoral, however, is obtained through our appeal to objective morality.
Well, the only reason I say it’s theopneustos is for the same reason you (tacitly) do: because the Catholic Church told us it was.
I wouldn’t know for any other reason except I, like you, defer to her authority on what is theopneustos.
P
PRmerger
Guest
A truth is a statement that is consonant with reality.
If you believe that it is consonant with reality to believe that no one is compelled to do anything…then you are proclaiming a truth.
And then you are refuting yourself.
Now, if you don’t think it’s consonant with reality to believe that no one is compelled to do anything…then it’s kind of weird for you to say that, here on a relatively public forum, when you don’t actually believe it to be true.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
I did not claim that there were no true propositions. I just claimed that there is no inherent compulsion.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let me just follow up on this rather peculiar proposition you are making.
Your daughter comes home with a D in math because she keeps saying that 3+3 = 7.
She tells you: I am not inherently compelled to follow any truth. So this D is a sign of the injustice of my teacher who is compelling me to follow this truth.
Would you buy that excuse from your daughter, Animal?
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
In my view, yes. Is this not equivalent to what I stated earlier?
- Status