C
Calliso
Guest
I didn;t mean it that way so much. I meant more that instead of accusing him of lies and falsehood or whatever based off religious reasons, find scientific evidence to disprove him. If you can of course.
- Status
V
Valke2
Guest
2006: Flooding throughout Western Washington shuts highways, causes power outages and forces scores of residents to flee their homes. A state of emergency blankets 18 counties.
2007: Flooding closes Interstate 5 in Lewis County and sends rescuers in rafts to evacuate Seattle apartment houses and homes.
2008-09: A massive snowstorm blankets the region, soaking the ground and feeding landslides when the snow is followed by torrential rains. Interstate 5 closes and tens of thousands of residents head for emergency shelters.
Is this becoming an annual exercise?
And if so, what’s to blame? Development? Logging? Climate change?
The answer is all three, to some degree, in different places around the region, and at different times.
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/395373_enviroflood09.html?source=rss
2007: Flooding closes Interstate 5 in Lewis County and sends rescuers in rafts to evacuate Seattle apartment houses and homes.
2008-09: A massive snowstorm blankets the region, soaking the ground and feeding landslides when the snow is followed by torrential rains. Interstate 5 closes and tens of thousands of residents head for emergency shelters.
Is this becoming an annual exercise?
And if so, what’s to blame? Development? Logging? Climate change?
The answer is all three, to some degree, in different places around the region, and at different times.
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/395373_enviroflood09.html?source=rss
V
Valke2
Guest
When searing heat waves blasted Western Europe in 2003, more than 50,000 people perished and harvests of corn, wheat and fruit fell by up to a third.
Imagine those temperatures being the norm over much of the world, and you’ll have an idea of what the future is likely to hold for agriculture — and humanity, says a new report from scientists at the University of Washington and Stanford University.
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008606940_warming09m.html?syndication=rss
Imagine those temperatures being the norm over much of the world, and you’ll have an idea of what the future is likely to hold for agriculture — and humanity, says a new report from scientists at the University of Washington and Stanford University.
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008606940_warming09m.html?syndication=rss
I could just as easily imagine lands further towards the poles becoming much more receptive to crops, and a longer growing season as well. But you won’t get that in these ‘scientific’ reports now…would you.
The proper response to Global Warming is the proper study to determine the reality of the event, the extent of damage (if any), and the best response to it.
Anything more is making unwarranted assumptions.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Flooding is a cyclical event that can occur annually, or on a 10, 50, 100, 500, or even 1000 year cycle. Is it even remotely possible that the flooding you’re talking about might be part of a perfectly natural cycle?
The area where I live is currently undergoing a drought- so many people are hysterically calling it the result of global warming. They completely dismiss the fact that we live in a desert, that last year we had record rainfall, or that the year before that we had less rain than this year. The geological record clearly shows that this region has shifted from periods of heavy rain to extreme drought for thousands of years.
But nobody talks about that. The local scientific authorities swear that this drought is different than the droughts we’ve had every few years for as far back as any records show–this time it is because of global warming…
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Some people think
Global warming is true,
And
If we don’t respond,
Millions of people will die,
And
This is a moral issue.
So,
Once a person accepts global warming,
Global warming becomes a moral issue?
For people who have not accepted global warming,
Global warming is not a moral issue?
R
rpp
Guest
Both of the closing statements are incorrect because they are incomplete. But you appear to be so close-minded that yet again identifying the assumptions you have made will do no good. You will simply continue to insist that if we do not agree with you, we are immoral. Must be nice to be in your shoes. Have you been measured for wings and a halo yet?
Interesting, but incomplete.
It is not your own individual belief that drives morality.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
I agree.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I don’t think that you seem to be aware of the difference between individual subjective moral judgments and external objective moral determinations. Individual, internal moral judgments are subjective, because they change based on personal opinion. These are not to be elevated to the level of objective moral truth, which does not change based on personal opinion, and which can be determined through the study of the Natural Law.
An important reason that personal subjective moral judgments are subordinate to objective moral truth is that our understanding of objective moral truth informs and shapes how we make internal, personal moral judgments and ultimately determines whether our internal, personal moral judgments are objectively valid.
Another thing to consider is that individual freedom entitles us to make individual, internal moral judgments that affect our lives, but we do not have the right to compromise the individual freedom of others by imposing our internal, individual moral judgments in the form of objective statutes or limitations on their individual freedoms.
One of the basic tests for whether an internal, personal moral value is correct or incorrect is to determine whether the object of the moral value is morally neutral.
So…
Here’s the problem I have with your question and with your position:
Global warming, for some, may have an individual, internal, subjective moral quality. Fine, they are completely within the bounds of their freedom to have that belief.
Where they go wrong is when they decide that their individual, internal, subjective moral is an externally valid and objective moral truth which gives them the moral authority to compel others to avoid or engage in particular behaviors.
The reason that this is wrong is because, as moral agents, we assume moral responsibility for taking public action in accord with externally valid and objective moral truth. We do this all the time by enforcing punishment for violations agains the objective moral value of human life, which can occur in the commission of a murder, for example. Murder violates an objective moral value (human life), with an identifiable moral agent (the murderer), and a clearly defined outcome (death of the person murdered) that can be objectively determined.
Now hold that thought…
Something like “Global Warming” does not meet the basic conditions to be an objective moral truth because it does not reflect an objective moral value, it does not have an objectively identifiable moral agent, and it does not have a clearly defined outcome.
We simply don’t know enough about what global warming is, whether it exists, what causes it, whether it is the normal progression of natural events, whether our efforts will stop it, whether stopping it will cause worse problems, whether our efforts to stop it will make it worse, whether our efforts to stop it will cause unintended consequences in other areas of natural sciences, and so on.
Therefore, the erroneous elevation of something like “Global Warming” to the level of an objective moral truth necessarily results in the moral question “what ought we do about global warming,” and thus compels us, as moral agents, to take action.
But, as I just stated, we cannot take moral action in response to “Global warming” because we cannot objectively determine the moral agents, the causes, or the outcomes- neither can we determine with sufficient confidence the objective morality of the consequences of our actions, whether our actions will be effective, and what negative consequences may result from our attempts to take action.
So, even if someone really really believes that global warming exists and that it is bad, their feelings have no bearing on whether global warming has an objective moral quality.
Does any of this make sense to you? Or are you just going to restate your question with a new set of random line breaks?
M
mpi
Guest
Well said!
V
Valke2
Guest
If one believes we are contributing to global warming, then there is no moral ambiguity. The science continues to validate this belief. But even if it didn’t, the wateful use of resources is morally questionable on its own.
Not at all. This is again a personal view, and does not make morality.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
The natural end of any moral code is to determine how we are to act in the world as moral agents.
So, how does your personal, internal, subjective position regarding the existence of global warming affect how you are to act in the world as a moral agent?
Before answering that question, maybe you should consider a couple of other questions…
What level of confidence is sufficient to justify an individual to force their personal, internal, subjective moral beliefs on others, even when those other people don’t hold the same moral position?
Not too long ago, a number of Christians were absolutely convinced that non-Christians would go to hell simply for being non-Christians. I would even dare to say that their personal belief in this regard was at least as strong as some people’s belief that global warming is real. They believed this so strongly, in fact, that they tortured non-Christians to force them to convert, under the assumption that the torture endured by their victims was a small price to pay to avoid an eternity of torture in hell.
I have also heard rumors that a handful of Muslims around the world believe very strongly that God wants them to kill all non-muslims. Some believe this so strongly that they have willingly killed themselves in an attempt to murder non-muslims, thus securing their place in heaven.
Another group of people a few decades ago developed the science of eugenics. Numerous scientists contributed significantly to the research and development of this science, and many people believed that this field of science would advance human flourishing at an unprecedented rate. One of the first full scale applications of this scientific field was to exterminate those races and people who were not compatible with the ideal standard for human advancement, beginning with Jewish people, people with congenital diseases and disabilities, like the mentally handicapped.
Do you see what I’m getting at?
I have no problem that you have a personal moral opinion about something that compels you to live your life in a particular way- you can recycle, ride a bike, build windmills, or whatever else you want to do in accordance with that belief.
But don’t impose your beliefs on me, or you will join the ranks of the groups I described above.
V
Valke2
Guest
It’s a personal view based on theology and my understanding of the bible. In a sense, all views are personal. If God has commanded us to be stewards of this planet – to tend the garden – then to engage in behavior that is opposed to this has an inherent moral component.
V
Valke2
Guest
You seem to be arguing that only when something is irrevocably proven can a moral stance be taken or imposed.
This is an impossible standard to meet. There is no absolute prohibition against taking a life. Does that mean there is no moral component or action to be taken in situations where a life hangs in the balance?
Finally, I did not suggest that my moral beliefs be imposed on others. Others are free to act immorally.
This is an impossible standard to meet. There is no absolute prohibition against taking a life. Does that mean there is no moral component or action to be taken in situations where a life hangs in the balance?
Finally, I did not suggest that my moral beliefs be imposed on others. Others are free to act immorally.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Thank you.
I think you make a lot of sense.
For clarity…
Can the Catholic Church
Accept and respond
To Global Warming
As a moral imperative?
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Wow, you really did just restate your question with a new set of random line breaks.
What is
The deal with your random
Line
Breaks?
I think I have identified your fundamental misunderstanding-
You don’t seem to know the proper definition of “MORAL IMPERATIVE.”
**It makes no logical sense to say “GLOBAL WARMING” is a moral imperative, any more than “DROUGHT,” “CANCER,” or “SUNLIGHT” are moral imperatives.
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT “a thing that must be done because it is right, regardless of opposition or difficulty.”
**
Does that make sense?
Therefore, the answer to your apparently unending question is…
No- the Church cannot respond to Global Warming as a moral imperative, because, as I and others have already said, Global Warming is itself a morally neutral event or condition, assuming it even exists, which may or may not cause negative things to happen.
For example, if there are people starving because of a drought or a heatwave, then there is a moral imperative to respond to their needs. The DROUGHT itself is NOT a moral imperative-it is a morally neutral event, the results of which can bring about negative consequences to which we have a moral imperative to respond.
If their drought is the direct result of some country hundreds of miles away damming their primary water supply, we could assess that act as having a moral character, and in that case we could make a determination of what that moral character is, and how it can best be resolved for all involved. Furthermore, in that case, the solution to the drought is straightforward- open the dam, release the water, end the drought, and in the mean time, help the starving people.
AGAIN, the moral imperative is not “DROUGHT,” it is that we ought to respond to the needs of those who are starving as a result of the drought.
Furthermore, we cannot define as moral imperatives conditions or circumstances which do not have a clearly definable cause, outcome, or reasonable response- because a moral imperative must have sufficient certainty as to warrant a particular, decisive action.
There is not sufficient certainty of cause, response, or outcome in the case of Global Warming to declare with any certainty if it exists, what is causing it, if and how we ought to respond, and if the result of our intervention will produce positive, predictable results.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Wow, you really did just restate your question with a new set of random line breaks.
What is
The deal with your random
Line
Breaks?
but anyway…
good news!!!
I think I have identified your fundamental misunderstanding-
You don’t seem to know the proper definition of “MORAL IMPERATIVE.”
**It makes no logical sense to say “GLOBAL WARMING” is a moral imperative, any more than “DROUGHT,” “CANCER,” or “SUNLIGHT” are moral imperatives. **
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT "a thing that must be done because it is right, regardless of opposition or difficulty."
Does that make sense?
Therefore, the answer to your apparently unending question is…
No- the Church cannot respond to Global Warming as a moral imperative, because, as I and others have already said, Global Warming is itself a morally neutral event or condition, assuming it even exists, which may or may not cause negative things to happen.
For example, if there are people starving because of a drought or a heatwave, then there is a moral imperative to respond to their needs. The DROUGHT itself is NOT a moral imperative-it is a morally neutral event, the results of which can bring about negative consequences to which we have a moral imperative to respond.
If their drought is the direct result of some country hundreds of miles away damming their primary water supply, we could assess that act as having a moral character, and in that case we could make a determination of what that moral character is, and how it can best be resolved for all involved. Furthermore, in that case, the solution to the drought is straightforward- open the dam, release the water, end the drought, and in the mean time, help the starving people.
AGAIN, the moral imperative is not “DROUGHT,” it is that we ought to respond to the needs of those who are starving as a result of the drought.
Furthermore, we cannot define as moral imperatives conditions or circumstances which do not have a clearly definable cause, outcome, or reasonable response- because a moral imperative must have sufficient certainty as to warrant a particular, decisive action.
There is not sufficient certainty of cause, response, or outcome in the case of Global Warming to declare with any certainty if it exists, what is causing it, if and how we ought to respond, and if the result of our intervention will produce positive, predictable results.
- Status