If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[PRmerger]

It was always immoral and based on superstition.

So you see, then, how you are espousing an absolute morality, yes?

 

[tonyrey]

I believe that morality is a human construct and that the creator did not/does not plan every aspect of creation…us among those.

If morality is a human construct there is no reason why we should respect it.

Is there any way to decide which aspects of creation the creator plans?

 

[oldcelt]

So you see, then, how you are espousing an absolute morality, yes?

No, I am expressing morality based on its evolution. We have come to understand that what was once held as a moral necessity has proven to have been false. That conclusion obviously stretches back to the time when such practices existed.
We arrived at this conclusion through many years of consideration and rational analysis of reality.

 

[oldcelt]

If morality is a human construct there is no reason why we should respect it.

Is there any way to decide which aspects of creation the creator plans?

As I stated in an earlier post, we respect moral notions out of what is believed to be the common good. Those ideas alter over time, but still revolve around the idea of what is best for society.

For your second question…no. Deists hold that the creator is unknowable and unobservable. We look to the world around us for answers, archaeology, paleontology, physics, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I am expressing morality based on its evolution. We have come to understand that what was once held as a moral necessity has proven to have been false. That conclusion obviously stretches back to the time when such practices existed.
We arrived at this conclusion through many years of consideration and rational analysis of reality.

You cannot get around the fact that you have expressed an absolute morality, oldcelt.

"Even though some folks viewed it as moral, it was indeed wrong to burn witches at the stake. It was wrong 1000 years ago. And it’s wrong today’.

That’s absolute morality.

 

[oldcelt]

You cannot get around the fact that you have expressed an absolute morality, oldcelt.

"Even though some folks viewed it as moral, it was indeed wrong to burn witches at the stake. It was wrong 1000 years ago. And it’s wrong today’.

That’s absolute morality.

If you like…I will accept that definition. I worked on the supposition that absolute morality would be unchanging…akin to the 10 Commandments in some belief systems.

 

[PRmerger]

If you like…I will accept that definition. I worked on the supposition that absolute morality would be unchanging…akin to the 10 Commandments in some belief systems.

That’s right. And that’s what you espoused: it was wrong to burn witches at the stake 1000 years ago. And it’s wrong to burn them today.

Unchanging.

Absolute morality.

We are agreed, then, that you espouse the existence of absolute morality?

 

[oldcelt]

That’s right. And that’s what you espoused: it was wrong to burn witches at the stake 1000 years ago. And it’s wrong to burn them today.

Unchanging.

Absolute morality.

We are agreed, then, that you espouse the existence of absolute morality?

I think I already admitted that. Where we disagree is on the source. Mine is totally based on human moral development, without a need for outside intervention.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I already admitted that. Where we disagree is on the source. Mine is totally based on human moral development, without a need for outside intervention.

Then this position that it’s a totally human construct is untenable. If there is an Absolute Moral Law, then there is an Absolute Moral Lawgiver.

Otherwise, no one is bound to follow any moral law–for if we make the rules, we can surely change them.

And that means we are bound by nothing at all. For if we make the rules, we can change the rules ad lib.

This reminds me of times when I was playing a game with my then 7yr old daughter in which she made all the rules. She told me, “You can’t walk on the carpet 'cause it’s hot lava”.

Ok. I complied. She complied.

Then she wanted something that was on the carpet and she walked over to get it, stating,
“Well, it’s not hot lava anymore!”

Okey dokey. She makes up the rules. She’s not bound by them. She can change them ad lib.

In the end, when one is bound by “no one but myself” when it comes to moral authority, it is essentially the same as “I am bound by nothing.”

 

[oldcelt]

Then this position that it’s a totally human construct is untenable. If there is an Absolute Moral Law, then there is an Absolute Moral Lawgiver.

Otherwise, no one is bound to follow any moral law–for if we make the rules, we can surely change them.

And that means we are bound by nothing at all. For if we make the rules, we can change the rules ad lib.

This reminds me of times when I was playing a game with my then 7yr old daughter in which she made all the rules. She told me, “You can’t walk on the carpet 'cause it’s hot lava”.

Ok. I complied. She complied.

Then she wanted something that was on the carpet and she walked over to get it, stating,
“Well, it’s not hot lava anymore!”

Okey dokey. She makes up the rules. She’s not bound by them. She can change them ad lib.

In the end, when one is bound by “no one but myself” when it comes to moral authority, it is essentially the same as “I am bound by nothing.”

We are bound by our own sense of the moral. That people violate these precepts is a given. Nowhere in that equation do I see any need for an absolute lawgiver. The accepted fact that moral views evolve is a strong argument against an absolute lawgiver.
We’re on our own.

 

[tonyrey]

As I stated in an earlier post, we respect moral notions out of what is believed to be the common good. Those ideas alter over time, but still revolve around the idea of what is best for society.

“best” begs the question in two respects. It presupposes that “good” is meaningful in an ultimately valueless and purposeless existence. It also presupposes that society is more valuable than individuals, an assumption which doesn’t correspond to the vast amount of injustice in the world. If persons are derived from the impersonal, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless there is a whole mass of contradictions which don’t make sense. In a senseless universe that it is to be expected. Reason disappears and nonsense has the last word!

For your second question…no. Deists hold that the creator is unknowable and unobservable. We look to the world around us for answers, archaeology, paleontology, physics, etc.

If something is unknowable, unobservable and inactive there is no reason to believe it exists because it makes not the slightest difference to a universe where evolution is supposed to explain all development and a creator is obviously superfluous in every respect except one and only one: the initial push - which achieves nothing!

 

[PRmerger]

We are bound by our own sense of the moral. That people violate these precepts is a given. Nowhere in that equation do I see any need for an absolute lawgiver. The accepted fact that moral views evolve is a strong argument against an absolute lawgiver.
We’re on our own.

Again, if we’re “on our own” we are not bound by our rules. Absolute morality doesn’t exist.

You can see that with the example I gave of my daughter making up the rules as we played. She made the rules. She could change them at her whim.

That’s the paradigm you’ve set up for morality.

Except it doesn’t coincide with your view that “it was always wrong to burn witches at the stake”.

You can see the disconnect between your worldview.

 

[oldcelt]

Again, if we’re “on our own” we are not bound by our rules. Absolute morality doesn’t exist.

You can see that with the example I gave of my daughter making up the rules as we played. She made the rules. She could change them at her whim.

That’s the paradigm you’ve set up for morality.

Except it doesn’t coincide with your view that “it was always wrong to burn witches at the stake”.

You can see the disconnect between your worldview.

So, you need a god figure for your morality. I do not.

 

[oldcelt]

“best” begs the question in two respects. It presupposes that “good” is meaningful in an ultimately valueless and purposeless existence. It also presupposes that society is more valuable than individuals, an assumption which doesn’t correspond to the vast amount of injustice in the world. If persons are derived from the impersonal, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless there is a whole mass of contradictions which don’t make sense. In a senseless universe that it is to be expected. Reason disappears and nonsense has the last word!

If something is unknowable, unobservable and inactive there is no reason to believe it exists because it makes not the slightest difference to a universe where evolution is supposed to explain all development and a creator is obviously superfluous in every respect except one and only one: the initial push - which achieves nothing!

Tony,
In your belief system, is not the Catholic Church, the ultimate arbiter of faith and morals? Does the Church still propose the burning of heretics? Have they not even come out in virtual opposition to the death penalty?

What happened? They evolved.
This should answer you as well PR.

 

[PRmerger]

So, you need a god figure for your morality. I do not.

Well, in the sense that anyone can be moral and can see that some action may be immoral you don’t need a god figure–you are correct.

But you do need a god figure to reason with another person why that action is immoral.

Otherwise, all you have is opinion.

And the conversation is as inutile as 2 people trying to convince each other that their favorite food is better than the others.

“Mashed turnips is the best food!”
“No, mashed potatoes is!”
“Mashed turnips is the best food!”
“No, mashed potatoes is!”
“Mashed turnips is the best food!”
“No, mashed potatoes is!”

#otiose

 

[PRmerger]

Tony,
In your belief system, is not the Catholic Church, the ultimate arbiter of faith and morals? Does the Church still propose the burning of heretics? Have they not even come out in virtual opposition to the death penalty?

What happened? They evolved.
This should answer you as well PR.

It is not against the death penalty, although she has some grave reservations about it.

Not sure what your point is?

Are you saying that it’s a moral absolute that the death penalty should be abolished?

 

[oldcelt]

It is not against the death penalty, although she has some grave reservations about it.

Not sure what your point is?

Are you saying that it’s a moral absolute that the death penalty should be abolished?

No, simply demonstrating that morality evolves even among the upper echelons of great religions.

 

[oldcelt]

Well, in the sense that anyone can be moral and can see that some action may be immoral you don’t need a god figure–you are correct.

But you do need a god figure to reason with another person why that action is immoral.

Otherwise, all you have is opinion.

And the conversation is as inutile as 2 people trying to convince each other that their favorite food is better than the others.

“Mashed turnips is the best food!”
“No, mashed potatoes is!”
“Mashed turnips is the best food!”
“No, mashed potatoes is!”
“Mashed turnips is the best food!”
“No, mashed potatoes is!”

#otiose

I don’t find it to be necessary. Reason and logic will suffice.

 

[PRmerger]

No, simply demonstrating that morality evolves even among the upper echelons of great religions.

That is contrary to your point that you made earlier–that it was ALWAYS wrong to burn witches at the stake.

IF you really believed that “morality evolves”, then you would have to say: it was moral to burn witches at the stake 1000 years ago, but morality evolved into it NOT being moral to burn witches.

And you don’t assert that.

So you *actually *believe that morality has NOT evolved.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t find it to be necessary. Reason and logic will suffice.

Except if the other person, using her reason and logic, comes to a different understanding than you do.

It simply becomes a matter of preferences.

“Brides should wear white!”
“No! Brides should wear red!”

Without any authority, all we can do is go round and round as to what is the best color for brides to wear, right?