Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[Freddy]

QwertyGirl:

How else would you like to see him suffer?

He suffers spiritually, he may not suffer socially at all.

What I am trying to do (and it’s like pulling teeth) is get common agreement on why anyone would save her whatever that person’s belief. Atheist and Christian alike.

You’re trying to discuss the topic on your terms but won’t answer why anyone has-to-play the game, especially on your terms.

Even though you insist they have to play, you can’t make someone play the game who doesn’t want to? Being a BOC means you can refuse to play the game.

When there is disagreement, everybody considers themselves equally moral, so who cares what anybody else thinks? A person can do what they want and that means they do not have to assist when someone else is in danger. look around you it happens frequently in the secular world.

You can feel free to involve yourself or not. If I say something with which you disagree you can let the statement stand or dispute it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Not ‘what is popularly supported’. You are held to account by the common morality of your peers. That’s something a little more substantial than whatever happens to be popular at the time.

I guess you missed the fact that moral relativism is all the rage in western societies these days? The claim is that no one ought to impose their standards on others. Where have you been?

I’m not suggesting or even implying that anyone should follow any moral course other than the one to which they hold. The current discussion, as I have repeated ad nauseum, is to find common ground.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you think that a fear of further punishment is sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow then that seems not to work. Why should I therefore grant it any credibility?

I would suggest that social ostracism, doxxing, media attacks, and a host of other tricks being used by the PC activists is causing many to kowtow to the latest demands from the left.

Everything you proposed there works in all directions. But I’m glad that you do agree that social ostracism is something to be avoided. I’ll be bringing that up in due course. Thanks.

Freddy:

Not ‘what is popularly supported’. You are held to account by the common morality of your peers. That’s something a little more substantial than whatever happens to be popular at the time.

The claim is that no one ought to impose their standards on others.

There seems to be a fight on by Christians (and Catholics in particular) to have their views on sexual matters imposed on all. Don’t you agree with that? Are you not manning the barricades and storming the battlements of the sexual liberals yourself? Or do you hold to the principle that one shouldn’t impose their moral values on others?

 

[upant]

If I say something with which you disagree you can let the statement stand or dispute it.

I disagree with your premise that people get to choose their own morals by agreement with others. Morals are set in stone. Everyone has to follow the same morals, there is no changing them to what the majority wants

Where do we go from here?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If I say something with which you disagree you can let the statement stand or dispute it.

I disagree with your premise that people get to choose their own morals by agreement with others. Morals are set in stone. Everyone has to follow the same morals, there is no changing them to what the majority wants

Where do we go from here?

We look for areas where we have common agreement. As we have been doing. Harry and Elf have joined in. Feel free whenever you think you can. See the post about saving the young girl and whether you would do it if it meant ruining your suit.

Would you worry more about her or your suit?

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

 

[HarryStotle]

There seems to be a fight on by Christians (and Catholics in particular) to have their views on sexual matters imposed on all.

The “fight on” comes from both sides, and it is having serious negative impacts on the very young and developing in our society. There is very good reason why a responsible and caring view of sexuality – rather than the licentious one of secular liberalism – ought to be promoted.

Here is where the “sexual liberals” are taking our culture…

Having “…their views on sexual matters imposed on all…” is coming from both sides, and the depraved side is doing much more of the “forcing” these days.

 

[Freddy]

Having “…their views on sexual matters imposed on all…” is coming from both sides, and the depraved side is doing much more of the “forcing” these days.

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others? That appears to be your argument. I just want to confirm that.

 

[upant]

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

it is not the pork that is immoral, but the disobedience to God.

We look for areas where we have common agreement.

again, I will ask, what happens when there’s no agreement. What if we can’t find common ground.

 

[upant]

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others?

I don’t want the views considered moral by the secular left imposed on me and that is the issue. Their morals are immoral. I don’t find common ground with the liberal community’s morals. Now what?

 

[HarryStotle]

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others? That appears to be your argument. I just want to confirm that.

Moral views are precisely what ought to be imposed on others. That is exactly what makes them moral to begin with.

Your argument that no one ought to impose morality on anyone else implies there is no such thing as morality. You can argue that if you wish, but you will discussing that view with yourself, alone.

If you wish to discuss morality, then a decent starting point would be the assumption that morality is precisely made up of the moral rules that ought to be imposed on everyone.

You should not murder the innocent is an imperative or obligatory principle. That is what makes it a moral principle. There are no exceptions. No one should be able to opt out of morality because morality obliges all moral agents universally.

Likewise with proscriptions against rape, the torture of innocents, and so forth.

We would likely make far better headway in a discussion if THAT would be our starting point.

Moral rules apply universally to all moral agents who are obliged to follow them. Absent that there is no common ground to be had.

Following that we could begin to break down which rules and principles, etc., are MORAL as opposed to being mere pragmatic, cultural, social, ethnic practices, customs, conventions or mores.

mo·res​

(môr′āz′, -ēz)

pl.n.

1. The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.

2. Moral attitudes.

3. Manners; ways.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others?

I don’t want the views considered moral by the secular left imposed on me and that is the issue. Their morals are immoral. I don’t find common ground with the liberal community’s morals. Now what?

Then is it fair to say that you cannot therefore impose your morality on others? Or is it the case that you can but literally nobody else is allowed. And pleeeease don’t tell me that you can because your morality is right and everyone else’s is wrong. Please don’t do that. I credit you with a lot more intelligence than that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

it is not the pork that is immoral, but the disobedience to God.

We look for areas where we have common agreement.

again, I will ask, what happens when there’s no agreement. What if we can’t find common ground.

We have to look for it first. If we find a common basis for what we believe then we have a better chance of finding agreement. So suit or little girl?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others? That appears to be your argument. I just want to confirm that.

Moral views are precisely what ought to be imposed on others. That is exactly what makes them moral to begin with.

Your argument that no one ought to impose morality on anyone else implies there is no such thing as morality. You can argue that if you wish, but you will discussing that view with yourself, alone.

If you wish to discuss morality, then a decent starting point would be the assumption that morality is precisely made up of the moral rules that ought to be imposed on everyone.

You should not murder the innocent is an imperative or obligatory principle. That is what makes it a moral principle. There are no exceptions. No one should be able to opt out of morality because morality obliges all moral agents universally.

Likewise with proscriptions against rape, the torture of innocents, and so forth.

We would likely make far better headway in a discussion if THAT would be our starting point.

Well I tried stealing, which I thought was a pretty easily agreed start point but you rejected that. But youndid accept the case of the drowning child and if we should save her or not.

So is your suit more valuable than her life?

 

[HarryStotle]

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

Actually, if you mean by “some people” Jewish individuals, it would be incorrect to claim they consider it a moral question. It isn’t. It is a matter of religious observance. They wouldn’t think of imposing that law on non-Jews. And since Jews don’t have any plans to take over the world, they aren’t looking to impose such rules on Gentiles. Moral questions are and should be a different story, however.

Again, any sane discussion means clarifying the terms and not muddling together a mess of confused ideas and presumptions.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others? That appears to be your argument. I just want to confirm that.

**Moral views are precisely what ought to be imposed on others.

So you don’t mind people imposing their moral views on you? I’m sure you would mind. What I think you mean, as upant was intimating, was that you are quite prepared to impose those moral values with which you agree on others. All others…not so much.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

So you don’t want moral views imposed on others? That appears to be your argument. I just want to confirm that.

Moral views are precisely what ought to be imposed on others. That is exactly what makes them moral to begin with.

Your argument that no one ought to impose morality on anyone else implies there is no such thing as morality. You can argue that if you wish, but you will discussing that view with yourself, alone.

If you wish to discuss morality, then a decent starting point would be the assumption that morality is precisely made up of the moral rules that ought to be imposed on everyone.

You should not murder the innocent is an imperative or obligatory principle. That is what makes it a moral principle. There are no exceptions. No one should be able to opt out of morality because morality obliges all moral agents universally.

Likewise with proscriptions against rape, the torture of innocents, and so forth.

We would likely make far better headway in a discussion if THAT would be our starting point.

Well I tried stealing, which I thought was a pretty easily agreed start point but you rejected that. But youndid accept the case of the drowning child and if we should save her or not.

So is your suit more valuable than her life?

If you want to wander off into the weeds again, you are on your own.

If you want to discuss morality, then this is what I suggest to be the starting point:

Propose some moral rules that apply to every human moral agent without exception.

That would provide a clear picture of what you believe is the scope of morality.

If you think there are no such rules, we have no common ground.

Provide a rule you think applies to every human moral agent without exception. Then we can discuss.

In fact, I’ll start…

It is always wrong to wantonly murder an innocent human being. Yes?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

Actually, if you mean by “some people” Jewish individuals, it would be incorrect to claim they consider it a moral question.

Jews and Muslims consider it a command by God. Is disobeying God immoral? I would have said yes. But as you will.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

Actually, if you mean by “some people” Jewish individuals, it would be incorrect to claim they consider it a moral question.

Jews and Muslims consider it a command by God. Is disobeying God immoral? I would have said yes. But as you will.

Not immoral, but contravenes the will of God.

Morality has to do with how human moral agents are to treat each other.

God can suffer no injustice or harm at the hands of human beings. There may be obligations that human beings have vis a vis God, but that isn’t in any sense how we are to treat God in a moral sense.

It isn’t immoral to kill an animal. It is inhumane to do so in some ways, however. That says more about the human carrying out the abuse of the animal than it does about the moral standing of the animal.

 

[Freddy]

In fact, I’ll start…

It is always wrong to wantonly murder an innocent human being. Yes?

YOU’LL start? Good grief. I’ve been trying to suggest a topic for scores of posts and now you say that you’ll start. That’s a bit rich. And murder is always wrong by the very definition of the word. A non starter if there ever was one.

We have a topic. Why you could (or should) or must not let a child drown. We were discussing it as you remember. We covered empathy and saving the parents from anguish. Now we’re on to value. As in would you worry more about your suit than the child.

Upant finds the question tricky. Maybe you can have a go. I’ll be continuing this with or without you. Feel free to butt in if I say anything with which you disagree.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

In fact, I’ll start…

It is always wrong to wantonly murder an innocent human being. Yes?

YOU’LL start? Good grief. I’ve been trying to suggest a topic for scores of posts and now you say that you’ll start. That’s a bit rich. And murder is always wrong by the very definition of the word. A non starter if there ever was one.

Recall that you seemed to have insisted no one could impose their morality on others.

So you don’t mind people imposing their moral views on you?

I am simply clarifying that morality is nothing more than those rules that should be imposed on others.

So murder of a human being is always wrong? We are morally obligated not to murder other human beings, correct?

We can impose that moral rule on others, then? Yes?

What other moral rule can we always impose on others?

Again I am not interested in what we cannot impose on others, but only those you think we should impose on them because they have an obligation to live according to those rules.

Go ahead, make a long list.