O
o_mlly
Guest
I do. Often a lack of communication skills in writing concisely cause the confusion at the receiving end.
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
I have NEVER said that evolution is the ONLY criteria for morality. I have SPECIFICALLY said that other aspects of social life need to be considered.Bradskii:
I do. Often a lack of communication skills in writing concisely cause the confusion at the receiving end.
B
Bradskii
Guest
The golden rule.niceatheist:
Was legitimate rape before the rules of war evolved not an evil act?
If rape is always an evil act, why so?
Any Jesus quotes…?
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
On concision, you get an “A”. But on substance, not so much. The golden rule by itself is vacuous. Same with Kant’s Categorical Imperative in which all he does is universalize the rule.
It appears you very much want a conversation on Jesus’ sayings. Start on new thread. I believe the OP in this one wants to relate ethics to evolution; not Christianity.
N
niceatheist
Guest
From my perspective no. But this is where we get into the serious problem of judging previous generations by our standards. That’s a useful line of thought in some ways, mainly to sort out what sort of justifications were used to legitimize the behavior. At the same time, we have to admit that in some cultures, rape was either not viewed as a serious offense, or there was allowance for mitigating circumstances (ie. spousal rape).
What it does demonstrate is the fluidity of morals. They are not fixed. Slavery was once common throughout the world, even in the West, and indeed the Bible itself, being a product of its times, while setting parameters on slavery, still viewed at as a worthwhile institution. Clearly you would be hard pressed to find a Jew or Christian who approves of slavery now, and most, if not all Christians would view human bondage as fundamentally immoral, but it wasn’t always so.
O
o_mlly
Guest
OK, I understand but, of course, do not agree.
Does the following accurately sum up the revised “golden” rule for evolutionists?
S
SPBlitz
Guest
This, I think, is where you are pulling a sleight of hand. Yes, I agree with you that at a certain point other pressures (like social pressures) began controlling morality. You said that we can ‘consciously decide what is right or wrong’. But (correct me if I’m wrong) surely as an atheist you believe that this consciousness is itself a product of evolution? If it’s not, then were does it come from? And if it is a product of evolution, then are we not justified in saying that anything that comes from this consciousness is also a result of evolution?
S
SPBlitz
Guest
You might be right here. Perhaps the changing morality throughout history is a sign of morality’s fluidity (which I take to mean its subjectivity). However, couldn’t it also be true that morality is an objective fact, and that it is only our understanding of this fact that has changed throughout history? Our understanding of medicine and physics has changed dramatically throughout history as well. That doesn’t mean that ancient beliefs in aethers and the ‘fluids of the body’ and bloodletting (etc) were true in the past. It’s only our understanding of the truth of biology that has improved. Could you not say that same with your rape example? That, instead of rape being moral in the past and that morality changing in the present, that rape was always evil, and the fact that it was accepted in the past reflects an incorrect belief by our ancestors?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Would murder become non-murder using the same argument? That was exactly the Nazi defense strategy at Nuremberg.
The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants’ chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.
The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.
E
edwest211
Guest
On a forum called Catholic Answers today, it needs to be said that ‘fluidity’ of morals is a very bad idea. Morals need to be fixed, and not argued. Saying, ‘oh look here or there’ is not a right way to look at morals. Too many threads here are about looking for exceptions to the rules. “Can I do this or that?”
Posting outrage against this or that does not solve any problems.
Posting outrage against this or that does not solve any problems.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
But the fact that morals do change over time is a pretty strong argument against an objective set of morals. There may be a set of moral archetypes (like the taboo against incest), but they are likely pretty darned small. Whether there is some sort of overarching objective set of morals or not, human cultures certainly, by and large, have not behaved as if there were. Oh sure, many cultures would have asserted that they were in possession of that universal set of morals (ie. Natural Law as advocated during the Enlightenment), but as usual, those claims are suspect not only because a lot of people throughout history have not followed those laws, but also suspect because those asserting they have the universal moral code in their hands can only really point at their hands, and not at any objective set of historical universal morals.
N
niceatheist
Guest
There are all sorts of justified murders. The Mosaic Law gave permission to the state to kill murderers. As well, when you kill an enemy combatant, providing it isn’t some egregious violation of the rules of war (like killing an unarmed prisoner), it’s not viewed as murder. We make all sorts of dispensation that amount to a limited right to kill people.
Let’s be blunt here. The Nazis essentially believed that anything that furthered their cause (and by extension the cause of Germany) overrode any particular moral precept.
By the beginning of the war, Germany, by and large didn’t operate under any kind of normative legal process. The Enabling Act pretty much made Hitler an absolute dictator, and it was a power that he happily extended to his more enthusiastic lieutenants. And certainly there has long been some issue with Nuremberg and the related trials in Japan, because there was the sense of victor’s justice.
The best that the Allied Powers could do is apply the standards as they stood prior to the War, and demonstrate how Germany had violated the basic norms of international relations and rules of war. As to the Crimes Against Humanity, the concept barely had an existence at all prior to the Holocaust (and let’s remember, the Nazis weren’t the first “ethnic cleansers” in the modern era, the treatment of Plains Indians by the US Army after the Civil War could justifiably be called an example of ethnic cleansing, not to mention the Armenian Genocide which the Turks won’t even admit to now.
So yes, the Allied Powers imposed their own morality upon the Nazis, but the fact that in the dying days of the war, the Nazis made some attempt to conceal the Holocaust demonstrates that whatever peculiar argument they may have used to justify genocide, they knew that the Allied Powers would hold them accountable. In other words, they knew they had committed grave crimes, and knew that at least some of them would be judged for those crimes.
N
niceatheist
Guest
If morals were fixed, slavery would still exist in the West and women would still be chattel.
I’m very glad morals are not fixed.
B
Bradskii
Guest
J: Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.Bradskii:
On concision, you get an “A”. But on substance, not so much. The golden rule by itself is vacuous.
O: Gee, that’s a bit vacuous!
Hey, a quote by Jesus in context. Was it an original you think?
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
And some of them were let free. The Germans possessed a lot of technology the Allies wanted. American scientists who had some idea of what was going on, operated from a practical standpoint. Many ‘average’ scientists did not know what their German colleagues did or what some would later be accused of. Our enemy, the Russians, had no moral scruples.
Other factors were in play. During the Nuremburg trials, SS commandos who participated in the Battle of the Bulge were accused of violating the law by wearing American uniforms. A British officer who was also a commando, testified in their defense. The British had done the same thing in certain cases.
Other factors were in play. During the Nuremburg trials, SS commandos who participated in the Battle of the Bulge were accused of violating the law by wearing American uniforms. A British officer who was also a commando, testified in their defense. The British had done the same thing in certain cases.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I would be interested in seeing a write-up of an absolute moral code by you or anyone else. Some here do not want any moral code applied to their sexual activity, for example. Catholics at least try to follow a moral code.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Yes. You are. But lots of things are evolutionary driven. Is someone saying that they are therefore correct?
N
niceatheist
Guest
There were a pretty huge race between all the Allied Powers, even the Western Ones, in the dying days of the war to get examples of German technology; including the scientists and engineers behind that technology. And technically, the Soviets weren’t our enemies during that period, and that didn’t happen in earnest until after the war’s completion.
And yes, there were actions of the Allied Powers that were certainly morally questionable, if not outright crimes themselves. Some people thinking the firebombing of Dresden was as much about retribution for the attacks on Britain as about winning the war. Certainly by that point it was pretty clear Germany, caught in the vice between Western Allies and the Soviets, was doomed. At the same time, I think even in the modern rules of war, there has always been some allowance for such activities, particularly if you’re the victor.
I remember reading of one moral conundrum that the Brits ran up against after the Fall of France. There were concerns raised about how much support to offer to the French Resistance, since, for all intents and purposes, it was acting as a terrorist organization. In the end, anything that would force the Germans to dedicate resources to internal security in Occupied Europe was seen as important to the overall effort, but even the Western Allies had moral debates that often came down to one simple fact; “The Axis have to be beaten.”
And yes, there were actions of the Allied Powers that were certainly morally questionable, if not outright crimes themselves. Some people thinking the firebombing of Dresden was as much about retribution for the attacks on Britain as about winning the war. Certainly by that point it was pretty clear Germany, caught in the vice between Western Allies and the Soviets, was doomed. At the same time, I think even in the modern rules of war, there has always been some allowance for such activities, particularly if you’re the victor.
I remember reading of one moral conundrum that the Brits ran up against after the Fall of France. There were concerns raised about how much support to offer to the French Resistance, since, for all intents and purposes, it was acting as a terrorist organization. In the end, anything that would force the Germans to dedicate resources to internal security in Occupied Europe was seen as important to the overall effort, but even the Western Allies had moral debates that often came down to one simple fact; “The Axis have to be beaten.”
B
Bradskii
Guest
Can a moral code determine all questions of morality? Obviously not. So who makes the decision? You may not want to admit it, Ed - but you do.
- Status