Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Roscoe_Turner]

An atheist might deny all of this, and that may be a legitimate position. However, the move an atheist cannot make is to try to use the existence of these Old Testament narratives as a moral disproof precisely because there is no logical warrant for concluding that an omniscient and omnibenevolent God could never - in particular near the beginning of human history - have warrant to order the destruction of a corrupt culture. We are not in the privileged position required to make such a determination.

It seems that you don’t give God any credit for imagination nor His omnipotence. Let’s grant God the benefit of the doubt that he did have a valid reason, this is the best solution? Having one group slaughter another. Two floods would have been gauche? You make this a ham handed attempt. A surgeon is limited where God is not.

What about the people this was required of. Is the pain and anguish of killing children worth the land they received or like the Pharaoh did he harden their hearts to steal them against their murdous deeds.

If the Nazis are evidence for depths of human depravity wouldn’t they also warrant God’s intervention as much as any Cannanites. Wouldn’t German Children equally deserve the sword?

It’s true we all owe a death and it comes to us all. God killed all the first born in Egypt without any assistance yet here he needs the sword. They could have dropped dead where they stood or blinked out of existence.

So without evidence of divine intervention what do we have. Israelites justifying their brutality through a divine claim or we have evidence that the only absolute morality is obedience. Any moral precept that we may construct or think we deduced or gained through revelation can be trumped by God’s decision that those rules don’t apply. We just follow orders. Nuremberg

So much for morality. I guess it was more convent to kill them than attempt to coexist or change their hearts or a myriad of other options available to an omnipotent being. What was that you were saying about killing for convenience?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Eating flesh that is already dead (carrion) is scavenging.

Killing and eating human flesh is hunting.

Both might fall under the definition of cannibalism, but clearly the acts are different.

It would be like claiming negligent homicide is morally the same as premeditated murder, morally speaking, because they both CAN be called “killing.”

In point of fact, however, scavenging human flesh does not actually involve the intentional killing of a human being only what is done with the remains, so your point about cannibalism does not even have the same merit as making negligent homicide identical to murder because both of these actually do involve the taking of a life.

Any conclusion that scavenging human flesh is morally identical to hunting a human being and eating his/her flesh BECAUSE they CAN both be loosely called “cannibalism,” is clearly a nonsensical one. They are not the same.

If you can’t see the difference and regard the two acts as identical, then clearly you have no idea what morally relevant means. Why are we even arguing this point? It is so self-evident that contending otherwise ventures boldly into the world of muddleheadedness.

They are different based on the circumstances. Same act of eating human flesh - One moral, one immoral. I am differentiating the two.

Killing another human is immoral regardless if they are eaten. I am simply speaking to the act of eating human flesh. Two situations, two moral outcomes based on those situations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My thanks for the heads up in regard to my poor grammar.

And again, I will pass on your axiomatic basis for morality. Combined with the posts you are continually making to try to introduce abortion, the intent is obvious.

Again, if you want to specifically discuss the subject, then start a thread or let me know which thread you would like to use.

So your position is that abortion is right, therefore, any moral position that ends in the conclusion “Abortion is morally wrong,” must be invalid.

Abortion is the standard for all morality, then? On what basis? Provide a reason for that to be true in the important sense that it demonstrates that the convenience of one person sometimes ought to override the value of the life of another.

Or, are you simply holding that no position except your own position can be the correct one “for you?”

Ah, the relativism ploy rears its persistent head.

You haven’t given a reason to dismiss the axiom other than that it leads to a proscription on abortion which you opine is morally licit.

This simply proves my point that no fruitful debate on morality is possible without the prior commitment on the part of all that “moral” entails obligation on the part of all moral agents. Not making that commitment simply means the individual wants to keep playing the relativism card as an open option anytime the discussion challenges their individual morality. They simply do not want to be obligated to anything beyond their own choices.

For a relativist, “morality” must mean, by default, “not obligatory” because a contrary position would jeopardize their basic stance that morality, if it is anything, cannot be obligatory and must be optional “for them.”

I see your move as precisely that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They are different based on the circumstances. Same act of eating human flesh - One moral, one immoral. I am differentiating the two.

Killing another human is immoral regardless if they are eaten. I am simply speaking to the act of eating human flesh. Two situations, two moral outcomes based on those situations.

Circumstances means the situation surrounding the act.

The act of killing someone in order to eat them is not part of the “situation,” it is an integral part of the act which is substantively different from the act of eating a body that is already dead. It is the act itself - not the circumstances that the agent finds him/herself in - that is different.

One act is killing and eating, the other is merely eating. The acts, not the circumstances are radically different, as is the culpability of the agent.

It is not as if the person kills another person, then suddenly, unaware of their own agency, realize, “Oh look! Food! I wonder how that got here? No matter, time for lunch!”

You are clutching at straws here.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Circumstances means the situation surrounding the act.

The act of killing someone in order to eat them is not part of the “situation,” it is an integral part of the act which is substantively different from the act of eating a body that is already dead. It is the act itself - not the circumstances that the agent finds him/herself in - that is different.

One act is killing and eating, the other is merely eating. The acts, not the circumstances are radically different, as is the culpability of the agent.

It is not as if the person kills another person, then suddenly, unaware of their own agency, realize, “Oh look! Food! I wonder how that got here? No matter, time for lunch!”

You are clutching at straws here.

Killing is already immoral. If one kills another one immoral act has been committed. If they then eat that person another has been committed. They could have stopped at killing them.

It’s like your standard “convenience of one person sometimes ought to override the value of the life of another.”

It’s already covered in “thou shall not kill” putting connivence as a qualifier is redundant and unnecessary. We can qualify when the act may be allowable, like self defense. We don’t need a list of when it’s not allowable. The same with cannibalism. All cannibalism is wrong, with the exception of eating the dead in a survival situation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So without evidence of divine intervention what do we have. Israelites justifying their brutality through a divine claim or we have evidence that the only absolute morality is obedience. Any moral precept that we may construct or think we deduced or gained through revelation can be trumped by God’s decision that those rules don’t apply. We just follow orders. Nuremberg

The problem with your rebuttal is that there IS evidence of divine intervention. The plagues on Egypt, parting the Red Sea, pillars of cloud and fire, manna, burning bush, Moses’ direct communication with God, the parting of the Jordan, the walls of Jericho, etc.

The fact that these are all meticulously laid out in the Old Testament is precisely to build a case that this was not “just following orders” and NOT an attempt to whitewash a crime with “God made us do it.” It was to carefully document why in this instance, and only in this instance, was God making a determination.

It is you who keep bringing up “circumstances” and then deny they make any difference.

Given all these instances of direct intervention prior to the taking of the land, the people of Israel did have compelling reasons for thinking this was God’s command. Think of it from the perspective of the Israelites. All that had happened to them, what other explanation could there be? And then comes the indisputable order to take the cities.

It is not as if the idea just popped into somebody’s head, “Hey let’s go slaughter all these people and take their land.” This was preceded by a series of indubitable signs that the Creator was ordering this as a judgement.

It is not as if God had not given the Canaanites time to change their ways. The stated reason from God was that he had been keeping an eye on these people for 300 years. Time, in fact, for their “epigenetic” features to have been altered irrevocably by their cultural habits.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All cannibalism is wrong, with the exception of eating the dead in a survival situation.

Interesting conclusion. The one that I have been insisting on all along.

It would seem that your insistence that “cannibalism is cannibalism” would have led you to conclude that the soccer team eating their dead and cannibals eating their prey were NOT relevantly morally different. Which is the point I thought you were arguing the entire time and which follows from your citing the dictionary definition of cannibalism in support.

How we arrive at your last post, and why it took such a circuitous route to get here, is beyond me, but, okay, we arrived at the land of Clarity. I guess it is possible to stumble into it from time to time; much like a broken clock happens to show the correct time occasionally.

 

[PRmerger]

Not at all. I just think it’s a convenient answer. Dismissing the inconvenient.

You make the mistake of thinking “metaphorical” or “symbolic” is dismissing. Something can be metaphorical and symbolic while being of great import.

Do you believe that it is dismissive to declare that Jesus saying He is a Vine is symbolic and not literal?

Do you believe that we made a convenient reading of Matthew 18:8* as symbolic? Or is it to be understood as, well, metaphorical or hyperbole?

• [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Why do you think the Church does not dismiss as inconvenient the teaching of Jesus that said divorce and re-marriage is adultery. It would seem quite convenient to say, “Jesus meant this as only a symbolic adultery.” If that is our paradigm, why wouldn’t we apply it here?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Interesting conclusion. The one that I have been insisting on all along.

It would seem that your insistence that “cannibalism is cannibalism” would have led you to conclude that the soccer team eating their dead and cannibals eating their prey were NOT relevantly morally different. Which is the point I thought you were arguing the entire time and which follows from your citing the dictionary definition of cannibalism in support.

How we arrive at your last post, and why it took such a circuitous route to get here, is beyond me, but, okay, we arrived at the land of Clarity. I guess it is possible to stumble into it from time to time; much like a broken clock happens to show the correct time occasionally.

I’ll put it squarely in your court. I’ve been saying the same thing.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The problem with your rebuttal is that there IS evidence of divine intervention. The plagues on Egypt, parting the Red Sea, pillars of cloud and fire, manna, burning bush, Moses’ direct communication with God, the parting of the Jordan, the walls of Jericho, etc.

The fact that these are all meticulously laid out in the Old Testament is precisely to build a case that this was not “just following orders” and NOT an attempt to whitewash a crime with “God made us do it.” It was to carefully document why in this instance, and only in this instance, was God making a determination.

It is you who keep bringing up “circumstances” and then deny they make any difference.

Given all these instances of direct intervention prior to the taking of the land, the people of Israel did have compelling reasons for thinking this was God’s command. Think of it from the perspective of the Israelites. All that had happened to them, what other explanation could there be? And then comes the indisputable order to take the cities.

It is not as if the idea just popped into somebody’s head, “Hey let’s go slaughter all these people and take their land.” This was preceded by a series of indubitable signs that the Creator was ordering this as a judgement.

It is not as if God had not given the Canaanites time to change their ways. The stated reason from God was that he had been keeping an eye on these people for 300 years. Time, in fact, for their “epigenetic” features to have been altered irrevocably by their cultural habits.

So it was more convenient to kill them. Got it. I guess we’ve stumbled into a definition of Christian morality. Obedience. I rather not kill babies so I’ll be an outlier.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You make the mistake of thinking “metaphorical” or “symbolic” is dismissing. Something can be metaphorical and symbolic while being of great import.

Do you believe that it is dismissive to declare that Jesus saying He is a Vine is symbolic and not literal?

Do you believe that we made a convenient reading of Matthew 18:8* as symbolic? Or is it to be understood as, well, metaphorical or hyperbole?

• [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Why do you think the Church does not dismiss as inconvenient the teaching of Jesus that said divorce and re-marriage is adultery. It would seem quite convenient to say, “Jesus meant this as only a symbolic adultery.” If that is our paradigm, why wouldn’t we apply it here?

No I’m saying you are using it as a convenient out.

“God said kill babies, we’ll that flies in the face of a loving God of all people. Hmmm must be a metaphor. It couldn’t be a Bronze Age tribe justifying their actions. Or maybe Yahweh is only a tribal god not a God of all humanity. No just a metaphor.”

Allowing the killing of babies is metaphorical. What are we to learn from killing babies?

 

[PRmerger]

Killing is already immoral.

Actually, no.

Murder is already immoral.

Killing is not. (Unless you want to say that you only eat meat from animals who have died of natural causes? )

 

[PRmerger]

No I’m saying you are using it as a convenient out.

Then you’ll have to tell me why we don’t use “It’s just symbolic when Jesus said divorce and re-marriage is adultery” as a convenient out.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Then you’ll have to tell me why we don’t use “It’s just symbolic when Jesus said divorce and re-marriage is adultery” as a convenient out.

I haven’t offered a position about divorce nor Jesus’ teaching about it. The Church says its literal not a metaphor so it’s not relevant.

You offered that baby killing in the O.T. Is a metaphor. What is it a metaphor for? What are we to learn from it?

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t offered a position about divorce nor Jesus’ teaching about it. The Church says its literal not a metaphor so it’s not relevant.

Right.

And some things are metaphorical and not literal.

The OT stories may be an example of this.

You offered that baby killing in the O.T. Is a metaphor. What is it a metaphor for? What are we to learn from it?

You can learn whatever you want from it, given the parameters of the teachings given to us once, for all.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Actually, no.

Murder is already immoral.

Killing is not. (Unless you want to say that you only eat meat from animals who have died of natural causes? )

You are making the assumption I eat meat.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting conclusion. The one that I have been insisting on all along.

It would seem that your insistence that “cannibalism is cannibalism” would have led you to conclude that the soccer team eating their dead and cannibals eating their prey were NOT relevantly morally different. Which is the point I thought you were arguing the entire time and which follows from your citing the dictionary definition of cannibalism in support.

How we arrive at your last post, and why it took such a circuitous route to get here, is beyond me, but, okay, we arrived at the land of Clarity. I guess it is possible to stumble into it from time to time; much like a broken clock happens to show the correct time occasionally.

Peter, your “Plato Face Palm” GIF would have been perfect here, in response to Roscoe’s final acknowledgement achieved so circuitiously.

 

[PRmerger]

You are making the assumption I eat meat.

Fair enough.

Have you never swatted a fly?
Used roach spray?
Smashed a mosquito on your forearm?

Have you ever taken an antibiotic?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Right.

And some things are metaphorical and not literal.

The OT stories may be an example of this.

You can learn whatever you want from it, given the parameters of the teachings given to us once, for all.

Crickets.

So any conclusion I draw is a valid one? If I come to the conclusion that Yahweh is a horrific tribal god of a Bronze Age people, that is what the metaphor of baby killing teaches? I don’t think the Church would indorse such a position.

As an aspiring apologist could you offer your interpretation of the metaphor. What are we to learn from killing babies?

 

[PRmerger]

Crickets.

Huh?

So any conclusion I draw is a valid one?

Did I say that?