P
PRmerger
Guest
Your “own beliefs”?
That’s exactly what we’re trying to establish the source of!
[SIGN1]Where do your “own beliefs” come from? [/SIGN1] That’s the primary question in this thread.
- Status
That’s exactly what we’re trying to establish the source of!
[SIGN1]Where do your “own beliefs” come from? [/SIGN1] That’s the primary question in this thread.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Did you know that ad hominems are not allowed on the CAFs, Nozz? If you feel someone is attacking you, you have recourse to appeal to the Mods.
B
Betterave
Guest
Fantasy ad hominem, Nozz? The satisfaction you express here is obviously not “wholly made up” by me. It seems to state quite clearly that you take satisfaction in having people point out things that are irrelevant to the issue at hand (for what reason??? - that’s obvious enough, I think, but go ahead and explain if you want). How is this a fantasy or presumption on my part?
B
Betterave
Guest
Hi Nozz, I have no idea what you mean by these generalities. Is this what you take to be an argument? “Accusations” can be well-grounded or not, so they can’t simply be dismissed as such, same for ad hominems, and what do you even mean by “made up”? Can you give me some details here? (I.e., can you respond to what I actually wrote? Which part is which in your mind?)
I already read it! (Not impressed, naturally.
)
J
Janet1983
Guest
Morality has its source in God’s commands. It is not about relationships if we ignore the One who gave the commands to love one another and to love the Lord.
Morality is not subject to the opinion of the masses and the majority of the people. It is only subject to what our Creator has told us to do. His command and our obedience to Him are the source of morality.
Because of this it is not subject to debate, not subject to polls, not subject to the opinion of the majority or of any group of people. It stands on its own and even if all people would ignore it and declare the moral standards of the Lord wrong it would still not change and morality would still be what it is: Obedience to God.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
In Him,
Janet
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
PRmerger,
Indeed, I will tolerate any style of posting. I will highlight what I disagree with in it too. I have never indicated otherwise. Any intolerance to your positing style from me exists solely in your own head.
The rest of your flood of posts ask me where I get my morality personally. I have already answered this more than once, but I am more than happy to do it again. If you give me a platform, I am happily inclined to avail of it.
Firstly I have already mentioned and linked to an article I wrote here:
atheist.ie/2009/02/the-immorality-of-claiming-morality/
However I can adumbrate it slightly here. Everyone, myself included, has desires and wishes for the society they live in. The vast majority of these overlap and gain consensus. The reasons for this is that there are truths about the human condition that are true for nearly all peoples.
An Example of this: We do not wish to feel pain. We do not wish anyone we care about to feel pain either. So what kind of society would this lead us to want to build? Why, quite simply, a society in which pain is prevented and the inflicting of pain is considered evil.
So it would appear that my moral position comes less from my “conscience” and more from my “consciousness” and what it tells me about myself, those I care about, and the optimum way to achieve a society which will lend itself to those facts in myself and others.
Indeed, I will tolerate any style of posting. I will highlight what I disagree with in it too. I have never indicated otherwise. Any intolerance to your positing style from me exists solely in your own head.
The rest of your flood of posts ask me where I get my morality personally. I have already answered this more than once, but I am more than happy to do it again. If you give me a platform, I am happily inclined to avail of it.
Firstly I have already mentioned and linked to an article I wrote here:
atheist.ie/2009/02/the-immorality-of-claiming-morality/
However I can adumbrate it slightly here. Everyone, myself included, has desires and wishes for the society they live in. The vast majority of these overlap and gain consensus. The reasons for this is that there are truths about the human condition that are true for nearly all peoples.
An Example of this: We do not wish to feel pain. We do not wish anyone we care about to feel pain either. So what kind of society would this lead us to want to build? Why, quite simply, a society in which pain is prevented and the inflicting of pain is considered evil.
So it would appear that my moral position comes less from my “conscience” and more from my “consciousness” and what it tells me about myself, those I care about, and the optimum way to achieve a society which will lend itself to those facts in myself and others.
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
Betterave,
If you wish to discuss my satisfaction in someone not being able to fault me on anything but my use of a common turn of phrase, then you can do so but I am sure it is off topic to this thread. However you appear to want to keep discussing ME rather than the topic, so so be it. You can do so. I am not about to engage in it or pander to it. When you want to return to the topic of the thread, I am happy to do so.
I am not about to engage in defending myself against false accusations about why I post on forums such as these, especially from someone who took my entire argument and could find no rebuttal to it stronger than to try and over read into a common turn of phrase like “I am afraid that”.
If you wish to discuss my satisfaction in someone not being able to fault me on anything but my use of a common turn of phrase, then you can do so but I am sure it is off topic to this thread. However you appear to want to keep discussing ME rather than the topic, so so be it. You can do so. I am not about to engage in it or pander to it. When you want to return to the topic of the thread, I am happy to do so.
I am not about to engage in defending myself against false accusations about why I post on forums such as these, especially from someone who took my entire argument and could find no rebuttal to it stronger than to try and over read into a common turn of phrase like “I am afraid that”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
As I already stated, I’m happy that you’re tolerating my posting style–it’s very Christian of you to do so! (Certainly, you have no other choice if you want to continue this discourse and not appear petty.)
Excellent! * Now* we’re getting somewhere! So your moral values, such as say, abortion, come not from society (as you previously had argued) but from your own “consciuosness”. (Now, I suggest that saying it’s “consciousness” and not “conscience” is merely semantics, but I’m going to go with you on this for a while.)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Just to clear up your mistake, Nozz: it was PRmerger, not Betterave, who found it amusing that you used the phrase “I am afraid” to express where your moral values came from. To me, it indicated that you realized the inferiority of your paradigm.
And, certainly, my point has been understood as you have now amended your paradigm from “My moral values come from society” to “My moral values come from my consciousness”.
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
PRmerger,
I am not sure what you issue is with what I am saying. You keep acting like you have revealed some truth about my position despite the fact I have essentially being saying the same basic thing over and over.
There are two different things I am talking about here, with an overlap, any maybe that is the source of your confusion. The first is how I personally come to my own moral opinions. The second is how I think society does and should come to its moral position.
The former is, like I have said, an intellectual pursuit where I realise that the morality of how I act should reflect the morality of the society I wish to build. For example I commit acts of kindness not for direct personal reward, but in fact because I want to build a society where such acts are committed. I do not, to use Dinesh D’Souzas example, give my seat to an old woman on a bus because I want to personally get a seat myself next week. I do it because I want to live in a society where such acts are perpetrated.
The latter is slightly different. With the latter I am saying that people come together, each with their own positions on the society they wish to build, and we build that society democratically. On most issues we discover there is a vast consensus. For example on the inflicting of pain. All of us, with few exceptions, want to live in a society where the unnecessary infliction of pain is avoided. This consensus is so vast that it lends to the illusion that it is not us deciding this, but there is somehow some kind of external to us objective moral realm of “right” and “wrong” that is waiting to be discovered, but there is no evidence for such a realm. “Evil” is just the term we label any action that goes against that society we wish to build together.
The latter is an authority to which I bow. Not all of the consensus is at a position I personally agree with. I however consent to live in this society and hence I consent to live my its moral expectations of me. I would therefore not perform an abortion in my country, nor suggest anyone else do, and I would pursue to the prosecution of anyone who themselves perform such a procedure. I do all this while simultaneously debating, educating, campaigning and otherwise attempting to have this law changed so that abortion would become a legal option for those who wish it.
If you now manage to see the two separate positions I hold, and how I allow one to defer to the other, you might understand my position on this better. Nothing here is being “amended” as you claim, save for your understanding of what it is I am espousing.
To put it all into short text to summarise the above: My own moral opinions come from my consciousness and what I know of myself and the world around me. The moral authority I defer to and act by however is the society I am part of. In turn that society is itself made up of MY opinions AND those of everyone else in the society.
Or to put it even shorter and more succinctly: I am myself part of that entity to which I myself defer.
I am not sure what you issue is with what I am saying. You keep acting like you have revealed some truth about my position despite the fact I have essentially being saying the same basic thing over and over.
There are two different things I am talking about here, with an overlap, any maybe that is the source of your confusion. The first is how I personally come to my own moral opinions. The second is how I think society does and should come to its moral position.
The former is, like I have said, an intellectual pursuit where I realise that the morality of how I act should reflect the morality of the society I wish to build. For example I commit acts of kindness not for direct personal reward, but in fact because I want to build a society where such acts are committed. I do not, to use Dinesh D’Souzas example, give my seat to an old woman on a bus because I want to personally get a seat myself next week. I do it because I want to live in a society where such acts are perpetrated.
The latter is slightly different. With the latter I am saying that people come together, each with their own positions on the society they wish to build, and we build that society democratically. On most issues we discover there is a vast consensus. For example on the inflicting of pain. All of us, with few exceptions, want to live in a society where the unnecessary infliction of pain is avoided. This consensus is so vast that it lends to the illusion that it is not us deciding this, but there is somehow some kind of external to us objective moral realm of “right” and “wrong” that is waiting to be discovered, but there is no evidence for such a realm. “Evil” is just the term we label any action that goes against that society we wish to build together.
The latter is an authority to which I bow. Not all of the consensus is at a position I personally agree with. I however consent to live in this society and hence I consent to live my its moral expectations of me. I would therefore not perform an abortion in my country, nor suggest anyone else do, and I would pursue to the prosecution of anyone who themselves perform such a procedure. I do all this while simultaneously debating, educating, campaigning and otherwise attempting to have this law changed so that abortion would become a legal option for those who wish it.
If you now manage to see the two separate positions I hold, and how I allow one to defer to the other, you might understand my position on this better. Nothing here is being “amended” as you claim, save for your understanding of what it is I am espousing.
To put it all into short text to summarise the above: My own moral opinions come from my consciousness and what I know of myself and the world around me. The moral authority I defer to and act by however is the society I am part of. In turn that society is itself made up of MY opinions AND those of everyone else in the society.
Or to put it even shorter and more succinctly: I am myself part of that entity to which I myself defer.
B
Betterave
Guest
Dear Nozz,
If you want to refuse to respond to the substance of what I’ve written to you in posts 283 and 300, that’s your choice. But seriously, if you don’t understand what I wrote, ask some pointed questions referring to what I wrote. If you understand and disagree, say why you disagree. That’s just how mature dialogue works.
To respond to what you’ve written here, I’m interested to know how you would answer the following questions:
Suppose your society came to a consensus that Nozz’s opinions were always authoritative - would you still want to claim that your opinion was not authoritative?
Suppose your society came to the consensus that every individual’s opinion was equally authoritative - would you still want to claim that your opinion was not authoritative?
Suppose your society came to the consensus that there was no reason to consider social consensus to be morally authoritative - would you still want to claim that social consensus was morally authoritative?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Nozz, I appreciate the thought you took to write this mini-encyclical on “Where My Moral Authority Originates From”. I really do!
If you say that your position has remain unchanged throughout this discussion, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I will mention *(what I perceive as your) *amendment no further.
I really couldn’t care less about your proposal about democracy and consensus and our ability to dissent. What I am interested in is this: what is your moral authority?
You have answered, “my consciousness” (read: conscience).
Clearly no reasonable, morally sane person will ever proclaim that we are free to disobey our conscience, so, your answer is correct. [SIGN]Our conscience is our moral authority. [/SIGN]
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly!
Now, on to how your proposal is really an argument for the existence of God!
P
PRmerger
Guest
So, as was stated: no morally sane person would ever confess, “It’s morally ok to disobey one’s conscience”.
Thus, however obscurely one understands that we are always obligated to do good and avoid evil, one then acknowledges the existence of God.
How so?
Peter Kreeft, Catholic philosopher extrordinaire, explains it so:
Thus, however obscurely one understands that we are always obligated to do good and avoid evil, one then acknowledges the existence of God.
How so?
Peter Kreeft, Catholic philosopher extrordinaire, explains it so:
S
sidbrown
Guest
i think that there are cases where you might have to disobey your conscience. For example, suppose that you have a conscientious objection to war. Your only alternative is the firing squad or to put on the soldiers uniform. You consicentiously object to both alternatives, but you have no other choices available except for those two - both of which would cause you to disobey your conscience.
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s an interesting example, sid.
Your conscience tells you that it’s wrong to enlist in the military, and your conscience tells you that your own life is precious.
However, when you make the choice–whatever it is that your conscience tells you is the more moral choice–then, aren’t you obeying your conscience?
IOW, in the end, whatever decicion you make, aren’t you still obeying this higher authority?
S
sidbrown
Guest
Yes, you could look at it that way.
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
Betterave,
I am not sure what you refer to as I can find nothing in the posts you refer to that has not been dealt with in what I am saying so far. However if you wish to take yours points that you think I have missed one at a time and adumbrate the first of them for me again I am more than happy to deal with them.
In the interim, thanks for quoting my previous post in its entirety in order to post your reply. It doubles my exposure.
I am not sure what you refer to as I can find nothing in the posts you refer to that has not been dealt with in what I am saying so far. However if you wish to take yours points that you think I have missed one at a time and adumbrate the first of them for me again I am more than happy to deal with them.
In the interim, thanks for quoting my previous post in its entirety in order to post your reply. It doubles my exposure.
I do not know. If such a fantasy situation were to occur, you can re-ask me then. I would most likely use such an authority to abdicate that authority.
Maybe I am not understanding you, but is this not the position I am actually espousing? I have talked about how each of us comes to our moral opinions as individuals. I then speak of how they come together democratically (one man one vote and all that) to form the society they wish to form. I appear to be missing the force of your question here.
Again you know what I am claiming. If a society comes to an opinion I disagree with I will either have to defer to that or find another society in keeping with my views. Regardless of which of the two I choose, I would still be free to campaign, education, debate and vote in order to change it from the position it has come to, to the position I wish of it. Again I appear to be missing the point of your question as the answer to it, like the previous one, is fully contained in the position I have been espousing here.
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
PRMerger
As I said, nothing I have said is being amended here save the approach I am taking in explaining it. I honestly think that the overlap between the two things I have espoused here is the source of your confusion. However your impression of what I am saying is irrelevant to me. All that is important is that I can continue to espouse my position in a variety of ways until such time as I make it clear.
Let me repeat it shorter however:
I would close by pointing out that if you have to change what someone says into something else before commenting on it then you’re on very shaky ground indeed.
As I said, nothing I have said is being amended here save the approach I am taking in explaining it. I honestly think that the overlap between the two things I have espoused here is the source of your confusion. However your impression of what I am saying is irrelevant to me. All that is important is that I can continue to espouse my position in a variety of ways until such time as I make it clear.
Let me repeat it shorter however:
- Where does MY moral position come from? My consciousness and the knowledge I have of myself and the world around me.
- What is my moral authority to which I defer? Society and the moral expectations it has of me. Moral expectations that I only in a small part helped to form. How I act day to day is based on 2) not on 1). Thankfully in 95% of cases the two are the same.
You have made two errors. One, in confusing the answers I give to 1) and 2) above. Two in taking a word I wrote (consciousness) and changing it to a word I did not write (conscience).
I would close by pointing out that if you have to change what someone says into something else before commenting on it then you’re on very shaky ground indeed.
B
Betterave
Guest
Ha ha, good one. But seriously, what would you do? (You would seriously order people to stop listening to and agreeing with your points of view? Why?)
No, that’s not the position you’ve been espousing. You’ve been espousing majoritarian democracy. Each individual being equally authoritative is known as anarchy. Each has its advocates, but yeah, they’re slightly different!
Maybe you would comprehend the force of the question if you tried to answer it.
- Status