E
edwest2
Guest
That is exactly right. It is foundation for moral relativism. Nothing is certain. Or to quote from a painting on a wall: “It is forbidden to forbid!”
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ed
"It is forbidden to forbid!"
Which amounts to: “Everything is permitted.”
"It is forbidden to forbid!"
Which amounts to: “Everything is permitted.”
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
there is no point in being good unless i get eternal life
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, that’s not true. The point of being good is to respect the inherent dignity of the human person.
B
Bradski
Guest
I think we’ve been here before…
By all means they can go ahead and do what they feel is right. As long as it causes no harm to anyone else. So I’m quite prepared for you to do whatever your Christian morality compels you to do. As long as it does no harm.
Of course, what constitutes harm in your view may well be different to other Catholics and to me as well.
B
Bradski
Guest
You should make sure God is aware of your demands.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is just another statement in support of moral relativism. There are no two right answers.
Peace,
Ed
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So “harm” is not a measurable standard by which to decide moral issues but you are advocating that we base moral decisions on it, in any case? A mildly interesting, relatively benign, but totally unhelpful contribution on your part. Thanks for that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Therein lies the problem, doesn’t it?
In your paradigm, a Nazi may say, "I don’t believe I’m harming anyone, because I don’t view the [fill in the blank] as being “anyone”.
You cannot respond with anything except, “Well, I believe it’s wrong. But, hey, you do what you think is right.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
By all means they can go ahead and do what they feel is right. As long as it causes no harm to anyone else. So I’m quite prepared for you to do whatever your Christian morality compels you to do. As long as it does no harm.
This is the usual atheist libertarian mantra … do no harm. What’s peculiar about that mantra is that it is only half the Christian mantra. “Do no harm and go out of your way to do good.”
By all means they can go ahead and do what they feel is right. As long as it causes no harm to anyone else. So I’m quite prepared for you to do whatever your Christian morality compels you to do. As long as it does no harm.
This is the usual atheist libertarian mantra … do no harm. What’s peculiar about that mantra is that it is only half the Christian mantra. “Do no harm and go out of your way to do good.”
M
mymamamary
Guest
But heres the problem. What if I feel that causing harm is ok because I get a kick out of it? Who are You to tell me that I am wrong? On what authority? If I thought causing harm is alright, then so it is. I am my own man right? What if I didn’t give a spit in the river about how some people think that causing harm is bad? (Obviously I don’t) On whoses authority are you going to indicte me?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Seems that through out history the answer to that question has often been “I’m the one with the bigger guns/sword/weapon and I’m not afraid to employ them to motivate the opposition to change.” At first glance I know one might expect that to be used to rule with tyranny. But it was also used in instances such as motivating the south to free the slaves, enforcement of Brown vs. Board of Education.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yup.
Not a very good source for morality, is it.
What is your connection to Japan, if I may be so bold in asking?
O
onemangang
Guest
It seems to me we would have to pre-suppose cognition in a purely material man!
Why should we assume that we would be cognitive? I think if were were purely material, we would have less cognition than a fruit fly.
Morality without the EXISTENCE of God, would have to go the way of the bio-chemical, and that is granting the supposition that there can even be EXISTENCE outside of God!
So to me that argument relies upon to many preconcieved notions on Existence, Life and a presupposed self awareness of a purely material being!
In other words, there is far to much to grant, to even enter into such a discussion, just my two cents
Why should we assume that we would be cognitive? I think if were were purely material, we would have less cognition than a fruit fly.
Morality without the EXISTENCE of God, would have to go the way of the bio-chemical, and that is granting the supposition that there can even be EXISTENCE outside of God!
So to me that argument relies upon to many preconcieved notions on Existence, Life and a presupposed self awareness of a purely material being!
In other words, there is far to much to grant, to even enter into such a discussion, just my two cents
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It’s less than idea, but it seems to be a common background across cultures; it’s often played a role in motivating people to either rationalize why some one else *should *be in charge or at least acquiesce to it. I’ve gotten the impression that once conformance has gone on lone enough for a generation to come to adulthood under it that it will in many cases become considered normal behaviour and be sustainable with less enforcement.Yup.
Not a very good source for morality, is it.
You may indeed so bold to ask (though from my perspective I see that as a question from curiosity, not necessarily bold). I have no connection to Japan what so ever outside of my poor Japanese reading and writing skills. The next question I would expect a curious mind to ask is “then why do you have a Japanese flag for a user image and the Japanese text (it’s a haiku) as a signature line?” Yeah…there was some reason. It escapes me now. But I’m pretty sure what ever the reason is, it has expired. It’ll come to me sooner or later. I know it was in response to some one saying something…
G
grannymh
Guest
If this is too personal a question, please ignore.
What would constitute harm to yourself or your children or your parents?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
We are agreed, then, that “society” can not be the source or authority for one’s morality.
Do you believe, then, that one’s conscience ought to be the authority on moral matters?
Well, it was bold only in the sense that it is a personal question on a rather public forum.
And you were under no obligation to answer personal questions.
But thanks for answering. It did indeed satisfy my curiosity.
G
grannymh
Guest
In my tiny view, the source for one’s morality is a different from a moral code. Also morality can be both a guide to personal actions or the action itself.Indeed.
We are agreed, then, that “society” can not be the source or authority for one’s morality.
Do you believe, then, that one’s conscience ought to be the authority on moral matters?
While everyone can agree that “society” cannot be the source or authority for one’s morality, in practical terms, “society” does act as a source or authority starting with the family unit which is a society in miniature.
What I think people are looking for is an universal morality code which would be considered as objective and not subjective and therefore, it would apply to all people regardless of being accepted or denied.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
granny
**What I think people are looking for is an universal morality code which would be considered as objective and not subjective and therefore, it would apply to all people regardless of being accepted or denied. **
Such an objective law must be rooted in accepting natural law or it will never sail as objective.
**What I think people are looking for is an universal morality code which would be considered as objective and not subjective and therefore, it would apply to all people regardless of being accepted or denied. **
Such an objective law must be rooted in accepting natural law or it will never sail as objective.
G
grannymh
Guest
I may be off base, but I think it is the reverse. Natural law must first be recognized, not necessarily accepted, as objective fact.
- Status