J
JamesATyler
Guest
God created us and requires us to be faithful and obedient. By not serving him you commit a kind of theft, betrayal, and infidelity.
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
There is something that some people refer to as the Dharma, the Tao, that every human society understands as being the foundation of what is right and wrong;
since it is at the ground of our existence, each culture, each person gets it right to a certain extent, although many totally lose their bearings.
That Reality as I understand it, is Beauty itself, It is the source of all that is, It is the Sea of compassion in which we dwell as persons - This is what I call God; the Person I pray and apologize to.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Wait a minute. You accepted two claims about moral acts:
I’ll go with 2 [you said.]
I’ll go with A [you said.]
Therefore, it is virtually impossible to provide a moral principle which you cannot logically reject simply because you hold to #2 and can declare or reject, at will, whether principles are to be considered moral or not. It is like playing a game with someone who can make up or change rules to instantly rule in their own favor. The game would become tedious and pointless very quickly.
What must be done is not to engage with you in your game but show that your game is not really a game, but, instead, gamy.
Take for example, a certain leader of a rogue country who gains the technological skill to create nuclear weapons and threatens other countries with destruction. This leader believes that diplomacy and the rights of human beings are both unworthy ideas and that power is the supreme determiner of right. Like you, he subscribes to #2 that what is good is merely what he has determined to be good.
It is, then, impossible to argue against his position because he has accepted, as you have, a false premise.
He might be resistant to argument, but surely you are not. How can you, Bradski, accept #2 with full knowledge that it makes moral dialogue futile? How can you accept that anyone’s concept of “good” becomes what is good, by definition, even when it clearly is not to a better formed moral agent such as yourself (I mean relative to the rogue leader?) #2 is morally problematic, no?
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly, Peter. Egg-zactly.
In fact, I had already proffered this analogy to our friend Bradski way back when here:
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
That’s not a moral act. I’ll. give you another go.
It is a moral act to honor your mother and your father, the two who created you.
It is an even more moral act to honor your Father Creator. Since the atheist will not do that, he has failed to perform that moral act. I could name many other moral acts that spring from acknowledging our Creator, but you would not acknowledge them either.
For example, being perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect. There is nothing in atheism that commands the act of moral betterment.
Repenting of our sins is also a deeply moral act, since it is the avenue by which we better ourselves.
I could go on and on, but atheism offers a very narrow idea of moral acts. In fact, it offers no idea of moral acts at all except the so-called moral obligation to deny God. But that is an immoral, not a moral, act.
It’s also a tad foolish, since the atheist has no absolute proof that God does not exist. If anything, it is decidedly more plausible to believe in God than to deny Him.
It is decidedly more moral to anchor all our moral acts in God than to anchor them in our own whimsical egos.
That’s not a moral act. I’ll. give you another go.
It is a moral act to honor your mother and your father, the two who created you.
It is an even more moral act to honor your Father Creator. Since the atheist will not do that, he has failed to perform that moral act. I could name many other moral acts that spring from acknowledging our Creator, but you would not acknowledge them either.
For example, being perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect. There is nothing in atheism that commands the act of moral betterment.
Repenting of our sins is also a deeply moral act, since it is the avenue by which we better ourselves.
I could go on and on, but atheism offers a very narrow idea of moral acts. In fact, it offers no idea of moral acts at all except the so-called moral obligation to deny God. But that is an immoral, not a moral, act.
It’s also a tad foolish, since the atheist has no absolute proof that God does not exist. If anything, it is decidedly more plausible to believe in God than to deny Him.
It is decidedly more moral to anchor all our moral acts in God than to anchor them in our own whimsical egos.
B
Bradski
Guest
No, it isn’t. You seem to think that when I say, or at least when I agreed, that ‘moral standards are not binding on all moral agents’ that discussion is futile. It obviously isn’t. Discussing differences is what we do. It’s what we’re doing now, so how can you say it’s futile? Yes, it may be difficult to change someone’s mind about something, but it’s a process that happens every minute of every day.
In any case, what you and I believe (and almost everyone else believes) about morality is pretty much the same. There is an extremely small overlap of views that are not, generally, a hindrance to reasonable people living harmoniously (North Korea being something of an exception as it is not run by reasonable people).
For example, you might think that contraception is wrong but I don’t. That is, I personally know I’m right. You personally know that you are. And in this case never the twain. I can’t determine your views for you and vice versa. That is what is meant by ‘moral standards are not binding on all moral agents’. To be specific, it means that ‘my’ moral standards are not binding on ‘all other’ moral agents. That is, you. I can’t decide for you what is right or wrong (unfortunately, you think you can for me).
This is an easy argument to make and I get it constantly. ‘You just make up the rules to suit yourself’. If that were the case, then I would be changing ‘my rules’ on a whim, just like PR’s niece. If someone wants to take something of mine then I would say: stealing is wrong. Then, if I wanted to take something from someone else, I would change that to: stealing is OK.
I don’t know any sane person who does that. In fact, I can’t think of any moral position that I hold now that I didn’t hold 30 years ago. Although one or two that I might just have paid lip service to have taken more concrete form. That’s hardly making it up as I go, is it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Whether you do or don’t is irrelevant (although I am quite sure that you do change the rules when it suits you–because, again, you are not bound by anything except what you feel is right. In fact, you have stated that you would allow your son to cheat, if it could be shown that no one was harmed by that. That seems to be making it up as you go, don’t you think?)
The point is, Bradski, that if you make the rules, you can change them when you want to. And given the fickle character of our human nature, you can bet on the fact that people who live by this paradigm are going to change the rules when it suits them.
In fact, the fact that my (then) 7 year old DD *did *change the rules is evidence for this.
Now, before you get offended about being compared to a 7 year old’s immature sense of rule-making, I want to say that it’s only a difference of quantity, not of quality. Adding maturity in years will assist in making more moral decisions, but, then again, the games we play as adults are quantitatively more serious.
T
tonyrey
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
https://dl.dropbox.com/sh/5no66brqf...AGW4sxvpQGOLB1Pv51H9D5W1UT-oS6angGkl-phvYbFAA
This, I suspect, is the crux of the problem. We have a different concept of what moral standards mean.
Moral principles, following traditional ethical thinking, are those which, by definition, are binding on all moral beings. If specific codes are not universally binding then they are not moral codes because they are not obligatory. So the question is, “Which rules of behaviour are those which are absolutely obligatory and which are not?” The former being moral standards, the others perhaps not, unless they can be shown to be otherwise.
From my POV there is no such thing as “my moral standards,” there are only moral standards. Again, the question is which codes are worthy of being classed as “moral” and therefore obligatory to all and which are not?
I think the ethical water is muddied when we begin to speak of “my standards” because by doing so all dialogue ceases to be productive. The assumption then becomes that each person has an absolute right to their own view. This is problematic precisely because it removes the ground rules for what “moral” is, i.e., incumbent on all moral beings to follow, and makes morality an optional buy in. That, in turn, replaces the authority of morality with human fiat. All possibility for settling contentious moral issues is removed.
To dialogue effectively, the terms have to be clear.
Moral must definitionally mean obligatory for all moral beings. At that point we can begin to delineate between which rules are moral rules and which fit some other class. Rules of behaviour may be pragmatic, happifying, codes of etiquette, customary, culturally appropriate, conducive to some end, etc., but these are not necessarily considered to be “moral” rules.
In fact, to properly engage in dialogue, I would insist that only those “rules” of behaviour that we would insist are obligatory for all moral agents be called “moral.” That means, by definition, moral standards are universally binding, and you are simply mistaken that your “moral standards” are not. If they are rightfully thought to be moral standards by anyone, then they are universally binding. If the person cannot envision them as universally binding then they are not. The burden of proof, then, is to demonstrate which rules are rightfully moral rules and which are not.
That is the only way that a discussion of moral values can proceed. If that basic definition can’t be agreed upon then there is no point in discussing the matter further.
It is like defining basketball by the fundamental “goal” of the game: to put the ball into the basket. All other procedural rules of basketball hinge upon that one.
If we can’t say “moral” means obligatory for all, then there is no point in bringing up the issue. Once that is agreed upon then we can discuss which “rules” ought to be mandatory and which are merely preferable or pragmatic.
B
Bradski
Guest
Well, that’s not surprising, is it.
That’s true. Because atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It has no positive aspects, so you can’t strive to be a better atheist. That’s like not collecting stamps and trying to be better at it. If you want to talk about a positive belief that doesn’t include religion, then humanism may be the way to go. And there is certainly something there that requires the act of moral betterment.
I wouldn’t put it that way, as I don’t believe in the concept of sin, but I would agree that being sorry for acts that you have committed that you know to have been wrong is morally acceptable.
You’re going to have to study the meaning of atheism.
We’ll have to agree to disagree there.
I think I mentioned whimsy above, in post 1242 (1242? Ye gods – has this been going that long?).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Plato face palm! Ever so excellent! :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**
I don’t know any sane person who does that. In fact, I can’t think of any moral position that I hold now that I didn’t hold 30 years ago. Although one or two that I might just have paid lip service to have taken more concrete form. That’s hardly making it up as I go, is it. **
Here’s the problem.
We do not start fresh in a moral vacuum. I don’t know your personal history, but my guess would be that if you are an older person, you have inherited a set of moral values from a family and culture that was dominated by the Judeo-Christian ethic. As the invested capital of that system runs dry, increasingly people will be set adrift as existential beings, and with respect to their moral values more and more often will have to go about “making it up as I go.”
This is not going to end well.
**
I don’t know any sane person who does that. In fact, I can’t think of any moral position that I hold now that I didn’t hold 30 years ago. Although one or two that I might just have paid lip service to have taken more concrete form. That’s hardly making it up as I go, is it. **
Here’s the problem.
We do not start fresh in a moral vacuum. I don’t know your personal history, but my guess would be that if you are an older person, you have inherited a set of moral values from a family and culture that was dominated by the Judeo-Christian ethic. As the invested capital of that system runs dry, increasingly people will be set adrift as existential beings, and with respect to their moral values more and more often will have to go about “making it up as I go.”
This is not going to end well.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Following up on my last post, when someone makes the claim that, for example, contraception is wrong, then the burden of proof falls on them to demonstrate that it ought to be obligatory for all moral beings based upon sound moral reasoning. If another person claims that contraception is acceptable, then the burden falls on them to demonstrate that it does not contradict or conflict with other accepted or established moral principles. The dialogue can then proceed.
However, this is only possible if the basic principle underlying the discussion is that some behaviours, i.e., moral ones, are incumbent on all moral beings. Otherwise, all following points are futile.
Following an agreement of what moral means, the next step is to propose principles which are indeed moral principles.
This is not unlike establishing the basic rules of logic in order to carry on a rational discussion.
The law of non-contradiction is an essential starting point for carrying forward a reasoned debate. If one of the debaters claims that the law of non-contradiction need not apply in their logical system, then any point of attempting to demonstrate anything logically to that person is doomed.
If you are not prepared to accept that moral means, by definition, “obligatory,” then there is no point in proceeding. We would not be discussing the same animal and therefore any claims made would be of no worth. It would be like me pointing to a tree and claiming it is a plant and you pointing at a cloud and saying, “No, it isn’t.”
However, this is only possible if the basic principle underlying the discussion is that some behaviours, i.e., moral ones, are incumbent on all moral beings. Otherwise, all following points are futile.
Following an agreement of what moral means, the next step is to propose principles which are indeed moral principles.
This is not unlike establishing the basic rules of logic in order to carry on a rational discussion.
The law of non-contradiction is an essential starting point for carrying forward a reasoned debate. If one of the debaters claims that the law of non-contradiction need not apply in their logical system, then any point of attempting to demonstrate anything logically to that person is doomed.
If you are not prepared to accept that moral means, by definition, “obligatory,” then there is no point in proceeding. We would not be discussing the same animal and therefore any claims made would be of no worth. It would be like me pointing to a tree and claiming it is a plant and you pointing at a cloud and saying, “No, it isn’t.”
P
Portofino
Guest
The Greek philosopher Epicurus – who was an atheist, by modern standards – believed in gratitude as a cardinal virtue, as he observed that the ungrateful tended to be miserable.
This is not dissimilar to Oprah Winfrey’s suggestion to keep a “gratitude journal”, to find all of the things in one’s life that one is grateful for. Thinking positively obviously makes one happier.
Indeed, the ungrateful could be described as those who “aren’t satisfied with anything; don’t appreciate anything; and always want what they don’t have, rather than appreciate what they do have.” Sounds pretty miserable!
Epicurus once wrote, “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Following up on my last post, when someone makes the claim that, for example, contraception is wrong, then the burden of proof falls on them to demonstrate that it ought to be obligatory for all moral beings based upon sound moral reasoning. If another person claims that contraception is acceptable, then the burden falls on them to demonstrate that it does not contradict or conflict with other accepted or established moral principles. The dialogue can then proceed.
However, this is only possible if the basic principle underlying the discussion is that some behaviours, i.e., moral ones, are incumbent on all moral beings. Otherwise, all following points are futile.
Following an agreement of what moral means, the next step is to propose principles which are indeed moral principles.
This is not unlike establishing the basic rules of logic in order to carry on a rational discussion.
The law of non-contradiction is an essential starting point for carrying forward a reasoned debate. If one of the debaters claims that the law of non-contradiction need not apply in their logical system, then any point of attempting to demonstrate anything logically to that person is doomed.
If you are not prepared to accept that moral means, by definition, “obligatory,” then there is no point in proceeding. We would not be discussing the same animal and therefore any claims made would be of no worth. It would be like me pointing to a tree and claiming it is a plant and you pointing at a cloud and saying, “No, it isn’t.”
However, this is only possible if the basic principle underlying the discussion is that some behaviours, i.e., moral ones, are incumbent on all moral beings. Otherwise, all following points are futile.
Following an agreement of what moral means, the next step is to propose principles which are indeed moral principles.
This is not unlike establishing the basic rules of logic in order to carry on a rational discussion.
The law of non-contradiction is an essential starting point for carrying forward a reasoned debate. If one of the debaters claims that the law of non-contradiction need not apply in their logical system, then any point of attempting to demonstrate anything logically to that person is doomed.
If you are not prepared to accept that moral means, by definition, “obligatory,” then there is no point in proceeding. We would not be discussing the same animal and therefore any claims made would be of no worth. It would be like me pointing to a tree and claiming it is a plant and you pointing at a cloud and saying, “No, it isn’t.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Portofino
**
The Greek philosopher Epicurus – who was an atheist, by modern standards – believed in gratitude as a cardinal virtue, as he observed that the ungrateful tended to be miserable.**
If he truly was an atheist, he would not have been grateful to the God who created him.
No doubt he was grateful to his good luck in life, and probably to his parents and so forth.
That’s hardly the same as having someone to thank for creating the universe and giving you your immortal soul.
**
The Greek philosopher Epicurus – who was an atheist, by modern standards – believed in gratitude as a cardinal virtue, as he observed that the ungrateful tended to be miserable.**
If he truly was an atheist, he would not have been grateful to the God who created him.
No doubt he was grateful to his good luck in life, and probably to his parents and so forth.
That’s hardly the same as having someone to thank for creating the universe and giving you your immortal soul.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
That’s true. Because atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It has no positive aspects, so you can’t strive to be a better atheist.
Very true. Yet you can always strive to be a better Christian.
That’s true. Because atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It has no positive aspects, so you can’t strive to be a better atheist.
Very true. Yet you can always strive to be a better Christian.
B
Bradski
Guest
I think you’re being too pessimistic, Charles.
You’re correct in assuming that I was brought up with what you describe as a Judeo-Christian ethic. I was brought up a Christian. My family life revolved around the church (for what it’s worth, maybe to show that there’s a real person behind the posts, here’s the church: churchinwales.org.uk/parishholding/swansea/s462-en/churches-en/st-michael-all-angels_-en/church_view). Hard to believe but I was head choirboy. Gee, I was angelic in my surplus and ruffles…
So anyway, I had a set of values as I grew up. They were my parents’ values. And I realised as I was growing up that the values, although being described as ‘Christian’ were not specifically Christian. ‘Do unto others’ for example seemed pretty universal to me. But they were values worth keeping and because I realised that Christianity didn’t have a monopoly on them meant that I wasn’t going to discard them any time soon because I’d realised that I didn’t have a belief in God.
So the majority of those values remain with me today. You don’t use them up as you go, so ‘the invested capital’ doesn’t run dry as you put it. What has happened, in my case anyway, is that I’ve fine-tuned a few of them. Some of them didn’t seem to work as they related to the world as I saw it, so there have been some changes.
But no-one starts with a blank slate and makes it up as they go along. That’s nonsensical.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**
But no-one starts with a blank slate and makes it up as they go along. That’s nonsensical. **
Moses started with a blank slate!
Upon which God wrote down the laws.
For many people it is true, because of Moses, that we do not start with a blank slate. But as more and more people have no religion, and therefore no set of moral convictions to grow up with, more and more children will grow up without God. They will pass their godless morality on to their children. It can’t be helped. Moral anarchy is inevitable. From a historical perspective, this will result in the most politically repressive regimes ever, since it will require the state to use military means to suppress crime, rather than moral persuasion, as was the case in East Germany from 1945-1990 when the atheistic Russian Stasi [police] used brutal methods to intimidate the populace against resorting to crime.
Likewise, after the French Revolution, France fell into moral anarchy, and was pulled out of it only by the appearance of a dictator. In the 1920s Germany, when liberalism was supreme and the nation was falling apart at the seems, another dictator appeared with a new set of morals, not divine morals, but rather demonic morals.
This is what is happening in America today. The Churches are losing their members; everyone thinks he is free, but hardly anyone dares to walk the streets at night. And, sooner or later, they will be afraid to walk the streets in daytime hours.
I kid you not.
**
But no-one starts with a blank slate and makes it up as they go along. That’s nonsensical. **
Moses started with a blank slate!
Upon which God wrote down the laws.For many people it is true, because of Moses, that we do not start with a blank slate. But as more and more people have no religion, and therefore no set of moral convictions to grow up with, more and more children will grow up without God. They will pass their godless morality on to their children. It can’t be helped. Moral anarchy is inevitable. From a historical perspective, this will result in the most politically repressive regimes ever, since it will require the state to use military means to suppress crime, rather than moral persuasion, as was the case in East Germany from 1945-1990 when the atheistic Russian Stasi [police] used brutal methods to intimidate the populace against resorting to crime.
Likewise, after the French Revolution, France fell into moral anarchy, and was pulled out of it only by the appearance of a dictator. In the 1920s Germany, when liberalism was supreme and the nation was falling apart at the seems, another dictator appeared with a new set of morals, not divine morals, but rather demonic morals.
This is what is happening in America today. The Churches are losing their members; everyone thinks he is free, but hardly anyone dares to walk the streets at night. And, sooner or later, they will be afraid to walk the streets in daytime hours.
I kid you not.
- Status