It’s a large round number.
The point is the large majority of human societies are and have been collective rather than individualistic. Our society represents an aberration in this respect, not the norm.
I actually agree with you about the aberrant nature of our society; however each society has taught in some form a moral philosophy/criteria that
has to be applied by individuals in individual instances…
You’re the one who’s asserting the primacy of conscience. Without natural law, conscience is meaningless.
You have asserted “natural law”. I have asked you to provide some sort of proof for its existence given that you have raised it in support of your position. My request is not unreasonable, yet you have dodged and tried to push the issue back on me. Until we corral this pink elephant into some specifics, you can get away with saying and justifying anything you want about what the “natural law” holds and does not hold. For all I know, your pink elephant can fly and predict the future, etc.
Given that you are now trying to say that an individual conscience, independent of an outside authority (you might say natural law, some might say “church”) is meaningless, the evidentiary foundation for your “natural law” becomes even more important to this discussion. Im excited to see your proof! :bounce:
No. At the very least his culpability is reduced, however. You seem to think only in black and white.
No, you are missing my point or perhaps I am unclear (especially with my citing of instances of group immorality). I will assume the latter. My point is that the individual conscience should not automatically be abdicated to that of the group given that “group inertia” or “group think” can often be wrong. Jmcrae/estesbob want me to abdicate my conscience (they call it being “informed” by church teaching, i.e. if I disagree I am not informed-doesn’t that sound funny?) to the church automatically. I have pointed out some instances, specifically the ones concerning religion, where such an action is universally thought to have been bad.
Do we not, from a simple matter of public policy, hold individuals responsible for their actions? I think in fact that our society does; our courts rarely allow one to defer responsibility to another. From my personal perspective, I actually agree that our socialization, inculturation etc. contribute to our decisions, moral fiber etc. However, there has historically been a line drawn at some point where we say as a society “you should have done differently”. i.e. your conscience should have prompted you that your actions were morally wrong.
Do you disagree with this? If drawing a line (arbitrary or not) in the sand is “black and white”, then our society is “black and white” given that our system of justice does just that.
I personally think that following the church is probably the best way to go, perhaps you don’t, but given history, I cannot give carte blanche to the church for my moral decision making; the individual makes an individual decision and its seems reasonable that the individual will be responsible for that decision.
You want to criticize this position as an “aberrant individualism”, others want to criticize my rational use of history examples as mud slinging. Jmcare earlier points out (from left field) that Marxism would find it difficult to prosecute people for robbery and now she wants to assess culpability to everyone for an individual action (apparently you also agree).
My position, requiring the individual to struggle with his conscience and make a decision for which he is responsible in the eyes of God, independent of throwing his hands in the air and automatically following the church, seems the most rational and logical. Is this not what we are taught, that we will be held responsible by God for our actions? I hope and believe that God is merciful, but is it not presumptuous to assume that God will contextualize my decision to burn people at the stake and assign me lesser blame?
I will be away from the computer for a couple days, I eagerly await your response.
