What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[CHRISTINE77]

Perhaps more crafty than intelligent?

That’s why we have to be intelligent ourselves, to figure out how crafty he is.

As in *The Screwtape Letters *by C.S. Lewis and *The Snakebite Letters *by Peter Kreeft.

In any case, much more intelligent or crafty than a rabid dog!

 

[Hee_Zen]

I see you side-stepped his question about Nazi Germany though. If the majority of the population thought it was morally right to kill all Jews, would it be morally right?

As a matter of fact I DID answer it, indirectly - by referring to the Aztecs. Yes, in that society in those times it would have been considered moral. You keep forgetting that I do not accept “absolute” morality, only “objective” morality. Besides you are the ones who keep “sidestepping” the question of the biblical slaveholding. So you have no right to complain about my posts.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

As a matter of fact I DID answer it, indirectly - by referring to the Aztecs. Yes, in that society in those times it would have been considered moral. You keep forgetting that I do not accept “absolute” morality, only “objective” morality. Besides you are the ones who keep “sidestepping” the question of the biblical slaveholding. So you have no right to complain about my posts.

It is and was morally wrong to enslave people. It is and was morally wrong to perform human sacrifice. It is and was morally wrong to murder, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, covet, etc. Whatever a culture allows does not make it morally right, it just allows people to justify their very bad behavior.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As a matter of fact I DID answer it, indirectly - by referring to the Aztecs. Yes, in that society in those times it would have been considered moral. You keep forgetting that I do not accept “absolute” morality, only “objective” morality. Besides you are the ones who keep “sidestepping” the question of the biblical slaveholding. So you have no right to complain about my posts.

No one is complaining about your posts, per se. What is at issue is that you are being inconsistent with regard to your critique. You are willing to excuse Aztec human sacrifice on the grounds that it was regarded as “honorable,” yet unwilling to excuse indentured slavery on essentially the same grounds that it was accepted as a just means of paying off indebtedness to a slave owner in ancient Jewish society.

In other words, you have no right to complain about Biblical slaveholding since you are perfectly willing to excuse an activity that seems much worse, morally speaking - Aztec human sacrifice - by appeal to your version of what constitutes morality. The inconsistency is yours.

We could, for example, grant that you are correct that cultural norms of honour might permit indentured slavery while using your own argument against you, that murder as a moral issue would not be so easily resolved or justified.

 

[Hee_Zen]

By your standard, you have no warrant for calling my attitude hypocritical because you claim indentured servitude was merely what the majority practiced back then.

I called you a hypocrite based upon YOUR principles, not mine. I have no problem with pointing out that such a practice was the prevailing custom back then. From our time and place it was a despicable action, but we live in different times with different customs.

I, however, have warrant to be critical of the practice based on absolute moral principles and can rightly question why it would have been permitted on other grounds, but you simply have nothing to say on the matter. Why bring it up?

Ah, so the unchanging word of God endorsed a “moral atrocity” by YOUR moral standards? In those times and those societies it was the accepted “moral” norm as expressed by God. But it is not acceptable today. So where is your “unchanging morality”?

That may be your definition of democracy, but that definition certainly doesn’t contain within itself a justification for why democracy ought to be promoted as an optimal or even functional mode of governance - unless, of course, mob rule or might makes right are your standard for good government.

I always considered “democracy” an inferior form of government, be it called the “rule of the majority” or “mob rule” (no real difference). You could have asked my view before you tried to build a straw man and burn it to the ground.

The inverted golden rule does not imply “live and let live” …

Of course it does. That is the whole point.

It is and was morally wrong to enslave people.

If so, then why did God endorse it? Is it immoral to walk naked in a public place? Is it immoral to have sex in front of other people?

No one is complaining about your posts, per se. What is at issue is that you are being inconsistent with regard to your critique. You are willing to excuse Aztec human sacrifice on the grounds that it was regarded as “honorable,” yet unwilling to excuse indentured slavery on essentially the same grounds that it was accepted as a just means of paying off indebtedness to a slave owner in ancient Jewish society.

You are truly delusional if you think that I excuse the Aztec’s practices. I merely pointed out that it was the prevailing custom in that society at those times. I consider both practices wrong from MY standard. But my standards are not applicable to those societies and those times. You, however try to introduce an unchanging, absolute moral standard and as such you should either condemn that practice for those times, or endorse slavery in our times.

I am getting tired of these dances. For once and for all:

Do not ask me if a practice is moral or not - in the absolute sense. I deny the existence of an absolute, unchanging moral code - and brought up many examples to support my position. You keep neglecting those examples. Fine, it is your prerogative. But until you have a valid argument for or against those examples, I am not interested in the subject.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I think this is a poor analogy. Satan has free will and he is very intelligent. (The rabid dog doesn’t even know what it’s doing).

But the owner does. And that is what I pointed out. The fault is not with the dog, it is with the owner who lets it roam free and do its harm.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

But the owner does. And that is what I pointed out. The fault is not with the dog, it is with the owner who lets it roam free and do its harm.

No you are equating Satan with a mad dog, but Satan was once an angel who was given free will. He knowingly and purposefully turned against his creator and used his will to corrupt. In the same way, man has free will to do good or evil. Or are you saying that man is like a mad dog, he has no control over his impulses?

The owner lets his angels and mankind have free will. In that way they are not like dumb animals, who are, in most ways, driven by instincts, but can choose do do wrong or right.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I

I always considered “democracy” an inferior form of government, be it called the “rule of the majority” or “mob rule” (no real difference). You could have asked my view before you tried to build a straw man and burn it to the ground.

You are truly delusional if you think that I excuse the Aztec’s practices. I merely pointed out that it was the prevailing custom in that society at those times. I consider both practices wrong from MY standard. But my standards are not applicable to those societies and those times. You, however try to introduce an unchanging, absolute moral standard and as such you should either condemn that practice for those times, or endorse slavery in our times.

What is a “better” form of government than democracy in your opinion?

I must be confused.

Did it say in the Old or New Testaments that we ought to have slaves?

Things as they “are” will often be very different from things as they “ought” to be.

Can you please cite a specific passage regarding slavery that we can use to justify slavery?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What is a “better” form of government than democracy in your opinion?

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill said:

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”



Does democracy have anything to do with the scientific method?

 

[Al_Moritz]

As a matter of fact I DID answer it, indirectly - by referring to the Aztecs. Yes, in that society in those times it would have been considered moral.

So if the majority of Germans had thought it was morally right to kill all the Jews, it would have been moral. Interesting. That’s what your atheism leads to, amazing.

But then the golden rule “live and let live”, or as you say, “do not do something to others what you do not want them do to you”, would not have applied to the Jews?

See, your worldview is not just full of horrors, as we are now finding out, but as others have pointed out already, it is full of glaring inconsistencies as well.

 

[Hee_Zen]

What is a “better” form of government than democracy in your opinion?

It is called “constitutional republic”.

Can you please cite a specific passage regarding slavery that we can use to justify slavery?

Numbers 31:17-18. “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” This is called sexual slavery.

 

[Hee_Zen]

So if the majority of Germans had thought it was morally right to kill all the Jews, it would have been moral. Interesting.

You just don’t get it, even after I explained it several times. Your loss.

But then the golden rule “live and let live”, or as you say, “do not do something to others what you do not want them do to you”, would not have applied to the Jews?

Of course. Too bad that some societies were not founded on these principles.

See, your worldview is not just full of horrors, as we are now finding out, but as others have pointed out already, it is full of glaring inconsistencies as well.

According to those, who do not even comprehend what I said. But their opinion does not count.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You just don’t get it, even after I explained it several times. Your loss.

So pray tell, what do I not ‘get’, and where did you explain it several times?

 

[Al_Moritz]

According to those, who do not even comprehend what I said.

Oh, they comprehend just fine. It is you who has some explaining to do on inconsistencies that are comprehended here all too well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I called you a hypocrite based upon YOUR principles, not mine. I have no problem with pointing out that such a practice was the prevailing custom back then. From our time and place it was a despicable action, but we live in different times with different customs.

So, “despicable” brings with it no moral opprobrium in the commonly understood sense? It merely means we think it despicable but the Aztecs would be no more or less “right” in thinking our culture despicable for leaving the serious business of human sacrifice unattended?

It isn’t like we would have a morally correct view of human sacrifice, just a factually different one where despicable merely means something like “not a preferential option” or “likely to cause disgust” and nothing more.

I see, morality is “objective” in the sense of a “shared disgust” at Aztec human sacrifice but not objective in the sense of “morally wrong for human beings to do.”

Ergo, Hitler’s actions could be looked at as “objectively wrong” in the sense that it is an objective fact that most people in our modern culture would demonstrate “objective” distaste for Hitler’s actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does democracy have anything to do with the scientific method?

Clearly, the scientific method is a formal means of uncovering what occurs, at what frequency and given which conditions.

It does NOT, however, tell us anything about the significance or the meaning of events, nor why it is important that they be apprehended.

This is known as the fact-value distinction.

It would seem the scientific method is very effective for uncovering facts but since it can say nothing about why those facts are important to consider, humans are compelled to consistently “fill in” missing values in order to begin doing any science at all.

Why would it be important to know that PV = k without a presumption that knowing such a thing has some value or significance?

Yet, that significance cannot be determined by the scientific method itself but is presumed by it.

Apparently, we have wandered off on this tangent in a roundabout attempt to answer: "Why would it be important to know what this ‘scientific method’ you all speak of is?

Clearly, Hee_Zen is working under the notion that values, as opposed to facts, are inconsequential. Having the facts is, for him, all that counts.

Yet he cannot put together a coherent account for why facts are significant and why they ought to be taken as such, since values - even moral values - are, for him, nothing more than mere statements of preference.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I see, morality is “objective” in the sense of a “shared disgust” at Aztec human sacrifice but not objective in the sense of “morally wrong for human beings to do.”

Since there is no “morally wrong” in the absolute sense, only within the framework of a given human society at a specific time of its existence (by taking all the mitigating and exacerbating circumstances into consideration) - yes, you seem to get it. Took a long time too.

Clearly, Hee_Zen is working under the notion that values, as opposed to facts, are inconsequential. Having the facts is, for him, all that counts.

Sometimes you make quite good remarks, and then you bring it all down with such nonsense. Facts are objective, the value system is subjective. It does not mean that values are “inconsequential”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Since there is no “morally wrong” in the absolute sense, only within the framework of a given human society at a specific time of its existence (by taking all the mitigating and exacerbating circumstances into consideration) - yes, you seem to get it. Took a long time too.

Don’t worry, we were getting it all along, the consequences of your moral stance though are just quite unbelievable. I cannot but notice that in the quote from Peter’s post you answer you chose to surgically cut out the reference to Hitler that followed.

Again you antiseptically avoid admitting the consequences of our view, trying to divert more to the Aztecs than allowing the repeated pointing to Hitler instead.

You think we are too dumb to notice what horrors your worldview entails?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Don’t worry, we were getting it all along, the consequences of your moral stance though are just quite unbelievable. I cannot but notice that in the quote from Peter’s post you answer you chose to surgically cut out the reference to Hitler that followed.

Are you familiar with Godwin’s law? I guess not.

You seem to forget that MY principles are founded on the two variants of the golden rule (which have nothing to do with Christianity). And if those principles are considered “horrors”, then there is something very wrong with you. Furthermore, you all neglected to answer my other examples, which clearly show that “morality” is contingent upon the prevailing social structure. Here are a few more:

1. 
   *]In ancient Japan, the members of samurai class could cut down anyone for any perceived violation of their “honor”, and this was accepted by the whole society.
   *]During the dark ages in Europe the torturing and burning of the heretics was the accepted social custom - the torturing part performed by the Inquisition, the burning performed by the temporal authorities after the poor witches “confessed” to consorting with the devil.
   *]During the same time Jews were persecuted as the “killers of Christ”, they were ostracized, placed in the ghettos, and killed with impunity.
   *]In the biblical times, slavery was widely accepted, and not just the “indentured servitude” type of it.
   
   Somehow I don’t see your “moral outcry” against these actions… at best you try to whitewash them as the “prevailing custom of those times”. You really should consider the beam in your own eyes before pointing out the mote in mine.
   
   As such you don’t have a leg to stand on, when you lament about my lack of explicitly reflecting on ALL the remarks in a post.