Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[vlf7973]

This is kinda scary. You do appreciate that, don’t you? If you admitted in public that you would kill your son if you thought that God had commanded it, there would be a very good case for locking you up.

You misunderstand what I said. I never said that I would do it if I simply “thought” it was God. I said I would do it if I was somehow “certain” that it was God.
How would I be certain? I probably wouldn’t be, and if I wasn’t certain then I wouldn’t go through with it. But considering Abraham’s closeness with God and his confidence that “God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust” (Genesis 22:8), it is clear that he was absolutely certain.

 

[tonyrey]

I blame you, Tyrion, for causing me to laugh out loud and disturbing my coworker’s productivity. I may have to take precautions when reading your post such as removing myself from the presence of others should an unexpected eruption of laughter occur in the future.

An absurd distortion of the facts always causes merriment but those who recognise the truth always have the last laugh. The final outcome of negativity and destruction is moral decadence and spiritual desolation…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

An absurd distortion of the facts always causes merriment

Part of the reason that I find it funny is that I can’t find any distortions. His response is a fairly good representation of some of the responses that I’ve received.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Part of the reason that I find it funny is that I can’t find any distortions. His response is a fairly good representation of some of the responses that I’ve received.

Perhaps, but the problem lies in presuming that everyone will make that response.

I have had non-Christians give me stupid reasons for why they deny God’s existence or don’t accept Christianity (Russell’s essay “Why I Am Not A Christian” is a perfect example of this), but I don’t presume - not state it, which may be perceived as an insult - that every non-Christian is going to give me hackneyed responses.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Perhaps, but the problem lies in presuming that everyone will make that response…]but I don’t presume - not state it, which may be perceived as an insult - that every non-Christian is going to give me hackneyed responses.

I can’t say that I realized there was a problem. Though I’ve also not made that presumption.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The problem isn’t in the presumption but in assuming that a reasonable answer cannot be given and responding instead with sarcasm.

Bradski asked a reasonable question about where a Hindu’s morality comes from. Instead of allowing a response, Tyrion decided to mock the respondent, presuming - it seems - that a reasonable answer could not be given. This is a problem to dialogue because instead of dealing with issues we begin attacking personalities.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The problem isn’t in the presumption but in assuming that a reasonable answer cannot be given and responding instead with sarcasm.

Bradski asked a reasonable question about where a Hindu’s morality comes from…

So then, in keeping this train moving what would the reasonable answer to the question be?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I posted a response after the question was asked above.

A reasonable response, and the one held by Christians since the beginning of the Church, is that humans are aware of true moral values through reflection on the natural law (see Rom 2:14-16). We can use reason to discern morality based on human teleology, that is, what fulfills humanity and our happiness (in the broad sense, not just pleasure).

 

[PRmerger]

So then, in keeping this train moving what would the reasonable answer to the question be?

The reasonable answer to that would be:

They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hehe hey! I quoted Romans first

 

[PRmerger]

Hehe hey! I quoted Romans first

Indeed you did!

 

[Love4All]

PS…The fact that a philosophy section of CAF rarely discusses the REAL philosophical problems of OUR TIME is amusing to me.

What would they be, apart from lack of respect for truth?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Actually, Pugsly, I agree - what are they? It would actually be good to discuss something a bit different rather than the same thing over and over again! All this circular logic is making me dizzy… :ballspin:

 

[tonyrey]

Part of the reason that I find it funny is that I can’t find any distortions. His response is a fairly good representation of some of the responses that I’ve received.

Your use of the term “some” highlights the fact that it is a distortion of the truth. Can you cite an specific instance of the belief that “everything good comes from God, and everything bad comes from us”?

The vagueness of “us” always provides a loophole. Who precisely are “us”?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your use of the term “some” highlights the fact that it is a distortion of the truth.

It is to acknowledge that less than the totality of the responses that I have encountered on the question are summarized by his response irrespective of the explanation for the variation in responses. If you would like to infer from my use of the word “some” that’s fine. But I want to make it clear that is not what I was implying.

Can you cite an specific instance of the belief that “everything good comes from God, and everything bad comes from us”?

I could reference experiences in which it was stated. But those experience are personal and I don’t leave much of a physical “footprint” that I can share. If you believe that I’ve had these experiences based on my word that’s fine. If you don’t believe them that’s also find. This falls into the description under the paragraph that contained the phrase “totally fine” from a previous discussion we had.

 

[Hounchell1945]

Interesting that you wrote that. I was recently in a conversation about morality with a Catholic family member who takes issue with some of the Church’s moral teachings. At one point she said she was really uncomfortable calling anything a sin. And here was me—>

It help us make better choices if we know what is a sin and what’s not a sin–yet that word gets in some people’s way. It was as if this person thought the only people who use the word “sin” still are all a bunch of judgemental pharasees, and not people who also striving to avoid sin.

Maybe we could take a cue from some of secular social activists and come up with a new name for sin!–something pithy and simply that gets across the point that it’s not something we should do–but without all the emotional hang-ups some people attached to it. Secular society does embrace the concept of right and wrong–and they even judge–but what they identify as undesirable behavior is often very different from what has traditionally been called sin.

Anyway, this is an enlightening discussion. I don’t think it’s futile at all.

Not that I have much to offer, as I am very dedicated “lurker” of these great
and interesting conversations regarding the many exciting subjects which are
discussed here…

But in regards to your comments to the word “sin”…

Might I just mention that when I was in Seminary many many years ago…
The professor stated that from the Greek the word which was used for
the word Sin in the scriptures was more like “missing the mark”…

Thus I think the next step might be that one has to find the proper mark as to
know and measure which is and which is not “sin” from the scripture’s understanding
of it.

However, that would take us back to the main thyme of this forum subject…

What is sin (The Proper Mark)…???

Which form of morality is the proper one…

As an example… In just a few generations ago, there was the common moral teaching
from Asian that only the Husband of the woman was allowed to view the back of her naked neck…

There was and might still be a moral law that the husband of a woman of the Arabic tribes was the only one to view her face…

The Western part of the world, was that only a husband was allowed to view her, what we refer too, and I can’t spell… “her private parts”…

If one was to take one of each these women, and place them in a public place populated by a majority of males… and suddenly and without warning rip off all of their clothes.

The Asian woman would put her hands on the back of her neck…
The second woman would cover her face…
The Western woman would cover her breasts and vagina area…

Which one would be the proper moral act?

God’s revelation cover some areas of morality but not all…

I think I might have to join in with the one poster here, who seems to think that to seek and find the proper absolute answer regarding the finding of Morality just might not
be possible within our world…

 

[Tyrion]

No, that’s not what I said, please pay attention. I said if Person B is unchanged in attitude in prison and is going to be released, he could potentially kill again, as opposed to Person A who murdered for a different reason. This, Person B’s intention for killing (i.e. a hate crime), would be taken into account when issues like parole are raised. I think it’s very reasonable to take this into account.

There is no difference. You say that person B should be punished differently BECAUSE he MIGHT perform another act due to his attitude. That IS punishing someone for his possible future actions. Why do you deny it?

False, Tyrion. Technically, if you going to argue this way, empirical evidence doesn’t point to anything of itself: it just is. It depends how we interpret it. Therefore, while you may interpret it as only pointing to physical reality, others - and indeed many, many others - interpret it as pointing beyond to God.

And many, many others do not.

Of course, no-one is indoctrinated today! So you are happy to dismiss all the sincere, educated beliefs of brilliant people of the past as due to simple indoctrination or fear of death, whereas all the brilliant people today are clear-headed and not influenced by anything in their atheism?

The indoctrination today is “somewhat” different. There is no life-and-death threat for being a believer or an unbeliever today - quire unlike the threat of being burned at the stakes in the middle ages.

Also, I don’t buy your point. Who are these “greatest minds” today who dismiss evidence for God’s existence?

About 95% of the Nobel Prize winners, along the approximately 90% of the top scientists. And those very brilliant scientists who are believers (and they are VERY brilliant)… they do not believe in the God-concept in their specific field of study. They are as materialistic as the rest of us.

Then you should have qualified your statement, Tyrion.

Yes, I should have.

shrugs Sorry but “it is just ‘hearsay’” is not a very sophisticated response to why revelation is not a good epistemological method.

Why not? Anyone can “assert” that their claim has been supported by unspecified “witnesses”, but that is neither here nor there.

Hmmm what about the miracle of Fatima that was witnessed by thousands? Or all the miracles from Lourdes? Or the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano? Or the Shroud of Turin? Or the miracle of Guadelaupe? And there are lots more. These have been tested by scientists and are completely inexplicable. They are certainly not hearsay.

None of them has been substantiated by the experts - the masters of deceptions - the stage magicians.

No, I’m sceptical about the claims of my own faith too. That’s why I’ve studied it, undertaken a Philosophy and Theology degree, as well as a separate History degree, read a fair bit, etc. I’m now convinced but that conviction took time.

I am very glad to hear that. Now how are you going to fing supporting evidence of “demons” causing certain maladies - as claimed by exorcists? I am most curious about your epistemological methods? I have always been curious about the “supernatural epistemology”… so far curiousity has not been fulfilled.

 

[tonyrey]

Not that I have much to offer, as I am very dedicated “lurker” of these great
and interesting conversations regarding the many exciting subjects which are
discussed here…

 

[Tyrion]

A reasonable response, and the one held by Christians since the beginning of the Church, is that humans are aware of true moral values through reflection on the natural law (see Rom 2:14-16). We can use reason to discern morality based on human teleology, that is, what fulfills humanity and our happiness (in the broad sense, not just pleasure).

This is quite nice, but far too general. I have seen no reasonable arguments for the natural “moral” law, which would be obvious for ALL human societies, across ALL times. It would also be very nice to see a list of DO’s and DON’T’s applicable across the ages, which would be part of this “natural moral law”… would that include the prohibition against non-procreative sex? against cannibalism? against the wanton killing of other humans???

You had better face it… there is NO natural moral law, no matter what the bible says. Morality is simply the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior, which is liable to change from society to society and from time to time…

 

[PRmerger]

You had better face it… there is NO natural moral law, no matter what the bible says. Morality is simply the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior, which is liable to change from society to society and from time to time…

If this were true then no one would be bound to follow any rules of morality. For who is “society” except “people like me” and why should they have any moral authority over me and what I choose to do to fulfill my own desires?

Each person could decide for himself and that’s the recipe for chaos.