I don’t think you’ve taken me seriously at all, sloth.
Ever.
Aside from what I learn from discussions like these, and I do learn from them, I also simply enjoy them as a duel of sorts.
Now I don’t doubt that you’re sincere about your reasons for wanting to abolish abortion, but eventhough I don’t believe that abortion will be abolished any time soon [which means that this discussion is essentially moot], I’m equally sincere about my ideas and thoughts about this issue.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’d really like to know why suddenly it was decided that slavery is immoral and should be abolished inspite of people’s acceptance of slavery for thousands of years.
Do you know?[/quote]
Yes, they concluded it offended God/The creator. The question is best asked of you. Since slavery needn’t have become immoral, so long as they could be aware that good and evil don’t actually exist. That all they needed to do was continue to hold slavery as a good, and it would be.[/quote]
God/The Creator himself didn’t have problems with slavery, so why would He be offended?
I don’t know why, sloth. A few articles I read weren’t very conclusive as to why they abolished slavery, but it could’ve been for various reasons.
I’m sure that, if slavery was still in effect today, we’d be less inclined to think it’s immoral.
[/quote]
I am going to have to caution you about talking about the details of a book you have not read there, E. Find the passage for me where you see institutional slavery? You won’t because it’s not there. You think of slavery one way as in the way of the past 500 years or so. But slavery was not that way in that time in history. There was many kinds of servitude that could be interpreted as slavery, but it’s not the actually buying and selling humans as property. You have debt servants, people who worked the land but retained portions of the take, you had king servants, etc. You had servitude, but you did not have people property. You did have master servant relationships, but it’s not the same kind of thing you saw in the Americans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
Why must kids be taught right from wrong? And even if this is true [and I’m inclined to agree to an extent] all this proves is that we’ve evolved socially to care for eachother.
It’s the same mechanism that makes a babies face elicite a strong nurturing respons in people.
I cannot. But my personal feelings on the subject are not the issue. The issue is why so many people thought is was allright to commit those heinous acts.
What makes a person deviate from sane behaviour and go out on a killing spree?
I don’t know.
Why does this always happen? No pat, you prove to me there’s a source of absolute morality and then we’ll talk further.
[quote]pat wrote:
I am going to have to caution you about talking about the details of a book you have not read their E. Find the passage for me where you see institutional slavery? You won’t because it’s not there. You think of slavery one way as in the way of the past 500 years or so. But slavery was not that way in that time in history. There was many kinds of servitude that could be interpreted as slavery, but it’s not the actually buying and selling humans as property. You have debt servants, people who worked the land but retained portions of the take, you had king servants, etc. You had servitude, but you did not have people property. You did have master servant relationships, but it’s not the same kind of thing you saw in the Americans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.[/quote]
Well, that’s just convenient, isn’t it?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why must kids be taught right from wrong? And even if this is true [and I’m inclined to agree to an extent] all this proves is that we’ve evolved socially to care for eachother.
It’s the same mechanism that makes a babies face elicite a strong nurturing respons in people.
[/quote]
If you’ve ever been around little, little kids you can see it. If you are playing with a kid and he hits you and you do nothing, then the kid goes on playing and doing whatever. But if the kid hits you and you pretend like your hurt, the child becomes very concerned. The earlier this interaction takes place the more uncolored by experience it is. They are sensitive to suffering. You can train it out of them, but it’s their by nature in healthy children. As kids grow older and experience more complex interactions, they may not be aware the consequence an action has especially if they don’t see it. They don’t know a stove can burn the house down because when they turned it on, nothing big happened. You got to teach them that stuff. If they had no intrinsic sense, then they would be unteachable.
The question is, ‘Is it moral?’ Can it be moral if you feel like it’s a good idea?
[quote]
Why does this always happen? No pat, you prove to me there’s a source of absolute morality and then we’ll talk further.[/quote]
The burden is on you. There is no need to discuss the source of something to understand that something exists and it has properties. Like all things that exist, it is a separate entity from it’s source. We are discussing that entity and not it’s source.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am going to have to caution you about talking about the details of a book you have not read their E. Find the passage for me where you see institutional slavery? You won’t because it’s not there. You think of slavery one way as in the way of the past 500 years or so. But slavery was not that way in that time in history. There was many kinds of servitude that could be interpreted as slavery, but it’s not the actually buying and selling humans as property. You have debt servants, people who worked the land but retained portions of the take, you had king servants, etc. You had servitude, but you did not have people property. You did have master servant relationships, but it’s not the same kind of thing you saw in the Americans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.[/quote]
Well, that’s just convenient, isn’t it?[/quote]
I could have just pointed out you presented a Red Herring.
(addition is mine.)
I’m not objecting against a genetic code that tries to make sure that the social human animal is able to function within the tribe, to ensure its survival. I can’t because at a deep level of genetic conditioning certain behaviour is fixed. Can’t back that up ofcourse, but it makes sense.
I’m not ready to extend that conditioning to our way of life though.
The picture isn’t getting clearer, is it?
I don’t think a killing spree is ever a good idea, but suppose I get the brilliant idea to volunteer at a nearby hospice. Then it can be a moral idea.
Not good enough. We are discussing morality, yes. The existence of morality is not in question, but if you argue that morality is/can be absolute you must show how it is so.
If you want to argue that there’s genetic conditioning that makes us act morally under certain circumstances then I’d reluctantly agree.
If that is what you want to argue.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am going to have to caution you about talking about the details of a book you have not read their E. Find the passage for me where you see institutional slavery? You won’t because it’s not there. You think of slavery one way as in the way of the past 500 years or so. But slavery was not that way in that time in history. There was many kinds of servitude that could be interpreted as slavery, but it’s not the actually buying and selling humans as property. You have debt servants, people who worked the land but retained portions of the take, you had king servants, etc. You had servitude, but you did not have people property. You did have master servant relationships, but it’s not the same kind of thing you saw in the Americans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.[/quote]
Well, that’s just convenient, isn’t it?[/quote]
I could have just pointed out you presented a Red Herring. [/quote]
I could have just pointed out you’re being apologetic.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m sorry kamui, your justification for why morality is absolute is very convoluted and baseless.
I don’t think lying is always bad. Killing a person isn’t always bad.[/quote]
It’s extremely simple actually.
Can “You shall kill” become an universal imperative, yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is NOT moral.
at this point, we need to know if it’s amoral or immoral, so we proceed with the next test :
is “you shall kill” compatible with other rules (any rules, even chessgame rules), yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is immoral.
ie : if universally applied, it destroy the very possibility of morality.
We may not agree on the right way to interpret some rules or the right way to respect some rules, but i’m not sure we would disagree on the moral rules themselves.
to speak a kantian language : we disagree on hypothetical matters, not categorical ones.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
(addition is mine.)
I’m not objecting against a genetic code that tries to make sure that the social human animal is able to function within the tribe, to ensure its survival. I can’t because at a deep level of genetic conditioning certain behaviour is fixed. Can’t back that up ofcourse, but it makes sense.
I’m not ready to extend that conditioning to our way of life though.
The picture isn’t getting clearer, is it?
[/quote]
Actually the opposite. What are you trying to say? It’s really not magical its very basically this. Even babies at quite an early age can recognize and sense suffering in others. Suffering is at the root of morality.
We don’t really have adequate language to define traits of morality. So it has to be illustrated by example. The examples I have provided show an absoluteness. Since it is easier to illustrate actions of evil that come really close to being purely evil is the best way to make the illustration. I would define pure evil or something very close to being pure evil as a willful and sole intention to cause as much suffering to as many things as can experience it as possible.
This is as close to a moral absolute as I can think of and that willful intent and subsequent action is evil and a.k.a. morally wrong, despite what anybody thinks, feels, misconstrues or justifies.
Moral rightness or good, would be the opposite, to willfully do as much beneficial and positiveness to as many things as can experience it. Again, not totally the definition of ‘good’ because it’s true definition is elusive, but it’s as close as I can articulate.
So between those two extremes, everything else falls between and is akin to one or the other. Again, how people feel, societal acceptance, law, or justification does not define the morality.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am going to have to caution you about talking about the details of a book you have not read their E. Find the passage for me where you see institutional slavery? You won’t because it’s not there. You think of slavery one way as in the way of the past 500 years or so. But slavery was not that way in that time in history. There was many kinds of servitude that could be interpreted as slavery, but it’s not the actually buying and selling humans as property. You have debt servants, people who worked the land but retained portions of the take, you had king servants, etc. You had servitude, but you did not have people property. You did have master servant relationships, but it’s not the same kind of thing you saw in the Americans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.[/quote]
Well, that’s just convenient, isn’t it?[/quote]
I could have just pointed out you presented a Red Herring. [/quote]
I could have just pointed out you’re being apologetic.
[/quote]
I am just stating fact. Don’t take my word for it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t think you’ve taken me seriously at all, sloth.
Ever.
[/quote]
To be honest, I don’t. It’s not that I don’t like you, but you can’t offer anything. As an example, you can’t even claim that pedophilia is inherently evil. But, I think you put foward a philosophy you don’t really believe in. Maybe it seems cool? This is betrayed by moralistic language you end up having to back up off of. Ultimately, you agree that your worldview makes any moral position arbitrary. There are no good and evil acts, only personal opinions. Of course, the moral worth of those personal opinions are also nothing more than personal opinions. Again, you use moralistic language but ultimately surrender to arbitrary morality when pressed. You’re moralistic jello. A foundation built on sand. To me, you’re everything wrong with the west. Just the way it is.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m equally sincere about my ideas and thoughts about this issue.
[/quote]
Why are you sincere when morality is ultimately arbitrary? Intellectually, shouldn’t you feel foolish to cling sincerely to any moral position about slavery, abortion, etc.?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t think you’ve taken me seriously at all, sloth.
Ever.
[/quote]
To be honest, I don’t. It’s not that I don’t like you, but you can’t offer anything. As an example, you can’t even claim that pedophilia is inherently evil. But, I think you put foward a philosophy you don’t really believe in. Maybe it seems cool? This is betrayed by moralistic language you end up having to back up off of. Ultimately, you agree that your worldview makes any moral position arbitrary. There are no good and evil acts, only personal opinions. Of course, the moral worth of those personal opinions are also nothing more than personal opinions. Again, you use moralistic language but ultimately surrender to arbitrary morality when pressed. You’re moralistic jello. A foundation built on sand. To me, you’re everything wrong with the west. Just the way it is.[/quote]
It’s getting tiresome to have to keep repeating this over and over again, so for the last time: moral relativity does not mean all moral acts are equal.
In your polarized black and white world where you can sit and point fingers because you feel supported by irrational beliefs, everything is crystal clear to you. It makes it easy to say “you’re either with us or against us” or “axis of evil”, and still be at the receiving end of righteousness.
It’s a neat trick, actually. The only thing it requires is dishonesty.
But I’ve come to expect nothing less of you.
I can’t dispute that. We’re social creatures, capable of empathy. It’s not wonder that many socio- and psychopaths are incapable of feeling empathy.
But all this gives you is a baseline of moral genetic conditioning.
Sometimes I wish I could see the world like this. It would make things easier, I guess.
From your moral perspective abortion is immoral. I’m assuming that practicing gay-sex isn’t an immoral act to you, but you know many people believe it is.
Help me understand pat, where do I draw the line between immorality and feelings, societal acceptance, law or justification? Is it something I should be able to just KNOW? But if I say I KNOW but what I KNOW is different from your perspective, am I still wrong?
What makes your moral perspective the right one if all you have to go by is your own moral compass?
[quote] is “you shall kill” compatible with other rules (any rules, even chessgame rules), yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is immoral. [/quote]
By that definition war is always immoral.
Correct?
Even is war is inevetable and necessary to protect your country, the act of war in itself is immoral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< To be honest, I don’t. It’s not that I don’t like you, but you can’t offer anything. As an example, you can’t even claim that pedophilia is inherently evil. But, I think you put foward a philosophy you don’t really believe in. Maybe it seems cool? This is betrayed by moralistic language you end up having to back up off of. Ultimately, you agree that your worldview makes any moral position arbitrary. There are no good and evil acts, only personal opinions. Of course, the moral worth of those personal opinions are also nothing more than personal opinions. Again, you use moralistic language but ultimately surrender to arbitrary morality when pressed. You’re moralistic jello. A foundation built on sand. To me, you’re everything wrong with the west. Just the way it is.[/quote]Romans 1:18-32 in live action full technicolor display like I’ve been sayin for a couple years
Every human being is created in the image of their God and as such operates in that image while attempting any form of mental and moral self deception they find falsely effective at helping them escape responsibility to Him. Creatures once living in the first man Adam now dead in him as well. Only a new birth in the last Adam, (1st Corinthians 15) Jesus Christ can alleviate this universal affliction.
My time in this forum seeing the truth of the Word of almighty God demonstrated in the living object lessons of the unbelieving men and women here has been spiritually priceless (and painful) to me. Ephrem has been on my T-Nation prayer list for a very long time now. Not because I think he’s a pathetic moron or an especially egregious sinner, which I don’t, but because I want him to have the same joy, peace AND certainty in his life that I have in mine. I want him as my brother. He hates when I talk this way, but I don’t do it to aggravate him. It’s the truth.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It’s getting tiresome to have to keep repeating this over and over again, so for the last time: moral relativity does not mean all moral acts are equal.
[/quote]
Err, if moral worth is simply an opinion then all moral acts are equal. They all have the same foundation…“It depends on who you ask, when you ask, etc.” Stop telling us that morals exist only as human whim, but then imply that some morals acts are inherently better than others
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I can’t dispute that. We’re social creatures, capable of empathy. It’s not wonder that many socio- and psychopaths are incapable of feeling empathy.
But all this gives you is a baseline of moral genetic conditioning.
Sometimes I wish I could see the world like this. It would make things easier, I guess.
From your moral perspective abortion is immoral. I’m assuming that practicing gay-sex isn’t an immoral act to you, but you know many people believe it is.
[/quote]
Those are awesome points and questions you brought up so I hope I can give sufficient answers to do it justice. I would actually say, that our understanding of morality is almost identical. We both are empathetic, wish for the best for all, and seek and live trying to do no harm, at least no intentional harm. We just disagree on their application.
From your perspective abortion is immoral after 21 weeks gestation unless you recently changed it. Why? You believe it’s wrong to kill a person and at 21 weeks you think it’s to damn close to being a person to take the chance of killing it. I see the sacred institution of preserving human life further up the gestational chain because the human organism is the same through out it’s life at it’s core. All evidence points to the core of humanity being the same from bang to buck.
But we’re both against killing people, even little ones.
A gay sex act is unnatural. What I mean by that is you are doing things with body parts that weren’t designed to be used that way. And evolutionary speaking, it is detrimental to the species. But other than being gross to me, I can’t speak to it’s morality or amorality at a secular level. I think really it would take a kind of cost/ benefit analysis of the act and the life style that supports it on the basis of ‘do no harm’ to be able to judge it that way over all. Sociologically speaking, in a general sense, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly happy, joyful or comfortable demographic as a group. It would be an interesting study though, to analyze what that stems from. Is it, external from things like persecution or negative perception, or is something about the lifestyle itself that precipitates a certain level of discomfort. As for people, I have no issues with them personally, and I do have in my life a gay man who I do like and admire very much.
If I were to be able to draw the line between perception and morality and actual morality I think I have to go back to the victim thing. Is there a victim and to what degree are they being victimized. For like the slavery case, there is clearly a victim. So despite the law, or what other people think, you have somebody suffering. But it was accepted for many, many years as a normal part of life. Same can be said about any kind of abuse even if cultural, like female circumcision. While male circumcision has an actual hygienic purpose, the female circumcision is just abuse, and serves no purpose then to denigrate women and forcibly make them subservient. Swing it back around to the abortion issue you can ask, is there a victim the answer is yes, generally two. For most women who get abortions are traumatizedâ?¦Not all but most. Study after study shows that the trama of abortion to the mother is listed as one of the biggest stressors a person can experience. Then of course there’s the kid.
So taking the abortion thing as an example as to when feeling or ideology vs. actuality in terms of morality, you can simply look at the victim thing. Is there a victim? Yes. Maybe the victim not feeling pain, or not developed enough to be aware may color your perception as to the degree of the morality, but a victim you still have.
I mean, you and most pro-abortion advocates on this board don’t agree that abortion is a ‘good’ thing. You argue that it may be the least bad of bad options really. At least that’s what I have gleaned.
I think the suffering of others is really the best adjustment to a moral compass. That’s still a subjective measure in many ways and there is a lot of grey area, but overall you can get a pretty good idea based on that. I mean, you can get surgery and suffer with it, but over all you’re better off. Or spanking or punishing a child for doing something dangerous. Yeah, the suffer, but if the lesson is learned their suffering is lessoned over all. So it can get colored by such things. But I think with most things we can discern a pretty good idea of cost/ benefit when to the result of a certain action in a certain situation.
I know you think that my faith is the main driver of my perception of morality, and I’d be lying like hell if I said that was not true. But I have also done the deliberate exercise of putting the religious precept against a secualar environment. Like is this religious tenet a functional, efficient, methology in the absense of religion. And I can say that almost every case the answer is a resounding yes. So while going through a worship seems like a stupid way to spend your time, the tenets espoused are good and functional in a world absent of religion as it is in a world with religion.
That’s my take on it…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote] is “you shall kill” compatible with other rules (any rules, even chessgame rules), yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is immoral. [/quote]
By that definition war is always immoral.
Correct?
Even is war is inevetable and necessary to protect your country, the act of war in itself is immoral.
[/quote]
In almost all wars there is tremendous clash between morality and immorality. Sometimes the two happen simultaneously. Without going to deeply into the intricacies of war I can say that amoral and immoral and even, but rarely, moral killing takes place. But no matter how you slice it all wars have one thing in common, they all suck.