[quote]Sloth wrote:
Aha! If that is your stance then you must conceede 1) The man in the video can pass no judgements, or make any moral criticisms.
Meatros wrote:
This is a non sequitur - it does not follow from moral relativism (which I admitted to earlier in the thread, it’s a puzzle why your only catching up to it now).[/quote]
Yeah, that wasn’t so clear. What I should have said is that he can pass moral judgements based on his own group code through the opening of his mouth and the uttering of intelligible noises. However, it wouldn’t mean anything at all. Because obviously, us religious have our own group morality codes. Yes, a moral relativist might say “The fella is spot on, Bruce.” However, being a moral relativist, he must hold that his choosing a side means nothing. Sort of like picking sides in an argument over who has the best favorite color. “Well, I agree with the guy who says blue, but the guy who says red is no less wrong.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, people often prefer short term payoffs. Look at savings and debt. Look at sex before marriage and financial security. See those who’ll bust their butt working a part time job and attending college courses or a trade school. On the otherhand, look at those who’d rather use that time to party, hang out, and goof it up. So, is that it? Morality is a completely subjective time preference?
Meatros wrote:
Individuals are irrelevant to the equation, since populations evolve, people don’t. As I said, there would be outliers and that societies have a rough standard of what constitutes moral behavior simply because not every behavior will lead to a functioning society.[/quote]
Then by that, Christians (religion in general) are the most moral. Since not only are we functional, but in fact have flourished.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, let’s say my group knocks over the punies (spelling?)–perhaps keeping a few to work on our infant industries in our new lands–and we prosper for a number of generations, with no end to our fortune in sight. Say you were standing in the shoes of one of the inheritors of this prosperity. Was it moral? Even if the group developed into a superpower, developed the ultimate weapon as a deterent, and with civil rights laws and everything, were those past actions moral?
Slightly different observation and scenario. Your answer seems to come back to the ‘bad’ guys always losing. But what if they don’t? What if they successfully rule with a bloody and iron fist, with no foreseeable end to their reign? Since the risk (conquering/slaving/subjugating) paid off handsomely for their group, then it must be moral.
Meatros:
You are ignoring my position and attempting to insert a strawman position. Why should I take your scenario seriously when you don’t seem to want to address what I’ve actually said?[/quote]
Sorry, but I just don’t see this criticism as being justified. I’m borrowing every little bit of moral parameter you’ve shared, and then asking a question to see if you actually hold to it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Some rather large societies, groups, nations, and empires have been built upon–and prospered from–conquest, slavery, genocide, oppression, etc. These nations must have carried out these acts with a moral authority. Some still do today.
Yes, that is true - and it kind of blows a hole in the idea of an objective morality, don’t you think? ;-)[/quote]
No actually, I don’t. It doesn’t matter if the nation benefited from slavery at an earlier time. Slavery is/was still wrong. I’m not the relativist. Nor, do I base my morality on whatever maximizes prosperity. That’s why I’m trying to get you guys to answer these type of guestions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and ‘functioning?’ By what group’s standards do we define what is functional or dysfunctional for all of humanity? A little turnabout there. =P
Meatros wrote:
By functioning, I mean, obviously, a society that is able to use it’s resources, to grow, and to maintain an equilibrium. A non functioning society would break down and the population would dwindle.
So it’s not by a groups ‘standards’. You are confusing functionality with morality. Functionality is more related to biology in the sense I am using.[/quote]
You put foward rather absolute statements everytime. ‘Obviously’, indeed. Anyways, by this, again, the religious are the most functional. Specifically, Christianity. We’ve flourished rather nicely. Atheists? You guys are easily the minority. What are your birthrates rates like lately?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, there you go. You must see the gentlemen in the video as having no ability to make absolute moral judgements. Which is all Pat pointed out. Oh, I’m sure you’d see me in the same light. But, I make no claim to moral relativism. Though, I’m not sure you’d say my position was absolutely immoral. =P
I don’t make any claims about what your position is, you haven’t said it. I can make claims about which morality is better simply by examining them, as I’ve demonstrated.
By absolute morality all you are trying to say is the morality you accept, in order to argue for absolute morality you first have to define it and the defend it - not simply assume it.
“Absolute”? You seem to be making up strawmen here.
If surviving and thriving were the only conditions, you might have a point, but since they are not, you don’t. You need to pay attention to everything I’ve said, not just pick and choose. Further Christian morality is subjective as I’ve said. It is not ‘objective’ and it certainly isn’t aimed at survival and thriving. Let’s remember that Paul said that those who were able to take castration should take it. 
Let’s also remember that Hebrew morality indicates that the Hebrews have select rights over other groups to rampantly slaughter them. This is not conducive to group morality.
Nice try though, I appreciate the effort. I will grant that many of the Abrahamist codes of laws are useful to functioning societies and moral schema, but in general, when a group tries to segregate themselves they actually limit their potential - further when more and more people realize that the religion is based on incoherencies and falsehoods, those ‘laws’ that don’t make an sense are dropped - which is what has been happening since the enlightenment. Keep the good, trash the bad. [/quote]
Yet we HAVE not only survived, we’ve done it with some serious oomph. We’ve flat out thrived. Your group on the otherhand, has not. You’re the minority. Sure, you can argue the roles will reverse. But that’s just speculation. And, you guys really would need to get busy birthing them babies.