Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
If you want to discuss philosophy, look no further than Bertrand Russell.

If only philosophers prior to him had access to his essay on how he writes. If only philosophers after him had the mental capacity to read that same essay.[/quote]

“No further,” huh?[/quote]

Sigh, I guess the previous stuff I’ve said about him hasn’t carried through onto this thread. Specifically I meant look at:

http://www.solstice.us/russell/write.html

And form arguments from there. A large part of the disdain for philosophers stems simply from the way they write.

383

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve not been arguing from the Bible. I’ve stated from the start that there exists a Moral Law. It applies to all humans and all societies. I’m not going to rehash this entire thread, because I’ve made my points over and over.[/quote]

I was under the impression you were a Christian and were arguing in favor of a Moral Law that originated from God of Bible. If that is incorrect or you want to argue from a theistic perspective then I will adjust my arguments accordingly. However, I will be continue to place this burden on other posters who wish to argue for moral absolutes and for Christianity.

I’ll thumb through this thread and see what’s been presented in your past posts. All I’ve seen are assertions, not evidence, but maybe I missed something.

[quote]Answer yes or no, without vacillating or equivocating: Is raping a 7 year old boy in the ass ever, in any circumstance, moral?

There’s your defense.
[/quote]

Even the most depraved acts can be considered morally justified if doing them caused a great good to occur or prevented an even greater evil to occur. This justification is used by Christians all the time in the free will defense. God allows evil things to happen, like the raping of children, in order for a great good to exist, free will. Before you say that is not the same thing, you would agree that not stopping the rape of a child when you have the power to do so at no cost to yourself would be an immoral action, wouldn’t you?

So to answer your question, of course it is conceivable that there can be a circumstance where a depraved act, like the rape of a child, can be considered moral. Acts are not moral or immoral in and of themselves, they need context.

And there goes your defense.

Also I would like to clarify, I consider the rape of children morally abhorrent, as I’m sure you do as well. I would venture to say that we and many others who post here share many of the same moral principles. However, just because we are in agreement on many things morally does not mean that moral absolutes, an objective moral standard or law exist. Arguing that moral absolutes don’t exist is in no way a justification for depraved acts.

To give you my perspective, I try to live a moral and ethical life, but I realize that my morality has been influenced by my biology, my upbringing, my experiences and my thoughts. I am not under any illusion that my morality is in 1 to 1 correspondence with a hypothetical standard set by some nebulous outer-dimensional being. I would not say that my morality is based on objective moral facts, unchanging like the gravitational constant of the universe. Moral propensities do exist, I’ll freely admit that, and differing systems of morality can be compared and judged superior or inferior by some rubric, but the case for moral absolutes has not been made convincingly.

384

I’d argue I’m just taking this discussion to its logical conclusion.

Possibly, but it is still very relevant in this one.

Again, still relevant. Those arguing for consistent, unchanging moral absolutes and Christianity will be challenged with the above every single time.

It is hard to separate a claim for a moral law from the claim of a creator deity if one is a theist. If you were arguing that the existence of a moral law was irrelevant to the case for a creator then we could sufficiently disentangle these arguments.

No, an objective moral law does not exist. My primary evidence is the contingency of moral absolutes and morality on the existence of a mind and the varying systems of morality between groups. My secondary evidence is the understanding of the origins of morality through evolution.

386

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“My upbringing/experiences.” If your upbringing occurred in Europe, the western hemisphere, much of Asia or Australia/New Zealand then your upbringing was directly influenced by the absolute morals of an outer-dimensional Being. You can run but you can’t hide from this simple, basic, unchallengeable truth.[/quote]

Proof?

387

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“My upbringing/experiences.” If your upbringing occurred in Europe, the western hemisphere, much of Asia or Australia/New Zealand then your upbringing was directly influenced by the absolute morals of an outer-dimensional Being. You can run but you can’t hide from this simple, basic, unchallengeable truth.[/quote]

Proof?[/quote]

…it’s a simple enough question, isn’t it? Even for push…

388

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve not been arguing from the Bible. I’ve stated from the start that there exists a Moral Law. It applies to all humans and all societies. I’m not going to rehash this entire thread, because I’ve made my points over and over.[/quote]

I was under the impression you were a Christian and were arguing in favor of a Moral Law that originated from God of Bible. If that is incorrect or you want to argue from a theistic perspective then I will adjust my arguments accordingly. However, I will be continue to place this burden on other posters who wish to argue for moral absolutes and for Christianity.

I’ll thumb through this thread and see what’s been presented in your past posts. All I’ve seen are assertions, not evidence, but maybe I missed something.

[quote]Answer yes or no, without vacillating or equivocating: Is raping a 7 year old boy in the ass ever, in any circumstance, moral?

There’s your defense.
[/quote]

Even the most depraved acts can be considered morally justified if doing them caused a great good to occur or prevented an even greater evil to occur. This justification is used by Christians all the time in the free will defense. God allows evil things to happen, like the raping of children, in order for a great good to exist, free will. Before you say that is not the same thing, you would agree that not stopping the rape of a child when you have the power to do so at no cost to yourself would be an immoral action, wouldn’t you?

So to answer your question, of course it is conceivable that there can be a circumstance where a depraved act, like the rape of a child, can be considered moral. Acts are not moral or immoral in and of themselves, they need context.

And there goes your defense.

Also I would like to clarify, I consider the rape of children morally abhorrent, as I’m sure you do as well. I would venture to say that we and many others who post here share many of the same moral principles. However, just because we are in agreement on many things morally does not mean that moral absolutes, an objective moral standard or law exist. Arguing that moral absolutes don’t exist is in no way a justification for depraved acts.

To give you my perspective, I try to live a moral and ethical life, but I realize that my morality has been influenced by my biology, my upbringing, my experiences and my thoughts. I am not under any illusion that my morality is in 1 to 1 correspondence with a hypothetical standard set by some nebulous outer-dimensional being. I would not say that my morality is based on objective moral facts, unchanging like the gravitational constant of the universe. Moral propensities do exist, I’ll freely admit that, and differing systems of morality can be compared and judged superior or inferior by some rubric, but the case for moral absolutes has not been made convincingly.

[/quote]

Yeesh.

No matter how many people’s lives it saves. No matter what disaster it prevents. No matter what war is averted. No many how many other children protected from harm. It is still morally wrong to fuck a 7 year old boy in the asshole.

I can’t believe this is something I’m being challenged to “prove.”

389

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“My upbringing/experiences.” If your upbringing occurred in Europe, the western hemisphere, much of Asia or Australia/New Zealand then your upbringing was directly influenced by the absolute morals of an outer-dimensional Being. You can run but you can’t hide from this simple, basic, unchallengeable truth.[/quote]

Proof?[/quote]

…it’s a simple enough question, isn’t it? Even for push…
[/quote]

To be fair, the original challenge was for the moral relativists to provide justification for their “moral” outrage at the actions of the Catholic Church. “Proving” the existence of God has been done ad nauseum in other threads.

390

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“My upbringing/experiences.” If your upbringing occurred in Europe, the western hemisphere, much of Asia or Australia/New Zealand then your upbringing was directly influenced by the absolute morals of an outer-dimensional Being. You can run but you can’t hide from this simple, basic, unchallengeable truth.[/quote]

Proof?[/quote]

Anyway, you guys tip your cards too often.

push is asserting that the cultures of these areas are steeped in monotheistic religion, to the point that you cannot escape its influence.

Simple enough for you? :wink:

392

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“My biology.” You can present no evidence whatsoever that your biology influences a single facet of your morality. It is subjective conjecture, period.[/quote]

If you had an poorly formed prefrontal cortex or parietal lobe, your ability feel empathy and your ability to make moral judgments would be severely impaired. If you didn’t have a brain capable of making value judgments, your ability to make moral decisions would be severely hampered. Do you deny any of the above? Do you concede that the difference between humans’ and other animals’ capacity to make moral judgments is a biological rather than spiritual difference?

Have my morals been influenced by Christianity through Western Civilization? Of course. This goes without saying and is irrelevant.

You make the claim that moral absolutes are derived from a deity, specifically the one described in the Bible. I challenge that claim with Euthyphro’s Dilemma, with divine commands and laws from the Bible considered morally repugnant today and with the problems caused by a New Covenant, expanded Old Covenant, or Dual-Covenant. None of these objections have been answered.

Is it morally wrong to eat pork and shellfish and has it always been? Is it morally wrong to own slaves and to beat them? Is it morally wrong to stone people to death for trivial offenses like working on the Sabbath or adultery? Is the morality of Christians today superior to those of Old Testament Jews?

Please do.

I suppose some people took offense to my use of the word “illusion” in my previous post, perhaps “delusions of grandeur” would have been more accurate.

393

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeesh.

No matter how many people’s lives it saves. No matter what disaster it prevents. No matter what war is averted. No many how many other children protected from harm. It is still morally wrong to fuck a 7 year old boy in the asshole.

I can’t believe this is something I’m being challenged to “prove.”

[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You are not a making a defense, you are just making assertions and question begging. Do you disagree with the premise that the context of actions affect the morality of such actions, that normally moral actions in some circumstances would be considered immoral and vice versa? If you don’t, then what it the problem? If you do, then make the case for an objective moral law or moral absolutes and counter the objections I’ve brought up previously.

I know full well that you believe the rape of children is morally wrong, as do I. However, your justification for that belief, that an objective moral law exists, is not valid from what you have presented.

394

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeesh.

No matter how many people’s lives it saves. No matter what disaster it prevents. No matter what war is averted. No many how many other children protected from harm. It is still morally wrong to fuck a 7 year old boy in the asshole.

I can’t believe this is something I’m being challenged to “prove.”

[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You are not a making a defense, you are just making assertions and question begging. Do you disagree with the premise that the context of actions affect the morality of such actions, that normally moral actions in some circumstances would be considered immoral and vice versa? If you don’t, then what it the problem? If you do, then make the case for an objective moral law or moral absolutes and counter the objections I’ve brought up previously.

I know full well that you believe the rape of children is morally wrong, as do I. However, your justification for that belief, that an objective moral law exists, is not valid from what you have presented.

Edit: I’m not going to be around for a few days and it’s probable no one will be interested in continuing this discussion by then. It’s been interesting. Take care.

395

[quote]pushharder wrote:

“My biology.” You can present no evidence whatsoever that your biology influences a single facet of your morality. It is subjective conjecture, period.

[/quote]

Push, many scientific disciplines are currently researching the evolution of morality, and its genetic basis. They have uncovered a tremendous amount of support for anonfactor’s statement.

398

Just trying to give you a jumping off point. There’s plenty of science in that link to show that your statement was incorrect. Discredit it if you can.

399

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

“My biology.” You can present no evidence whatsoever that your biology influences a single facet of your morality. It is subjective conjecture, period.

[/quote]

Push, many scientific disciplines are currently researching the evolution of morality, and its genetic basis. They have uncovered a tremendous amount of support for anonfactor’s statement.

[/quote]

Have they now? And these eminent citadels have sought to proclaim this “important new research” via Wikipedia?[/quote]

So how do you explain autism or other mental disorders that affect social behaviour or morality? Would you say these disorders have no biologic/chemical basis? Is it simply that God has refused to speak to them?

Neuroscience and neuropsychology specifically are the scientific fields studying the bridge between psychology (including morality) and biology, look it up
http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/004733.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183883.php