Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, again I don’t think you need a belief in universal accountability per a supernatural law in order to have moral values that you believe everyone should follow.

Think about it. Let’s say Zeb is right that morality is hardwired into our brains. Why would you need to believe in the supernatural in order to perceive and operate according to that hardwired morality? You recognize that the wiring of some people may be different than your own wiring, either regarding the morals themselves or regarding compliance with those morals. But that doesn’t mean you can escape your own wiring.

I believe in love, period. I don’t know why I do. Maybe it’s my genetic makeup, maybe it’s social programming, or maybe (although I think it’s unlikely) it’s because some supernatural being makes me feel that way. I recognize that not everyone believes in love, and that even among those who do, many don’t demonstrate it in their lives. I don’t believe they will be held accountable by a divine being, but that doesn’t mean I can escape my own moral view or the conviction that it is important for others to follow it.

Does that make sense?[/quote]

Then you FEEL emotions associated with certain actions and circumstances. And those our your own personal associations. But you KNOW, intellectually, that morality doesn’t exist. Therefore, atheists can’t KNOW morality. This then leads to the only honest conclusion; they can’t HAVE morality.

There’s no getting around that with relativism. Especially if you’re aware of your moral relativism. You FEEL a certain thing about certain (others feel different) things, but you still KNOW morality doesn’t actually exist. At best your morality exists no more so than the God whose presence I FEEL in mass. The moral relativist must, if honest, own this knowledge. Even if it leaves him in a stalemate with the theist.

182

Thunderbolt and Sloth I swear I did not read your posts here before posting my statement in the Atheism o Phobia thread.

183

Actually, I’d like to insert the exchange you had. Especially your final statement.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Then i don’t understand what you’re getting at.
[/quote]

I’m attempting to demonstrate to you that you do actually believe that certain acts are unequivocally moral or immoral.

You can come up with all the explanations and justifications and postulations you want to, but in the end, everyone except for maybe true sociopaths ends up having to admit that there are certain “truths,” he holds to be “self-evident.”

[/quote]

Cortes, there are things i would only do in extreme situations, and there are things i would never do no matter the circumstance. What i would never do [cheat on my wife, for instance] some people don’t think twice about.

Joining an army, go abroad and invade a country is another thing i would never do.

And yet, these immoral acts aren’t perceived that way by many, many people. Would i ever kill a baby? No, i would not. Do i think that people who do kill babies are immoral? Yes, because the act of killing a baby is something i would never do.

Still, babies are killed everyday by people who think they’re doing the right thing. Why is that Cortes? Is it because what one finds moral changes with circumstance? I think so.

What i think are immoral acts are acts i’d never do myself.[/quote]

Totally beside the point.

What another person feels means nothing. What’s important is that you believe there IS a moral standard, as you hold yourself to it, would never violate it in certain respects, and you use this standard when comparing the acts of others (indeed, you are using it in this very post).

My entire point, from months ago on the Arrest the Pope thread, even, has been this. Press hard enough, and, unless they are a total, out and out sociopath, everyone ends up admitting that there are certain acts that they feel are just fucking wrong no matter what.

And at this point, my friend, I can point to Sloth’s recent posts to forlife about such a moral code either being a lie (which I certainly don’t think is the case with you), an actual Law which exists independent of the physical universe, or just the same as the faith/ignorance/protectionary mechanism-based fantasy delusions we Christians comfort ourselves with.

Something tells me you are not really cool with options 2 or 3, either. [/quote]

Why do morals have to be independent of the physical universe?[/quote]

Because they are “oughts.”

The physical universe is made of of “is’s.”

[/quote]

184

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have a scenario that I would like folks to answer honestly.

If two men were standing on a planet, that no one else inhabited. Both were grizzly warriors, scared and broken from several wars. And, one was to kill the other, and no one was there to deliver civil punishment. Is it still wrong that he killed the other man?[/quote]Of course

185

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have a scenario that I would like folks to answer honestly.

If two men were standing on a planet, that no one else inhabited. Both were grizzly warriors, scared and broken from several wars. And, one was to kill the other, and no one was there to deliver civil punishment. Is it still wrong that he killed the other man?[/quote]Of course
[/quote]

Word…and I found out today…my morals stick, and I got a good way to find your morals, get tipsy. Goodnight folks, been a good birthday for me.

186

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have a scenario that I would like folks to answer honestly.

If two men were standing on a planet, that no one else inhabited. Both were grizzly warriors, scared and broken from several wars. And, one was to kill the other, and no one was there to deliver civil punishment. Is it still wrong that he killed the other man?[/quote]Of course
[/quote]

Word…and I found out today…my morals stick, and I got a good way to find your morals, get tipsy. Goodnight folks, been a good birthday for me.[/quote]Happy birthday Chris… I think

187

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have a scenario that I would like folks to answer honestly.

If two men were standing on a planet, that no one else inhabited. Both were grizzly warriors, scared and broken from several wars. And, one was to kill the other, and no one was there to deliver civil punishment. Is it still wrong that he killed the other man?[/quote]Of course
[/quote]

Word…and I found out today…my morals stick, and I got a good way to find your morals, get tipsy. Goodnight folks, been a good birthday for me.[/quote]Happy birthday Chris… I think
[/quote]

It was…goodnight.

188

Thunder, I understand what you’re saying about moral relativism in the absence of ultimate authority and accountability. And yes, I agree that I can’t claim moral superiority on that basis.

However, that doesn’t mean I must recognize all moral systems as equally valid. Definitionally, moral systems prescribe how people should act. They are judgmental and discriminatory by nature. By existing, they assert a universal standard that everyone should follow, even without guaranteed supernatural accountability to that standard. To say that love is important is to assert that everyone should love one another, even if the universe couldn’t care less either way.

The difference is that my moral system is admittedly human by nature. I believe yours is too, even though you don’t see it that way. Regardless, there’s nothing wrong with human defined morality. If you get a speeding ticket on the freeway, the cop isn’t going to care about your moral relativism argument. As human beings, we can still define and hold one another accountable for following a system of basic morals that most agree with.

189

Sloth, I don’t “know” that morality doesn’t exist. To the contrary, I believe morality does exist, as defined by human standards. Those definitions may differ in some respects, but there are common morals that span most moral systems that we create for ourselves. We establish laws holding one another accountable for these morals, without needing to claim divine authority.

190

[quote]forlife wrote:
I believe morality does exist, as defined by human standards [/quote]

That’s cool. As long as you then recognize that the continued standard of exclusively recognizing hetero-marriage is at least as moral as recognizing any and all forms of marriage.
I’m sure your definition will now change, but I’m spent on chasing down every new twist. Sorry.

191

You’re still not addressing my point, which is that just because moral systems are humanly defined doesn’t mean that people should stop supporting mutually agreed upon morals and laws. By your logic, there should be no laws whatsoever if no god existed, as if the laws themselves have no value.

192

[quote]forlife wrote:

Thunder, I understand what you’re saying about moral relativism in the absence of ultimate authority and accountability. And yes, I agree that I can’t claim moral superiority on that basis.

However, that doesn’t mean I must recognize all moral systems as equally valid. Definitionally, moral systems prescribe how people should act. They are judgmental and discriminatory by nature. By existing, they assert a universal standard…[/quote]

You can stop at that point right there, because the flaw has been identified. Under your theory, you see, there is no “by existing” that inherently “asserts a universal standard.”

Under your theory - they don’texist. They don’t. They have no source outside of the individual asserting a preference. Period.

And, thus, there is nothing universal about it. So if a democracy enacts a law that the society should put Jews in concentration camps, so long as there is enough consensus to do so, there is nothing inherently wrong with that law in your world.

EDIT: typo, changed “doesn’t” to “don’t”.

193

Having no source outside of the natural world doesn’t mean those moral systems don’t exist. Of course they exist, they just don’t claim a supernatural source.

A universal standard doesn’t require universal accountability. I could believe that people should universally love one another, but that doesn’t mean they actually will, or that failing to do so will always incur accountability. The moral standard is still universal, because it asserts universally how people ought to behave.

Concentration camps are universally, inherently wrong according to my human moral system, and I will fight just as fiercely to prevent them as anyone with a religious motivation.

194

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re still not addressing my point, which is that just because moral systems are humanly defined doesn’t mean that people should stop supporting mutually agreed upon morals and laws. By your logic, there should be no laws whatsoever if no god existed, as if the laws themselves have no value.[/quote]

I’ve addressed yor point(s). But you flip-flop between moral absolutes and relativism so quickly, I get tired of trying to chase you down. In the newest response you make your personal, relative, moral-standard into an universal moral-standard…I give up.

195

Or maybe you’re just not understanding my point.

Again, if a person believes a moral principle should be applied universally, it is a universal standard.

It doesn’t need universal compliance to be universal in scope.

It doesn’t need universal accountability to be universal in scope.

It doesn’t need supernatural support to be universal in scope.

196

[quote]forlife wrote:
Or maybe you’re just not understanding my point.

Again, if a person believes a moral principle should be applied universally, it is a universal standard.[/quote]

No, it’s an opinion.

197

Call it what you want, you can’t deny that it is universal in scope regarding how people ought to behave. Your argument that everyone should accept all human moral systems as equally valid falls flat, because it ignores that these morals are still universal in scope, even if not held by everyone.

Are you going to argue that it is ok for someone to break the law, which you know to be created by humans, even if he believes it is ok?

198

evil can be universal in scope too.

what make your (universal in scope) belief good / moral ?

[quote]
Are you going to argue that it is ok for someone to break the law, which you know to be created by humans, even if he believes it is ok? [/quote]

if by “ok” you mean “moral”, then yes, in some cases, breaking the law is ok.

199

[quote]forlife wrote:

Having no source outside of the natural world doesn’t mean those moral systems don’t exist. Of course they exist, they just don’t claim a supernatural source.[/quote]

Well, you continue to dance around the point - how, then, do they exist? On what basis? And what do they say? And on what authority?

You only say these moral systems “need not sourced outside the natural world”, but you never provide an alternative source - other than the individual, which definitionally means it can’t be universal.

So, source it - where does the “universal moral standards” emanate from?

We’re back to the beginning. You now claim the universality of morals is based on some conception of how people “ought” to treat one another. Well - source it: where does this come from, how do you know how people “ought” to treat each other in a way that operates “universally” and not “relatively”?

You won’t provide an answer here. Can you?

On what basis? How are they “inherently” wrong? You simply saying so is nothing more than a personal preference. A Nazi’s personal preference is to the contrary, and there is no “universal” measuring stick saying you’re right and he’s wrong, under your theory. “Inherent” means the Nazi is wrong to believe that concentration camps for Jews even if he thinks he is right. You haven’t explained why it’s inherent.

And likely you can’t - you are an admitted moral relativist. But I invite you to prove me wrong.

No one care if you “fight fiercely” or not - the only thing at issue is sourcing this moral code you say exists “unvirsally” but you can’t explain why.

Well, again, source it. I’ll wait patiently.

200

[quote]forlife wrote:

Again, if a person believes a moral principle should be applied universally, it is a universal standard.[/quote]

This is ipso facto contradictory on its face - because two people with two completely different (and opposite) moral principles can’t both have their principle be “universal”.

For a principle to be “universal”, one has to be right and one has to be wrong.

Your statement is logically contradtcitory. It cannot be fixed.