The Conundrum of Moral Relevance Within and Without Religion

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Who says I force my moral standard on anyone? Humans want to love, be loved and thrive. For that to happen, we all need to get along.

Ethics and morality start out as individual, critical survival skills used to meet the above mentioned goals, and eventually progress to fit the family, the extended family and then were collectively expanded to meet the social needs of community groups, cities and finally nations.

Laws are/should be based on community agreed upon ethics that are designed to, hopefully, promote the interests and well being of the community and to allow its individuals to love, be loved and thrive.

Laws based in groupthink is not always best.

If the entire group agrees that murder is OK, then the entire community will never challenge or question it. Groupthink is not the answer.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The Constitution of the United States is "group think". The Magna Carta, "group think". Even the Nicene Creed is "group think".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Constitution of the United States is "group think". The Magna Carta, "group think". Even the Nicene Creed is "group think".

And also was Nazi Germany, Phol Phot's regime, Cuba, Islam, Communist countries. The Magna Carta was for the nobility, the Constitution wasn't agreed to by everyone, the Nicean Creed wasn't for all churches.

Tell me again, is groupthink really for the benefit of the entire community? You seem to be resistant to the ones you simply have a disagreement with, but really, why do you feel your morality is any better than someone else?

If it is your moral relevance and views, then you ultimately cannot say that Christianity is wrong, simply because you don't like it. Give me the reasons outside of your moral relevance why any of these groups are wrong.

Can you give me a reason, outside of your own moral relativism, why Nazism was wrong? Don't tell your moral relativism, don't tell me it's how you think, don't tell me Wicca, don't tell me paganism...tell me outside of your own moral relativism and views, why Nazism is wrong.

You can't. You can only appeal again to community, therefore your moral relativism is a sham, because you can't defend it without conceding that the definition of moral relativism is not true nor applicable. But give me a reason, outside of your own moral standards. Then if you believe society must follow your moral standards, then you are forcing your moral standards onto other people. You don't like codified standards because they seem to inhibit your freedom of thought, but then how do you say it is better?

Give me a reason outside of you.

a reply to: WarminIndy

And also was Nazi Germany, Phol Phot's regime, Cuba, Islam, Communist countries. The Magna Carta was for the nobility, the Constitution wasn't agreed to by everyone, the Nicean Creed wasn't for all churches.

And, we don't all agree that the Bible is the Word of God.

Tell me again, is groupthink really for the benefit of the entire community?

Would you prefer a dictatorship? An Empire with an emperor? Do you prefer a theocracy?

I'm not here to explain to you how ethics work or how laws are generally best for everyone when enacted under some sort of consensus, for and by the people. I'm not the one claiming that our morality and laws come from the Bible, and that the Bible is the objective moral standard of empirical goodness, or the final word on what is "right or wrong".

If it is your moral relevance and views, then you ultimately cannot say that Christianity is wrong, simply because you don't like it.

Christianity may or may not be true, but whether it's right or wrong is a viewpoint of each individual.

Can you give me a reason, outside of your own moral relativism, why Nazism was wrong?

So, you're telling me that I can't say that Christianity is wrong, but you want me to explain to you why Nazism was! Oh dear, I'm afraid that you're making no sense to me.

You can't. You can only appeal again to community

Who do you appeal to when you feel "wronged"?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

And also was Nazi Germany, Phol Phot's regime, Cuba, Islam, Communist countries. The Magna Carta was for the nobility, the Constitution wasn't agreed to by everyone, the Nicean Creed wasn't for all churches.

And, we don't all agree that the Bible is the Word of God.

Tell me again, is groupthink really for the benefit of the entire community?

Would you prefer a dictatorship? An Empire with an emperor? Do you prefer a theocracy?

I'm not here to explain to you how ethics work or how laws are generally best for everyone when enacted under some sort of consensus, for and by the people. I'm not the one claiming that our morality and laws come from the Bible, and that the Bible is the objective moral standard of empirical goodness, or the final word on what is "right or wrong".

If it is your moral relevance and views, then you ultimately cannot say that Christianity is wrong, simply because you don't like it.

Christianity may or may not be true, but whether it's right or wrong is a viewpoint of each individual.

Can you give me a reason, outside of your own moral relativism, why Nazism was wrong?

So, you're telling me that I can't say that Christianity is wrong, but you want me to explain to you why Nazism was! Oh dear, I'm afraid that you're making no sense to me.

You can't. You can only appeal again to community

Who do you appeal to when you feel "wronged"?

Ah, but here's the kicker, I can only tell you that the Bible addresses universal morality. The Bible reiterates what is known and understood. Therefore, as you believe in a codified set of moral standards, then those moral standards that are codified are accepted by you and they come from somewhere other than you. So you can't defend moral relativism, which is the point being made. Again, a conundrum.

If you say "murder is wrong" then you may just be agreeing with the commandment "thou shalt not kill" so then you are in essence saying the Bible's morality is correct in that.

While you then cannot defend the other passages you find offensive, you still have to appeal to a codified moral law, regardless of your own moral relativism. That is why you cannot say the Bible is wrong, because you have to concede that if you want and need codified morality, then the Bible cannot be wrong. If you find it is wrong and doing so within your own moral framework, then you have to concede that your own morality isn't strong enough to condemn a "do what thou wilt, but harm none" because "do what thou wilt" is a moral framework, but then to tack onto it "but harm none" is then enforcement of morality.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the murderer thinks the way you do. For him, it is right. So how will you tell the murderer he is wrong without your own moral relativism which allowed that murderer to murder?

If everyone is right in their own eyes, then no one is wrong. That's the conundrum. And if God is right in His own eyes, then He is not wrong. Otherwise, you enforce a moral standard from your own framework which you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Therefore, is God wrong, according to you or according to codified morality?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Ah, but here's the kicker, I can only tell your that the Bible addresses universal morality. The Bible reiterates what is known and understood. Therefore, as you believe in a codified set of moral standards, then those moral standards that are codified are accepted by you and they come from somewhere other than you. So you can't defend moral relativism, which is the point being made. Again, a conundrum.

No. You're having a conversation with someone in you head, because that's not at all what I have said. I don't believe in a codified set of moral standards. I have, however, agreed to participate in a lawful, civil society.

Morality is always a personal subjective decision. Whether or not others agree with your actions and reasons is unimportant. We make conscience decisions to work together and agree on certain things, (laws) for the good of the group, which is vital to the nuclear family and to the individual.

If you say "murder is wrong" then you may just be agreeing with the commandment "thou shalt not kill" so then you are in essence saying the Bible's morality is correct in that.

I don't believe that statement to always be true, and, I would never make such a blanket statement. I would argue that what is perceived as "bad" for someone may be perceived as a "good" thing for someone else.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the murderer thinks the way you do. For him, it is right. So how will you tell the murderer he is wrong without your own moral relativism which allowed that murderer to murder?

If everyone is right in their own eyes, then no one is wrong. That's the conundrum. And if God is right in His own eyes, then He is not wrong.

You've got to be kidding me. What has God got to do with it? Is God going to stop the murderer? If murder is "wrong" in God's eyes, why did he create murderers, and why did he order murder in the Bible and why did he murder all life, save a few humans and animals, supposedly, in Noah's flood?

If "your God" can't stop murder, what makes you think that I can just because I believe being murdered would be bad?

And, therein lies the hypocrisy and double standard of "Christian group think". If God does it, it's not a sin. Then we're right back where we started. There is no moral standard, as even GOD has a different set of morals for himself than the one he, supposedly, dictates to humanity. If God tells his followers to kill in his name, who can question them? God is always right!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Ah, but here's the kicker, I can only tell you that the Bible addresses universal morality. The Bible reiterates what is known and understood. Therefore, as you believe in a codified set of moral standards, then those moral standards that are codified are accepted by you and they come from somewhere other than you. So you can't defend moral relativism, which is the point being made. Again, a conundrum.

No. You're having a conversation with someone in you head, because that's not at all what I have said. I don't believe in a codified set of moral standards. I have, however, agreed to participate in a lawful, civil society.

Morality is always a personal subjective decision. Whether or not others agree with your actions and reasons is unimportant. We make conscience decisions to work together and agree on certain things, (laws) for the good of the group, which is vital to the nuclear family and to the individual.

If you say "murder is wrong" then you may just be agreeing with the commandment "thou shalt not kill" so then you are in essence saying the Bible's morality is correct in that.

I don't believe that statement to always be true, and, I would never make such a blanket statement. I would argue that what is perceived as "bad" for someone may be perceived as a "good" thing for someone else.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the murderer thinks the way you do. For him, it is right. So how will you tell the murderer he is wrong without your own moral relativism which allowed that murderer to murder?

If everyone is right in their own eyes, then no one is wrong. That's the conundrum. And if God is right in His own eyes, then He is not wrong.

You've got to be kidding me. What has God got to do with it? Is God going to stop the murderer? If murder is "wrong" in God's eyes, why did he create murderers, and why did he order murder in the Bible and why did he murder all life, save a few humans and animals, supposedly, in Noah's flood?

If "your God" can't stop murder, what makes you think that I can just because I believe being murdered would be bad?

And, therein lies the hypocrisy and double standard of "Christian group think". If God does it, it's not a sin. Then we're right back where we started. There is no moral standard, as even GOD has a different set of morals for himself than the one he, supposedly, dictates to humanity. If God tells his followers to kill in his name, who can question them? God is always right!

And what does lawful mean? Codified morality.

And I am asking you why the conundrum, it is your moral objection to God's morality, but you are basing that on your own moral relevance without addressing the fundamental definition of moral relevance.

Again, just because you agree to live in a lawful society, then that "lawful" society can include singling out certain groups of people to kill them. Would you not agree that all codified laws are not fair or equal even though they are lawful?

And just because you agree to live in a lawful and civilized society means that you have to accept those who live by their own morality and moral relevance. Moral relevance, that's the subject. If you agree with moral relevance, then you can't say the Bible is wrong, no matter the codified morality, which you just agreed to accepting.

It is still up to you to prove the Bible is wrong within the framework of moral relevance.

a reply to: WarminIndy

It is still up to you to prove the Bible is wrong within the framework of moral relevance.

No it's not. I'm not the one who claimed the Bible to be a moral standard dictated by God. That's on you.

And what does lawful mean? Codified morality.

No. It means traveling at the speed limit and stopping at red lights and octagonal red signs, etc. Laws to not dictate morality, they dictate consequences for not following the rules. We don't live in a world where we have all agreed on a codified morality.

And I am asking you why the conundrum, it is your moral objection to God's morality, but you are basing that on your own moral relevance without addressing the fundamental definition of moral relevance.

I don't believe in a God that dictates morality, or even has the slightest concern for planet Earth or the fate of humanity. I believe that the only morality that exists is a subjective morality that is based on a personal intellectual decision that comes from thousands of generations of trial and error in collective social evolution and our struggle to, not just survive, but thrive.

If you agree with moral relevance, then you can't say the Bible is wrong, no matter the codified morality, which you just agreed to accepting.

I'll tell what I do think, and that is that the Bible is "morally irrelevant". The morals of the Old Testament are outdated, immoral and irrelevant. How can the Bible represent an objective moral standard of goodness when its moral standards have changed. We don't stone adulterers or mouthy teenagers any more. What was moral then is no longer moral today. We don't sell our children in slavery or daughters into marriage.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

I'll tell what I do think, and that is that the Bible is "morally irrelevant". The morals of the Old Testament are outdated, immoral and irrelevant. How can the Bible represent an objective moral standard of goodness when its moral standards have changed. We don't stone adulterers or mouthy teenagers any more. What was moral then is no longer moral today. We don't sell our children in slavery or daughters into marriage.

Then that's your moral relevance, which cannot say that rape and slavery is wrong. You just said that's what you think, so moral relevance is according to you. Rapists and slavers believe they are not wrong. Moral relevance.

As it is wrong to you, then it is only wrong to you. That's the conundrum.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I can only honestly judge anything based on my personal experience and my own feelings of what's right or wrong. Morality MUST be personal and cannot be based on what someone or some book tells us how we should think. There is no moral standard booklet that we can go to and look up what is right and wrong in any given situation. That's all on you.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

I can only honestly judge anything based on my personal experience and my own feelings of what's right or wrong. Morality MUST be personal and cannot be based on what someone or some book tells us how we should think. There is no moral standard booklet that we can go to and look up what is right and wrong in any given situation. That's all on you.

Then you can't exclusively say the Bible is wrong.

But you are requiring the Bible to be judged according to your own moral relevance, but you concede that there can be no moral judgment if it is all personal, because moral relativism means it is personal.

So why keep judging the Bible for what you feel is morally wrong if you can't even judge your neighbor for their moral relevance? They can judge you according to moral relevance, but you would be offended if I said according to the Bible you are morally wrong. See, that's the point, but I never said that you were morally wrong, only that if you judge according to your moral relevance, then someone else can judge you according to their moral relevance and we are back to square one.

Would you be offended if I said that to you? It seems that you are offended when the Bible does judge people, but if the Bible itself is open to moral relevance, then it can't be wrong for doing so.

It really doesn't matter what you feel is morally wrong, the problem is the judgment against what you personally feel is wrong. But nobody can be right or wrong in moral relevance, that's why saying the Bible is wrong goes against the concept of moral relevance. That's the point I am making.

If you are moral person, so says you. And it doesn't matter because that rapist down the street believes himself to moral also, and without any need for morality-based codified laws, he is now free to live without judgement. That's the point.

The moment you pass moral judgment on an act means that morality is no longer relevant to the individual. And that morality and judgment arises from somewhere else other than you or me.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Then you can't exclusively say the Bible is wrong.

What? Wrong about what?

Look. It's on you to prove that the Bible is the Moral High Ground and the the ultimate objective standard of morality for all of creation. You'll get no where telling me I have no right to believe that it isn't.

My personal stance is that the Bible is irrelevant, outdated and immoral. My morality isn't based on biblical rules, I don't answer to the biblical god, and I don't need a god to live a moral and good life.

I'm perfectly capable of making judgement calls and judging my neighbor too, according to my personal view of right and wrong.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Then you can't exclusively say the Bible is wrong.

What? Wrong about what?

Look. It's on you to prove that the Bible is the Moral High Ground and the the ultimate objective standard of morality for all of creation. You'll get no where telling me I have no right to believe that it isn't.

My personal stance is that the Bible is irrelevant, outdated and immoral. My morality isn't based on biblical rules, I don't answer to the biblical god, and I don't need a god to live a moral and good life.

I'm perfectly capable of making judgement calls and judging my neighbor too, according to my personal view of right and wrong.

Nope, not in the framework of moral relevance you can't judge, because that's the very definition of moral relevance.

I am not on here to say the Bible is morally superior, what I am saying is that in the concept of moral relevance, the Bible can't be judged. Of course you feel you are capable of judging others, you do it all the time. But if you are judging according to your moral relevance, then there is no such thing as moral relevance.

Either morality is for everyone and it needs to be codified or it is not the same for everyone and everyone can do what they want without judgment of any kind.

It's not up to me to say the Bible is morally superior, I am arguing that if you say it is not, then you can only base that on your own personal views and so therefore, there is no such thing as moral relevance and you cannot say your morality is better than another.

Moral relativism is defeated by moral judgments. Therefore, how can you say your morality is better than the Bible? That's all I am saying.

Are you morally better than the Bible? If so, then it is up to you to prove you are and you can't use moral relativism to do it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

But if you are judging according to your moral relevance, then there is no such thing as moral relevance.

Lady, you're not making any sense at all with your circular logic.

The biblical laws and their practices, for example the one demanding the stoning of your smart mouthed, lazy assed teenager to death, are NOT morally relevant in today's society. Therefore, I judge biblical morality to be irrelevant, outdated and immoral, in the light of today's accepted morality.

My subjective and personal intellectual consideration has me finding biblical morality unbearable, reprehensible and draconian. I will resist, with all my might, anyone who would try to force this false ideology of moral superiority on me or anyone else, not because a god told me or because I read it in a book, or because of "group think" indoctrination, but because it violates my personal moral compass.

Most societies have their own version of the golden rule, it's pretty universal and not a particularly a religious idea as a philosophical one. It just makes sense.

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality[2] that essentially states either of the following: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form).[1] One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).[1] This concept describes a "reciprocal", or "two-way", relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally, and in a mutual fashion.[3][4]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So a philosophical rule rather than a religious one, not exclusive to the bible or any religious text

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

But if you are judging according to your moral relevance, then there is no such thing as moral relevance.

Lady, you're not making any sense at all with your circular logic.

The biblical laws and their practices, for example the one demanding the stoning of your smart mouthed, lazy assed teenager to death, are NOT morally relevant in today's society. Therefore, I judge biblical morality to be irrelevant, outdated and immoral, in the light of today's accepted morality.

My subjective and personal intellectual consideration has me finding biblical morality unbearable, reprehensible and draconian. I will resist, with all my might, anyone who would try to force this false ideology of moral superiority on me or anyone else, not because a god told me or because I read it in a book, or because of "group think" indoctrination, but because it violates my personal moral compass.

Again, you say not morally relevant.

What are you basing that on? Just because you don't like it does not mean it is wrong for someone else, IF the point is moral relevance.

See, that's what I am challenging, not you, not your views, not the way you think it should be, what I am challenging is the philosophy of moral relativism itself.

I don't care if you disagree or embrace the Bible, that's your views. However, I am asking whether or not you can prove you are right in your criticism of the Bible if the criticism is based in moral relativism.

Since you indicate that you choose moral relativism for yourself, but can't accommodate for another group's moral relativism, which I said is self-defeating. It's only circular if you don't want to address the philosophy of moral relativism. As I said, I don't care what you think about the Bible, I am only asking you to prove it wrong OUTSIDE of moral relativism.

Moral relativism: the philosophy that morality is only important and viable to the individual or individual societies.

Therefore, you cannot prove it is wrong to stone lazy kids IF you hold with the philosophy of moral relativism. That's all I am saying.

OUTSIDE of moral relativism, tell me why things are wrong.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Most societies have their own version of the golden rule, it's pretty universal and not a particularly a religious idea as a philosophical one. It just makes sense.

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality[2] that essentially states either of the following: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form).[1] One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).[1] This concept describes a "reciprocal", or "two-way", relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally, and in a mutual fashion.[3][4]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So a philosophical rule rather than a religious one, not exclusive to the bible or any religious text

Yes, I said it is not exclusive to the Bible and the Bible makes no such claim to exclusivity of the Golden Rule.

But the fundamental question on this thread has been moral relativism, is it viable and applicable?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, I said it is not exclusive to the Bible and the Bible makes no such claim to exclusivity of the Golden Rule.

But the fundamental question on this thread has been moral relativism, is it viable and applicable?

morality is exactly as fluid as language and culture. if you doubt this, compare america and afghanistan.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Again, you say not morally relevant.

What are you basing that on?

My personal moral compass. Please reread my posts!

Just because you don't like it does not mean it is wrong for someone else,

That's what I said. Morality is subjective. What might be considered "good" for one maybe considered "bad" or another.

IF the point is moral relevance.

There is no "point"!

I don't care if you disagree or embrace the Bible, that's your views. However, I am asking whether or not you can prove you are right in your criticism of the Bible if the criticism is based in moral relativism.

There is NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALTIY, therefore, any perception of right or wrong is subjective.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Therefore, you cannot prove it is wrong to stone lazy kids IF you hold with the philosophy of moral relativism. That's all I am saying.

as long as i can shoot you for stoning my kids, yeah.

clearly, that line of logic is self-defeating.