Christians... riddle me this!

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Killing babies is immoral no matter when or how or why it was done. If you don't think it's immoral then you have no problem with a man going on a baby killing spree.

Do you think killing babies is immoral?

Well, of course I think that the Spartans were immoral, we agree on that point.

Do you also agree that, regardless of its source, absolute and objective morality must exist, in order to make that statement? That there must be a moral basis, which is the same today as it was in the time of Sparta, which allows us to say that their behaviour was terrible, even though they didn't think it was?

The other alternative, that morality is subjective, weakens your position to say that you think it immoral simply because you think it is immoral, not because it is, and, thus, the Spartan practice was a moral one, because, just as you base morality on your own perspective, so did they.

Which do you prefer? Absolute or non-absolute morality?

reply to post by adjensen


But the god today is the same as the one that killed the first-borns of Egypt. I'm not sure what you're getting at because the Spartan culture has long died off, god has not.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

But the god today is the same as the one that killed the first-borns of Egypt. I'm not sure what you're getting at because the Spartan culture has long died off, god has not.

But that's not what I'm asking, read it again -- do you think that there is absolute morality or not, regardless of "God" or Spartans or whatever.

reply to post by adjensen


So your question has nothing to do with what I was talking about? Why did you even ask it then? It seemed as though it was aimed at my statement, but now it seems you are backtracking and saying it doesn't.

Can you never be honest?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

So your question has nothing to do with what I was talking about? Why did you even ask it then? It seemed as though it was aimed at my statement, but now it seems you are backtracking and saying it doesn't.

No, it has to do with your question, it's just a process of getting you to your answer on your own terms. Rather than me telling you what the answer is, I want to help you to determine it for yourself, because you asked a philosophical question, not a evidentiary one.

My point in saying "regardless of 'God' or Spartans or whatever" is to allow you to answer the basic question of whether you think that there is absolute morality or not, without clouding it with other issues.

So, "yes" or "no" to the notion that there is absolute morality, a means by which we can evaluate morality without the basis being nothing more than the opinion of the times?

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, the ten commandments represent the absolute moral standard, regardless of the times. God himself chooses to ignore 'thou shalt not kill' by killing so many. If god is the absolute moral standard, he has a funny way of showing it.

It's like an alcoholic father telling his son not to drink as he sits their drinking shot after shot of liquor.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, the ten commandments represent the absolute moral standard, regardless of the times. God himself chooses to ignore 'thou shalt not kill' by killing so many. If god is the absolute moral standard, he has a funny way of showing it.

Okay, great, we both agree that there must be an absolute morality, in order for us to cast our aspersions on the Spartans for enslaving children.

However, I'm going to wipe away that stuff about the Ten Commandments and God there, because you're getting ahead of yourself.

Now, there are only two more questions to get to your answer, but I want you to do me a favour and NOT answer the next one until you've thought it through, at least for an hour or two, because if you come to a superficial answer to this one, you'll necessarily have a superficial answer to the last question, which answers your original question.

And don't let me, or a book, or some other external source provide you with an answer -- consider yourself a modern day Plato, alone with your thoughts, and just try and reason through this question.

If, as you and I agree, there is an absolute morality, by which we can evaluate the morals of any time and any society, at least on the "big ticket" issues, like killing babies, we can conclude that this morality must be:

1) Everlasting, meaning it existed in the time of the Spartans, just as it does today, and will in a million years

2) Unchanging, meaning that it was the same in the past as it is today, and as it will be in the future

3) Objective, meaning that it isn't open to interpretation (again, on major issues)

4) Comprehensible, meaning that it is clear and obvious for those who look for it, "inherent" might be a good word to use

Those are some value statements that are appropriate for something we view as being absolute. Essentially, it means that it isn't subject to the whim of a person or society at large.

So the question then becomes, what is the source of that absolute morality? And, again, try and avoid an immediate response, but think it through.

reply to post by adjensen


From nature.

We know that when we get stabbed or we stub a toe that it hurts, or that if a loved one of ours is killed, it hurts emotionally, so the natural conclusion is that if it hurts us then it must hurt others, so 'thou shalt not kill' is a natural moral standard that we grow into. Our natural ability to feel empathy stems directly from our own experiences, not some man in the sky.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

From nature.

We know that when we get stabbed or we stub a toe that it hurts, or that if a loved one of ours is killed, it hurts emotionally, so the natural conclusion is that if it hurts us then it must hurt others, so 'thou shalt not kill' is a natural moral standard that we grow into. Our natural ability to feel empathy stems directly from our own experiences, not some man in the sky.

But nature is impassive and can produce no moral values. Nature has no purpose, it just exists. It makes no judgements as to whether some behaviour is right or wrong.

In addition, your example of "if it hurts us then it must hurt others" demonstrates reasoned morality, not absolute morality. This girl can't feel pain, how is she to work out a reasoned morality?

Reasoned morality is not absolute, it is completely subjective, because it depends on the reasoner to determine for himself what is moral or not -- as I said, the Spartans could make a good case for the morality of infanticide, and the only ones they would have to convince are themselves, in order for you to have to say that, by your definition here, it was a moral act.

Would you like to try again?

reply to post by adjensen


We are part of nature aren't we? If we get it through our experiences then we are getting it through nature.

I'm sure that girl still knows right from wrong though, and she still has emotions and those completely natural emotions help her extinguish right from wrong.

The only answer you will ever accept is that we get them from your god, I know the game you are playing and I'm not up for it. This will be my last post in reference to morals. My mind is made up just as much as yours is.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

We are part of nature aren't we? If we get it through our experiences then we are getting it through nature.

The only answer you will ever accept is that we get them from your god, I know the game you are playing and I'm not up for it. This will be my last post in reference to morals. My mind is made up just as much as yours is.

No, that isn't the only answer that I would accept, and I'm sorry that you aren't interested in determining your basis for absolute morality. As it stands, you have no reason for believing that it exists, as your claim of reasoned morality doesn't fit the four criteria that I cited as being requirements for being a source of absolute morality.

reply to post by adjensen


And not to mention relativism is self-refuting.

reply to post by adjensen


Then tell me, what answers would you accept? Please outline them and I will make a decision on whether I agree with them.

Are you disagreeing that the 10 commandments are absolute? Just because everyone doesn't follow the does not mean they aren't the standards that everyone SHOULD abide by.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then tell me, what answers would you accept? Please outline them and I will make a decision on whether I agree with them.

Are you disagreeing that the 10 commandments are absolute? Just because everyone doesn't follow the does not mean they aren't the standards that everyone SHOULD abide by.

Here is what I always argue. In order for morality to be applicable to all men it must appeal to an authority higher than man.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Why do you assume that?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Why do you assume that?

Assume what? If a moral code was made by men then it doesn't apply to all men, only those who made it. However, if there is a universal moral code that applies to a men then it must appeal to an authority higher than mankind.

reply to post by adjensen

In addition, your example of "if it hurts us then it must hurt others" demonstrates reasoned morality, not absolute morality. This girl can't feel pain, how is she to work out a reasoned morality?

Reasoned morality is not absolute, it is completely subjective,

You are blatantly separating physical "pain" (hurt) from moral "pain" (hurt). The two are completely separate biological issues!

Gha

She can "work out a reasoned morality" just fine....she needs only to be taught what physical things (like fire, scalding water, falling on your face....) do to her -- and others -- regardless of whether she feels "physical" pain......

Gha
*facepalm*

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So you're saying there is no absolute moral code? That the 10 commandments god gave to Moses did and do not appeal to him?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So you're saying there is no absolute moral code? That the 10 commandments god gave to Moses did and do not appeal to him?

No, I am arguing there is. It's just as wrong morally to murder someone in Kansas as it is in Indosesia.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' appeals to god, then why does he kill so many?