Right, Wrong, and Moral.................

[Tom_in_CA]

Another option that will allow you to stall for time (or is it a trap ? ) : Take the choice of agreeing that there are objective moral absolutes. And simply tell us that the way we deduce what those are (if it were theoretically possible) is to A) poll the entire earth (such that we're not studying outlier flukes), and B) have that poll be over all the eons of time, since man ever existed. then C) take those tallies and add them all up.

If we did so, I'll bet gassing of jews would get a thumbs down. I'll bet gay-bashing gets a thumbs down. I'll bet throwing virgins into volcanoes gets a thumbs down. I'll bet pedophilia gets a thumbs down. I'll bet racism gets a thumbs down. So , if as you can see we both agree that these would be the vote outcomes, then .... why aren't you jumping on that as the collective "we" that provides us our "objective morals" ?

That would seem to be a good option for you. Because then you can admit there is an objective moral scoring card, and yet say it's just us humans, with no God involved. Why isn't that a good carrot for you ?

On an earlier post, you distinctly denied any such "world-wide collective we" vote was necessary. Remember ? You rejected this carrot I was offering you, as a solution to solve the "who is the we ?" question. Why ? Are you afraid of a trap ? Do you want to back-track and take the carrot after all ? After all, I'm a nice guy and .... would I set a trap for you, with a secret hand of cards to play if you took the bait ? NNNNeeeoooo (or would I ? :))

 

[Philip James]

Why have we made sexuality into a moral issue at all? It seems to overstep and greatly "subjectify" what is good and what is bad.

Hello Truth,

I think you missed my point.
While we could discuss the objective/subjective standard of sexual mores, i was referring to the coercion, and punishment of those that refuse to go along with the recent social 'standard'.
Is it just to coerce and shame those who dont play ball?
If society 'decides' that churches who refuse to embrace such a standard are to be punished, is that just?

Peace!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
If society 'decides' that churches who refuse to embrace such a standard are to be punished, is that just? ...

If I'm not mistaken, I heard of a Catholic charity (that provided food to poor people, or had a skid row soup kitchen or orphanage, etc....). They were told that they had to provide for abortions in their health insurance to their staff. And, naturally, since Catholics take a dim view on abortion, they said "no". The end result, was that they had to shut down their operation, as there was some sort of government tentacles (lease of the building they were in, or something like that).

If people were as "open minded" and "tolerant" as they claim to be, then why weren't they open-minded and tolerant to those Catholics ? A blaring contradiction when these raving liberals say THEY are the "tolerant" and "open-minded" ones. Yet in their very next breaths will suppress and punish anyone who doesn't believe as they believe

 

[Philip James]

If I'm not mistaken, I heard of a Catholic charity (that provided food to poor people, or had a skid row soup kitchen or orphanage, etc....). They were told that they had to provide for abortions in their health insurance to their staff. And, naturally, since Catholics take a dim view on abortion, they said "no". The end result, was that they had to shut down their operation, as there was some sort of government tentacles (lease of the building they were in, or something like that).

If people were as "open minded" and "tolerant" as they claim to be, then why weren't they open-minded and tolerant to those Catholics ? A blaring contradiction when these raving liberals say THEY are the "tolerant" and "open-minded" ones. Yet in their very next breaths will suppress and punish anyone who doesn't believe as they believe

In Canada recently, organizations that receive funds to help employ students for the summer were required to sign a statement respecting 'Canadian' values including respect for access to abortion. Those who refused were denied funding..
Here is the latest on that: Liberals changing Canada Summer Jobs attestation after reproductive rights controversy

Peace!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....Those who refused were denied funding.....

Yet in their very next breaths, those persons who denied funding will pronounce themselves the open minded tolerant ones. Can you spell "c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n " ?

 

[Truth OT]

What the heck is the difference ? "rationalization" vs "decided on" ? And "good & bad" vs "justifiable" ? Instead of ever answering the questions of the obvious test-drive-crash-pickles you are in, here's what you do instead: Pick random words, and start to dispute their meanings. EVEN THOUGH WE BOTH KNOW FULL WELL WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT !

Good and bad are good and bad. The circumstance that can or cannot justify the bad act is the context.

 

[Enoch111]

The Decalogue was part of the Sinai Covenant between Jacob's descendants and their god, not an overarching moral law.

Spoken like a true unbeliever. Calling the LORD God Almighty "their god" (small g) reveals both spiritual and secular ignorance. There is not a single religion which does not recognize the one Supreme Being who is the Creator of all things.

And there is indeed an *overarching moral law* which is embedded in the conscience of every human being. And it is the Creator who has put the conscience into His creatures.

You might want to correct your screen name from *Truth OT* to something else, since you do not like the truth.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Good and bad are good and bad. The circumstance that can or cannot justify the bad act is the context.

Correction : On your view they are "subjectively" good or bad. And the "circumstances" that can or can't "justify" the acts, are totally subjective to the individual, and/or their collective "we" that they are living among, at whatever time it is. Ok ?

Looking forward to your inputting on the rest of post #60 and #62.

 

[Truth OT]

On your view they are "subjectively" good or bad.

Yes, subject to the human-defined distinctions of good and bad that are based on how humanity demonstrably is. This is more objective.

And the "circumstances" that can or can't "justify" the acts, are totally subjective to the individual, and/or their collective "we" that they are living among, at whatever time it is.

I'd venture to say so. More specifically, the perspectives of those acting individuals is the catalysts for the attempts at justifying acts that would otherwise be considered wrong for humans to commit against human peers. An example would be imprisoning a member of the community against their will. That act would be something our human nature would tell us is wrong. However, if a member of a community violates laws passed by the community, the community could justify incarcerating that individual against their will.

Another option that will allow you to stall for time (or is it a trap ? ) : Take the choice of agreeing that there are objective moral absolutes. And simply tell us that the way we deduce what those are (if it were theoretically possible) is to A) poll the entire earth (such that we're not studying outlier flukes), and B) have that poll be over all the eons of time, since man ever existed. then C) take those tallies and add them all up.

If we did so, I'll bet gassing of jews would get a thumbs down. I'll bet gay-bashing gets a thumbs down. I'll bet throwing virgins into volcanoes gets a thumbs down. I'll bet pedophilia gets a thumbs down. I'll bet racism gets a thumbs down. So , if as you can see we both agree that these would be the vote outcomes, then .... why aren't you jumping on that as the collective "we" that provides us our "objective morals" ?

A scorecard has been developed to "grade" whether acts committed against humans are right or wrong (moral if you will). That scorecard is from the human perspective and based on human nature. No polling is needed only an understanding of people.

TANGENT ALERT:
IMO, voting is not very effective in gauging what people feel anyways as people frequently vote against their our self interests and are coerced by forms of manipulation to follow what others are promoting.

 

[Truth OT]

Not looking good for those who hold that homosexual 'marriage' is a mockery of the 'good' that is the union of a man and a woman.

The freedom to voice such an option is there. However, the consequences to making such an assertion to a public that feels it's bigoted are also there, so push back and public shaming (a bad thing, but in this case justifiable by the public) should be expected.

With subjective morality, it will be seen as just when Church lands are confiscated and its possessions stolen..

Quite a slippery slope being assumed here.

 

[Truth OT]

Who is the "our" ? Which "humans" ? Which "us" ?

There is no "which humans" here. Just humans, period, as the human species is overwhelmingly similar in nature.

 

[Philip James]

The freedom to voice such an option is there. However, the consequences to making such an assertion to a public that feels it's bigoted are also there, so push back and public shaming (a bad thing, but in this case justifiable by the public)

How is this justifiable?

Quite a slippery slope being assumed here.

Nothing new under the sun..
Secularization of Church Property | Encyclopedia.com

A bankrupt America will be sorely tempted to confiscate Church property...

Peace!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Yes, subject to the human-defined distinctions of good and bad that are based on how humanity demonstrably is. This is more objective .....

Correct. And Hitler was "human-defined", and "humanity-domonstrably". I'll bet if you had done an atopsy at his death, you'd have (gasp) determined that he was (gasp) "HUMAN" (say it isn't so). Same for Stalin, Pol Pot, and all those evil people (like my dad) who grew up in the deep south under the Jim Crow laws.

By your own definition, these people groups of humans determine "good and bad". Right ? Let that sink in.

.....I'd venture to say so.....

Yup. Which is exactly why you gave a pass to the Nazis , and (to your credit) didn't/wouldn't say they were "wrong". Let that sink in.

..... An example would be imprisoning a member of the community against their will.........

Gee, what's wrong with THAT ? In fact, I think it sounds rather fun. Oh wait, are you calling upon some higher objective standard to call that "wrong" ? Oh gee, say it isn't so :/

..... However, if a member of a community violates laws passed by the community, the community could justify incarcerating that individual against their will......

Correct. And it wasn't "violating laws of the community" to gas Jews during the Nazi reign from 1933 to 1945. So on your view , presto, they were not "violating any laws". Let that sink in. And meanwhile, you can not look back in history (on your own view of where morals come from ) and say they were "wrong". Let that sink in.

..... A scorecard has been developed to "grade" whether acts committed against humans are right or wrong (moral if you will). That scorecard is from the human perspective and based on human nature. No polling is needed only an understanding of people. .....

Correct. And guess what ? Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin had a "human perspective" and "human nature" . Why do I keep having to repeat this to you ?? If you say "well, gee... they were wrong ..." , THEN PRESTO, you have just been converted to believe in objective moral scoring cards. Welcome to our side of aisle !! When are you going to see that you give yourself away every time you exhale and say another sentence ??

..... TANGENT ALERT:
IMO, voting is not very effective in gauging what people feel anyways as people frequently vote against their our self interests and are coerced by forms of manipulation to follow what others are promoting. .....

TANGENT ALERT ! : Let's hurry to create another "fire-to-put-out". So we can divert the heat off of T.O.T's pickle that he's got himself in. Ie.: a 20 page debate on whether-or-not people *really* vote what they-think, blah blah. Hurry ! Grab that thesaurus ! ;/

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... as the human species is overwhelmingly similar in nature.

Really ? You're "similar" to Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin ? Ok, sure. Remind me to remove you from my super bowl party invitation list. ;)

Me thinks you will say "T.O.T. is right in his moral view, and Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were wrong in their moral views. Thus no, you can keep me on the invitation list to the Super Bowl party". Right ? However, the moment you introduce "right" and "wrong", then presto: You have just acknowledged objective moral standards that exist OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE HUMAN SPECIES thinks.

When are you going to admit it and join our side of the aisle ??

 

[marksman]

What is right? In the dictionary it's defined as morally good, justified, or acceptable. Defining it is easy, but determining the who and the how behind what is considered good, justifiable, and acceptable is where we have issues. For millennia men have argued and reasoned in the hopes of finding an applicable moral philosophy that is the be all and end all to no avail. Whether it has been the divine command theory, utilitarianism, or an Kantian approach, all seem to have some holes and each's attempt at nailing down something objective has a situation where holes can be poked in it. All that said, my goal here is to attempt to best define what the framework for what is good is from the perspective of human beings with good being defined as that which is desired or approved of.
What do we almost universally desire as people? Things like safety, fairness, pleasure, the reduction of suffering, appreciation and love, security, improving the quality of the human experience, as well as being respected are desired and approved of. Actions that yield these results are generally regarded under the category of good while actions that adversely impact the above are generally consider as bad.

The main problem we have today is that the truth is considered lies and lies the truth. As the bible says, every man did that which was right in his own eyes. I have dialogued with those who believe that the truth is lies and lies is the truth, and when I have raised an issue which says what the atheist believes, I am told that that atheist does not speak for the one I am talking to as they all have their own personal interpretation of what is or isn't.

I have pointed out that the change in finches beaks which Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands has been used time and again to prove evolution and I have said it doesn't prove evolution it only proves adaptation, and the atheist has said that is not what he believes.

Generally speaking, they believe whatever will enable them to pour water on your claims and that can change from day to day and person to person and means they make it up as they go along.

 

[Truth OT]

The main problem we have today is that..........

IMO the issue is not so much a debate over the implications of evidence, but rather the ignoring of evidence unless it can be used to support prior held beliefs. We tend to start with a position and fight like all you know what to defend it rather than attempting to start with as much of a blank slate as possible and letting the evidence lead us to a conclusion based on facts.

As far a biological evolution is concerned, I guess I trust the conclusions it asserts, but I'm not personally married to them. Looking at genetics, genome sequencing, and other things I am not fully educated in that seem to be foundational to the ToE, it seems to be supported by the real world. If evidence is presented that wrecks the theory and something else is shown to be a demonstrably better explanation for reality, I'm pretty sure I'd get on board with whatever that was. As far as I'm concerned, I just want to know what's most likely to be true, period.

 

[Truth OT]

Really ? You're "similar" to Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin ? Ok, sure. Remind me to remove you from my super bowl party invitation list.

We all are. Not by choice, but by nature. If you cut any of us we will bleed and it will hurt. If either of us is thirsty and water is provided it will bring nourishing pleasure. Humans are human, even the "bad" ones.

By your own definition, these people groups of humans determine "good and bad". Right ? Let that sink in.

Wrong. Good and bad aren't determined or decided upon. They are instead based on natural human HUMANITY and what is and is not desirable based on that! Humans don't like being enslaved. Humans don't like being abused. Humans don't like having things that belong to them taken from them. Humans don't like when their loved ones are forced to suffer. Humans don't like being deceived and violated. Therefore doing those types of things to a human are considered bad based (as I have repeated countless times) on the reality of our shared humanity.

Gee, what's wrong with THAT ? In fact, I think it sounds rather fun.

Your response above in reference to imprisoning a member of the community against their will exemplifies that you are missing the point over and over again. How can you determine that it would be wrong for imprison a member of the community against their will? Simply by looking at the nature of people (by all means include yourself) and asking how would doing this thing to a person make that HUMAN feel. If the answer is that it would be extremely undesirable cause things like pain, mental anguish, and/or suffering then you have your answer. Easy and simple.

Correct. And it wasn't "violating laws of the community" to gas Jews during the Nazi reign from 1933 to 1945. So on your view , presto, they were not "violating any laws". Let that sink in. And meanwhile, you can not look back in history (on your own view of where morals come from ) and say they were "wrong". Let that sink in.

Justification of an act doesn't necessarily make the act not bad, it simply attempts to provide an acceptable WHY for the reason the bad activity should not be frowned upon in a particular situation. This determination is HIGHLY subjective. An example would be killing in self defense. Killing is bad, but the reason one killed in such a scenario may be found as justifiable by the presiding community. Conclusion, good vs. bad compared to whether something may be justifiable are often mutually exclusive.

 

[marksman]

IMO the issue is not so much a debate over the implications of evidence, but rather the ignoring of evidence unless it can be used to support prior held beliefs. We tend to start with a position and fight like all you know what to defend it rather than attempting to start with as much of a blank slate as possible and letting the evidence lead us to a conclusion based on facts.

As far a biological evolution is concerned, I guess I trust the conclusions it asserts, but I'm not personally married to them. Looking at genetics, genome sequencing, and other things I am not fully educated in that seem to be foundational to the ToE, it seems to be supported by the real world. If evidence is presented that wrecks the theory and something else is shown to be a demonstrably better explanation for reality, I'm pretty sure I'd get on board with whatever that was. As far as I'm concerned, I just want to know what's most likely to be true, period.

Good for you. When I started to investigate evolution and intelligent design, there were so many flaws in evolution and so many credible claims in intelligent design, plus what I already knew about God and creation that is was evident that ID won hands down.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... We all are. Not by choice, but by nature.....

Right. Presto. Then you will now therefore not be looking back at history and wagging your finger at them bad guys/societies. Ok, got it. They were only subjectively "bad", not objectively "bad". Ok .

... If you cut any of us we will bleed and it will hurt. If either of us is thirsty and water is provided it will bring nourishing pleasure. Humans are human, even the "bad" ones......

Wait, are you saying that "hurting people & making them bleed is objectively bad" ? And that providing water and nourishment is objectively good ? If so, then welcome to our side of aisle !! Objective (vs subjective) moral values exist ! Now please shout it from the mountain tops that you have been converted !! Yay ! :)

... Wrong. Good and bad aren't determined or decided upon. They are instead based on natural human HUMANITY and what is and is not desirable based on that.....

Correct. And last I checked: Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were natural "humans" and "humanity" . And they considered their goals "desirable". Ok ?

... Humans don't like being enslaved. Humans don't like being abused. Humans don't like having things that belong to them taken from them. Humans don't like when their loved ones are forced to suffer. Humans don't like being deceived and violated......

Ok, now it gets very interesting. Look closely at your above quote. In each case of your-cited-moral-violations : One side of the two-people-involved "didn't like it". Right ? Eg. : One of the two parties involved "didn't like being enslaved", etc... Right ? Ok, sure. But guess what ? : The OTHER SIDE *did* like enslaving the other other person . So why are you deciding on one person's preference over-the-other person's preference ? Here it is (drum-roll) ..... that there *IS* an objective moral compass that is BEYOND what either of the two of them think !! See ? Again you have given your stance away in your very next breaths ! It's easy : All I/we have to do is follow a moral relativist around for an hour (or his very next breath), and presto, he gives away his position.

... Therefore doing those types of things to a human are considered bad based (as I have repeated countless times) on the reality of our shared humanity......

Bad ? You mean as in objectively "bad" ? Then: "Our" & "humanity" ? Who is that ? what people-group ? What county ? what society ? what era ? Why you/us and not them ? Seems to me that you're smuggling in an objective moral scoring card through the back door again T.O.T. Tsk tsk. When are you just going to admit you've been converted ?

Me thinks you won't see/admit what's plainly in front of you. Yet you will fight tooth and nail to deny objective moral absolutes . Even though they pour out of your every breath. Because you know that to admit to objective moral absolutes might endanger your agnostic position. And lead to other ... uh ... "interesting questions" on agnosticism. And ... tsk tsk, we can't go there. Eh ? So instead you are quite comfortable in your contradictory position .

... Your response above in reference to imprisoning a member of the community against their will exemplifies that you are missing the point over and over again.....

What's wrong with imprisoning people against their will ? You're not (gasp) implying there is an objective moral standard that says this is wrong-to-do, are you ? SAY IT ISN'T So !! T.O.T. is converted !! (But he won't admit it, lest it endanger his agnosticism).

... how would doing this thing to a person make that HUMAN feel......

Ditto to the above. Are we objectively supposed to consider how other humans feel ? If so, WELCOME TO OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE !! Come shout if from the mountain top : "I am converted"

... Justification of an act doesn't necessarily make the act not bad, it simply attempts to provide an acceptable WHY for the reason the bad activity should not be frowned upon.....

Ok, I understand what you are saying. And I credit you for "reading closely" and considering what I was saying. Thank you.

Ok, now look closely at the word "bad" . That I put-in-bold above . Which is critical to yours and I's conversation. If you can call something "bad", it infers a scoring card . To-have-even-said-so, in the first place. Eg.: a good bowler vs a bad bowler. A good golf score vs a bad golf score. A crooked line vs a straight line, etc..... ALL OF WHICH INFER A STANDARD. By-which-we can call something "good vs bad" . Right ?

... Justification of an act doesn't necessarily make the act not bad.....

By saying "... not bad", you are inferring an objective moral standard, that allowed you to say that, in the first place. Hhhmmmm.

... WHY for the reason the bad activity should not be frowned upon in a particular situation.....

I/we agree. For example: Like agreeing that a speed limit *should* be 35 mph in a certain neighborhood. And thus exceeding 35 mph should be "frowned upon". But the bigger question is : Who made the speed limit ? So too is our discussion : It's not whether or not we people agree on what things should be frowned upon vs not frowned upon. It's "Who made the rules of what is frowned upon vs not frowned upon, IN THE FIRST PLACE ? "

... are often mutually exclusive......

Perfect !! And again , I applaud you for your intellectual honesty . So I have to (ahem) ask you : How do you discern between those "mutually exclusive" options ? Do you think you have an objective scoring card? IF SO : Welcome to our side of the aisle. When are you going to admit it ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... was evident that ID won hands down.

When we look at the president's faces carved in Mount Rushmore, we infer "design". Right ? We do not think "Gee, I guess the wind and rain and erosion produced those uncanny looking face things ". But yes, when we see spectacular erosion designs in the Grand Canyon (even though each of the features is unique and has uncanny shapes) we KNOW that they are random coincidental erosion effects. But when we look at Mt. Rushmore, we distinguish between those "uncanny designs" vs normally occurring formations of the landscape elsewhere. Because the "normally occurring landscape designs" have no purpose and needed no intelligence to create. But Mt. Rushmore does have a "purpose" . And we intuitively KNOW that Mt. Rushmore was NOT random coincidence of wind and rain and erosion, no matter HOW MANY millions of years you can add.

So too is it with the "purposed complexity" of our bodies, and life around us. Just like the Mt. Rushmore, it infers design.