Should atheists be allowed to serve in the US military?

[TheDag]

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, even though they endorse the view that life is sacred.

I know in at least one case the reason is basically it is the lesser of two evils. Can't speak for other groups but I have seen similar statements but can't be sure if they are generally accepted view of those groups.

 

[TheDag]

Here's what I first said, since you seem determined to change it. Page 10, post 91.

"So just because you think that through some magical process god tells you right from wrong doesn't make it so. It might be, it might not be....but one thing we can say for certain is that it has no discernable effect on your morality. It's not as if we can say, "I know Steve gets his morality from god since he always chooses the right thing to do.". Even you'll admit that just like everyone else, you do good sometimes and you do bad sometimes....regardless of where you believe your morality originates from.

I understand your argument very well. It is because I don't believe it I will declare where you get your morals from.

So again, for all practical purposes, your morality comes from a worldly origin just like every else's."

Not all people follow their morality all the time. That does not necessarily change where their morality comes from.

If you have an example for when we cannot strip perception from reality, present it. Otherwise it's a rather empty point.

If it was that easy in every situation there wouldn't be the disagreements in many discussions. Of course to provide an example that would require an in depth conversation on other topics which to be honest I really couldn't be bothered with.

Well technically, it is because of the bible that you have your faith. Do you think christianity would've survived 2000 years being passed along by oral tradition? I certainly don't. Do you think you would believe in a religion that was passed along by word of mouth for 2000 years? I'd hope not. So in that respect...you're a christian because of the bible, directly or indirectly.

is that reality or just your perception! Your welcome to think that but unless you have proof its just an empty statement.

 

[stevevw]

[FONT=&quot]And when one examines the details, different doctrines and practices as well. If you [FONT=&quot]think an appeal to majority is a good argument, then one could argue that you should adopt the doctrines and practices of Catholic[FONT=&quot]ism[FONT=&quot]. But I'm assuming you don't consider an appeal to majority a good argument[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot], especially [FONT=&quot]given your prior recognition that the majority [FONT=&quot]aren't always correct by definition?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

No your putting words into my thoughts now. As I said an appeal to the majority on its own does not prove a point even though it may be true. So additional evidence to back this up will then support the use of the majority evidence and that is what I just did. So remember we are talking about whether or not ISIS's behavior represents what their religion says or if they are acting as extremists in the context of the moral value of not killing because life is precious and no one should kill another innocent person. We can use the IRA and Catholics as well if you want which is exactly the same but may be easier for you to understand as they are more related to our way of life.

So the first piece of evidence is that the majority of people act one way and the minority act another way. The 2nd piece of evidence is the way the majority act is decent and peace. So the qualities associated with one group are decency and peace. The qualities associated with ISIS or the IRA are terror, killing and fear. So we have two pieces of evidence about these two groups. One is there are more people doing something than the others who are in the minority. On its own this may not be enough evidence to go by. But when we add the fact that one group acts more like they are in tune with the common known meaning of treating life as precious and sacred it adds weight to the first piece of evidence.

You're missing the forest for the trees, steve. The point I was making was simply that they disagree on the ethics of abortion. In fact, by examining their views more closely you've found this yourself!

You will have to explain what you mean by ethics in the context of the moral value of not taking someones life because life is precious and valuable as a moral. Because to me they are the same. What are the ethics of abortion. The moral value is either you think abortion is wrong or right and thats it. So I would imagine the ethical stand on abortion will be its wrong or its right. But ethics are not morals. You are now taking it into another area which opens up options that dont make it so black and white/right or wrong.

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

So ethics come from external influence which can be your work standards and tell you what to do. Morals come from with you and tell you about what is right and wrong.
Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

No, I wasn't referring to those churches specifically, but to pro-choice Christians generally.

What do you mean by pro choice christian. It seems like your trying to imply that there are some Christians who say that abortion is Ok no matter what. There are no Christians that say this and will totally abandon their moral beliefs that abortion is wrong. Those who are pro choice say that abortion is still wrong and that it should only be done in certain situations but they also believe in a persons right to have the choice to decide for themselves. That is what they mean by pro choice. They are not abandoning their morals for pro choice they are accommodating pro choice as well as upholding their moral position. In that way they are saying that even though we say abortion is wrong and can only be done in certain situations we will leave the decision up to you and not force our morals onto you.

Which again means that they still disagree on the ethics of abortion.

No nobody is disagreeing with the moral value that abortion is wrong. They all say that abortion is wrong to start with. But some will say that there can be certain allowances for some to have an abortion which is the exception and not the rule. They are not changing their moral value from abortion is wrong to abortion is right. No one is disagreeing on the moral value itself that abortion is wrong. They are keeping it as wrong but making an exception for situations where there maybe a more vital situation that may involve the mother dying or having medical complications that will affect her greatly. But that is not abandoning their stand on abortion. There are no Christians religions or any religions that say abortion is good and right and that you can have an abortion in any situation and it does not matter. The only disagreement some have is which situations a person can have an abortion in which is not changing their stand on abortion. I have said this about 10 times now and you obviously dont want to hear it so we are now going around in circles.

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, even though they endorse the view that life is sacred.

They cant say that abortion is OK to do while maintaining the moral value of life is sacred at the same time thats the point. The disagreement isn't on the moral stand of whether abortion is right or wrong. They all agree its wrong for the 11th time. They are only disagreeing on when and why someone can have an abortion which is a rare case while they still keep the value that abortion is wrong. Just because they have different positions what situation a person can have an abortion doesn't mean they change their position that abortion is wrong. They keep that in place while one can say in the situation where a mothers life is at risk we allow them to have an abortion because even though we say abortion is wrong we also realize that the mothers life is at risk and we also value her life. Its a difficult situation but if they didn't say that then they are also saying they dont value the mothers life.

So they are choosing the best of a bad situation. Another might say In the case of where the child is damaged we allow abortion because the child will end up suffering and probably dying when it is born and causing stress and heart break for all concerned. So they are making an allowance because they still value life and dont want to see the baby suffering a horrible existence and the mother suffering with the torment and anguish of seeing her baby suffer like that. So they may disagree on the detail of what is the situation that they will allow as an exception. But they dont disagree on the moral value that abortion is wrong in all other situations or that one says abortion is OK to do no matter what and another says abortion is not OK. They both still agree that abortion is wrong as a moral value. But I have explained this many times and feel that I cant do it anymore as its going around in circles. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one for the moment.

 

[stevevw]

[FONT=&quot]And when one examines the details, different doctrines and practices as well. If you [FONT=&quot]think an appeal to majority is a good argument, then one could argue that you should adopt the doctrines and practices of Catholic[FONT=&quot]ism[FONT=&quot]. But I'm assuming you don't consider an appeal to majority a good argument[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot], especially [FONT=&quot]given your prior recognition that the majority [FONT=&quot]aren't always correct by definition?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

No your putting words into my thoughts now. As I said an appeal to the majority on its own does not prove a point even though it may be true. So additional evidence to back this up will then support the use of the majority evidence and that is what I just did. So remember we are talking about whether or not ISIS's behavior represents what their religion says or if they are acting as extremists in the context of the moral value of not killing because life is precious and no one should kill another innocent person. We can use the IRA and Catholics as well if you want which is exactly the same but may be easier for you to understand as they are more related to our way of life.

So the first piece of evidence is that the majority of people act one way and the minority act another way. The 2nd piece of evidence is the way the majority act is decent and peace. So the qualities associated with one group are decency and peace. The qualities associated with ISIS or the IRA are terror, killing and fear. So we have two pieces of evidence about these two groups. One is there are more people doing something than the others who are in the minority. On its own this may not be enough evidence to go by. But when we add the fact that one group acts more like they are in tune with the common known meaning of treating life as precious and sacred it adds weight to the first piece of evidence.

You're missing the forest for the trees, steve. The point I was making was simply that they disagree on the ethics of abortion. In fact, by examining their views more closely you've found this yourself!

You will have to explain what you mean by ethics in the context of the moral value of not taking someones life because life is precious and valuable as a moral. Because to me they are the same. What are the ethics of abortion. The moral value is either you think abortion is wrong or right and thats it. So I would imagine the ethical stand on abortion will be its wrong or its right. But ethics are not morals. You are now taking it into another area which opens up options that dont make it so black and white/right or wrong.

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

So ethics come from external influence which can be your work standards and tell you what to do. Morals come from with you and tell you about what is right and wrong.
Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

No, I wasn't referring to those churches specifically, but to pro-choice Christians generally.

What do you mean by pro choice christian. It seems like your trying to imply that there are some Christians who say that abortion is Ok no matter what. There are no Christians that say this and will totally abandon their moral beliefs that abortion is wrong. Those who are pro choice say that abortion is still wrong and that it should only be done in certain situations but they also believe in a persons right to have the choice to decide for themselves. That is what they mean by pro choice. They are not abandoning their morals for pro choice they are accommodating pro choice as well as upholding their moral position. In that way they are saying that even though we say abortion is wrong and can only be done in certain situations we will leave the decision up to you and not force our morals onto you. But heres another point. Even pro-choice groups do not promote abortion, just the right of a woman to choose.

Which again means that they still disagree on the ethics of abortion.

No nobody is disagreeing with the moral value that abortion is wrong. They all say that abortion is wrong to start with. But some will say that there can be certain allowances for some to have an abortion which is the exception and not the rule. They are not changing their moral value from abortion is wrong to abortion is right. No one is disagreeing on the moral value itself that abortion is wrong. They are keeping it as wrong but making an exception for situations where there maybe a more vital situation that may involve the mother dying or having medical complications that will affect her greatly. But that is not abandoning their stand on abortion. There are no Christians religions or any religions that say abortion is good and right and that you can have an abortion in any situation and it does not matter. The only disagreement some have is which situations a person can have an abortion in which is not changing their stand on abortion. I have said this about 10 times now and you obviously dont want to hear it so we are now going around in circles.

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, even though they endorse the view that life is sacred.

They cant say that abortion is OK to do while maintaining the moral value of life is sacred at the same time thats the point. The disagreement isn't on the moral stand of whether abortion is right or wrong. They all agree its wrong for the 11th time. They are only disagreeing on when and why someone can have an abortion which is a rare case while they still keep the value that abortion is wrong. Just because they have different positions what situation a person can have an abortion doesn't mean they change their position that abortion is wrong. They keep that in place while one can say in the situation where a mothers life is at risk we allow them to have an abortion because even though we say abortion is wrong we also realize that the mothers life is at risk and we also value her life. Its a difficult situation but if they didn't say that then they are also saying they dont value the mothers life.

So they are choosing the best of a bad situation. Another might say In the case of where the child is damaged we allow abortion because the child will end up suffering and probably dying when it is born and causing stress and heart break for all concerned. So they are making an allowance because they still value life and dont want to see the baby suffering a horrible existence and the mother suffering with the torment and anguish of seeing her baby suffer like that. So they may disagree on the detail of what is the situation that they will allow as an exception. But they dont disagree on the moral value that abortion is wrong in all other situations or that one says abortion is OK to do no matter what and another says abortion is not OK. They both still agree that abortion is wrong as a moral value. But I have explained this many times and feel that I cant do it anymore as its going around in circles. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one for the moment.

 

[stevevw]

[FONT=&quot]And when one examines the details, different doctrines and practices as well. If you [FONT=&quot]think an appeal to majority is a good argument, then one could argue that you should adopt the doctrines and practices of Catholic[FONT=&quot]ism[FONT=&quot]. But I'm assuming you don't consider an appeal to majority a good argument[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot], especially [FONT=&quot]given your prior recognition that the majority [FONT=&quot]aren't always correct by definition?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

No your putting words into my thoughts now. As I said an appeal to the majority on its own does not prove a point even though it may be true. So additional evidence to back this up will then support the use of the majority evidence and that is what I just did. So remember we are talking about whether or not ISIS's behavior represents what their religion says or if they are acting as extremists in the context of the moral value of not killing because life is precious and no one should kill another innocent person. We can use the IRA and Catholics as well if you want which is exactly the same but may be easier for you to understand as they are more related to our way of life.

So the first piece of evidence is that the majority of people act one way and the minority act another way. The 2nd piece of evidence is the way the majority act is decent and peace. So the qualities associated with one group are decency and peace. The qualities associated with ISIS or the IRA are terror, killing and fear. So we have two pieces of evidence about these two groups. One is there are more people doing something than the others who are in the minority. On its own this may not be enough evidence to go by. But when we add the fact that one group acts more like they are in tune with the common known meaning of treating life as precious and sacred it adds weight to the first piece of evidence.

You're missing the forest for the trees, steve. The point I was making was simply that they disagree on the ethics of abortion. In fact, by examining their views more closely you've found this yourself!

You will have to explain what you mean by ethics in the context of the moral value of not taking someones life because life is precious and valuable as a moral. Because to me they are the same. What are the ethics of abortion. The moral value is either you think abortion is wrong or right and thats it. So I would imagine the ethical stand on abortion will be its wrong or its right. But ethics are not morals. You are now taking it into another area which opens up options that dont make it so black and white/right or wrong.

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

So ethics come from external influence which can be your work standards and tell you what to do. Morals come from with you and tell you about what is right and wrong.
Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

No, I wasn't referring to those churches specifically, but to pro-choice Christians generally.

What do you mean by pro choice christian. It seems like your trying to imply that there are some Christians who say that abortion is Ok no matter what. There are no Christians that say this and will totally abandon their moral beliefs that abortion is wrong. Those who are pro choice say that abortion is still wrong and that it should only be done in certain situations but they also believe in a persons right to have the choice to decide for themselves. That is what they mean by pro choice. They are not abandoning their morals for pro choice they are accommodating pro choice as well as upholding their moral position. In that way they are saying that even though we say abortion is wrong and can only be done in certain situations we will leave the decision up to you and not force our morals onto you. But heres another point. Even pro-choice groups who are not religious do not promote abortion, just the right of a woman to choose.

Which again means that they still disagree on the ethics of abortion.

No nobody is disagreeing with the moral value that abortion is wrong. They all say that abortion is wrong to start with. But some will say that there can be certain allowances for some to have an abortion which is the exception and not the rule. They are not changing their moral value from abortion is wrong to abortion is right. No one is disagreeing on the moral value itself that abortion is wrong. They are keeping it as wrong but making an exception for situations where there maybe a more vital situation that may involve the mother dying or having medical complications that will affect her greatly. But that is not abandoning their stand on abortion. There are no Christians religions or any religions that say abortion is good and right and that you can have an abortion in any situation and it does not matter. The only disagreement some have is which situations a person can have an abortion in which is not changing their stand on abortion. I have said this about 10 times now and you obviously dont want to hear it so we are now going around in circles.

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, even though they endorse the view that life is sacred.

They cant say that abortion is OK to do while maintaining the moral value of life is sacred at the same time thats the point. The disagreement isn't on the moral stand of whether abortion is right or wrong. They all agree its wrong for the 11th time. They are only disagreeing on when and why someone can have an abortion which is a rare case while they still keep the value that abortion is wrong. Just because they have different positions what situation a person can have an abortion doesn't mean they change their position that abortion is wrong. They keep that in place while one can say in the situation where a mothers life is at risk we allow them to have an abortion because even though we say abortion is wrong we also realize that the mothers life is at risk and we also value her life. Its a difficult situation but if they didn't say that then they are also saying they dont value the mothers life.

So they are choosing the best of a bad situation. Another might say In the case of where the child is damaged we allow abortion because the child will end up suffering and probably dying when it is born and causing stress and heart break for all concerned. So they are making an allowance because they still value life and dont want to see the baby suffering a horrible existence and the mother suffering with the torment and anguish of seeing her baby suffer like that. So they may disagree on the detail of what is the situation that they will allow as an exception. But they dont disagree on the moral value that abortion is wrong in all other situations or that one says abortion is OK to do no matter what and another says abortion is not OK. They both still agree that abortion is wrong as a moral value. But I have explained this many times and feel that I cant do it anymore as its going around in circles. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one for the moment.

 

[J Jilly]

Atheists should absolutely be allowed to fight for and defend America! Anyone that thinks not is a close minded biggot! I'd rather have a free thinker defending America rather than a christian that is nothing but a follower!

 

[Euler]

stevevw,

Do you think you could make your points without writing a book each time? It is very tedious reading through your posts, which tend to be very repetitive. Once you've made a point, move on.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No your putting words into my thoughts now. As I said an appeal to the majority on its own does not prove a point even though it may be true. So additional evidence to back this up will then support the use of the majority evidence and that is what I just did. So remember we are talking about whether or not ISIS's behavior represents what their religion says or if they are acting as extremists in the context of the moral value of not killing because life is precious and no one should kill another innocent person. We can use the IRA and Catholics as well if you want which is exactly the same but may be easier for you to understand as they are more related to our way of life.

ISIS' behaviour does represent what their version of Islam commands. It does not represent the version of Islam that the majority of Muslims adhere to. That's an important difference that bears itself out in the discordant ethical messages they produce. ISIS may be of the view that innocents should not be killed, but they obviously differ radically on who they consider "innocent" and what "crimes" are worthy of death.

So the first piece of evidence is that the majority of people act one way and the minority act another way.

That's not evidence. That's an appeal to the majority, a fallacy.

The 2nd piece of evidence is the way the majority act is decent and peace.

The second piece of evidence is no different to the first. It's an appeal to the majority.

So the qualities associated with one group are decency and peace. The qualities associated with ISIS or the IRA are terror, killing and fear. So we have two pieces of evidence about these two groups. One is there are more people doing something than the others who are in the minority. On its own this may not be enough evidence to go by. But when we add the fact that one group acts more like they are in tune with the common known meaning of treating life as precious and sacred it adds weight to the first piece of evidence.

You've appealed to what the majority believe and how the majority act as evidence that the majority view is correct. Both appeals are fallacious.

You will have to explain what you mean by ethics in the context of the moral value of not taking someones life because life is precious and valuable as a moral. Because to me they are the same. What are the ethics of abortion. The moral value is either you think abortion is wrong or right and thats it. So I would imagine the ethical stand on abortion will be its wrong or its right. But ethics are not morals. You are now taking it into another area which opens up options that dont make it so black and white/right or wrong.

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

So ethics come from external influence which can be your work standards and tell you what to do. Morals come from with you and tell you about what is right and wrong.
Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

For the purposes of this discussion I'm not making a distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics.' The only distinction I make here is between 'values' and 'morals' or 'ethics.' 'Values' express the view that a certain feature of the world is valuable (e.g., justice). However, values do not, on their own, provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethically charged questions, such as those surrounding abortion or capital punishment. People on either side of those issues will claim to value life, while still disagreeing over the ethics. I could go into further detail here (I once wrote an essay on the topic), but I don't think it's necessary for present purposes.

What do you mean by pro choice christian. It seems like your trying to imply that there are some Christians who say that abortion is Ok no matter what. There are no Christians that say this and will totally abandon their moral beliefs that abortion is wrong.

Actually, steve, there are pro-choice Christians:

About | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

For over 40 years, RCRC has been a voice for reproductive choice, and has been active in working with women and men – especially those at the margins – at the intersection of faith, policy and our reproductive lives. Supportive clergy have been giving sermons about the moral agency of women to make decisions about their lives for decades, as well as praying quietly with women when actually making those decisions. We have stood arm-in-arm with proponents of comprehensive sexuality education, worked for a version of the Affordable Care Act that included contraception with no co-pays, and were instrumental in bringing faithful voices of those at the pulpit, in pews and in communities across the country to issues such as the Violence Against Women Act, the approval of Plan B pills and telemedicine for abortions, and for the ability of servicewomen to access abortion care while serving our country. We believe in faith expressed in action.

Those who are pro choice say that abortion is still wrong and that it should only be done in certain situations but they also believe in a persons right to have the choice to decide for themselves. That is what they mean by pro choice. They are not abandoning their morals for pro choice they are accommodating pro choice as well as upholding their moral position. In that way they are saying that even though we say abortion is wrong and can only be done in certain situations we will leave the decision up to you and not force our morals onto you. But heres another point. Even pro-choice groups do not promote abortion, just the right of a woman to choose.

Where have I ever argued that there are religious groups that actually promote abortion? I haven't. The point I've made is simply that their ethical position on reproductive rights is different, and in may ways opposed to the position of the Catholic Church, among others.

No nobody is disagreeing with the moral value that abortion is wrong. They all say that abortion is wrong to start with. But some will say that there can be certain allowances for some to have an abortion which is the exception and not the rule. They are not changing their moral value from abortion is wrong to abortion is right. No one is disagreeing on the moral value itself that abortion is wrong. They are keeping it as wrong but making an exception for situations where there maybe a more vital situation that may involve the mother dying or having medical complications that will affect her greatly. But that is not abandoning their stand on abortion.

But it's a different stand on abortion. In one case, it is claimed that abortion is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. In the other, the position on abortion is much more nuanced, permitting it under certain circumstances. That's the point, steve - they are different positions.

The only disagreement some have is which situations a person can have an abortion in which is not changing their stand on abortion. I have said this about 10 times now and you obviously dont want to hear it so we are now going around in circles.

But it is a different stance, steve. You have all but admitted that.

They cant say that abortion is OK to do while maintaining the moral value of life is sacred at the same time thats the point. The disagreement isn't on the moral stand of whether abortion is right or wrong. They all agree its wrong for the 11th time. They are only disagreeing on when and why someone can have an abortion which is a rare case while they still keep the value that abortion is wrong. Just because they have different positions what situation a person can have an abortion doesn't mean they change their position that abortion is wrong. They keep that in place while one can say in the situation where a mothers life is at risk we allow them to have an abortion because even though we say abortion is wrong we also realize that the mothers life is at risk and we also value her life. Its a difficult situation but if they didn't say that then they are also saying they dont value the mothers life.

So they are choosing the best of a bad situation. Another might say In the case of where the child is damaged we allow abortion because the child will end up suffering and probably dying when it is born and causing stress and heart break for all concerned. So they are making an allowance because they still value life and dont want to see the baby suffering a horrible existence and the mother suffering with the torment and anguish of seeing her baby suffer like that. So they may disagree on the detail of what is the situation that they will allow as an exception. But they dont disagree on the moral value that abortion is wrong in all other situations or that one says abortion is OK to do no matter what and another says abortion is not OK. They both still agree that abortion is wrong as a moral value. But I have explained this many times and feel that I cant do it anymore as its going around in circles. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one for the moment.

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, as I noted in my previous post. They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion. Recall that, as I said earlier, values on their own do not provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethical questions. People with similar values may nonetheless hold differing ethical views.

 

[stevevw]

ISIS' behaviour does represent what their version of Islam commands. It does not represent the version of Islam that the majority of Muslims adhere to. That's an important difference that bears itself out in the discordant ethical messages they produce. ISIS may be of the view that innocents should not be killed, but they obviously differ radically on who they consider "innocent" and what "crimes" are worthy of death.

[FONT=&quot]Just like the IRA. They twist meanings with hatred and bigotry and claim it in the name of God. There is no moral value here. There is only a hated and criminal value. Hitler justified his actions; Charles Mason justified his beliefs and action and even convinced others that he was a prophet and got them to kill in his name on behalf of God. Many killers think they are justified and have reasons they think are right in why they kill. All this doesn't mean its moral. Morals are something that represent a good and decent behavior and can be determined by the actions they produce.

With the way of thinking you are using for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ISIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] you could just about justify anything and turn it into a moral. I think you have to take a step back and see the difference in their behavior. The type of justification and compromise that some use against the moral isn't one to promote evil or bad things. They are allowing a woman to have an abortion because her life may be at risk. This is a good compromise against a good moral which is all about making life precious and valuable against the act of killing. What [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ISIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] done can be seen just as clearly as Charlie Masons actions as being callous, cruel and evil even if they say its in the name of religion. It doesn't preserve life as precious and valuable it treats life as nothing so it is not a justification against the moral value that life is precious and valuable.

[/FONT]

That's not evidence. That's an appeal to the majority, a fallacy.
The second piece of evidence is no different to the first. It's an appeal to the majority.

[FONT=&quot]No its more than the majority. We have a type of behavior that can also tell us what they are like. One talks about volume the other talks about quality. Two different things. How do they judge a politician to be voted by a majority into government? By the way they act and even the things they say. But how do they begin to dislike them when they lose popularity. When they don’t do what they say. So actions are one of the best ways we can tell what’s really going on. Not by what they say but by what they do. As they say actions speak louder than words. Sooner of later you have to acknowledge that the majority’s actions are in tune with what is right.
[/FONT]

You've appealed to what the majority believe and how the majority act as evidence that the majority view is correct. Both appeals are fallacious.

[FONT=&quot]So how else do with judge things. If most people do it that alone doesn't prove it. But if the most people who are doing it are also showing that they are living a better life that the small groups who are not which group would you want to be aligned to or trust. I agree with the idea that just because the majority of people do it doesn't mean it’s the right thing. But when we are talking about a type of behavior cant we also judge the type of behavior and see which one seems to be closest to way we are trying to assess which is the moral that life is valuable and precious.[/FONT]

For the purposes of this discussion I'm not making a distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics.' The only distinction I make here is between 'values' and 'morals' or 'ethics.' 'Values' express the view that a certain feature of the world is valuable (e.g., justice). However, values do not, on their own, provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethically charged questions, such as those surrounding abortion or capital punishment. People on either side of those issues will claim to value life, while still disagreeing over the ethics. I could go into further detail here (I once wrote an essay on the topic), but I don't think it's necessary for present purposes.

Ok I have got a definition of the difference between ethics and morals.

The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
What is the Difference Between Ethics and Morals?

So though they are closely related there a slight differences. Ethics are related to the system that each of us are subject to and we may not always agree with that system morally. So if we are working for a care service organization and a person comes fro help who is someone who has done something like abused his kids we still have to help him even though our personal morals may find that person to be immoral and horrible. So the ethical standards the organization has about equal access no matter what and who a person is over ride my personal morals. As I work in the care services industry I come across this all the time. I may morally disagree with many people who walk in through the front doors but I still have to give them the same amount of quality care as anyone else and put aside my personal moral beliefs. But this is not about morals its about standards that are set in a society or organization and wont go into personal beliefs.

* Values are our fundamental beliefs.
So it seems values the principles we use to define what is right, good and just. Values provide guidance as we determine the right versus the wrong, the good versus the bad. They are our standards. Consider the word “evaluate”. When we evaluate something we compare it to a standard. We determine whether it meets that standard or falls short, comes close or far exceeds. To evaluate is to determine the merit of a thing or an action as compared to a standard. Typical values include honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, honor, responsibility, patriotism, respect and fairness.

* Morals are values which we attribute to a system of beliefs
By that definition one could categorize the values listed above (honesty, integrity, compassion …) as “moral values” - values derived from a higher authority. That is a convenient way to differentiate them from what are often called utilitarian or business values, such as excellence, quality, safety, service, which define some elements of right and good in a business context.

* Ethics is about our actions and decisions.

Actually, steve, there are pro-choice Christians:

Yes and do you know what pro choice means. It doesn't mean they have abandoned the moral standard that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill. They have simply well not really simply. But they have maintained the moral value that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill but have also allowed people to make up their own minds about it. This position doesnt make any statemnets about what is right or wrong morally. Its just recognizing the rights of a person to make the choice about their own situation. So they are leaving it up to the individuals own conscience.

About | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

Where have I ever argued that there are religious groups that actually promote abortion? I haven't. The point I've made is simply that their ethical position on reproductive rights is different, and in may ways opposed to the position of the Catholic Church, among others.

http://rcrc.org/homepage/about/
[FONT=&quot]But the ethical standards wont be what they moral standards are. Ethics can allow things that may be immoral to some within a system or organizations ethics.

[/FONT]

But it's a different stand on abortion. In one case, it is claimed that abortion is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. In the other, the position on abortion is much more nuanced, permitting it under certain circumstances. That's the point, steve - they are different positions.

[FONT=&quot]Yes But even the ones that are allowing abortion are not standing on any moral ground to do so. That is not their moral position. That’s because they don’t regard abortion as taking a life in the first place. So there's no moral standard to answer to. Now they may be in denial about what the truth is about abortion and whether it is taking a life. But if they allow abortion in any situation and that includes after the time when most thing that an embryo becomes life then they must thing that an embryo is never life. If they did think it was life then they are ending a life. So they are not changing the basic moral here that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill it because they have never thought it was life in the first place.

So in fact they still also believe in the moral standard that life is valuable. But then its another debate to determine if they are correct or not because their belief may be in correct. But even pro choice doesn’t change the moral value. They still believe life is valuable as the moral standard but will leave it up to the individual to decide. They still have certain moral beliefs about whether abortion is right or wrong but they are allowing people to make up their own minds on the matter because they also think the right to choose is important. Now whether the right to choose is something that should override the morals of a situation is another matter. Some say it shouldn't be a choice for the mother because we are dealing with protecting another life that has a right and that’s the embryo. That’s because they believe that the embryo is still life.

So as you can see it can get complicated. But all this still doesn’t change the basic moral standard that life is valuable and people shouldn’t take a life. These are all differences, reasons and value judgments within that moral standard that can be different for people and organizations to decide. But none of them are ever changing the moral standard that life is valuable. I think that’s where people get mixed up. They think because of all these differences in the reasons and differences with what allows someone to do something as an exception or compromise that they are actually changing their morals as well. But they are not.

[/FONT]

But it is a different stance, steve. You have all but admitted that.

[FONT=&quot]No I haven’t. It’s not a different stance as far as their moral standard is concerned. They all still believe in the moral standard that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill or take a life unless there is a very good reason or exception. But that reason or exception doesn't change their stance. It only makes exceptions within their stance. It only allows a small number to do it for very good reasons. But they are not budging on their stance about life being valuable.

[/FONT]

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, as I noted in my previous post. They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion. Recall that, as I said earlier, values on their own do not provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethical questions. People with similar values may nonetheless hold differing ethical views.

Yes and ethics are different to morals. I don’t know why you have now changed it to ethics as this is a different meaning altogether. Ethics are not really religious in nature and can be any standard of conduct in industry, at work, in legislation ECT which don’t involve morals.

 

[Tenebrae]

Apologies, this is quite a naive POV.

I've been around the block more than a few times to see that while christians should be united, many are more focused on arguing differences of doctrine politics etc than pursuing the mandate that Christ laid out for those who call them His followers

Christians are a people of one belief, one loyalty and one agenda. Their faith unites them in solidarity. You might want to learn more about them before flippantly attempting to turn my words against me like a belligerent tween.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT="]Just like the IRA. They twist meanings with hatred and bigotry and claim it in the name of God. There is no moral value here. There is only a hated and criminal value. Hitler justified his actions; Charles Mason justified his beliefs and action and even convinced others that he was a prophet and got them to kill in his name on behalf of God. Many killers think they are justified and have reasons they think are right in why they kill. All this doesn't mean its moral. Morals are something that represent a good and decent behavior and can be determined by the actions they produce.

With the way of thinking you are using for [/FONT][FONT="]ISIS[/FONT][FONT="] you could just about justify anything and turn it into a moral.[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] I think you have to take a step back and see the difference in their behavior. The type of justification and compromise that some use against the moral isn't one to promote evil or bad things. They are allowing a woman to have an abortion because her life may be at risk. This is a good compromise against a good moral which is all about making life precious and valuable against the act of killing. What [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ISIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] done can be seen just as clearly as Charlie Masons actions as being callous, cruel and evil even if they say its in the name of religion. It doesn't preserve life as precious and valuable it treats life as nothing so it is not a justification against the moral value that life is precious and valuable.[/FONT]

Yes, IS[FONT=&quot]IS' actions are [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]callous[/FONT], cruel and evil.[/FONT][/FONT] The point I was making was simply that[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] they consider themselves to be acting [FONT=&quot]righteously[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot], and [/FONT]their actions [FONT=&quot]reflect their ideology[FONT=&quot], [FONT=&quot]which [FONT=&quot]is not an ideology shared by the majority of Muslims worldwide.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT="]No its more than the majority. We have a type of behavior that can also tell us what they are like. One talks about volume the other talks about quality. Two different things. How do they judge a politician to be voted by a majority into government? By the way they act and even the things they say. But how do they begin to dislike them when they lose popularity. When they don’t do what they say. So actions are one of the best ways we can tell what’s really going on. Not by what they say but by what they do. As they say actions speak louder than words. Sooner of later you have to acknowledge that the majority’s actions are in tune with what is right. [/FONT]

You still don't get why an appeal to the majority is fallacious. In the previous post you appealed first to the majority's beliefs and second to the majority's actions as evidence that the majority view is correct. Ignoring for a moment that beliefs and actions are probably correlated, this is a fallacious argument because popularity is not in itself a determinant of the truthfulness or desirability of a proposition - something you yourself acknowledge. Given that you apparently know this already, why do you keep returning to the same fallacy?

[FONT="]So how else do with judge things. If most people do it that alone doesn't prove it. But if the most people who are doing it are also showing that they are living a better life that the small groups who are not which group would you want to be aligned to or trust. I agree with the idea that just because the majority of people do it doesn't mean it’s the right thing. But when we are talking about a type of behavior cant we also judge the type of behavior and see which one seems to be closest to way we are trying to assess which is the moral that life is valuable and precious.[/FONT]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
What is the Difference Between Ethics and Morals?

So though they are closely related there a slight differences. Ethics are related to the system that each of us are subject to and we may not always agree with that system morally. So if we are working for a care service organization and a person comes fro help who is someone who has done something like abused his kids we still have to help him even though our personal morals may find that person to be immoral and horrible. So the ethical standards the organization has about equal access no matter what and who a person is over ride my personal morals. As I work in the care services industry I come across this all the time. I may morally disagree with many people who walk in through the front doors but I still have to give them the same amount of quality care as anyone else and put aside my personal moral beliefs. But this is not about morals its about standards that are set in a society or organization and wont go into personal beliefs.

* Values are our fundamental beliefs.
So it seems values the principles we use to define what is right, good and just. Values provide guidance as we determine the right versus the wrong, the good versus the bad. They are our standards. Consider the word “evaluate”. When we evaluate something we compare it to a standard. We determine whether it meets that standard or falls short, comes close or far exceeds. To evaluate is to determine the merit of a thing or an action as compared to a standard. Typical values include honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, honor, responsibility, patriotism, respect and fairness.

* Morals are values which we attribute to a system of beliefs
By that definition one could categorize the values listed above (honesty, integrity, compassion …) as “moral values” - values derived from a higher authority. That is a convenient way to differentiate them from what are often called utilitarian or business values, such as excellence, quality, safety, service, which define some elements of right and good in a business context.

* Ethics is about our actions and decisions.

This is not out of line with what I've been saying. Individuals with a similar set of values (e.g., compassion, responsibility, patriotism, respect and fairness, etc) may nonetheless disagree on ethics. Values in themselves do not provide clear and immediate answers to ethically challenging questions, such as those surrounding abortion or the death penalty. Merely saying "I value life," doesn't provide you with a complete ethical system for reproductive rights or criminal punishment.

Yes and do you know what pro choice means. It doesn't mean they have abandoned the moral standard that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill.

But I never said that they abandoned this value. In fact, if you read what I wrote you'd notice that I said the exact opposite!

They have simply well not really simply. But they have maintained the moral value that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill but have also allowed people to make up their own minds about it. This position doesnt make any statemnets about what is right or wrong morally. Its just recognizing the rights of a person to make the choice about their own situation. So they are leaving it up to the individuals own conscience.

Actually, they have made a statement about right and wrong. Specifically, they have stated that abortion is not always wrong, contrary to the strict Catholic position. In other words, they disagree over the ethics of abortion, as I've been saying.

[FONT="]Yes But even the ones that are allowing abortion are not standing on any moral ground to do so. That is not their moral position. That’s because they don’t regard abortion as taking a life in the first place. So there's no moral standard to answer to. Now they may be in denial about what the truth is about abortion and whether it is taking a life. But if they allow abortion in any situation and that includes after the time when most thing that an embryo becomes life then they must thing that an embryo is never life. If they did think it was life then they are ending a life. So they are not changing the basic moral here that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill it because they have never thought it was life in the first place.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So in fact they still also believe in the moral standard that life is valuable.[/FONT]

Where have I claimed that they no longer value life?

[FONT="]So as you can see it can get complicated. But all this still doesn’t change the basic moral standard that life is valuable and people shouldn’t take a life. These are all differences, reasons and value judgments within that moral standard that can be different for people and organizations to decide. But none of them are ever changing the moral standard that life is valuable. I think that’s where people get mixed up. They think because of all these differences in the reasons and differences with what allows someone to do something as an exception or compromise that they are actually changing their morals as well. But they are not.[/FONT]

To repeat: They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion. Recall that, as I said earlier, values on their own do not provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethical questions. People with similar values may nonetheless hold differing ethical views.

[FONT="]No I haven’t. It’s not a different stance as far as their moral standard is concerned. They all still believe in the moral standard that life is valuable and you shouldn't kill or take a life unless there is a very good reason or exception. But that reason or exception doesn't change their stance. It only makes exceptions within their stance. It only allows a small number to do it for very good reasons. But they are not budging on their stance about life being valuable.[/FONT]

I never said that they were budging on the notion of life being valuable. Again, to repeat: They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion.

Yes and ethics are different to morals. I don’t know why you have now changed it to ethics as this is a different meaning altogether. Ethics are not really religious in nature and can be any standard of conduct in industry, at work, in legislation ECT which don’t involve morals.

I've already made clear how I'm using the term in my previous post.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[stevevw]

stevevw,

Do you think you could make your points without writing a book each time? It is very tedious reading through your posts, which tend to be very repetitive. Once you've made a point, move on.

I will try. But I feel that a bit of an explanation is important to back up a point. I dont like it when some replies with a point that makes a statement and has no support or reasoning behind it. But I will try to condense things down because I know I have a habit of also repeating myself.

 

[stevevw]

[FONT=&quot]

Yes, IS[FONT=&quot]IS' actions are [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]callous[/FONT], cruel and evil.[/FONT][/FONT] The point I was making was simply that[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] they consider themselves to be acting [FONT=&quot]righteously[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot], and [/FONT]their actions [FONT=&quot]reflect their ideology[FONT=&quot], [FONT=&quot]which [FONT=&quot]is not an ideology shared by the majority of Muslims worldwide.

[FONT=&quot]And the IRA think their [FONT=&quot]ideology[/FONT] is right and Charles Mason thought his was right in his own little insane way. It [FONT=&quot]doesn't[/FONT] mean they are morals. People can have [FONT=&quot]different[FONT=&quot] ideals and can think that what they believe is right but it has to be [FONT=&quot]checked[FONT=&quot][/FONT] against something.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

You still don't get why an appeal to the majority is fallacious. In the previous post you appealed first to the majority's beliefs and second to the majority's actions as evidence that the majority view is correct. Ignoring for a moment that beliefs and actions are probably correlated, this is a fallacious argument because popularity is not in itself a determinant of the truthfulness or desirability of a proposition - something you yourself acknowledge. Given that you apparently know this already, why do you keep returning to the same fallacy?

Yes I agree but its not just about quantity we are talking about. Its also about quality. They are two measuring sticks. Quantity in itself is not enough but add to that quality and it gives some more support. So if you take the quality a bit further and look at results of their behavior. What does their behavior result in as another piece of evidence to go by. The results maybe that ISIS has many deaths, threats, violence, suffering, aggression, people getting injured and needing help from the actions of ISIS. Then we can get some statistics fro the majority group and see what their actions have produced. There maybe some normal trouble that we see reflected throughout society. There maybe even a better level of lifestyle concerning bad stats compared to the average of society. It may show some good things like less family violence or less assaults ect. But certainly it is not going to be anything like ISIS.

So then we begin to have some more detailed information we can base our conclusions on. Its exactly the same method that is used for many other things in society by governments and marketing companies to discover how and why people do things and live. No now we have qualified what we are looking at even more. You can keep going and add more support with other methods until you are confident you have a pretty clear picture of what you are looking at.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I mean much the same as what I just said above.

This is not out of line with what I've been saying. Individuals with a similar set of values (e.g., compassion, responsibility, patriotism, respect and fairness, etc) may nonetheless disagree on ethics. Values in themselves do not provide clear and immediate answers to ethically challenging questions, such as those surrounding abortion or the death penalty. Merely saying "I value life," doesn't provide you with a complete ethical system for reproductive rights or criminal punishment.

Ok well values and morals are different to ethics even though they are closely related. Values can give us some guidance on ethics. We can set a standard of ethics/conduct based on our values. So if you value compassion you can ethical standards that reflect compassion. They will not be entirely based on just compassion but you can model them on these values and even morals. But they cannot stand alone on these because they have to also take into consideration things that can affect many. Like equal opportunity may also include people from alternative lifestyles but morally a person may not agree that these people are doing the right thing. But ethically they have to be included as equal rights applied to a society or even nation/world have to include everyone regardless of beliefs, race, lifestyle, sexual preference ect. So using ethics as a way of showing how peoples morals change is not a good way to do it as morals are more about a persons beliefs that will not be subject to other outside influences.

But I never said that they abandoned this value. In fact, if you read what I wrote you'd notice that I said the exact opposite!

Ok fair enough.

Actually, they have made a statement about right and wrong. Specifically, they have stated that abortion is not always wrong, contrary to the strict Catholic position. In other words, they disagree over the ethics of abortion, as I've been saying.

You keep saying they are disagreeing on the ethics of abortion. I thought we were talking about morals. If we are talking about ethics the this is a different situations. Ethics are subject to outside influences and dont always take morals into consideration. The ethics that they are disagreeing on is about pro choice not abortion. They both say abortion is wrong to start with. But one is saying even though its wrong we think its also important for women to make their own choice. So the ethics is about pro choice not abortion itself. The abortion in relation to the moral of killing still stands in that they all believe abortion is the taking of a life unless its either not deemed a life in which there is no killing. Or that they will allow some exceptions that have to do with bigger problems like if the mothers life is at risk which is also having to deal with saving life.

Where have I claimed that they no longer value life?

Well you keep saying that some are saying that abortion is OK. You keep not qualifying why they say its OK to have an abortion. I dont know if this is because you dont want to acknowledge that there are reasons why people allow abortions which still means they dont change their moral position on abortion or you are just not understanding.

But if you say that they allow abortion and dont have any good reason to do that then they are allowing killing. So their moral position is its OK to kill a fetus because its a women's right. So therefore they dont value life. But if you admit that they only allow to end the life of a fetus because of other reasons then their moral position is abortion is wrong but they will make exceptions without changing their moral position.

To repeat: They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion. Recall that, as I said earlier, values on their own do not provide us with an immediate and clear answer to ethical questions. People with similar values may nonetheless hold differing ethical views.

And we were talking about morals but you keep bringing up ethics. Ethics dont take into consideration a persons morals. I think Ive explained the difference several times. Remember we are talking about morals not ethics. They are two different things.

I never said that they were budging on the notion of life being valuable. Again, to repeat: They may share the same or similar values, in that they will claim to value life, but they differ on the ethics of abortion.

Well I thought we were talking about morals being subjective or objective.

I've already made clear how I'm using the term in my previous post.

OK but that still doesn't explain how morals can be objective meaning they remain the same no matter what. Killing is killing and even though people try to say that it can be OK to kill morally they cant. There is always a reason why an exception will be made but the moral remains the same. That goes for many things.These things are written on our heart by God and have been there from the beginning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

[FONT=&quot]And the IRA think their [FONT=&quot]ideology[/FONT] is right and Charles Mason thought his was right in his own little insane way. It [FONT=&quot]doesn't[/FONT] mean they are morals. People can have [FONT=&quot]different[FONT=&quot] ideals and can think that what they believe is right but it has to be [FONT=&quot]checked against something.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

But they are morals. They're not your morals or my morals, but they are someone's morals; that is to say, someone has an ethical system in which such actions are deemed moral.

To clarify, before you start accusing me of justifying the actions of ISIS (as you have in the past), I'm not saying that their actions are moral, but that they are deemed moral according to the ethical system these groups subscribe to. Do you finally see the difference?

Yes I agree but its not just about quantity we are talking about. Its also about quality. They are two measuring sticks. Quantity in itself is not enough but add to that quality and it gives some more support. So if you take the quality a bit further and look at results of their behavior. What does their behavior result in as another piece of evidence to go by. The results maybe that ISIS has many deaths, threats, violence, suffering, aggression, people getting injured and needing help from the actions of ISIS. Then we can get some statistics fro the majority group and see what their actions have produced. There maybe some normal trouble that we see reflected throughout society. There maybe even a better level of lifestyle concerning bad stats compared to the average of society. It may show some good things like less family violence or less assaults ect. But certainly it is not going to be anything like ISIS.

So then we begin to have some more detailed information we can base our conclusions on. Its exactly the same method that is used for many other things in society by governments and marketing companies to discover how and why people do things and live. No now we have qualified what we are looking at even more. You can keep going and add more support with other methods until you are confident you have a pretty clear picture of what you are looking at.

The qualitative differences between ISIS and the majority confirm what I initially stated: ISIS follows a different version of Islam to that of the majority of Muslims.

You keep saying they are disagreeing on the ethics of abortion. I thought we were talking about morals. If we are talking about ethics the this is a different situations. Ethics are subject to outside influences and dont always take morals into consideration. The ethics that they are disagreeing on is about pro choice not abortion. They both say abortion is wrong to start with. But one is saying even though its wrong we think its also important for women to make their own choice. So the ethics is about pro choice not abortion itself. The abortion in relation to the moral of killing still stands in that they all believe abortion is the taking of a life unless its either not deemed a life in which there is no killing. Or that they will allow some exceptions that have to do with bigger problems like if the mothers life is at risk which is also having to deal with saving life.

Well you keep saying that some are saying that abortion is OK. You keep not qualifying why they say its OK to have an abortion. I dont know if this is because you dont want to acknowledge that there are reasons why people allow abortions which still means they dont change their moral position on abortion or you are just not understanding.

Where have I not qualified what I've said regarding abortion? I've explicitly done that, acknowledging that their moral position on abortion differs because they at least consider it permissible under certain circumstances. That's a different moral position to take compared to a position that desires abortion outlawed regardless of circumstances. The point here is the different moral positions that people can take on an issue even though they have similar values.

But if you say that they allow abortion and dont have any good reason to do that then they are allowing killing. So their moral position is its OK to kill a fetus because its a women's right. So therefore they dont value life.

Perhaps that is a reason that some pro-choice Christians would consider - a women's right to her own body. I don't know. You'd have to ask them. As you've already gleaned from this discussion their moral positions on this issue are diverse.

And we were talking about morals but you keep bringing up ethics. Ethics dont take into consideration a persons morals. I think Ive explained the difference several times. Remember we are talking about morals not ethics. They are two different things.

As I've already explained I make no distinction between the two. A subtle distinction may be made whereby ethics is the study of morality or moral phenomena, but other than that I see no reason to treat the terms as separate.

Well I thought we were talking about morals being subjective or objective.

You seem to have confused your discussion with me for your discussion with someone else. We have been discussing two things: (1) Whether all religions convey the same basic message. (2) Whether ISIS is an Islamic group or not.

Thus far, as it relates to (1), I disagree with the premise that all religions convey the same basic moral message. The words may be the same, the values invoked may be similar, but the moral message often differs greatly. Surface similarities do not necessarily translate to similar ethical systems.

With regard to (2), I've argued that ISIS embodies a particular version of Islam that is radically different and in many opposed to the Islam that most Muslims adhere to.

 

[stevevw]

But they are morals. They're not your morals or my morals, but they are someone's morals; that is to say, someone has an ethical system in which such actions are deemed moral.

To clarify, before you start accusing me of justifying the actions of ISIS (as you have in the past), I'm not saying that their actions are moral, but that they are deemed moral according to the ethical system these groups subscribe to. Do you finally see the difference?

I have always understood what you have meant but you are using the wrong example and you are labeling ISIS wrongly as saying their actions are moral, even if we were to accept that they believe them to be. The argument we are having is are morals subjective or objective. So by you or the world view believing morals are subjective then people can have different sets of morals because they all see things differently. Where as I say morals are objective and that they are from God and they are written on our hearts to be judged by. Because you say there is no objective morals we cant then judge ISIS morals against God objective morality. So you say that ISIS set of morals are correct according to them. I say they are wrong under the objectivity of Gods morals. I would call ISIS morals or beliefs immoral according to God objectivity. Many people would call ISIS actions immoral.

So by allowing the subjective morals of ISIS who believe they are doing nothing wrong how do you tell or state that they are doing something wrong. If you morals are also subjective you have no right to tell them they are wrong because you have a different set of morals and you cant sit in judgement on them. You think you are right and they think they are right. Times this by all the different sets of morals under subjectivity then how do we ever make any clear statement about who is right and who is wrong. I know who is wrong because I judge them against God morals which I believe to be objective and written on our hearts. But how do you tell and what right have you got to say anything if everyone believes they are right and everyone's morals are different for anyone and everyone regards their morals to be right and justified. The moment you start to judge that anothers is wrong you are being objective towards making them adhere to your set of moral or someone elses.

The qualitative differences between ISIS and the majority confirm what I initially stated: ISIS follows a different version of Islam to that of the majority of Muslims.

There are no two versions of Islam according to the Koran. The book has only one prophesy and revelation from Mohammad. Even if there is how do you tell which one is right or which one is wrong or are they both right according to subjectivity. Maybe there's three or four versions or many who knows as we cant say with subjectivity.

Where have I not qualified what I've said regarding abortion? I've explicitly done that, acknowledging that their moral position on abortion differs because they at least consider it permissible under certain circumstances. That's a different moral position to take compared to a position that desires abortion outlawed regardless of circumstances. The point here is the different moral positions that people can take on an issue even though they have similar values.

But don't they both have the same moral position in regards to the moral that life is precious and you should not kill. Don't they both regard abortion as wrong if the fetus is a life and that it is ending a life which is the same as killing someone. Isn't that the moral and the rest is adjustments under that same moral and not new morals.

Perhaps that is a reason that some pro-choice Christians would consider - a women's right to her own body. I don't know. You'd have to ask them. As you've already gleaned from this discussion their moral positions on this issue are diverse.

Well you will argue that its because there are many varied moral opinions as under subjectivity. I would say that there is only one moral here and that is whether killing is right or wrong. Under that moral we have an example of abortion. I think what you are referring to are not many different morals involved but peoples personal views. There is only one moral here in this example and that is whether killing is right or wrong. Each situation like abortion or the death penalty will bring up difficult questions we will have to assess that will test our resolve as to what is acceptable or not against this moral. Reasoning is part of the process of determining whether any decision or action is allowable according to that moral. But each little decision isn't a new moral they are just questions that need to be addressed under that one moral of whether killing is right or wrong when it comes to abortion or any other difficult situation.

As I've already explained I make no distinction between the two. A subtle distinction may be made whereby ethics is the study of morality or moral phenomena, but other than that I see no reason to treat the terms as separate.

I think your getting ethics and morality mixed up. Sometimes you can have an ethical standard that demands you leave your morals out of it. What about business ethics. When someone says their work ethic is that they work hard and long to get the job done. Now your moral position might be that you feeling it important to spend time with your family. So already the ethics and morals have clashed. So they cant be the same.

You seem to have confused your discussion with me for your discussion with someone else. We have been discussing two things: (1) Whether all religions convey the same basic message. (2) Whether ISIS is an Islamic group or not.

Well it seems we have been talking about morals for some time. You have been saying that each person or group can have their own set of morals and that ISIS believes that what they do is morally right according to them.
I guess they are both related.

Thus far, as it relates to (1), I disagree with the premise that all religions convey the same basic moral message. The words may be the same, the values invoked may be similar, but the moral message often differs greatly. Surface similarities do not necessarily translate to similar ethical systems.

Ok well I believe that there is one true set or morals that we all have written on our hearts. The many religions try to express this through the way they see things. This maybe subject to their culture or race ect. But they all basically are saying similar things whic have similar core messages and set of morals or philosophers/life principles. That is because the one true Gods moral code is written on everyone's heart and everyone knows it. Its just that some will call it something else and make changes to it by adding things that are man made ideas of how we should behave. Some will twist things around so much that they will begin to believe almost anything in the name of God. But even man made philophecies and standards like humanitarism, new age beliefs, better living plans, lifestyles of the rich and famous and all the many different ways this world tries to promote or believe that they have the answers and best ways to behave and live are just attempts to do it their way and not Gods way. When we reject Gods way we will substitute it for many things but they dont have the answers or work to keep us in line with God and nature. Things will get out of harmony and will eventually break down.

With regard to (2), I've argued that ISIS embodies a particular version of Islam that is radically different and in many opposed to the Islam that most Muslims adhere to.

It is opposed to the Islam that most Muslims adhere to because its way off the mark and crazy. Just like the IRA they are mixing hatred , fear and criminal activities and saying its from God. This is just a justification to promote hatred and intolerance and try to force people to do what they want. Its not moral if anything its immoral.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I will try. But I feel that a bit of an explanation is important to back up a point. I dont like it when some replies with a point that makes a statement and has no support or reasoning behind it. But I will try to condense things down because I know I have a habit of also repeating myself.

You were not successful in this endeavor

 

[stevevw]

You were not successful in this endeavor

I cant help it sorry. But most were just one paragraph. I had to go into deatil a bit because its getting to a point where it is more complicated to explain. This is a complex subject actually and there is no simple short answer. Plus the overall posts are long because we have been debating for some time and building up posts. Some people tell you something but thats it, they dont say why. I mean I can make statement like

God invisible powers runs the universe.

But I bet I will have people coming back and saying that is just a statement without any evidence. Can you show how this is true. So then begins the debate and detailed answers. I could come back with another short answer like,

The proof is in quantum physics.

Then I will get another reply to support this and so it goes on. I figure that I will just give some detail and support it in the first place to save the hassle.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have always understood what you have meant but you are using the wrong example and you are labeling ISIS wrongly as saying their actions are moral, even if we were to accept that they believe them to be. The argument we are having is are morals subjective or objective.

No, it's not. I have the impression that you've lost track of what initially began this particular exchange. Basically, it was my objection to your claim that all religions are essentially saying the same thing that began this particular conversation. There was an earlier post of mine, as I recall, where I asked you how religion is able to solve all the problems you think subjectivism raises.

So by you or the world view believing morals are subjective then people can have different sets of morals because they all see things differently. Where as I say morals are objective and that they are from God and they are written on our hearts to be judged by. Because you say there is no objective morals we cant then judge ISIS morals against God objective morality. So you say that ISIS set of morals are correct according to them. I say they are wrong under the objectivity of Gods morals. I would call ISIS morals or beliefs immoral according to God objectivity. Many people would call ISIS actions immoral. So by allowing the subjective morals of ISIS who believe they are doing nothing wrong how do you tell or state that they are doing something wrong. If you morals are also subjective you have no right to tell them they are wrong because you have a different set of morals and you cant sit in judgement on them. You think you are right and they think they are right. Times this by all the different sets of morals under subjectivity then how do we ever make any clear statement about who is right and who is wrong. I know who is wrong because I judge them against God morals which I believe to be objective and written on our hearts. But how do you tell and what right have you got to say anything if everyone believes they are right and everyone's morals are different for anyone and everyone regards their morals to be right and justified. The moment you start to judge that anothers is wrong you are being objective towards making them adhere to your set of moral or someone elses.

That's not currently under discussion. By the way, I don't recall committing myself to subjectivism in this thread, so why am I charged with defending that thesis?

There are no two versions of Islam according to the Koran. The book has only one prophesy and revelation from Mohammad. Even if there is how do you tell which one is right or which one is wrong or are they both right according to subjectivity. Maybe there's three or four versions or many who knows as we cant say with subjectivity.

How do we tell which religion is the right one? Which version of Christianity? Which version of Judaism?

But don't they both have the same moral position in regards to the moral that life is precious and you should not kill. Don't they both regard abortion as wrong if the fetus is a life and that it is ending a life which is the same as killing someone. Isn't that the moral and the rest is adjustments under that same moral and not new morals.

No, they hold a different moral position. They may claim similar values, but nonetheless have a different moral position on the situation.

I think your getting ethics and morality mixed up. Sometimes you can have an ethical standard that demands you leave your morals out of it. What about business ethics. When someone says their work ethic is that they work hard and long to get the job done. Now your moral position might be that you feeling it important to spend time with your family. So already the ethics and morals have clashed. So they cant be the same.

No, I see that as a case where one moral or ethical standard is given priority over another, not an instance where ethics and morals are separate.

Ok well I believe that there is one true set or morals that we all have written on our hearts. The many religions try to express this through the way they see things. This maybe subject to their culture or race ect. But they all basically are saying similar things whic have similar core messages and set of morals or philosophers/life principles. That is because the one true Gods moral code is written on everyone's heart and everyone knows it. Its just that some will call it something else and make changes to it by adding things that are man made ideas of how we should behave. Some will twist things around so much that they will begin to believe almost anything in the name of God. But even man made philophecies and standards like humanitarism, new age beliefs, better living plans, lifestyles of the rich and famous and all the many different ways this world tries to promote or believe that they have the answers and best ways to behave and live are just attempts to do it their way and not Gods way. When we reject Gods way we will substitute it for many things but they dont have the answers or work to keep us in line with God and nature. Things will get out of harmony and will eventually break down.

As per my previous posts, I argue that there is no basic moral message conveyed by all religions. Similarities in surface features, such as the words used or the values appealed to, do not necessarily scale up to similarities in ethics. People who share similar values won't necessarily share ethical views.

It is opposed to the Islam that most Muslims adhere to because its way off the mark and crazy. Just like the IRA they are mixing hatred , fear and criminal activities and saying its from God. This is just a justification to promote hatred and intolerance and try to force people to do what they want. Its not moral if anything its immoral.

It's way off the mark for the version of Islam that the majority of Muslims adhere to, but it's definitely on the mark for the fundamentalist jihadist version that ISIS adheres to. What you seem to be unwilling to accept is that there are varied interpretations of Islam, just as there are varied interpretations of Christianity.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's not. I have the impression that you've lost track of what initially began this particular exchange. Basically, it was my objection to your claim that all religions are essentially saying the same thing that began this particular conversation. There was an earlier post of mine, as I recall, where I asked you how religion is able to solve all the problems you think subjectivism raises.

It was to begin with but then we were debating about whether ISIS actions were moral or not. That moved into how people class what are moral, values and ethics. But it was manly about you saying that ISIS had seen what they have done as morally right. I was saying that its more that they are obviously morally wrong and everyone can see that. That it isn't about them following their religion and the majority of Muslims have got it right by the way they live. The way the majority of Muslims live and the way Christians and many other religions live is basically similar. So its easy for us to see the difference. You have admitted that the majority of Muslims live good and I would say the majority of Christians be it Catholics or any denomination live good. They all live good in a similar way.

That's not currently under discussion. By the way, I don't recall committing myself to subjectivism in this thread, so why am I charged with defending that thesis?

Well we had been talking about that the majority of the time. We were going into why some people see there actions as right. By you saying that ISIS are morally right and they are using the Koran to justify their actions. I was saying like the iRA they are not and are getting thing out of whack. They are mixing things with their personal hate. I was trying to show how this happens and that their is a clear distinction.

How do we tell which religion is the right one? Which version of Christianity? Which version of Judaism?

But what we have been discussing. There are ways using what is commonly regarded as right behavior. There is logic and reasoning and comparing this against what we consider to be correct behavior. People can twist and turn things into anything they want and find justifiable reasons for doing so. We have to be able to tell the difference. If you spend the time to closely look at what they are saying and doing you can easily exposed it as false. But if you dont have any basis for comparing it against then how can you do this. This is what I was saying about subjectivity you dont have any basis because you regard everyone's views as a different form of morals instead of it being crazy thinking. That is sort of saying that everyone is right or has the right at the same time no matter what they do and say. You have to draw the line and say some are wrong and way off the mark. But you have to have a common well established set of morals or standards to do that.

No, they hold a different moral position. They may claim similar values, but nonetheless have a different moral position on the situation

Well if the moral position is that you should kill what other moral position can they have, thats its OK to kill. Thats what we are talking about isn't it the moral of to kill or not to kill when it comes to abortion.

No, I see that as a case where one moral or ethical standard is given priority over another, not an instance where ethics and morals are separate.

No one is an ethic which has nothing to do with morals and one is a moral that has nothing to do with ethics. I will make it clearer for you. You are a solicitor and your moral position is you believe murder to be wrong. But as a solicitor ethically you have to defend a murderer as though he was innocent even if you believe he is guilty. So you have to put aside your morals and even go against them and help that murderer to the best of your ability. You can't bring your personal morality into it and start judging them as being wrong and deserving punishment according to your belief and morals when you help them. So your morals have to be left out of it. So ethics are not the same as morals as they dont take into consideration the moral position of things. They are standards for work or legislation which is to keep those standards upheld no matter what a persons personal morals or beliefs are.

As per my previous posts, I argue that there is no basic moral message conveyed by all religions. Similarities in surface features, such as the words used or the values appealed to, do not necessarily scale up to similarities in ethics. People who share similar values won't necessarily share ethical views.

Well as far as moral go I believe we all have those written on our hearts and know them deep within us. Things like not killing, stealing, adultery which can also take into consideration long term relationships and betrayal of relationships with casual sex. There is a truth that belongs to God and there are the so called truths that this world uses. They are two different things and one can be perverted and compromised but the truth of God stands firm. We will either deny this or try to substitute it for man made versions which are open for interpretation and being changed so they allow them to be muddied. This is how the many different beliefs can come into things and allows groups like ISIS to grow and take root.

It's way off the mark for the version of Islam that the majority of Muslims adhere to, but it's definitely on the mark for the fundamentalist jihadist version that ISIS adheres to. What you seem to be unwilling to accept is that there are varied interpretations of Islam, just as there are varied interpretations of Christianity.

No there are not. If you take the time to look at it instead of assuming and believing the lies as to what these crazy groups are saying then you will see. If you go back to the receipt book which is the bible for Christians and look at what it says you will see. It doesn't say that people should go into a pub and blow up other Christians. It says look one another as you love yourself and this is the 2nd greatest commandment. It says turn the other cheek when wronged. So you can easily tell which is the truth if you bother to look at it. Those who are doing the bombing and killing in the name of God are not following the truth of their own religion but mixing it with man made hate and intolerance and then twisting the bible to justify their action. This can be proven and exposed in the name of the truth.

 

[Euler]

Why do you insist that the morality demonstrated by ISIS doesn't match God's? I would have thought they have very much in common, especially the bits about wiping out those who don't worship what you worship.