Morality without Absolute Morality

[o_mlly]

Respectfully, do not dare suggest that I am okay with rape because I am pointing out the fact your statement about everyone agreeing that rape is wrong is factually incorrect.

I wrote everyone on this thread. With the exception of the word contortionist that claims "rape" is exactly synonymous with "sexual intercourse".

... because their brainwashed ideology ...

I think you've answered your own objection.

In Ukraine, the wives of Russian soldiers were literally encouraging their husbands to rape as many Ukranian women he could because they believed they deserved it.

? Alleged only, but not demonstrated.

Furthermore, to suggest that "rape is bad because 'everyone knows that rape is bad'" is both factually incorrect and a bandwagon fallacy.

Can you cite in this thread one post that claims rape is good?

Take the lead and show us how to argue with the agnostic/atheist that rape is never good.

 

[o_mlly]

"No where" is not a place that one can be.

Sure it is. A Being that is everywhere is no where. The fact does not need your concurrence.

Why would I? On what basis would I identify one.

Other than your fallible self, no basis at all.

Their opinions are worth considering, but they are not moral-authorities.

For you, of course. See above.

Why do you reply to multiple posters at a time.

Efficiency.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure it is. A Being that is everywhere is no where. The fact does not need your concurrence.

Everywhere is everywhere, not "nowhere". This is some of the most illogical dreck I have seen on this site and I've had weeks long "conversations" with "steve".

Other than your fallible self, no basis at all.

We should recognize we are fallible as is everyone else. This, if no other, is a great reason not to accept "moral authorities".

For you, of course. See above.

Of course I reject the moral authority of your church. I have zero reason to accept it. (Or their authority generally. They do tell some whoppers.)

Efficiency.

 

[o_mlly]

Everywhere is everywhere, not "nowhere". This is some of the most illogical dreck ...

Are you not familiar with the logical argument against an extreme skeptic?:

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” ​

G.K. Chesterton -- Orthodoxy.​

I think you are that extreme skeptic who believes in nothing ... so there's no point in arguing with an extreme skeptic.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Take the lead and show us how to argue with the agnostic/atheist that rape is never good.

Ask them why rape is bad.

 

[Larniavc]

Do not murder (innocent life must be preserved).

Do not commit adultery (marriage and family must be protected).

Do not steal (justice and social living require respecting property).

Honor parents (family is natural and foundational).

Worship God (humans are naturally inclined to recognize and honor the divine).

Tell the truth (speech is for communication and community).

Which God?

 

[Larniavc]

Are you not familiar with the logical argument against an extreme skeptic?:

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” ​

G.K. Chesterton -- Orthodoxy.​

I think you are that extreme skeptic who believes in nothing ... so there's no point in arguing with an extreme skeptic.

Disagreeing with you isn't extreme skepticism.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't think you are grasping the argument.

You didn't answer the question. Why are you so dishonest? Here it is again:

Here's a lil quiz question for you Bradskii:

Based on the definition you have accepted, is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

 

[o_mlly]

Ask them why rape is bad.

Feel free to do so yourself. Good luck.

 

[o_mlly]

Disagreeing with you isn't extreme skepticism.

Of course not. However, claiming that nothing is true unless one believes it so is extreme skepticism. In itself, the claim is a truth claim that allows no argument.

 

[Bradskii]

My intention was not to suggest that marital rape was justified when the spouse denies intimacy. The intention was that depending on the circumstances, grace will be given to a spouse who is withholding intimacy.

That's two sides of the same coin. 'Grace will be given..'? So she is obliged to accede to her husband? You know that if she doesn't consent then it's rape?

It's been my point that sexual intercourse in certain circumstances - without consent for example, is wrong. Because of the context. You have now said that even in those circumstances it's might not be wrong.

If that's not relative morality then relative morality doesn't exist.

QED

 

[Bradskii]

You didn't answer the question. Why are you so dishonest? Here it is again:

I told you why the question makes no sense. It's a tautology. I won't explain that again.

While you think on that, check out the above post. It seems that while I think that sexual intercourse without consent is wrong (because of that circumstance), others disagree (and they aren't 'godless nihilists' either). I guess morality comes down to who you ask. Do you know what the term for that is?

 

[zippy2006]

I told you why the question makes no sense.

It's a pretty simple question. Obvious, even. A tautology? The answer to a tautology is, "Yes, of course," not, "I refuse to answer." The fact that you refuse to answer shows up what a sophist you really are, and how you are dishonestly twisting earnest definitions.

In a court of law the judge would now allow me to treat you as a hostile witness, given that you are refusing to answer basic questions. Let the record show that Bradskii is not even able to answer the simplest of questions. This is why he is not worth talking to. He always buries his head in the sand instead of carrying out rational dialogue. If you want an honest discussion, Bradskii is the last person you want to talk to.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

That's two sides of the same coin. 'Grace will be given..'? So she is obliged to accede to her husband? You know that if she doesn't consent then it's rape?

It's been my point that sexual intercourse in certain circumstances - without consent for example, is wrong. Because of the context. You have now said that even in those circumstances it's might not be wrong.

If that's not relative morality then relative morality doesn't exist.

QED

I never said that it might not be wrong. I said it is wrong, however grace is given in certain circumstances. Remember the stealing food example? There was still hefty consequences for stealing food, but after the debt was paid, the their still retained a level of honor due to grace and understanding.

Regarding rape, would it be wrong for a 16 year old girl to have a consensual sexual relationship with a 19 year old even though they had been dating each other since middle school?

 

[Bradskii]

I never said that it might not be wrong. I said it is wrong, however grace is given in certain circumstances. Remember the stealing food example? There was still hefty consequences for stealing food, but after the debt was paid, the their still retained a level of honor due to grace and understanding.

But there are degrees of culpability. That is specifically what is meant by relative morality.

Regarding rape, would it be wrong for a 16 year old girl to have a consensual sexual relationship with a 19 year old even though they had been dating each other since middle school?

Line ball. If the age of consent is 17 then it's technically rape. But I'd consider the maturity of those involved and their relationship. Context is all.

 

[Bradskii]

In a court of law...

...you are told the girl is 17. Is it wrong? Well, you need context, like the age of consent. Is it the 1930's? Being charged with raping your wife would be unheard of. More context. A Christian couple with somewhat fundamentalist views and the woman is at fault for saying no! More context.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Line ball. If the age of consent is 17 then it's technically rape. But I'd consider the maturity of those involved and their relationship. Context is all.

I agree. When I was thinking about examples in which rape could possibly be shown a level of grace due to circumstances, this is one.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It's a pretty simple question. Obvious, even. A tautology? The answer to a tautology is, "Yes, of course," not, "I refuse to answer." The fact that you refuse to answer shows up what a sophist you really are, and how you are dishonestly twisting earnest definitions.

In a court of law the judge would now allow me to treat you as a hostile witness, given that you are refusing to answer basic questions. Let the record show that Bradskii is not even able to answer the simplest of questions. This is why he is not worth talking to. He always buries his head in the sand instead of carrying out rational dialogue. If you want an honest discussion, Bradskii is the last person you want to talk to.

Respectfully, you are resorting to adhominem attacks. I know things can get frustrating on these forums, but please remember to address thr post, not the poster.

 

[com7fy8]

But you haven't got a 'wrong or right'. You've effectively got a 'wrong and right'. Each Christian has a different answer. How do we know who has the correct one?

I offer that I have gotten your issue about how two Christians can have exact opposite "whatevers".

And . . . among other possibilities . . . both "sides" can be wrong . . . according to objective, absolute morality.

Two arguing people can be wrong because they are arguing!! > as it is written >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

I mean, if both are just congratulating themselves and looking down on those who do not agree with them > then both are absolutely immoral, by arguing in a self-exalting and self-righteous way!!

And, of course, we can have ten or twenty or more "Christians" with different answers. So, how can we tell which one is right, I think you are asking? Well, there is absolute morality, about each of their answers . . . but this not guaranteeing that any of us will know what this is. But it is there. Jesus has the absolute ability to get anything right . . . judging > He is sure > as He has notified us >

"'For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,'" (John 5:22)

So, in any case, Jesus knows what is absolutely morally correct . . . **no matter how we might make things look!!!!**

And what Jesus can do is put pieces of a puzzle together > one Christian can have one part, another another part. And with Jesus we can discover the picture made by its many pieces which different children of God have.

And, of course, ones can be wrong. But God can make us able to tell the difference, even with things not obviously spelled out by the scriptures. But, in order to get what is really right, we need God; with humans it is impossible.

The scriptures help us, but we have a lot of discovering to do, with God.

And the main emphasis of morals is not only the outward cultural stuff. It is about how to become truly humble, not me self-righteously looking down on how others are wrong according to my standards. Jesus is the most genuinely loving and not at all conceited One in existence, and He went to the cross for us. And this is our example, as part of our moral standard, to give the right quality of love to what we do to love >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, in case ones only or mainly give attention to outward morals . . . this can side-track us from the deeper value of how God's love is and has us loving. And therefore ones mainly or only trying to control people and micromanage people with superficial standards can get nowhere but frustrated and looking down on others. Because the morals need to be practiced with the right way of loving.

I have learned a theory > how we need to not only stop certain objectively immoral things, but we need to also deal with what is causing them.

One example is how beauty discrimination has so wrecked people so they do not know how to love. Because they are so distracted with evaluating what people look like and how charming they talk and act . . . instead of dealing with how we need to become humble in Jesus and learn how to live in his rest so we can be strong enough to do well in a close relationship without the arguing and hating and unforgiveness > in one's weakness for the pleasure of beauty ones stay deeply weak so also they can break down and be hurt and unforgiving and arguing and complaining . . . instead of creative in our Creator's love.

God's love makes us all-loving, not conceited in picking and choosing who is worth loving. So, selfish loving is absolutely immoral and keeps us weak so we can keep on suffering in all our personality troubles and confusion and painful emotional stuff. Jesus does say >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

And this is why selfish love is immoral: because God does care about what is good for us.

And so, yes, you can find some number of Christians puzzling, either because they have a bunch of ideas which all are incorrect, or because there are the ones who have pieces of the big picture.

So, you ask, how do I know which is which? My opinion and experience is > the Bible can help. There are people who help me, because God does use people to help each other so we can grow in how to love with each other. And there can be things which are in God's hands and how He uses things for His good, though we "might" not know what is going on. So, with Jesus we can grow to know > a child learns with growing, developing ability to know with growing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you not familiar with the logical argument against an extreme skeptic?:

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” ​

G.K. Chesterton -- Orthodoxy.​

TL;DR

No. I've never read or heard of this "orthodoxy". It seems to the title of book by an unfamiliar author.

I think you are that extreme skeptic who believes in nothing ..

This isn't about being a "skeptic". I don't actually believe there is or ever was "nothing". The problem is that your "argument" has included nonsensical notions like things that are located in "nowhere".

. so there's no point in arguing with an extreme skeptic.

Runaway then to your presuppositions.