Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

What ambiguity needs clarification?

The one where you seem to be using "right" to mean completely different things.

 

[o_mlly]

The one where you seem to be using "right" to mean completely different things.

What did you mean when you defined morality as?:

Morality is the code of behavior and set of what is "right or wrong" behavior that is adopted by a society.

After explaining what you meant by "right", I will see if we are using different meanings.

 

[Bradskii]

After explaining what you meant by "right", I will see if we are using different meanings.

My vote goes to 'acceptable.' What is generally agreed to be beneficial to society. It will involve harm in someway.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What did you mean when you defined morality as?:

After explaining what you meant by "right", I will see if we are using different meanings.

Socially acceptable behavior, or something like that. My issue wasn't that you seemed to be using a different definition of "right" than I was, but that *you* seemed to be using *different* definitions of "right" from the usage of "wrong" in the same sentence.

So let's substitute "acceptable behavior" for "right" and "unacceptable behavior" for "wrong" in you question and see if it makes sense.

I accept your definition. If one has a "right" does that fact imply others have a duty to respect that right, and not to do so is "wrong"?

If one has a[n] "acceptable behavior" does that imply others have a duty to respect that acceptable behavior, and not to do so is "unacceptable behavior"?​

It makes a little more sense than I thought it would, but it is still rather confusing. "right" as in "acceptable behavior" isn't really something you can "has a". It is something you can do (do what is right). Frankly you question reads better grammatially if "right" refers to rights as in "civil rights". Which would give this sentence:

If one has a "[civil] right" does that fact imply others have a duty to respect that [civil] right, and not to do so is "unacceptable behavior"?​

That sentence actually makes sense, but it is not about scoping the questions "what is morality?" and "is morality absolute?".

I used "right/wrong" in my definition because I thought that would be easier and understandable. It seems I was incorrect.

 

[NxNW]

Mormons and Catholics have different rules of logic?

Since when do the rules of logic change according to your religion? Theological beliefs, yes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since when do the rules of logic change according to your religion? Theological beliefs, yes.

Who knows. In my final years of being a Catholic, I spoke to many Mormons. The seem rather normal in their understanding of logic and reason. (I didn't discuss theology with them as it is boring.)

 

[stevevw]

Well done. And as there are no acts without context, there is no objective morality.

Which is an incoherent position to take in reality.

Which in itself is enough to say its unreal. Just as unreal as saying someone can defy gravity jumping off a roof without any support.

If the reasoning and logic has to include such an incoherent idea then I think it needs retinking. Its not going to work and will actually cause bad stuff to happen.

An obvious consequence is that it allows crazy ideas into the market place of morality that society has to then fix and keep fixing in a never ending self defeating spiral of chaos lol. Thats the reality of such thinking.

 

[Bradskii]

Which is an incoherent position to take in reality.

Which is in response to me: 'And as there are no acts without context...'

Well, allrighty then. Give me an act without context from which you can determine the morality.

And any response maybe a day or two in coming. I'm in the middle of the Nullabor. Connection to the interweb is iffy at best.

 

[Abraham1st]

Do you want to rename your thread, philosophy without being vain ?



Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.



If this were not a Christian forum, the discussion would be quite appropriate, because it contains no scripture discussion, which Christians who hear the conversation from two thousand years ago, ( as two days to God when it is passed.) heard from Apostle Paul how to keep ourselves in the Spirit. ( which is by the hearing of faith.)




So I looked and saw that the world has its morals, like a code, almost like the animal kingdom, all going about to survive, doing what is necessary, such as one animal feeding on grass, and another to come along and feed on that one who had just eaten grass, and all doing as God had created everything to be, When we compare that to people, people over complicate things, such as these discussions, to try to declare or manipulate what is deemed to be acceptable, such as self defence, etc, as the discussion related.



All of that is fine, it is how the word works and even thinks, I mean it wont be the word we have, unless it acted and believed the way it does. But, it is a world about to end, and to be burned with unquenchable fire, as it has to be removed so no trace of what it ever was remains, and so all is new, and then contains righteousness. This is because the worlds view of morality, absolute as described and discussed in the thread has sidestepped away from scripture, and also from reason, and its own reasoning and understanding, is what is chosen, instead of a better testimony that as given to the whole world.


If you don't mind a view that saves the soul, ( the conversation given for faith.) That is to do as our Lord Jesus Christ, not just as the thread began its description of turning the other cheek, that is nothing, who cant do that, or who cant even be brave to give their life for someone else ? Look at the scripture and remember for a moment.




Now focus the people who are wise in this world, because this is a different kind of wisdom, this is faith. ( if a person does not have faith they will disagree, but their words will be turned backwards, as they are supposed to believe in Christianity, or be dead in their unbelief without it.)



Firstly when the love of God is shed into our hearts, the Holy Ghost given unto us, this is because we have believed that Christ died for the ungodly. ( notice what some men do, they will give their life for a good man.)

God commended ( for belief just in Christ) HIs love towards the whole world, for Christ to die for us while we were all sinners. ( with no morals, of any form/as the wages of sin are death.)

Now that we have the love of God given, we also have it told what we are WITHOUT CHARITY, it makes no difference if we think we are in orality to give to the poor, or to even give our body to be burned. ( to turn the other cheek, or to be stubborn to prefer to die than the comply.)

The next proof of this ,is in what was testified to us all, that the examples of faith we had given, of the ones stoned to death, sawn in pieces, killed by the sword, still did not receive the promise. ( of the HOLY GHOST.) as God had provided a better thing for us.

Finally the better thing is told, it is of that ONE who HIS OWN SELF BARE OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BODY ON THE TREE, so we will be DEAD to SINS and LIVE unto RIGHTEOUSNESS. It is the stripes Jesus Christ took for us that healed us, nobody else and nothing else, so why talk about people, and what they do, or what they think, when none of that is relevant IF WE WANT TO LIVE AND NOT DIE ? That alone is what morality is and al else even the conversation, is IMMORALITY.


1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.




Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Corinthians 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.


Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


1 Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

 

[stevevw]

Which is in response to me: 'And as there are no acts without context...'

Well, allrighty then. Give me an act without context from which you can determine the morality.

And any response maybe a day or two in coming. I'm in the middle of the Nullabor. Connection to the interweb is iffy at best.

I'm afaid you won;t find morality out there.

My point is there would be no context if there were no objective morality. You need objective or absolute morality to create the context for which it diverges from.

If theres no objective basis then theres no morality and context is just different ways of expressing personal feelings or preferences and not actually anything moral.

 

[o_mlly]

It makes a little more sense than I thought it would, but it is still rather confusing. "right" as in "acceptable behavior" isn't really something you can "has a". It is something you can do (do what is right).

Do what is right still works. "Acceptable behavior" is in the passive voice and does not work. "Acceptable" to whom?

Let's stay with your do what is right. Do humans have rights? For example, humans have an intellect that seeks the truth. Humans (normal) desire truth to satisfy the needs of their intellect. Good so far?

 

[Abraham1st]

For example, the world by wisdom did not know God:


1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


So what kind of wisdom is spoken, if not the usual kind ?

Not with ENTIC ING words of man's wisdom, as our faith will not stand/is nothing to do with this worlds ideas of what is wise, ( as the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, the same as to those of the worlds wisdom, preaching of the cross is foolishness and is of no interest now.)

But the wisdom of God is spoken in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, it is ordained by God, and unknown by the wise princes of this world, ( the prince of this world/devil)

But the good news is, a testimony is all that needs to be given, I mean Jesus even spoke to the man with a thousand devils, called Legion, so no wonder the devils believe there is one God and TREMBLE. ( but does VAIN MAN IN HIS VAIN CONVERSATION?)



1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.




James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O VAIN MAN, that faith without works is dead?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do what is right still works. "Acceptable behavior" is in the passive voice and does not work. "Acceptable" to whom?

Society. Wasn't that clear? Where else would such a thing be defined?

Let's stay with your do what is right. Do humans have rights?

Which are two different usages of the 5-letter word "right.

"do what is right" i about what is morally correct, or socially acceptable behavior.

To ask "Do humans have rights?" is to talk about things that are not the same as "do what is right". The first ask questions like "do you have a right to worship [or not] your own god?" and the second is discussing "is it acceptable to kill your attacker?". While "rights" and "what is right" certainly have interactions, they are not the same question.

For example, humans have an intellect that seeks the truth. Humans (normal) desire truth to satisfy the needs of their intellect.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. A lot of intellectual effort goes in to justifying things already believed without regard to their truthfulness.

Good so far?

Frankly, no. You have assumed our intellect seeks truth and confused civil-type rights with moral rightness.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For example, the world by wisdom did not know God:


1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


So what kind of wisdom is spoken, if not the usual kind ?

Not with ENTIC ING words of man's wisdom, as our faith will not stand/is nothing to do with this worlds ideas of what is wise, ( as the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, the same as to those of the worlds wisdom, preaching of the cross is foolishness and is of no interest now.)

But the wisdom of God is spoken in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, it is ordained by God, and unknown by the wise princes of this world, ( the prince of this world/devil)

But the good news is, a testimony is all that needs to be given, I mean Jesus even spoke to the man with a thousand devils, called Legion, so no wonder the devils believe there is one God and TREMBLE. ( but does VAIN MAN IN HIS VAIN CONVERSATION?)



1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.




James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O VAIN MAN, that faith without works is dead?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

too long, don't care.

This is not the section for preaching. It is for discussion. You have not engaged any of the things being posted in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

Society. Wasn't that clear? Where else would such a thing be defined?

Nonsense, unless you think the Holocaust was a moral policy.

Which are two different usages of the 5-letter word "right.

The word "right" in both usages employs the concept of justice. So, we'll call it to do what is just. So, do humans have a right to be treated justly.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. A lot of intellectual effort goes in to justifying things already believed without regard to their truthfulness.

Why deflect to the misuse of intellect? I ask you again, rephrased as per above: Is it just to lie to a human?

You have assumed our intellect seeks truth ...

I wrote normal humans desire truth. Do you seek untruth? If not then you are normal and my claim is self-evidently true.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nonsense, unless you think the Holocaust was a moral policy.

Godwin was so right, but you went from zero to Hitler real fast.

There was a lot of "we had no idea what was going on" with the post-war Germans, but the Hitler government did make efforts to keep some aspects of it from the mass of the people as the Nazis knew that killing all of the Jews was not acceptable to the majority of society, even some of the anti-Semitic parts.

Of course this has nothing to do with arguing against morality being determined by societies.

The word "right" in both usages employs the concept of justice.

Justice is about the nature of punishment or rectification for violations of the moral code.

So, we'll call it to do what is just. So, do humans have a right to be treated justly.

Now you are shifting the definitions.

Why deflect to the misuse of intellect? I ask you again, rephrased as per above: Is it just to lie to a human?

I wrote normal humans desire truth. Do you seek untruth? If not then you are normal and my claim is self-evidently true.

Not a deflection, just a counter to your claim that humans seek truth. I see an awful lot of intellectual effort expended to make excuses for claims that are not based on evidence. That is not truth seeking behavior.

 

[o_mlly]

There was a lot of "we had no idea what was going on" with the post-war Germans, but the Hitler government did make efforts to keep some aspects of it from the mass of the people ...

So, you claim the German "society" did not approve of the extermination of the Jews? And that "a lot of Germans had no idea"? And your evidence is a Sargent Shultz "I know nothing" defense?

... as the Nazis knew that killing all of the Jews was not acceptable to the majority of society, even some of the anti-Semitic parts.

Did you know about the Wannsee Conference of 1942?

"On January 20, 1942, 15 high-ranking Nazi Party and German government officials gathered at a villa in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss and coordinate the implementation of what they called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."​

Of course this has nothing to do with arguing against morality being determined by societies.

Of course it does.

Now you are shifting the definitions.

Just trying to keep up with your moving the goal posts.

Not a deflection, just a counter to your claim that humans seek truth. I see an awful lot of intellectual effort expended to make excuses for claims that are not based on evidence. That is not truth seeking behavior.

Is such "awful" (your word, not mine) behavior normal? Of course, it is not. So, I ask again, do you desire to know the truth?

 

[Abraham1st]

Anyone with an ounce of sense on this non preaching section, to recognise the error Hans Blaster just made by his words just NOW....




Hans Blaster: .......THIS IS NOT THE SECTION FOR PREACHING. It is for discussion. .....




Should advice for when the flood happened to the whole world, have been given to the whole world, or would the very same people, as Hans Blaster and all those who take part in THIS THREAD, AND IN THIS SECTION, also BE RIGHT, to say we don't want to hear any advice here, we DONT WANT PREACHING HERE, as would have happened EXACTLY the very same as when Noah had spoken to the people of the whole world, who continued to have their ( discussions) while the flood was coming and even up to the very last moment and it TOOK THEM ALL AWAY. ( IF THIS WAS TOO LONG WHAT I WRITE HERE, TO YOU PEOPLE, WILL IT BE A LONG TIME TO NEVER BE ABLE TO HEAR THESE WORDS EVER AGAIN IN YOUR EARS. )



Do you people think it is WISE/SENSIBLE, to have the SAME CONVERSATION that was the CAUSE of the flood in the first place, which was (coincidentally.) TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN WHAT NOAH WAS DISCUSSING, AND TO NOT REJECT IT, OR TO THEN BE REJECTED THEMSELVES.

Hans Blaster thinks he is smart to give his answers in the SAME WAY, to say, TOO LONG, and that it is NOT WANTED here, and that IT IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE DISCUSSION .

HOW MANY TIMES/CHANCES do these in the ..wise discussion.. think they may receive, OTHER THAN EXACTLY AS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST SAYS, which is that it will be NO MORE THAN BEING THE VERY SAME AS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH. ( and to be TOO BUSY DOING/FOCUSSING ON OTHER INTERESTS AND TOPICS ?)

But here is the PUNCH LINE, because Jesus Christ said it will be the same in the Son of mans days, so you don't seem you can be APPEALED TO ALSO.




2 Peter 2:5 And SPARED NOT THE OLD WORLD, but saved NOAH the eighth person, A PREACHER of righteousness, BRINGING IN THE FLOOD UPON THE WORLD OF THE UNGODLY;


Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and TOOK THEM ALL AWAY; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17: 26 And AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOE, so SHALL IT BE ALSO IN THE DAYS OF THE SON OF MAN.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

 

[Abraham1st]

...............This is not the section for preaching. It is for discussion. You have not engaged any of the things being posted in this thread.................



Luke 13:14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with INDIGNATION, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.




I am just showing this for a slight moment for you people, to show what people are who answer in a similar manner as the ruler of the synagogue did to Jesus, who thought he was saying something right, but was showing he is very wrong through it. See it if you are able.



Luke 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, THOU HYPOCRITE, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
17 And when he had said these things, ALL HIS ADVERSARIES WERE ASHAMED: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

 

[Abraham1st]

SO JUST IN CASE YOU PEOPLE CANT SEEM TO COMPREHEND IT, IT WAS NOT WISE FOR WHAT THE PEOPLE DID TO REJECT NOAH THE FIRST TIME AND BE ALL TOOK AWAY/DESTROYED, WONT IT BE WITHOUT WORDS OF HOW MUCH FOOLISHNESS IT IS TO DO IT THIS LAST TIME/AGAIN, AND NOW, AND ALSO TO REPEAT IT IN THE VERY SAME MANNER, TO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT SAVE YOU FROM THE SAME DISASTER, AND TO ALSO HEAR INSTEAD/BY PREFERANCE, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GUARANTEES TO RECEIVE ARE SELF DESTRUCTIVE CHOICES.