How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

Bradskii · Feb 17, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
How do you propose to test the validity of a belief or position?

By discussing them. How else? Do they hold up to investigation? What outcomes result? Is there evidence available? State your position. Make an argument. Convince me that your beliefs are worth holding.

FireDragon76 said:
After all, who cares about the opinions of little people like you and me? If we live in world where only natural science and materialism are salient features, then they are the true "high priests" of this world, and we are nothing.

Nothing in the grand scheme of things? Yeah. Definitely. But seeing as I only have a few decades available to me then I will concentrate my thoughts on the here and now. And make allowance for everyone else in the same position. And what I will use are the aspects of this world for which there is evidence.

FireDragon76 said:
Argument based on instrumental reason is itself an artifact of the modern paradigm. So if you aren't interested in genuine dialogue, you're wasting your time.

So I should not base arguments for my position and against that of others using reason? What do you suggest?

FireDragon76 · Feb 17, 2023

Bradskii said:
So I should not base arguments for my position and against that of others using reason? What do you suggest?

Arguments aren't the best approach in the postmodern age. Dialogue is better.

Robban · Feb 17, 2023

Robban · Feb 17, 2023

Walking Contradiction said:
This has puzzled me for a long time, because I've never quite been able to figure out what it is that people really want.

What do you think people really want, and how do you envision that?

I really would like to know.

Most important is, what do we need?

Our three basic needs are, food, clothing, shelter.

"Want's" is usually where the trouble starts.

Ambition is not a bad thing if combined with integrity.

Like a fish with both scales and fins,

scales (protected by integrity),
fins (to propel, ambition)

BeyondET · Feb 17, 2023

Ken-1122 said:
As a moral agent, I am qualified to do this. I am qualified to say X behavior is wrong, and Y behavior is right.

Well said there agent of the heart.

Neutral Observer · Feb 17, 2023

Robban said:
"Want's" is usually where the trouble starts.

But when you dig down deep in their soul, what is it that people really want?

It may seem as though some people want money, or things, or fame, but are these things simply a futile attempt at attaining what they really want? Which may be acceptance, or security, or tranquility. Do people even know what they really want? Or do they just know that they want to be happy? But they don't know 'how' to be happy.

They know what happy looks. Because they've experienced what it's like to be happy, and they see other people that seem to be happy. But is happy just an endorphin that our brains secrete? Are we all just looking for the next high?

As I said, what is it that people really want? And if they just want to be happy, then what do they need to be happy? How does one become 'happy'? And is it even possible to be perpetually happy?

Or maybe we shouldn't be trying to be happy, instead maybe we should simply be trying to be content. So how do we do that?

Robban · Feb 17, 2023

Walking Contradiction said:
But when you dig down deep in their soul, what is it that people really want?

It may seem as though some people want money, or things, or fame, but are these things simply a means of attaining what they really want? Which may be acceptance, or security, or tranquility. Do people even know what they really want? Or do they just know that they want to be happy? But they don't know 'how' to be happy.

They know what happy looks. Because at times they've been happy, and they see other people that seem to be happy. But is happy just an endorphin that our brains secrete? Are we all just looking for the next high?

As I said, what is it that people really want? And if they just want to be happy, then what do they need to be happy? How does one become 'happy'? And is it even possible to be perpetually happy?

Or maybe we shouldn't be trying to be happy, instead maybe we should simply be trying to be content. So how do we do that?

My example was from Torah.

Try this one out from NT.

James 4:1-3

Neutral Observer · Feb 17, 2023

Robban said:
My example was from Torah.

Try this one out from NT.

So people are seeking after the wrong thing, but what's the right thing? And to claim that it's God would seem to be nothing more than a placeholder for some magical thing that's just miraculously going to make you happy.

But what's really making you happy? Is it actually God, or simply the contentment that comes with faith in God? Is God the source of contentment... or is it simply the faith in God that's the source of contentment, with no actual God required?

Bradskii · Feb 17, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Arguments aren't the best approach in the postmodern age. Dialogue is better.

Which is, again, a two way street. And in a dialogue when two people hold opposing views, they will each argue their position.

Daniel Marsh · Feb 17, 2023

perplexed said:
I am not being cute, I honestly don't get it.
I get attacked for saying I think murder is wrong but I don't think murder is objectively wrong.
I am told I cannot really think murder is wrong if I don't think there is a God that objects to murder.
After attacking me the same person will make complaints about the people that "Hate America" and it is clear that someone that
thinks "Atheists cannot really believe murder is wrong because they cannot believe anything" do actually think "Atheists believe America is wrong"

How does one define objective morality ?

FireDragon76 · Feb 17, 2023

Bradskii said:
Which is, again, a two way street. And in a dialogue when two people hold opposing views, they will each argue their position.

Dialogue implies genuine curiosity and exploration, argument doesn't.

Ken-1122 · Feb 17, 2023

Daniel Marsh said:
How does one define objective morality ?

They generally define Objective morality as a morality based on the laws/beliefs/nature of their God of choice. They proclaim humans are not qualified to determine morality, that it takes something superior to humans; and since they proclaim their God created everything, he gets to make up the moral rules for all that exist. Now of course in order to do this, they have to redefine objective to mean something that it does not; but that never stopped them before; doesn’t stop them now.

perplexed · Feb 18, 2023

Daniel Marsh said:
How does one define objective morality ?

There are many people on this forum that will define objective morality as morality based on the truth instead of your feelings and will not accept the fact that other people define it differently

FireDragon76 · Feb 18, 2023

perplexed said:
There are many people on this forum that will define objective morality as morality based on the truth instead of your feelings and will not accept the fact that other people define it differently

Feelings can't be true?

Bradskii · Feb 18, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Feelings can't be true?

If they differ from your own, it seems not.

perplexed · Feb 18, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Feelings can't be true?

apparently some people on this forum think it is unacceptable to feel that the holocaust is wrong, you might change your mind, you need to accept that we were created and that the creator has moral authority to declare the holocaust wrong

FireDragon76 · Feb 18, 2023

perplexed said:
apparently some people on this forum think it is unacceptable to feel that the holocaust is wrong, you might change your mind, you need to accept that we were created and that the creator has moral authority to declare the holocaust wrong

I never said that's unacceptable. It's understandable why somebody would feel the Holocaust was wrong.

I don't subscribe to divine command ethics. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Even from a Christian POV, I would argue against it, as it opens a door to thinking about ethics uncritically.

gaara4158 · Feb 18, 2023

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm going to leave you be and let you figure out how much of what you've just said in this post is all too easily susceptible to the Fallacy of Incredulity. Because, it should be obvious with some thoughtful, and being that I know that you're an intelligent guy, you should be able to figure it out on your own.

I don’t really like the way that post went, which is why I took a break over the last week, but incredulity only plays a small role in my objection to the thrust of your argument. I maintain that if morality is more than a human construct, the question “why be moral” is still answered in a manner that invokes a set of subjectively desired consequences, which is just a longer way to consequentialism. Further, our limited ability to apprehend moral truths as fallible humans seems to devalue any infallible objectivity of the moral source itself, regardless of its metaphysical validity. This is why arguments for a theistic moral foundation that invoke uncertainty or subjectivity of secular morality don’t carry much weight with me. You’re still here on Earth trying to figure it out with us, you just value different outcomes.

So yes, while I do ultimately disbelieve that there is any transcendent Being as a source to morality and so anyone invoking its superiority to my moral values will be meaningless to me, that’s not why I ground my morality in consequences. I think it’s all anyone does, despite what they may say. Maybe you can explain a meaningful difference between orienting your morality toward the creation of certain desired outcomes, and following a pre-written moral code because you believe it will lead to certain desired outcomes.

Robban · Feb 18, 2023

Walking Contradiction said:
So people are seeking after the wrong thing, but what's the right thing? And to claim that it's God would seem to be nothing more than a placeholder for some magical thing that's just miraculously going to make you happy.

But what's really making you happy? Is it actually God, or simply the contentment that comes with faith in God? Is God the source of contentment... or is it simply the faith in God that's the source of contentment, with no actual God required?

That's four questions,

Did you not even find any clues in the text I provided?

Try the whole chapter, recite it out loud, write it down on paper,

then repeat.

As Elon Musk said on taking over twitter and carrying a sink,

"Let it sink in."

gaara4158 · Feb 18, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Why not?

Human beings value peace. It is actually what they are seeking in the deepest part of their being. Peace, wholeness, integration... what the Hebrew word shalom means. It seems to me that peace has a great deal of moral salience.

"There is no way to peace: peace is the way" - Abraham Muste

If we are entertaining the possibility that morality is something other than what we think/want it to be, why should we expect that to bring us peace? I agree that peace is a fundamental goal of human endeavors, but that doesn’t mean everything we do or study is directly aimed that way.

FireDragon76 said:
I don't see a tautology. Only if you discredit the notion of transcendence altogether is that a possible conclusion.

If we justify calling things “good” because they align with “God’s Nature” or “The Transcendent Standard” but give no guiding principles determining why his Nature or Standard are worthy, we give no more information than if we justified our moral proclamations by saying “just because.” If we do provide guiding principles, however, then any Objective Standard is superfluous as it is subject to examination by your guiding principles. It’s the Euthyphro dilemma, more or less. Under the former condition “good” and “God’s Nature” mean the same thing but don’t tell us anything. It’s a tautology. Under the latter condition you don’t have a theistically-based morality as you first believed in guiding principles to determine morality before invoking the Transcendent. Euthyphro’s dilemma is fatal to the common Christian claim that their moral system carries more weight than a secular one, in my opinion.

How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

-----------

-----------

Earth Treasures

Active Member

-----------

Active Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

-----------

Gen Alpha Dad

Similar threads