-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Morality without Absolute Morality
- Thread starter doubtingmerle
- Start date
o_mlly
“Behold, I make all things new.”
- May 20, 2021
- 3,266
- 592
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
If a negative can be proven then you'd have point. But it cannot, so you don't.
My God is not in the universe. So try again, please.
Clearly, absolute morality is not imposed, only proposed. So try again, please.
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 28,098
- 19,714
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
You are misusing "bandwagon fallacy". Thats a logical fallacy sometimes deployed in discussion.
But an empirically derived description of people using consensus to determine what they think is correct is not a bandwagon fallacy. It is in fact a correct description if it matches how people are behaving. And people sometime do behave that way.
Upvote
0
Oompa Loompa
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2020
- 10,118
- 5,389
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Even if the claim was that all agree, it would be factually incorrect on top of a bandwagon fallacy. Specifically, regarding rape, there are cultures who believe that marital rape and some statutory rape are not only acceptable, but morally good. Therefore, I think a more productive avenue for discussion is to shift to an ethical discussion as to why rape is wrong. If you keep asking the "why" questions, you will ultimately find that atheists cannot justify the reason and find that their godless world is one of pitiless indifference where they must find reasons to maintain their happy nihilism.
Upvote
0
Oompa Loompa
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2020
- 10,118
- 5,389
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Can you provide an example of one of an empirically derived consensus?
Bandwagon Fallacy: Definition and Examples
If all your friends read the same book, would you read it too? Hey, if your answer is “yes,” we get…
You are arguing that if there is a consensus based on empirical observations, that consensus must be objectively true. Note, there was a time where the consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. Now, we can look back and say the consensus was wrong. My point is that if your argument depends on a consensus, especially on morality which cannot be empirically measured, it is a bandwagon fallacy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 28,098
- 19,714
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
I didnt say that.
I said an empirically derived description of people employing consensus. Thats what Im providing: the description of people doing this.*
*Except its not like total 100% consensus. Its just what works such that most people feel they can enjoy a decent life and the society flourishes. The people who disagree (and think for example that there's nothing wrong with rape) just have to suck it up and conform, or face the consequences.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,856
- 16,404
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That's patently not true and I'm really not sure why you keep repeating it. Both terms are defined, and have been defined in this thread, quite specifically. Except by you. You have been arguing for a position that you haven't defined.
There are no acts which are devoid of context.
Your problem here, and you've been making the same mistake throughout, is asking if something which by its very definition is wrong, is wrong. It's a tautology. The same with murder. It's nonsensical to ask 'Is murder always wrong?' because it's an act of killing someone, which - by the context, is always wrong. If you asked me and I wanted to be specific about what you meant I might say 'Do you mean that, for example, I kill someone at random' in all probability you'd say 'Well, yes. That's an example of murder. Is it wrong?'. And if I say 'If I kill someone who is trying to shoot me' then you'd say 'No, that's not murder, it's self defence'. OK, I say. Then it's context dependent.
But if I do the same with rape then we get hands thrown in the air. 'Oh no. You can't give examples of the context in this case! You might give me an example of sexual intercourse when it's not rape!' Well...yes. I need to be clear about the context. Are you talking about someone who drugs a woman, drags her into the bushes and has sex with her without consent? Or a couple who have rough sex where she enjoys being dominated? I want to be very clear about the circumstances.
Murder is killing someone in specific circumstances and is always wrong because of that. And rape is sexual intercourse in certain circumstances and is likewise always wrong because of that. Note the similarity? Both occur in certain circumstances. Both are already defined relative to those circumstances.
Indeed it is a position that is impossible to hold to. But yet again, it's not my definition. This is really becoming nonsensical when you won't even acknowledge the standard definition of the very thing that's being discussed.
I have no idea how that connects to anything that's been said. And one more time, it's not me that's providing the definitions. The next time I say that it will be all caps. And by the way, we're all racist to some degree. Evolution again...but you don't want to go there.
Change 'rape' to 'sexual intercourse' and all that makes some sense. Otherwise...it doesn't Because rape is defined by the context.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,856
- 16,404
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
To expand on that, and I'm risking being too simplistic saying this because there are many examples which counter it, but morality is what works. But no-one sat around the camp fire working out what moral rules it was that we should follow. It was entirely natural. Those that followed instincts that worked for the betterment of that particular group were 'fitter' than those that didn't. So they became the norm.
The instincts that worked were defined as 'good'. Those that didn't were defined as 'bad'.
Upvote
0
Oompa Loompa
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2020
- 10,118
- 5,389
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,856
- 16,404
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed. But surely you can think of a reason to not steal, for example:
Do you want your goods to be stolen? Obviously not.
If you steal someone else's goods then others might well reciprocate.
So...OK. Let's agree that if I don't steal yours then you won't steal mine. Agreed?
That's being entirely legalistic about it. But it can happen in this way as well:
I worked hard for what I've got. If someone stole it I'd be unhappy.
If someone else had their goods stolen, they'd be unhappy. I know what that feels like.
I don't want them feeling unhappy so I won't steal their goods.
That's an instinctive response (you can call it God given if you like). Some people are like that, some are not. But those who are like that form a more stable society. Those who are not are shunned, expelled, locked up...taken out of the group.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,856
- 16,404
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
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?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
