Establishing Secular Morality

[Bradskii]

I see no reason to answer to your conscience while I should answer to mine, which shows me I would answer to God. Your conscience is for you and not for imposing it on others.

I'm sure you would answer to yours. But you miss the point of the question. If your conscience says A is what you should do and mine says A is what we should not do, then how do we know which is the correct action? One of us is wrong. How do we tell which one?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sure you would answer to yours. But you miss the point of the question. If your conscience says A is what you should do and mine says A is what we should not do, then how do we know which is the correct action? One of us is wrong. How do we tell which one?

It could also be that both you and him are wrong and the 'right' answer is still yet to be known, and you'll both have to question your respective modes of moral reasoning to see if you can find out more ...

 

[Bradskii]

It could also be that both you and him are wrong and the 'right' answer is still yet to be known, and you'll both have to question your respective modes of moral reasoning to see if you can find out more ...

Actually, there were only 2 options. Do A or not do A. So one of us has to be right. But I take your point that quite often it's the case that either one of us is wrong or both of us are. But the point you then made is what I was implying. Surely we have to have an internal discussion to make sure that what we think God is telling us is actually valid. There have to be good reasons for acting in a particular way.

Which does lead to a problem for any given Christian in that they might say that they are in effect being asked to question God's instructions. But maybe he's just told you to fly a plane into a building. You might want to have a chat with Him about that and double check it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, there were only 2 options. Do A or not do A. So one of us has to be right. But I take your point that quite often it's the case that either one of us is wrong or both of us are. But the point you then made is what I was implying. Surely we have to have an internal discussion to make sure that what we think God is telling us is actually valid. There have to be good reasons for acting in a particular way.

We'd have to have way more than merely an internal discussion. At least, I'd hope we would. Understanding 'God' would actually require a Hermeneutical leap ... especially if the outcome from it is to "act in a particular way."

Which does lead to a problem for any given Christian in that they might say that they are in effect being asked to question God's instructions. But maybe he's just told you to fly a plane into a building. You might want to have a chat with Him about that and double check it.

Being that I don't believe revelation is taking place today, I'd automatically have a big problem if God indeed showed up in that way. In fact, I'd likely assume I was hallucinating or suffering from the onset of a schizoid mental condition............... especially if it was Jesus asking me to commit a heinous act.

 

[Bradskii]

Being that I don't believe revelation is taking place today, I'd automatically have a big problem if God indeed showed up in that way. In fact, I'd likely assume I was hallucinating................ especially if it was Jesus asking me to commit a very bad act.

This is the problem. The vast majority of people, if they said they'd had a call from God to do X would do it if they personally think that doing X was fine. But if they got a command 'Kill the kid next door' then they wouldn't. Because God wouldn't give a command to do an immoral act (forgetting, or rather ignoring, that He is meant to be omniscient and knows exactly whether killing the boy is good or bad - it's literally His call, not yours).

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the ones who do whatever they think they've been told to do in any case. Like fly a plane into a building.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is the problem. The vast majority of people, if they said they'd had a call from God to do X would do it if they personally think that doing X was fine. But if they got a command 'Kill the kid next door' then they wouldn't. Because God wouldn't give a command to do an immoral act (forgetting, or rather ignoring, that He is meant to be omniscient and knows exactly whether killing the boy is good or bad - it's literally His call, not yours).

Y'know what Kierkegaard would say ...

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the ones who do whatever they think they've been told to do in any case. Like fly a plane into a building.

I've often wondered how many Christians it takes to correctly tighten the bolts on a passenger jet.

 

[FredVB]

I'm sure you would answer to yours. But you miss the point of the question. If your conscience says A is what you should do and mine says A is what we should not do, then how do we know which is the correct action? One of us is wrong. How do we tell which one?

It could also be that both you and him are wrong and the 'right' answer is still yet to be known, and you'll both have to question your respective modes of moral reasoning to see if you can find out more ...

If...

If that was so, you are right that I might be wrong to do what your conscience says is wrong. But if my conscience says what is wrong that I don't do is what you still do, am I doing something wrong? I might as it happens to not eat things from animals that do not want things happening that do for anyone to get those, with it being against my conscience, but you may still do so. Is it me doing something wrong, while having such is not against your conscience? You do not yet know I do things contrary to your conscience. Maybe it depends on bases that we find. Without basis conscience might inform us of unnecessary things, or, even, excuse us from things that really we should pay attention to, so as to be more careful about.

I can still say the overwhelming greater amount is one's personal conscience that should determine things for that one that should not be for holding others to. They do have their conscience that they should answer to, which is possible if they do not deaden it, as would happen with ignoring it.

 

[BCP1928]

Y'know what Kierkegaard would say ...


I've often wondered how many Christians it takes to correctly tighten the bolts on a passenger jet.

Depends on whether they are left-hand threads or right-hand threads.

 

[Bradskii]

You do not yet know I do things contrary to your conscience.

No. But if you did. How do we know who is right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depends on whether they are left-hand threads or right-hand threads.

That's a funny response. It really is. ......... but even so, I was attempting to insinuate that the recent spats of 'whistleblower' problems at a dearly beloved company for travelers hasn't been doing its business in all honesty nor according to business ethics. And in that, I wonder how many of the folks working there on those planes are Christian, or not Christian, especially when and where ethical decisions are of the utmost importance.

What was that thing Voltaire said about the ethical qualities he desired to see in his servants?

 

[FredVB]

No. But if you did. How do we know who is right?

I know that not limiting care and compassion is right. Can you tell me you know that? So I know this would not contribute to me doing wrong things. So I am not wrong with that, I can know that. But if you do not know what I asked if you do, how can you know who is right? This is why the conscience shouldn't be silenced or snuffed out, we must listen to our conscience, fully. If we are led to hear from God with that, we should do that.

 

[BCP1928]

That's a funny response. It really is. ......... but even so, I was attempting to insinuate that the recent spats of 'whistleblower' problems at a dearly beloved company for travelers hasn't been doing its business in all honesty nor according to business ethics. And in that, I wonder how many of the folks working there on those planes are Christian, or not Christian, especially when and where ethical decisions are of the utmost importance.

What was that thing Voltaire said about the ethical qualities he desired to see in his servants?

Because it's a capitalist enterprise there are no Christian moral concerns about it save that it should be unregulated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because it's a capitalist enterprise there are no Christian moral concerns about it save that it should be unregulated.

For the record, I prefer to see regulation on the proper tightening of bolts.

 

[Astrid]

Because it's a capitalist enterprise there are no Christian moral concerns about it save that it should be unregulated.

Who thinks capitalism should be unregulated?

 

[BCP1928]

Who thinks capitalism should be unregulated?

A certain strain of Christian Nationalism in this country. MAGA!

 

[Astrid]

A certain strain of Christian Nationalism in this country. MAGA!

Since " unregulated" is actually impossible,
I think you just made that up.

 

[BCP1928]

Since " unregulated" is actually impossible,
I think you just made that up.

Technically, it is impossible. Forming a corporation is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state, so a certain amount of regulation is inherent. But it is a main plank in the Republican platform that corporations should be free of the constraints of environmental regulation as well as labor and occupational safety laws. Red states are already striving to roll back such regulations as come within their jurisdiction. A number of them have seriously weakened child labor laws by reducing the minimum age and allowing work in what are considered dangerous occupations. Another GOP plank calls for the reduction or elimination of regulations on banks and other financial institutions. The point being that all of this is going on with the enthusiastic support of the GOP's Christian supporters because to them, none of these are moral issues.

 

[FredVB]

Technically, it is impossible. Forming a corporation is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state, so a certain amount of regulation is inherent. But it is a main plank in the Republican platform that corporations should be free of the constraints of environmental regulation as well as labor and occupational safety laws. Red states are already striving to roll back such regulations as come within their jurisdiction. A number of them have seriously weakened child labor laws by reducing the minimum age and allowing work in what are considered dangerous occupations. Another GOP plank calls for the reduction or elimination of regulations on banks and other financial institutions. The point being that all of this is going on with the enthusiastic support of the GOP's Christian supporters because to them, none of these are moral issues.

There is this strange view that corporations should be free from constraints from the state, and that does impact environment and safety, to a huge degree, but that any individuals are to yet be subject to regulation from the state. Like people need government to regulate them and the government would be made up of people, and people need regulation... and we don't need to worry about corruption in process!

God is who we need, an unseared conscience can and should lead us toward God to know God's will that would be revealed for us. The state is a bad replacement for that.

 

[Astrid]

There is this strange view that corporations should be free from constraints from the state, and that does impact environment and safety, to a huge degree, but that any individuals are to yet be subject to regulation from the state. Like people need government to regulate them and the government would be made up of people, and people need regulation... and we don't need to worry about corruption in process!

God is who we need, an unseared conscience can and should lead us toward God to know God's will that would be revealed for us. The state is a bad replacement for that.

Find us one (1) person who believes corporations
should be free of state constraints.

You cannot.

The idea is ridiculous.

Making rest of the post not worth a glance.

 

[BCP1928]

Find us one (1) person who believes corporations
should be free of state constraints.

You cannot.

The idea is ridiculous.

Making rest of the post not worth a glance.

Deregulation is a constant theme of Republican policy