essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 42,645
- 45,769
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Upvote
0
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.
No argument from me.we can all recognize that one ethical position isn't the same as another.
Just subjectivism, not relativism. (Speaking for myself)Moral relativism/subjectivism then. No wonder we have so much disagreement.
Do you feel personally motivated to run a red light?I get to decide for myself which moral principles I need to live by? Wow. That's a new revelation to me. I'll try to remember that next time I encounter a stop light.
If I were appointed benevolent dictator of the world, yes. As it is, I work within the democratic system of laws and lawmakers that exists.And you would enforce your subjective morality on other people?
How would you work within that system to promote your subjective view?If I were appointed benevolent dictator of the world, yes. As it is, I work within the democratic system of laws and lawmakers that exists.
Vote for candidates and ballot initiatives that best align with my moral view.How would you work within that system to promote your subjective view?
I am wondering if you would try to convince representatives or voters, via reason, that your view should be upheld.Vote for candidates and ballot initiatives that best align with my moral view.
What else can you do? We're talking about Christian morals. 'Do this...' or' Don't do that...' Do you agree with the rules or not? You're the one that has to decide.What does it mean for a rule to apply? You make it sound like a rule is a suggestion. "If you agree with it, then take its advice. If you don't agree with it, ignore it."
Accept it. Or not. I'd think that she'd accept it as being a reasonable rule. If the rule was 'Be home by 9:00pm' and she was 25 then she'd ignore it.I mean, if you give your daughter a rule, "Don't swim in the dangerous surf," how would you expect her to relate to that rule?
So say she breaks your rule and swims in the dangerous surf. I assume you would fault her for this and decide whether to punish her. Would you fault her primarily because:Accept it. Or not. I'd think that she'd accept it as being a reasonable rule.
None of this is relevant as to who makes the decision about whether moral rules are applicable. Spoiler alert...it's always you.So say she breaks your rule and swims in the dangerous surf. I assume you would fault her for this and decide whether to punish her. Would you fault her primarily because:
A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you
(I assume that if she already had the ability to discern whether the rule is reasonable, and therefore already knows not to swim in the dangerous surf, that you wouldn't need to give her the rule in the first place. After all, why give her a rule to do something that she already knows not to do?)
Not willing to answer my questions? We're investigating what a rule is in the first place.None of this is relevant as to who makes the decision about whether moral rules are applicable.
You know what a moral rule is. Do this...or don't do that. Please don't quibble over semantics.Not willing to answer my questions? We're investigating what a rule is in the first place.
You certainly don't, and that's probably why you don't want to answer my questions about the rules you set for your daughter. If you answered those questions you would end up admitting that rules are not mere suggestions.You know what a moral rule is.
Rules and commandments are meant to be obeyed. Who decides if they are valid as far as you are concerned?You certainly don't, and that's probably why you don't want to answer my questions about the rules you set for your daughter. If you answered those questions you would end up admitting that rules are not mere suggestions.
Rules and commandments are meant to be obeyed. Who decides if they are valid as far as you are concerned?
Would you fault her primarily because:
A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you
A rule is not a suggestion. A rule and a suggestion are two different things, and a person who gives or receives a rule is not giving or receiving a suggestion. A rule (or prohibition) is binding in a way that a suggestion is not.(I assume that if she already had the ability to discern whether the rule is reasonable, and therefore already knows not to swim in the dangerous surf, that you wouldn't need to give her the rule in the first place. After all, why give her a rule to do something that she already knows not to do?)
Bradskii has implied that rules should be treated as suggestions, and that one should act in accordance with the rule if they agree with the rule, and ignore the rule if they do not. This is essentially to act as if the rule did not exist. Now suppose Bradskii's daughter follows his advice and treats his rule as a suggestion. In that case she has not done anything wrong in breaking the rule; she was merely offered some advice which she declined. This is obviously incorrect.So say she breaks your rule and swims in the dangerous surf. I assume you would fault her for this and decide whether to punish her. Would you fault her primarily because:
A) She did not recognize that the rule was reasonable, or
B) She did not listen to you
No, he didn't. A rule is mean to be followed. Such as 'Honour your mother and father'. What was on the stone tablet wasn't: 'I suggest that you honour your mother and father'. It was a commandment. No doubt about what it meant and no exceptions given. There wasn't an asterix carved next to it to get you to check the small print.Bradskii has implied that rules should be treated as suggestions...
If I give a rule to my children (or rather if I did) it's because I think that it's valid. I expect it to be obeyed. But I'm not dumb enough to think that they won't have an internal debate as to whether it is valid or not. So 'Do not swim today' might well prompt a thought in either of them 'Well, the old man certainly seems to have thought about our safety here. The water is rough and he's a good swimmer and he thinks it's unsafe, so...what he says is entirely reasonable'.So when Bradskii construes Christian moral laws as, "Act accordingly if you agree; ignore it if you disagree. That's all you're doing anyway," he is not even being consistent with his own experience with his children. He would never tell his child, "Obey my rule if you agree; ignore it if you disagree."
Then you ask no questions. You allow no exceptions. You obey the rule as written. There is no escape clause. It doesn't apply to others and not to you. So if you're in hospital after being beaten yet again by your alcoholic father while your drug addled mother screamed encouragement then you have no options. Trust and auctoritas. Honour them.Finally, Bradskii wants to say that a decision about whether to follow a rule is always made by the individual. He is emphatic that it is the individual who gets to decide. But this is a non-starter and a preoccupation of classical liberalism, for the real essence of rule-following is trust and auctoritas. The decision is not even primarily about whether to follow a law. It is about whether to trust and abide by the lawgiver.
I'll assume you'll stop because you don't want to kill someone else, be killed yourself or get a ticket. Who makes that moral choice?
I'm not. We're talking about rules already in place and whether you agree with them. I'll say that again...whether you agree with them. Nobody gets to decide for you.
Indeed it does. It emphasises that it's you that makes the decisions. No-one else is involved.
Do you feel personally motivated to run a red light?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?