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

[Ken-1122]

Alright. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are meaning with your questions; it's like asking a theist where does their God get morality from. Obviously you aren't satisfied with the way I am answering them. Perhaps you can give me an example of the type of answer you are looking for, because the way you are asking these questions, they don't make sense to me.

*Edit- I just noticed on post #194 I made a big mistake on answering your question; the first question, instead of copy & past my answer, I accidently copied and pasted your question.

 

[stevevw]

If the bible is correct and we know Gods laws in our heart (our conscience) then we don't need to rationalize this. Its just consistent with what we know within ourselves. We don't stop and rationalize things when someone is threatened to be murdered, we intuitively know its wrong, every cell in our bodies knows its wrong.

God doesn't just make a command not to murder without good reason. That's what makes it law. We don't just make laws up without good reason. God created life and it was good. Murder takes away the goodness of life. God knew that murder was a threat to everything. Everything about Christs teachings and actions points to murder being wrong. In fact Christ gives insight into the state of mind of a murderer when he says that anyone who is angry and harbors a grudge against his neighbor potentially can murder.

Who better that knows our nature than God better than ourselves. And that is what we need as humans some rational, wise, incorruptible law giver outside humans as we humans are fallible and can think we know better.

We also have a history of experiencing murderer first hand in society and as a world with war. What more evidence do we need. Experiencing the horrors of murder is the greatest evidence as we live it out and learn the lessons from the horrors we experience. From this we have derived the truth that murder is morally wrong. So there is a lot of experience, wisdom and knowledge behind why murder is a moral truth.

 

[Hammster]

Neither do you nor does anyone.

I do.

 

[Hammster]

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are meaning with your questions; it's like asking a theist where does their God get morality from. Obviously you aren't satisfied with the way I am answering them. Perhaps you can give me an example of the type of answer you are looking for, because the way you are asking these questions, they don't make sense to me.

*Edit- I just noticed on post #194 I made a big mistake on answering your question; the first question, instead of copy & past my answer, I accidently copied and pasted your question.

Maybe I can approach if this way. Is there an unmoving (grounded) reason, outside yourself, that informs you what is right and wrong? I say it’s part of our created nature. As an atheist, you obviously don’t believe that we are created, so there must be something else.

 

[Astrid]

I do.

You just choose to think you do.

Different "gods" are claimed to exist,
by those who claim to be able to
communicate with those imaginary
"gods".

They then report on the rules the
"gods" want followed.

If you wish to define such as
objective, you will need an
imaganary dictionary.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe I can approach if this way. Is there an unmoving (grounded) reason, outside yourself, that informs you what is right and wrong? I say it’s part of our created nature. As an atheist, you obviously don’t believe that we are created, so there must be something else.

As a theist you obviously
believe you were created.
That belief has no objective basis.

 

[Ken-1122]

Maybe I can approach if this way. Is there an unmoving (grounded) reason, outside yourself, that informs you what is right and wrong?

No. It's all within myself, and in a constant state of change. I suspect you see morality as something real, whereas I see what we call morality as just a series of specific types of thoughts, and all thoughts are just a function of the brain. To ask me where does my views of right vs wrong come from is the same as asking (as I said before) where does my preference of strawberry ice cream over chocolate come from; or my sense of beauty vs ugly, interesting vs boring, preference of the color blue over green or the countless other preferences I have; they all originate from my thoughts. My preference of colors, images, or flavors, come from the same place as my preferences of good actions vs bad actions, but when we judge actions we call that judgment morality because we as a society have decided the judgment of actions is far more important than the judgment of flavors, colors, etc. Does this make sense to you? If not tell me where I’m going wrong.

 

[Astrid]

No. I suspect you see morality as something real, whereas I see what we call morality as just a series of specific types of thoughts, and all thoughts are just a function of the brain. To ask me where does my views of right vs wrong come from is the same as asking (as I said before) where does my preference of strawberry ice cream over chocolate come from; or my sense of beauty vs ugly, interesting vs boring, preference of the color blue over green or the countless other preferences I have; they all originate from my thoughts. My preference of colors, images, or flavors, come from the same place as my preferences of good actions vs bad actions, but when we judge actions we call that judgment morality because we as a society have decided the judgment of actions is far more important than the judgment of flavors, colors, etc. Does this make sense to you? If not tell me where I’m going wrong.

There's more to it than chocolate v vanilla.

Some other animals demonstrate
an understanding of things we call
justice, compassion, whatever else.

So "morality" is innate in people,
though various institutions will and
do pervert "morality" to their own
base and ignoble purposes.

 

[Ken-1122]

There's more to it than chocolate v vanilla.

I only think it’s more important than chocolate v vanilla because it effects those around us; but they both come from the same place; our thoughts.

Some other animals demonstrate
an understanding of things we call
justice, compassion, whatever else.

True! And they also demonstrate a preference between the taste of one thing over another (chocolate vs vanilla) I's all a result of their thoughts

 

[NxNW]

Where did that nature come from?

Biology tells us that much of our nature is genetic and unavoidable.

 

[Hammster]

You just choose to think you do.

Different "gods" are claimed to exist,
by those who claim to be able to
communicate with those imaginary
"gods".

They then report on the rules the
"gods" want followed.

If you wish to define such as
objective, you will need an
imaganary dictionary.

You are incorrect. There’s only one God. He created us as moral being. What I’m not discussing right now is rules. What I am discussing is on what basis you know right from wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you familiar with the ideas of Clare Graves? He suggested mysticism is the future of human civilization.

No, I'm not familiar with Clare Graves. I'm not a big fan of mysticism on the whole. Not because I think it's wrong, but because my existential position is the result of spending too much time in the void against my will. It's that whole "Hiddeness of God" argument that Pascal and various other philosophers (and atheists) wrestle with. Mysticism just isn't a notable experience for me. Still, I have read about it from this or that passing scholar.

I'll keep Graves' name in mind and look it up today to see what he was about.

I would argue the Eastern Christian world hasn't really had an opportunity to contribute much to wider Christian thought, outside of the interests of some academics and a few clergy in the Anglican world. Mostly they've been struggling under the yoke of the Turks/Arabs or the Soviet Union and its aftermath (and Duginism is no help here as it is rooted more in a more Asiatic/Mongol "Eurasianism" than actual Christianity).

Oh, I don't know about that. You're right to an extent, but I also think all of the politics involved between Rome and Constantinople that lead up to the Schizm of 1054, and shortly after, the Crusades and later the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the onset of nation-states in theWestern Europre, and the fact that Russia never really has had much clout in the Western World in its Orthodoxy, all has something to do with it why Orthodoxy just isn't "big" in the West.

Duginism is definitely no help, either.

 

[Hammster]

As a theist you obviously
believe you were created.
That belief has no objective basis.

If you are going to quote me, at least have the courtesy to interact with what I’m saying. Ken and I obviously disagree on things, but I find his interaction to be mostly favorable.

 

[Hammster]

No. It's all within myself, and in a constant state of change. I suspect you see morality as something real, whereas I see what we call morality as just a series of specific types of thoughts, and all thoughts are just a function of the brain. To ask me where does my views of right vs wrong come from is the same as asking (as I said before) where does my preference of strawberry ice cream over chocolate come from; or my sense of beauty vs ugly, interesting vs boring, preference of the color blue over green or the countless other preferences I have; they all originate from my thoughts. My preference of colors, images, or flavors, come from the same place as my preferences of good actions vs bad actions, but when we judge actions we call that judgment morality because we as a society have decided the judgment of actions is far more important than the judgment of flavors, colors, etc. Does this make sense to you? If not tell me where I’m going wrong.

If it’s in a constant state of change, then what you think is immoral today may be found to be immoral in the future, and vice versa. Because it’s in a state of change, you don’t have a fixed point of reference to even compare good or bad, or a way to say that someone else is right or wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Biology tells us that much of our nature is genetic and unavoidable.

Morality is genetic?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Biology tells us that much of our nature is genetic and unavoidable.

How "much" of it? I don't know about you, but I'm feeling a half-truth here in what you're spouting, NxNW. It sounds more like an excuse.

It also sounds like your point is slanted for the sake of politics to me.

 

[Astrid]

You are incorrect. There’s only one God. He created us as moral being. What I’m not discussing right now is rules. What I am discussing is on what basis you know right from wrong.

As noted, that is an opinion I do not
share. Theres no objective basis for said
opinion.
By "rules" I refer to such as the ten commandments.
This shalt not steal is about morality.

 

[Astrid]

Morality is genetic?

I'd say the basis of it is.

 

[Astrid]

If it’s in a constant state of change, then what you think is immoral today may be found to be immoral in the future, and vice versa. Because it’s in a state of change, you don’t have a fixed point of reference to even compare good or bad, or a way to say that someone else is right or wrong.

That's just how life is.
And morality needs to be adaptible.
That should be obvious, as are the
perils and promise of adaptabiliy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd say the basis of it is.

That's a huge generality and it's one that then gets used in specific, unproven ways for the sake of political agendas. I think we should be wary of that kind of generality.