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

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Another generality that then falls to various fallacies, Estrid. I'm sure you didn't intend for your statement to have political undertones, but it does rather sound like you think this.

 

[Astrid]

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.

I think courtesy is good. Didn't know
I wasn. Sorry.

But is it not so that as a theist you
believe you were created? I didn't
quote you. I just extrapolated a bit.

 

[Hammster]

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.

It doesn’t matter if you share the opinion. That doesn’t change the truth. If you think stealing is okay, though, I’m sure you’d feel different if someone stole from you.

 

[Hammster]

I'd say the basis of it is.

That would mean there are “good” genes and “bad” genes, but no real basis to determine which is better.

 

[Hammster]

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

Thanks for at least being the first to admit that you have no basis for right and wrong. I’d say it was good, but it’s meaningless in your worldview.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

True! And when you look at the history of mankind, that’s the way it works! The morality of yesterday is completely different today! Even with religions! In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery; today’s Christians will call it a stain on the country, and claim the Christians of those days were disobeying their God. And yet most religious scholars of today claim the baby Jesus was born of Mary when she was between 11-14 years old. With today's morality such a young child giving birth would be considered immoral! When you look at issues like interracial relationships, Homosexuality, human sacrifice for religious purposes, rules of war; it is clear that even within the religious community there is a constant change of morality even within that community. Heck even with Gods! Look at the difference in the Bible between the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh) vs the New Testament (Jesus), look at the way Yahweh instructed to treat one’s enemies (Numbers 31:18) vs the way Jesus instructed to treat your enemies (Matthew 5:44) even though they are supposed to be the same God, their moral are obviously much different.
Now I hear many Christians will compare acceptable morality of yesterday to today and they claim they were wrong then but they’ve finally gotten it right, but I will bet in the future, they will look at the morality of today and claim we are wrong today, and whatever moral beliefs they have at that time is the right one.
So YES! Morality is in a constant state of change, and many things considered morally acceptable today will be found to be immoral in the future; and visa versa.

 

[Hammster]

True! And when you look at the history of mankind, that’s the way it works! The morality of yesterday is completely different today! Even with religions! In the USA Christianity was used to justify slavery; today’s Christians will call it a stain on the country, and claim the Christians of those days were disobeying their God. And yet most religious scholars of today claim the baby Jesus was born of Mary when she was between 11-14 years old. With today's morality such a young child giving birth would be considered immoral! When you look at issues like interracial relationships, Homosexuality, human sacrifice for religious purposes, rules of war; it is clear that even within the religious community there is a constant change of morality even within that community. Heck even with Gods! Look at the difference in the Bible between the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh) vs the New Testament (Jesus), look at the way Yahweh instructed to treat one’s enemies (Numbers 31:18) vs the way Jesus instructed to treat your enemies (Matthew 5:44) even though they are supposed to be the same God, their moral are obviously much different.
Now I hear many Christians will compare acceptable morality of yesterday to today and they claim they were wrong then but they’ve finally gotten it right, but I will bet in the future, they will look at the morality of today and claim we are wrong today, and whatever moral beliefs they have at that time is the right one.
So YES! Morality is in a constant state of change, and many things considered morally acceptable today will be found to be immoral in the future; and visa versa.

So slavery was okie dokie at one time, correct?

ETA And you’d be against the civil war, too, correct?

 

[Ken-1122]

So slavery was okie dokie at one time, correct?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying people of the past believed slavery was "okie dokie"; because morality of that day was fine with it. I am a man of today meaning I find slavery immoral. This is consistent with my view that morality is completely subjective; not objective thus capable of evolving as mankind evolves.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks for at least being the first to admit that you have no basis for right and wrong. I’d say it was good, but it’s meaningless in your worldview.

"Admit" means "reluctantly confess"
So don't get phony and say I admitted
something.
I did not say "no basis".
The rest of your post is cheap shot.

 

[Astrid]

That would mean there are “good” genes and “bad” genes, but no real basis to determine which is better.

No. It does not. You just made that up.

 

[Hammster]

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying people of the past believed slavery was "okie dokie"; because morality of that day was fine with it. I am a man of today meaning I find slavery immoral. This is consistent with my view that morality is completely subjective; not objective thus capable of evolving as mankind evolves.

It was either okay or it wasn’t. If it was okay, then your point is true. If it wasn’t okay, then your point is invalid.

 

[Hammster]

Bit of a double strawman there.
I didn't suggest that opinion changes
truth. Not mine, not yours.

Ftm, your opinion is that you know
what the truth is. You might be right
and you may be wrong.

And I did not remotely suggest
stealing is OK, so there's no
proper reason to speak of me
thinking it is.

The truth is the truth regardless of opinion. And you may be against stealing, but not because it’s wrong.

 

[Hammster]

No. It does not. You just made that up.

Only was much as morality is genetic.

 

[Hammster]

"Admit" means "reluctantly confess"
So don't get phony and say I admitted
something.
I did you say " no basis".
The rest of your post is cheap shot insult.

Admit means to acknowledge. You did that.

 

[Astrid]

It doesn’t matter if you share the opinion. That doesn’t change the truth. If you think stealing is okay, though, I’m sure you’d feel different if someone stole from you.

There is no objective basis for
your belief. Address that, not a
strawman about my opinion changing
truth.
I didn't remotely suggest stealing
is OK. So why bring it in? If
you have a reason, let's hear it.

 

[Ken-1122]

It was either okay or it wasn’t. If it was okay, then your point is true. If it wasn’t okay, then your point is invalid.

Okay by what standard? By MY standard, it was not okay; by the standard of the people involved with slavery, it was (as you say) okie dokie

 

[Astrid]

Admit means to acknowledge. You did that.

Two sentences, two falsehoods.

No, it does not mean " agreed"
except in the imaginary dictionary.
And I neither agreed or admitted to
"no basis". I said something quite different


I did not say or imply "no basis".
If you are going to quote me at least
have the honesty to quote things I said.

 

[Astrid]

Okay by what standard? By MY standard, it was not okay; by the standard of the people involved with slavery, it was (as you say) okie dokie

Must have been OK as God gives
rules for it.
Certainly Christians for a couple
thousand years found in the
Bible justification, sanctification,
of slavery.

 

[Bradskii]

Otherwise sane people have religious or spiritual experiences.

Which was my point. They feel as if they are guided by God. If they believe that God has told them to love their neighbour and that they should because God is always right, then that's not a problem. If they believe that He has told them to fly a plane into a building, then we have a problem. Because...they think He's always right.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

You've been given the answer. I'm bemused by the fact that you keep on ignoring it. If you believe that we were created then gou'll believe that our moral sense must have been as well. There are some within the forum who don't believe we were created. That we evolved. As did our sense of morality.

You obviously don't agree with that. But what is there about it that you don't understand?