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

[Bradskii]

Morality is genetic?

Indeed. A mixture of nature and nurture. About 50/50?

 

[Hammster]

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

I see. So your standard trumps their standard.

 

[Hammster]

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.

You might want to consult a dictionary.

 

[Hammster]

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?

If you aren’t going to answer, please don’t quote the question.

 

[Hammster]

Indeed. A mixture of nature and nurture. About 50/50?

Was chattel slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries morally good?

 

[Ken-1122]

I see. So your standard trumps their standard.

From my view; my standard trumps everybody else's standard. But that's just MY view; somebody else might see it differently.

 

[Hammster]

From my view; my standard trumps everybody else's standard. But that's just MY view; somebody else might see it differently.

And with no fixed point of reference, you can’t say that chattel slavery is wrong. At best, you can say it’s not your preference.

 

[Bradskii]

If you aren’t going to answer, please don’t quote the question.

The post was the answer. We have an evolved sense of morality. I know you don't agree, but what don't you understand about that?

 

[Bradskii]

Was chattel slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries morally good?

I don't think it was. Any form of slavery is wrong as far as I am concerned.

 

[Ken-1122]

And with no fixed point of reference, you can’t say that chattel slavery is wrong. At best, you can say it’s not your preference.

No; a fixed point of reference is not necessary in order to say something is wrong, all that is necessary is having a point of reference; which I've already explained what mine is.

 

[Astrid]

No; a fixed point of reference is not necessary in order to say something is wrong, all that is necessary is having a point of reference; which I've already explained what mine is.

Nobody has an objectively fixed point
of references.
Some claim they do.
But they've zero objective evidence
that it's so, that someone didn't just
make it up.
That's not objective morality.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

That's a tired meme about religion, and it isn't true of the vast majority of people that believe in God.

 

[Astrid]

That's a tired meme about religion, and it isn't true of the vast majority of people that believe in God.

It happens to be true for all that
we well know most are not
crashing airplanes.
The " cannot be wrong" mentality,
though, is very common.

 

[Bradskii]

That's a tired meme about religion, and it isn't true of the vast majority of people that believe in God.

It's 'the vast majority' is the problem. It admits to there being small minority. And if someone holds to a position that is contrary to mine, I want to know their reasons for holding to it. 'Because God is always right' is not acceptable. I want to know why He's right in that particular case.

 

[FireDragon76]

It happens to be true for all that
we well know most are not
crashing airplanes.
The " cannot be wrong" mentality,
though, is very common.

In the real world, there is more ambiguity about peoples religious beliefs. Connecting the average believer with violent fanaticism or extremism isn't fair or accurate. It's appealing to a very extreme interpretation of religious experience as normative.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's 'the vast majority' is the problem. It admits to there being small minority. And if someone holds to a position that is contrary to mine, I want to know their reasons for holding to it. 'Because God is always right' is not acceptable. I want to know why He's right in that particular case.

Most people that are believers in God aren't ideologues out to win debates.

 

[Bradskii]

Most people that are believers in God aren't ideologues out to win debates.

C'mon...there are many people who would base laws on what they believe God wants. I honestly don't care what people believe. Except when their beliefs impact me and mine in some way. At which point I want some reasons for their positions.

Is that an unreasonable position?

 

[NxNW]

Morality is genetic?

Nature and morality are two different things. I'm talking about preferences and tendencies. How those are judged by society is another thing altogether.

 

[NxNW]

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

I don't know that it's been quantified, but studies show that when identical twins have been separated at birth, for example, and then their lives compared decades later, their lives are strikingly similar in ways that were surprising. We're not just a blank slate. Certain leanings, preferences, talents, etc are built in. Some people have perfect pitch, which is genetic; others are tone deaf. The tone deaf ones are not likely to become musicians.

It sounds more like an excuse.

For what? I didn't say anything about excusing criminal behavior.

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

I'm not sure why you inferred that.

 

[NxNW]

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,

I assume you meant moral in the future. Changing morality is certainly the case with Biblically-revealed morality too. As Christian interpretation hopefully matures, they no longer burn witches and promote slavery and outlaw interracial marriage. Interestingly, secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along. But still, Christian morality changes over time.