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

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Moral standards evolve with the consciousness of the society and the world. Moral standards are fundamentally relational and not absolute. 3,500 years ago, sacrificing babies was acceptable, today it isn't. In 200 years, eating animals for food may be seen as barbaric. Consciousness, and moral standards, will continue to evolve.

The assumption (or proposition) of moral progress instead of just moral difference is a weird one

 

[FireDragon76]

You're assuming the value of a thing and drawing conclusions from that thing. You need a reason as to why preventing a morally significant conscious being from living and fulfilling it's telos means anything at all.

It means something because we are all brothers and sisters on this Earth, as St. Francis realized nearly a millenium ago, and many native cultures have always realized. We are all creatures.

This isn't a matter of using the Bible or a sacred text as a cudgel against nonbelievers in a particular religion, it's a matter of creative engagement with the wider world to draw people into loving relationships with one another and the Earth.

Now you're starting from a more sound base as your argument is transcendental but ultimately you end up in the same spot.

No, not at all. It's not the same spot. Moral standards may be contextual and relational, but that's not the same as saying they are arbitrary.

If someones telos is to be a good murderer or warrior then you need a reason and an objective standard to say why the telos of this person's life form is wrong whereas the natural state of man

Humanity's telos is never to be a good murderer. War results from instrumentalizing life instead of recognizing it as an end in itself, and always carries a psychic burden- the wages of sin are death, after all.

Without an objective measure, what can be considered evidence within teleology? Teleology only makes sense in the light of the actions of a creator, otherwise you're just making inferences from nature without any justification for it's efficacy to produce reliable information.

It's not about an objective measure at all, but finding oneself as a creature among other creatures, in an evolving hierarchy. The "not knowing" of an objective standard is part of our creaturliness within a hierarchy whose own telos has not yet been reached. Ultimately, we must place the mind in the heart, rather than operate from a place of instrumental reason. That is why the highest forms of human spirituality are ultimately mystical in nature, and not the rationalistic monstrosity of Christian Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism, or Tridentine Catholicism.

 

[FireDragon76]

The assumption (or proposition) of moral progress instead of just moral difference is a weird one

Not when you consider there are emergent hierarchical complexifications of consciousness. I'm not suggesting all acts are morally equivalent, even while I'm saying morality is inherently contextual.

 

[Ken-1122]

Mate you're not gripping the argument. In order to do these things you need a moral standard on which to evaluate behaviour. A moral standard and subjective morality are incompatible as they refute one another.

Then provide the universal moral standard that says it is not okay to kill somebody because you are angry at them. That's all I ask.

 

[Ken-1122]

Compromise only really comes into play when anyone is advocating for laws to be implemented and enforced.

Ethics and morality and advocating for these, however, doesn't require compromise of that sort

Which is why nobody agrees when it comes to morality

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is why nobody agrees when it comes to morality

OH, I think we all do on some level.

Here's food for thought regarding a Unwritten Universal Moral Principle: There's not one sane or mostly sober soul on this entire planet who wishes to have "cry uncle" applied to them at any time or at any moment. This can be seen in that even those who who cause severe, fatal pain to others don't wish for the same pain they've inflicted to be placed upon themselves by others. Sado-masochists not withstanding this principle.

So, we all really know not to do it.

 

[Bradskii]

How about this instead: you need to realize that we have a clash of worldviews ... ?

Gee. You think?

 

[Ken-1122]

OH, I think we all do on some level.

Here's food for thought regarding a Unwritten Universal Moral Principle: There's not one sane or mostly sober soul on this entire planet who wishes to have "cry uncle" applied to them at any time or at any moment.

When you say "cry uncle" are you talking about the wrestling game when you pin your friend down, tickle them and make them say uncle in order to get you to stop? If this is not what you are talking about, explain what "cry uncle" means. If this is what you are talking about, what moral principle says it is immoral to tickle someone or be tickled.

 

[Bradskii]

When you say "cry uncle" are you talking about the wrestling game when you pin your friend down, tickle them and make them say uncle in order to get you to stop? If this is not what you are talking about, explain what "cry uncle" means. If this is what you are talking about, what moral principle says it is immoral to tickle someone or be tickled.

I think it just means causing pain/discomfort. And I think that after umpteen posts trying to explain the relevance of reciprocal altruism and empathy to morality, the penny might have eventually dropped.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When you say "cry uncle" are you talking about the wrestling game when you pin your friend down, tickle them and make them say uncle in order to get you to stop? If this is not what you are talking about, explain what "cry uncle" means. If this is what you are talking about, what moral principle says it is immoral to tickle someone or be tickled.

Oh, no, my friend. .................................I'm talking about the 'cry uncle' that occured when my large, husky cousin grabbed my arm, twisted it around and upward going around my back, forcing me face down to the ground, all the while applying increasing pressure, shouting at me, "Cry Uncle!!!! Cry Uncle!!!!!"

Yeah. that one.

 

[Ken-1122]

Oh, no, my friend. .................................I'm talking about the 'cry uncle' that occured when my large, husky cousin grabbed my arm, twisted it around and upward going around my back, forcing me face down to the ground, all the while applying increasing pressure, shouting at me, "Cry Uncle!!!! Cry Uncle!!!!!"

Yeah. that one.

Fair enough. So you've made it clear you didn't like what he did to you, now provide Universal moral law that says what he did was immoral.

 

[Hammster]

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.

A fixed point isn’t necessary in order to say something is wrong. That’s correct. And if you go back to my first posts, you’ll see that I’ve not said anything different. A fixed point of reference I’d necessary, however, to say why something is wrong. To be wrong or right, you need something to compare it to. Otherwise, it’s just a feeling.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Do you know why we don’t burn witches or outlaw interracial marriage? Because we have a fixed point of reference…the Bible.

 

[Hammster]

Its not there. Maybe somewhere the the
deep outfield of synonyms.

You need a new dictionary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough. So you've made it clear you didn't like what he did to you, now provide Universal moral law that says what he did was immoral.

Why would I do that? ................I think you've mistaken me for a more fundamentalist version of my fellow Christians. I'm the Existentialist, remember?

At best, all I can do is refer to Kant in this instance, then to Jesus, knowing all the while that such a reference and what it implies won't meant squat to at least half the world's population.

 

[Astrid]

You need a new dictionary.

Right. You misused the word / don't
know what it means, cannot show me
any source that indicates it means what
you claim, and its my fault.

My moral compass points toward
taking responsibility for my words
and deeds.
Maybe that's just a Chinese thing.

 

[Astrid]

Do you know why we don’t burn witches or outlaw interracial marriage? Because we have a fixed point of reference…the Bible.

Fixed? When did exodus 22:18
get cancelled?

 

[Hammster]

Right. You misused the word / don't
know what it means, cannot show me
any source that indicates it means what
you claim, and its my fault.

My moral compass points toward
taking responsibility for my words
and deeds.
Maybe that's just a Chinese thing.

It’s your fault for claiming that I used the word incorrectly. But now this discussion has become quite silly.

 

[Hammster]

Fixed? When did exodus 22:18
get cancelled?

Hebrews 8:13.

 

[Astrid]

Hebrews 8:13.

Actually, I knew that, but it's to the point
to have it stated.
What definition for " fixed" do you intend,
when you speak of fixed morality from the
Bible?