Tranquil Bondservant
Nothing without Elohim
The assumption (or proposition) of moral progress instead of just moral difference is a weird one
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.
The assumption (or proposition) of moral progress instead of just moral difference is a weird oneMoral 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.
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.
Now you're starting from a more sound base as your argument is transcendental but ultimately you end up in the same spot.
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
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.
The assumption (or proposition) of moral progress instead of just moral difference is a weird one
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.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.
Which is why nobody agrees when it comes to moralityCompromise 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
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, 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Do you know why we don’t burn witches or outlaw interracial marriage? Because we have a fixed point of reference…the Bible.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.
You need a new dictionary.Its not there. Maybe somewhere the the
deep outfield of synonyms.
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.
Right. You misused the word / don'tYou need a new dictionary.
Fixed? When did exodus 22:18Do you know why we don’t burn witches or outlaw interracial marriage? Because we have a fixed point of reference…the Bible.
It’s your fault for claiming that I used the word incorrectly. But now this discussion has become quite silly.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.
Hebrews 8:13.Fixed? When did exodus 22:18
get cancelled?
Actually, I knew that, but it's to the pointHebrews 8:13.
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?