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

[Ken-1122]

I see. You're not going to cooperate in this enterprise.

Fine. Just know that I definitely will NOT cooperate in yours.

What is it about my question you had a problem with?

 

[Ken-1122]

It’s not changing. So I disagree.

On post #395, didn't you just agree that the Christian worldview has changed from 5 generations ago, and will likely be changed 5 generations from now?

 

[Neutral Observer]

It becomes universal when it's applied in the way I implied it should be: a posteriori.

Just as a lurker, I really am curious as to how a 'Universal' moral code can be arrived at a posteriori. I see no logical reason why the moral code that you arrive at should be the same as the moral code that I arrive at. In fact I'm quite certain that they're not, because I've frequently attempted to do this and the result has always been abject failure.

Now if one wants to rely upon observation alone then it's definitely possible to assimilate some general moral guidelines simply by observing people's behavior. But this would seem to amount to nothing more than an 'Argumentum ad populum'. And surely that's not where you intended to go.

However, if you don't want to explain it to me that's fine, but I am curious.

 

[Neutral Observer]

I’m not contradicting myself.

Excuse the intrusion, but the Bible does seem to contradict itself on a number of moral questions. 'Thou shalt not kill' probably being the most frequently cited, but there are a number of others.

Now I can understand how changing circumstances might make it appear as though the Bible contradicts itself on such points when it actually doesn't. But to seemingly dismiss such contradictions out of hand by merely asserting that it's a misunderstanding of the circumstances, would seem to be nothing more than saying "I'm right and you're wrong".

In other words, you haven't really defended your position at all, you've only asserted that it's correct.

I for one would like to see the argument fleshed out a bit. What is it that makes a certain action right in one circumstance, but wrong in another?

 

[Robban]

Excuse the intrusion, but the Bible does seem to contradict itself on a number of moral questions. 'Thou shalt not kill' probably being the most frequently cited, but there are a number of others.

Now I can understand how changing circumstances might make it appear as though the Bible contradicts itself on such points when it actually doesn't. But to seemingly dismiss such contradictions out of hand by merely asserting that it's a misunderstanding of the circumstances, would seem to be nothing more than saying "I'm right and you're wrong".

In other words, you haven't really defended your position at all, you've only asserted that it's correct.

I for one would like to see the argument fleshed out a bit. What is it that makes a certain action right in one circumstance, but wrong in another?

"Thou shall not kill" is nowhere to be found.

But in any case,
if there appears to be a contradiction then,

a peacemaker needs to be found.

a passage that fits in between the two contradicting parties and makes peace.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, I see. So you're a Do-It-Yourself Ethics kind of guy. I see.

Maybe you let others make your decisions for you?

And being that "moral conscience" is kind of a vague, amorphous, evolving notion anyway, I'd hate to think I have to rely on yours to get things right for everyone else in the world. (Now, see my post below to Ken...)

If you're in a thread discussing morality and you don't have a good grasp on what conscience is, then...

 

[Neutral Observer]

But in any case,
if there appears to be a contradiction then,

a peacemaker needs to be found.

a passage that fits in between the two contradicting parties and makes peace.

I'm sorry, but I find this to be extremely problematic. Because as we both know, when it comes to the Bible people can always find passages to justify their position, even when it's in direct opposition to someone else's equally supported position.

So I'm not really sold on the idea that to reconcile a seeming contradiction all that one needs to do is to find passages in scripture that can be used to ameliorate the discrepancy. It just seems too much like proof texting. Like people seeing what they want to see. And again, as we both know there are times when the Bible seems to condone things in one instance, while condemning them in another, and it's pretty much left up to the reader to figure out why. At such times proof texting may come in handy, but somehow seeing what one wants to see doesn't come off as being very convincing to a skeptic.

And I'm always a skeptic first.

 

[Bradskii]

Here. I'll get you started since, like Bradskii, you seem to be having difficulty understanding these things "on your own":

This constant literary name dropping is becoming embarrassing. Do you think that you're the only one who has read a book? That no-one has investigated the basics of morality? You should pull your head in somewhat my friend.

A personal sense of morality is developed from many sources. Parents, peers, teachers, church and, yes, any number of books. Fortune cookies if you are so inclined. But unless you happen to align exactly with whatever you are being told from whatever source then you will develop your moral positions on your own.

You will because it is your responsibility. No-one else's. It's you that will be held responsible for your actions. Not your Sunday school teacher or your parents or any given philosopher you have happen to have read. It will be your conscience that eventually tells you if what you do is what you ought to do. That small voice that says 'Hey, If you do this you don't want to be found out.' Bleating that someone said it was right doesn't get you a get out of jail card.

And listen in. This ain't a book club. People in this thread aren't interested in what you say you might have read. They are interested in what you think.

Personally speaking, I am underwhelmed to say the least.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just as a lurker, I really am curious as to how a 'Universal' moral code can be arrived at a posteriori. I see no logical reason why the moral code that you arrive at should be the same as the moral code that I arrive at. In fact I'm quite certain that they're not, because I've frequently attempted to do this and the result has always been abject failure.

Now if one wants to rely upon observation alone then it's definitely possible to assimilate some general moral guidelines simply by observing people's behavior. But this would seem to amount to nothing more than an 'Argumentum ad populum'. And surely that's not where you intended to go.

However, if you don't want to explain it to me that's fine, but I am curious.

Code? Although I know I'm just as prone to spelling errors as anyone else here on CF, I'm fairly certain that I haven't mentioned a code anywhere in this thread. I did make mention to what I think can serve as a basic principle that we can all recognize, a posteriori. But I've said nothing about a code. That would have to emerge later after other Ethical (and even epistemological and a few meta-ethical and/or methphysical) issues have been sorted through and layered in upon it.

So, I can understand the concern, but there is no Argumentum ad populum going on here. Especially not here. Maybe don't rely too much on what the atheists are misrepresenting my as saying ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This constant literary name dropping is becoming embarrassing. Do you think that you're the only one who has read a book? That no-one has investigated the basics of morality? You should pull your head in somewhat my friend.

A personal sense of morality is developed from many sources. Parents, peers, teachers, church and, yes, any number of books. Fortune cookies if you are so inclined. But unless you happen to align exactly with whatever you are being told from whatever source then you will develop your moral positions on your own.

You will because it is your responsibility. No-one else's. It's you that will be held responsible for your actions. Not your Sunday school teacher or your parents or any given philosopher you have happen to have read. It will be your conscience that eventually tells you if what you do is what you ought to do. That small voice that says 'Hey, If you do this you don't want to be found out.' Bleating that someone said it was right doesn't get you a get out of jail card.

And listen in. This ain't a book club. People in this thread aren't interested in what you say you might have read. They are interested in what you think.

Personally speaking, I am underwhelmed to say the least.

Oh, we all know that you're the expert here on these things, Bradskii. ***cough***

And no, it's a fact that not many people study Ethics at a university level. Have you? If you have, it's time to offer a little more transparency about your own scholarship so we might all learn something new and true.

Thus far, all you've been doing is beating a horse.

 

[Robban]

I'm sorry, but I find this to be extremely problematic. Because as we both know, when it comes to the Bible people can always find passages to justify their position, even when it's in direct opposition to someone else's equally supported position.

So I'm not really sold on the idea that to reconcile a seeming contradiction all that one needs to do is to find passages in scripture that can be used to ameliorate the discrepancy. It just seems too much like proof texting. Like people seeing what they want to see. And again, as we both know there are times when the Bible seems to condone things in one instance, while condemning them in another, and it's pretty much left up to the reader to figure out why. At such times proof texting may come in handy, but somehow seeing what one wants to see doesn't come off as being very convincing to a skeptic.

And I'm always a skeptic first.

Of course you find it extremely problamatic.

You have to put some work into it.

It requires study, it may take a lifetime to find a" peacemaker."

And it is not a matter of being able to correct others,

Why study?
Because the "Bible" is a message to you, me and everyone.


It should be seen as such and not a cudgel to hit others on the head.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, we all know that you're the expert here on these things, Bradskii. ***cough***

And no, it's a fact that not that many people study Ethics at a university level. Have you? If you have, it's time to offer a little more transparency about your own scholarship so we might all learn something new and true.

You don't need to study ethics to form a moral position. As I said, most people develop their sense of morality from many sources. Nobody even mentioned the need for a formal education on it. Nobody is here having a p contest about what they have read, or who they have investigated or what school they went to or what qualifications they have. But it is becoming apparent that you seem to think that banging out a list of 'recommended reading' for the peasants among us is sufficient to indicate your superior knowledge.

I'm here to tell you that that isn't the case. You'll be judged on what you write not what you read. And I've already given my opinion on that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bleating that someone said it was right doesn't get you a get out of jail card.

Sure. I agree. But just remember too, that bleating that someone said that much or most of what Jesus and His Apostles/Disciples said is false doesn't get anyone a get out of Hell free card, either.

And listen in. This ain't a book club. People in this thread aren't interested in what you say you might have read. They are interested in what you think.

Personally speaking, I am underwhelmed to say the least.

I disagree. When people make a statement or a claim, even on this forum, it is DEFINITELY incumbent upon them to provide some support for their point of view other than simply "they think such and such all on their own." Since you've already presented the obvious truism that our ethical frameworks are 'made' out of various sources, as I've also said, then it requires people to present at least some of those sources which have informed their view. In my case, I do, and I have, countless times.

They're not free to just blurt out continuous gas without references. Simple. Or at least, it should be known as a simple principle and it is one that if someone wants have an interlocution with me, they will have to abide or I'll just do what so many atheists here do to Christians----I'll just hand waive your street level opinion away like so much miasma.

And I'll be justified (usually) in doing so in instances where people need to provide support for their point of view, even for their ethical and/or moral point of view.

Oddly, I rarely see you make references to your sources, so I don't feel beholden to either feeling guilty for dismissing what you have to say or that I have to recognize your opinion as anything that should be taken as authoritative or comprehensively cogent.

 

[Hammster]

On post #395, didn't you just agree that the Christian worldview has changed from 5 generations ago, and will likely be changed 5 generations from now?

Yes, that’s not how I’d put it, but close enough.

 

[Hammster]

Excuse the intrusion, but the Bible does seem to contradict itself on a number of moral questions. 'Thou shalt not kill' probably being the most frequently cited, but there are a number of others.

Now I can understand how changing circumstances might make it appear as though the Bible contradicts itself on such points when it actually doesn't. But to seemingly dismiss such contradictions out of hand by merely asserting that it's a misunderstanding of the circumstances, would seem to be nothing more than saying "I'm right and you're wrong".

In other words, you haven't really defended your position at all, you've only asserted that it's correct.

I for one would like to see the argument fleshed out a bit. What is it that makes a certain action right in one circumstance, but wrong in another?

Such as what?

 

[Neutral Observer]

Code? Although I know I'm just as prone to spelling errors as anyone else here on CF, I'm fairly certain that I haven't mentioned a code anywhere in this thread. I did make mention to what I think can serve as a basic principle that we can all recognize, a posteriori. But I've said nothing about a code.

Okay, sorry for the misquote, but even describing them as 'Universal moral principles" doesn't seem to differentiate them at all from what @Bradskii is describing. They're a set of principles gleaned from the observation of the people around you. I don't see how that makes them authoritative in any universal manner, or even correct.

But never mind, I'll go back to lurking.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Such as what?

Okay, never mind. I've been down this road many times. I know where it goes. So I'll quietly take my leave.

 

[Hammster]

Okay, never mind. I've been down this road many times. I know where it goes. So I'll quietly take my leave.

Fair enough.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, sorry for the misquote, but even describing them as 'Universal moral principles" doesn't seem to differentiate them at all from what @Bradskii is describing. They're a set of principles gleaned from the observation of the people around you. I don't see how that makes them authoritative in any universal manner, or even correct.

But never mind, I'll go back to lurking.

I'd be very, very careful there, WC. Otherwise, you'll find yourself agreeing with Logical Positivists of the past like A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell who happened to fall into the murky waters of their own Verification Principle, even in regard to Ethics and Morality.

My principle makes it a UNIVERSAL FACT that if someone tells me that physical torture is wrong because they've exprienced physical torture and/or bodily harm, then I will at the very least make a substantial note of that in my mind as a source of authority, however small it may seem, so as to extend the empathy I have for that source of data which then feeds into the ongoing praxis of building an Ethical framework by which to act morally. I'm not going to pretend that it's not authoritative and say something ridiculous like "Aw, that doesn't count as proof...."

Apparently, other people want us to believe that this kind of universal principle doesn't exist in any way, shape, form or level. They be wrong. Maybe deluded. Possibly even sociopathic to deny it.

But you know, I'll admit that it also helps if and when Jesus tells us something similar to this same principle I've referred to, doesn't it?

It should.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. When people make a statement or a claim, even on this forum, it is DEFINITELY incumbent upon them to provide some support for their point of view other than simply "they think such and such all on their own." Since you've already presented the obvious truism that our ethical frameworks are 'made' out of various sources, as I've also said, then it requires people to present at least some of those sources which have informed their view. In my case, I do, and I have, countless times.

Oddly, I rarely see you make references to your sources, so I don't feel beholden to either feeling guilty for dismissing what you have to say or that I have to recognize your opinion as anything that should be taken as authoritative or comprehensively cogent.

This is complete nonsense. Do you want me to list every instance of someone who has an influence on my upbringing? Everyone who I have heard, listened to or spoke to that has informed my moral positions? Every book I have read? Don't be ridiculous. If you have a personal position, arrived at personally then you can explain it. If you want to reference someone to back up that position then quote them. That is par for the course.

But you don't do that. What you have been doing is making lists of authors and posting links to books saying 'Look how well read I am!' And suggesting, in supercillious tones, that we peons should get up to speed so we might be able to grasp what you are talking about.

And here's a heads up on what you have been talking about. In my not-so-humble opinion, it hasn't been worth the bandwidth so far.