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

[Bradskii]

What I notice is that some people think their moral perspectives are impervious to critique. I don't believe any are.

Maybe you could tell us how you reach your moral perspective. We can see if it's impervious to critique...

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not one who, even as a Christian, expects everyone to agree on every issue. But whatever the actual level of agreement may or may not be between us, the point here is that what I'd like to see is everyone coming to grips with the weaknesses existing within their own chosen moral view points.

What I notice is that some people think their moral perspectives are impervious to critique. I don't believe any are.

I agree.

 

[rturner76]

There is justified killing

No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.

 

[Bradskii]

No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.

I would claim that right should I deem it necessary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe you could tell us how you reach your moral perspective. We can see if it's impervious to critique...

... obviously, my own "moral position" isn't impervious.

Here. Since I know you're just chomping at the bit to critically assess my own moral point of view and see me "face the music," I'll start you off: 1) 2PhiloVoid's moral perspective isn't systematic nor comprehensive in either its structure or scope and can be seen to be subjectively built and does not enable him to answer all moral dilemmas that may present themselves.

I'm sure other folks, like yourself, can readily add to this list. Which is fine by me.

2)
3)
4)
5) etc.

 

[Hazelelponi]

No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.

So... Why was there taking of life in the Old Testament?

There's no contradictory point in Scripture - there's a difference between defending someone's life, even defending one's way of life, and killing someone out of jealousy or anger. One is clearly seen as justified, as standing before God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe you could tell us how you reach your moral perspective. We can see if it's impervious to critique...

As to "how" I have gone about rationaly assembling my own moral perspective, the first step for me is to consider what it is I think reality "IS, with a special focus on what it is to "be human."

In answering this, I'm guessing that both you and I, as birthed products of the 20th century, gravitate to what are not too dissimilar avenues of inquiry as a substantiating point for departure, anthropologically speaking.

 

[Robban]

No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.

It is, "Thou shall not murder."
There is the difference.

"If someone comes to kill you,
you must rise up and kill him first."
Talmud.

Taken literally a clear cut case, but in reality so much can play a role.



Highest priority should be to save a life or lives,
in the case of mass shootings for example.

Murder is the taking of any innocent life

 

[Bradskii]

... obviously, my own "moral position" isn't impervious.

Here. Since I know you're just chomping at the bit to critically assess my own moral point of view and see me "face the music," I'll start you off: 1) 2PhiloVoid's moral perspective isn't systematic nor comprehensive in either its structure or scope and can be seen to be subjectively built and does not enable him to answer all moral dilemmas that may present themselves.

I'm sure other folks, like yourself, can readily add to this list. Which is fine by me.

2)
3)
4)
5) etc.

You've nothing on which you base your sense of morality on? Well, that avoids it being critiqued.

 

[Bradskii]

As to "how" I have gone about rationaly assembling my own moral perspective, the first step for me is to consider what it is I think reality "IS, with a special focus on what it is to "be human."

In answering this, I'm guessing that both you and I, as birthed products of the 20th century, gravitate to what are not too dissimilar avenues of inquiry as a substantiating point for departure, anthropologically speaking.

I think you should quit hiding behind the pompous word salad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you should quit hiding behind the pompous word salad.

Pompous word salad? Just because I don't lay out the entirety of what I think all in one dinky little post doesn't mean I'm shooting salad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You've nothing on which you base your sense of morality on? Well, that avoids it being critiqued.

No. I simply alluded to the fact that if I were to present my moral viewpoint, I'm sure folks will be more than willing to collectively cite my weaknesses. This isn't avoidance but a preemptory statement.

 

[Bradskii]

No. I simply alluded to the fact that if I were to present my moral viewpoint, I'm sure folks will be more than willing to collectively cite my weaknesses. This isn't avoidance but a preemptory statement.

So when you say that you don't believe that anyone's moral perspectives are not 'impervious to critique' you exclude yourself. You don't mind criticising the basis for morality that others hold, but you refuse to present yours.

I can't say I'm that surprised.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So when you say that you don't believe that anyone's moral perspectives are not 'impervious to critique' you exclude yourself. You don't mind criticising the basis for morality that others hold, but you refuse to present yours.

I can't say I'm that surprised.

What are you even talking about? It's obvioius to anyone that I haven't excluded myself.

So, maybe stop with asserting your rhetorical flourishes and misdirecting cues? Being more verbally civil goes far in prompting someone else to lay down his cards, especially since you've implied that you want to see them. Or am I wrong in thinking you care?

 

[Bradskii]

What are you even talking about? It's obvioius to anyone that I haven't excluded myself.

You've been asked how you base your morality on any number of occasions.

Crickets...

 

[Neutral Observer]

Just because I don't lay out the entirety of what I think all in one dinky little post doesn't mean I'm shooting salad.

The thing is that not only can't your moral perspective be critiqued, it can't be agreed with either, because we have no idea what it is. Which is fine if that's the position that you want to take, i.e there are no objective moral perspectives. In fact we may well be in agreement. But it leaves me confused as to the whole point that you've been trying to make in this thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am not being cute, I honestly don't get it.
I get attacked for saying I think murder is wrong but I don't think murder is objectively wrong.

"Murder is wrong" is a moral statement abstracted outside of any context or circumstance. As such, we easily agree it is something true. Once placed within certain contexts though....it no longer retains its abstraction and other considerations for circumstances and context must be made. It is inside those contexts that we can imagine a morally good murder which serves some larger greater good than the evil of its immediate outcome.

I am told I cannot really think murder is wrong if I don't think there is a God that objects to murder.

Sure.

After attacking me the same person will make complaints about the people that "Hate America" and it is clear that someone that
thinks "Atheists cannot really believe murder is wrong because they cannot believe anything" do actually think "Atheists believe America is wrong"

Because they cannot believe anything?

Seems clear we do believe things.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know what people will do but I find it quite possible that a person that hates America could stop doing so. I don't see inconsistency in holding both opinions. They don't seem to be tethered in any way. I am not an atheist, but I don't see morality as objective I simply treat the moral values that God subjectively arrived at for me to follow as if they were objective. I think many people confuse what I would call convenience morality with subjective morality. The former is a moral code that one chooses in order to always feel morally upright and can change to encompass whatever behavior the chooser wishes to engage in at any particular moment. The latter is a moral code that one arrives at by honestly considering what one finds to be morally upright used a guide for deciding whether one's behavior is morally upright or not. Both are subjective but only one is actually a moral code while the other is rationalization. So, I if one should say murder is not objectively wrong but is, in one's opinion or by one's personal standard of morality or by societal standards or by whatever standard one decides to adhere to, is always wrong and one does not change that opinion because it became inconvenient to adhere to if one murdered someone or wanted to do so, then one is not advocating for convenience morality. If one were to say murder is wrong unless the person being murdered deserves it or I have to murder this person because (place excuse here) so murder now becomes the correct moral road to travel, then one is engaging in convenience morality. Of course, this a is all my personal opinion but i think it fits many situations most of which are much less extreme than murder. What is the point of a moral code if it changes to accommodate any behavior one wishes to engage in.

Do you think you have a sincere "Moral code" guiding your behavior?

Or is it more likely that you rarely consider the morality of your actions....you simply have the reasons why you do them....and moral consideration of your actions is really only made when you are considering violating the moral norms of whatever social group you inhabit?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You've been asked how you base your morality on any number of occasions.

Crickets...

... well, it's my contribution to the WEF's effort to get us all to eat bugs. It's the new moral things to do.

 

[Bradskii]

... well, it's my contribution to the WEF's effort to get us all to eat bugs. It's the new moral things to do.

The word disingenuous I find is applicable.