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.
Maybe you could tell us how you reach your moral perspective. We can see if it's impervious to critique...What I notice is that some people think their moral perspectives are impervious to critique. I don't believe any are.
I agree.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.
No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.There is justified killing
I would claim that right should I deem it necessary.No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.
Maybe you could tell us how you reach your moral perspective. We can see if it's impervious to critique...
No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.
Maybe you could tell us how you reach your moral perspective. We can see if it's impervious to critique...
It is, "Thou shall not murder."No there isn't "thou shall not kill. Full stop a human doesn't have a right to take a human life.
You've nothing on which you base your sense of morality on? Well, that avoids it being critiqued.... 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.
I think you should quit hiding behind the pompous word salad.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.
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.
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.
You've been asked how you base your morality on any number of occasions.What are you even talking about? It's obvioius to anyone that I haven't excluded myself.
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.
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.
I am told I cannot really think murder is wrong if I don't think there is a God that objects to murder.
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"
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.
You've been asked how you base your morality on any number of occasions.
Crickets...
The word disingenuous I find is applicable.... 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.
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?