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

[Hammster]

No; on post #404 you said I have access to the truth not just feelings. Are you changing it now?

No.

 

[NxNW]

Yes, the interpretation might change. Are you familiar with the illustration of six blind men trying to describe an elephant?

Yes, but it's not relevant here.

 

[NxNW]

Wrong.

You'll have to explain why, because you're contradicting yourself.

 

[NxNW]

But you don’t have a truth. You have feelings. Not only can’t you say why something is wrong, you have no solid basis for right and wrong.

You don't have a truth either, merely an interpretation of what you believe to be a truth. Others have different interpretations of what they believe to be a truth. If I ask a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Mormon if it's moral to use caffeine, birth control, and alcohol, I'll get different answers from each.

Christians can't seem to agree on if the Earth is flat or round. I personally know someone who believes it's a sin to claim the Earth is round. If you can't agree on something as fundamental as the shape of the Earth, which has been definitively established, then trying to determine more complicated matters is pointless. "Access to the truth" is a difference that makes no difference.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, but it's not relevant here.

It is relevant here. But I know it’s easier to just dismiss.

 

[Hammster]

You'll have to explain why, because you're contradicting yourself.

I’m not contradicting myself.

 

[Hammster]

You don't have a truth either, merely an interpretation of what you believe to be a truth. Others have different interpretations of what they believe to be a truth. If I ask a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Mormon if it's moral to use caffeine, birth control, and alcohol, I'll get different answers from each.

Christians can't seem to agree on if the Earth is flat or round. I personally know someone who believes it's a sin to claim the Earth is round. If you can't agree on something as fundamental as the shape of the Earth, which has been definitively established, then trying to determine more complicated matters is pointless. "Access to the truth" is a difference that makes no difference.

And you said elephant illustration wasn’t relevant. Pity.

 

[NxNW]

And you said elephant illustration wasn’t relevant. Pity.

Since you can't defend your argument, I'm happy to declare victory by default.

 

[Ken-1122]

No.

You've contradicted yourself

 

[Bradskii]

Not at odds. Different reasons. Remember, it’s important to understand the whole thing, and not just pick a line here or there to try to advance your view, like you did. And like you did with my post.

So a command to kill someone and then another later command not to are not at odds with each other? Do me a favour. I'm very well aquainted with the bible and plaintive suggestions that 'you need to read it all' cut no ice. It's because I am well aquainted with it that I am well aware of the dichotomies.

Jesus spent His life effectively telling us to ignore what we'd been told in the OT. That now things had changed. That the old rules were no longer applicable. He is the embodiment of that fact.

 

[Hammster]

Since you can't defend your argument, I'm happy to declare victory by default.

It’s easy when you declare the argument irrelevant.

 

[Hammster]

You've contradicted yourself

No I haven’t.

 

[Hammster]

So a command to kill someone and then another later command not to are not at odds with each other? Do me a favour. I'm very well aquainted with the bible and plaintive suggestions that 'you need to read it all' cut no ice. It's because I am well aquainted with it that I am well aware of the dichotomies.

Jesus spent His life effectively telling us to ignore what we'd been told in the OT. That now things had changed. That the old rules were no longer applicable. He is the embodiment of that fact.

Since this is either all made up, or completely ignored what I’ve previously said, I’m not sure how to respond.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, but it's not relevant here.

What is relevant, NxNW? All of the books, sources, videos and lectureres that Dame Vaako might read and watch if she were a real person?

Y'know. I kind'o wonder exactly what those would be. Do you have any idea about that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't base my morality on wishful thinking. Or emotive reactions. You are clearly not reading what is being written.

I base my morality on my naturally evolved conscience, together with all the other concepts that have been explained you so many times. If God does turn out to exist then that conscience will appear to have been God-given as opposed to having evolved naturally. In which case, nothing would change except the genesis of that particular characteristic.

I take full responsibility for the decisions I make and the life I lead. I do nothing simply because I have been told to do it. I want reasons. And if I personally disagree with those reasons then so be it. Nobody else can make that call except me. You can look over your shoulder every time you need to make a moral decision. That's up to you. But I answer to no-one excpet myself and my fellow travellers.

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

I guess I will need to look over my shoulder every time I make a moral decision since.............well...............you might be standing there evaluating me with moral measures you've made up.

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...)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're wrong.

On those posts you spoke of a Universal Moral principle. When I tried to get more details of this principle, you refused to give answers.

Of course not! But the fact that I don’t want it done to me, does not make it a universal moral principle.

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


Maybe get a good book on Ethics and learn about the different ways in which folks can, and already have, parsed out moral principles?

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

Sahakian, William S. (1974). Ethics: An introduction to theories and problems. New York, NY: B&N Books.​

​

Landau, Russ Shafer. (2010). The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.​

​

Pojman, Louis P. (1995). Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.​

​

Hare, R.M. (1997). Sorting Out Ethics. Oxford. ​

​

Crook, Roger H. (1990). An Introduction to Christian Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.​

​

There's more like these where these came from ... I suggest you engage!

 

[Ken-1122]

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

And how did you imply it should be applied? Just because the majority of people don't want to be injured does not make it a universal moral issue.

 

[Ken-1122]

No I haven’t.

Okay; perhaps I’ve misunderstood you concerning the contradiction. But as I said before, the Christian point of reference is about as fixed as mine considering it’s point of reference is constantly changing. So there really isn’t any advantage to having the Christian point of reference for morality; do you agree? If not; please explain why.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And how did you imply it should be applied?

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

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

 

[Hammster]

Okay; perhaps I’ve misunderstood you concerning the contradiction. But as I said before, the Christian point of reference is about as fixed as mine considering it’s point of reference is constantly changing. So there really isn’t any advantage to having the Christian point of reference for morality; do you agree? If not; please explain why.

It’s not changing. So I disagree.