Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

What's your point? Are we back to that "good" rapist story again?

Value is a subjective term. You can't get to a universal ought using subjective values. And we value people differently - you value the life of your child more than the life of a random stranger. So the argument you put forward fails on that basis.

Do you have another?

 

[eleos1954]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

If the context is Jesus/God then yes there is absolute morality .... if not then no it's relative

 

[Bradskii]

If the context is Jesus/God then yes there is absolute morality .... if not then no it's relative

Does He tell you what moral acts are absolute? Can you give me an example?

 

[eleos1954]

Does He tell you what moral acts are absolute? Can you give me an example?

It is all about the entirety of the life of Jesus ... we are to pattern our lives after Him. He is our creator and we were created in His image (to reflect His character) that of Love, putting others before ourself ... of which He did on the cross.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.

So the entire life if Jesus would be the example.

 

[Bradskii]

So the entire life if Jesus would be the example.

Then it shouldn't be hard to give me a single example.

 

[o_mlly]

Value is a subjective term. You can't get to a universal ought using subjective values. And we value people differently - you value the life of your child more than the life of a random stranger. So the argument you put forward fails on that basis.

But that's not the argument. Taken to its conclusion, your misunderstanding would hold us to the lowest possible standard, eg., that of a psychopath, in valuing people.

You do not understand the argument. The argument does not conclude that we ought to value people equally but that we ought, ie., have a duty, to value peoples' rights. And, yes we can get objective values from objective human needs.

The argument appeals to evidence and by reasoning. The evidence is drawn from and the reasoning will be about our knowledge of human nature and our understanding of it. Of course, for one who thinks that a rape can be good for the victim, further exchanges will not likely be fruitful.

 

[Bradskii]

But that's not the argument. Taken to its conclusion, your misunderstanding would hold us to the lowest possible standard, eg., that of a psychopath, in valuing people.

You do not understand the argument. The argument does not conclude that we ought to value people equally but that we ought, ie., have a duty, to value peoples' rights.

I'll say it again (and I feel it won't be the last time): Value is subjective. So the value that one person places on someone else's rights will be different to another person's value of those same rights.

The very first premise for your argument (which is to show that we can develop an 'ought' ) is to say that we 'ought' to value people's rights equally. So we are left with:

We ought to value all people's rights equally.
X violates a person's rights.
Therefore we ought not to do X.

You can't use that which you are trying to prove as a basis for an argument which tries to prove it.

Do you not have anything else?

 

[disciple Clint]

The subject is not abiogenesis. Me giving life to my son is not abiogenesis.

Thank you we agree on that, your son did not come from non living molecules.

 

[disciple Clint]

You want to discuss the aspects of god(s) there are subfora for that, this isnt one of them.

I am fine right here, I am not offended by a mention of God or His powers.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am fine right here, I am not offended by a mention of God or His powers.

Its off-topic.

 

[disciple Clint]

Its off-topic.

No it is the answer to a question I was asked, go review the conversation.

 

[Larniavc]

Thank you we agree on that, your son did not come from non living molecules.

Yes he did. So did you. Do you believe the water molecules in your body are alive?

I really hope you can see that water is not alive.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes he did. So did you. Do you believe the water molecules in your body are alive?

I really hope you can see that water is not alive.

sperm is alive if it were not conception would not result

 

[Bradskii]

sperm is alive if it were not conception would not result

Take any given sperm and check out each molecule from which it is made. Follow each molecule back to see where it came from and it will be something you ate. Something inanimate. My body makes living cells from inanimate material.

Where else do you think they come from?

 

[disciple Clint]

Take any given sperm and check out each molecule from which it is made. Follow each molecule back to see where it came from and it will be something you ate. Something inanimate. My body makes living cells from inanimate material.

Where else do you think they come from?

which has nothing to do with where life comes from or the fact that life does not come from non life.

 

[Bradskii]

which has nothing to do with where life comes from

True.

...or the fact that life does not come from non life.

False.

 

[o_mlly]

I'll say it again (and I feel it won't be the last time): Value is subjective. So the value that one person places on someone else's rights will be different to another person's value of those same rights.

The very first premise for your argument (which is to show that we can develop an 'ought' ) is to say that we 'ought' to value people's rights equally. So we are left with:

We ought to value all people's rights equally.
X violates a person's rights.
Therefore we ought not to do X.

You can't use that which you are trying to prove as a basis for an argument which tries to prove it.

Do you not have anything else?

? That's your and not my argument. Here's my argument again:

• Does a human need indicate that a human right exists. Yes.
• Do rights impose obligations on other to respect those rights? Yes.
• Does a human need bodily integrity? Yes. (We need not be anymore graphic about rape than that.)
• Does rape violate a person's right to bodily integrity? Yes.
• One ought not rape another.

To the extent that human nature is everywhere and at all times the same, real goods have the universality and immutability that gives them objectivity. Or do you think that a human being does not need to exist and flourish in community; that these are not real goods? If so then try stopping eating and drinking and let us know how that works out for you. Or jump off a high enough roof to disrupt your bodily integrity and let us know how that works out for you.

 

[Bradskii]

? That's your and not my argument. Here's my argument again:

• Does a human need indicate that a human right exists. Yes.
• Do rights impose obligations on other to respect those rights? Yes.
• Does a human need bodily integrity? Yes. (We need not be anymore graphic about rape than that.)
• Does rape violate a person's right to bodily integrity? Yes.
• One ought not rape another.

To the extent that human nature is everywhere and at all times the same, real goods have the universality and immutability that gives them objectivity. Or do you think that a human being does not need to exist and flourish in community; that these are not real goods? If so then try stopping eating and drinking and let us know how that works out for you. Or jump off a high enough roof to disrupt your bodily integrity and let us know how that works out for you.

Well, same again really. You said that human needs have values. Which are subjective (I knew I'd have to repeat it). So if human needs are based on value and rights are based on needs, then...I shouldn't have to join the dots. But I will...so rights are relative. As I said before (and I'll have to say it again sometime soon), we value different people differently. I didn't think I'd have to be so specific as to say that we value their rights differently, but I will: We value their rights differently.

Not to any great extent (thanks empathy!) but it's true nevertheless. My daughter's right to life trumps any random stranger's right to the same. And if I have to save the life of a child who has been badly beaten OR the life of the guy who beat her, then I won't be tossing a coin.

So those obligations are different for everyone.

You're going to need something else. Please don't repeat the same argument yet again.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, same again really. You said that human needs have values. Which are subjective (I knew I'd have to repeat it).

Obviously, you believe that if you just keep repeating an untruth it will magically change.

My daughter's right to life trumps any random stranger's right to the same. And if I have to save the life of a child who has been badly beaten OR the life of the guy who beat her, then I won't be tossing a coin.

So those obligations are different for everyone.

Probably a good idea to give up using bad metaphors. Your innocent daughter's right to life does not "trump", as in eliminates, someone (also innocent) else's right to life. Try a different set of dots 'cause the picture your drawing with those dots is not what is being argued.

 

[Bradskii]

Obviously, you believe that if you just keep repeating an untruth it will magically change.


Probably a good idea to give up using bad metaphors. Your innocent daughter's right to life does not "trump", as in eliminates, someone (also innocent) else's right to life. Try a different set of dots 'cause the picture your drawing with those dots is not what is being argued.

You think that values are objective? No wonder you have difficulty with moral concepts.

And one person's right to life doesn't eliminate another person's right. The value each put on their rights is different. The value I put on them is different.

I really have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that I have to state this so baldly. Maybe it's just said because it's so easy to say. 'All lives are equal'. A nice sound bite that'll get a smattering of applause from the audience. But it ain't true. And when the chips are down, it's so obviously true.

If you're trying to build an argument on it then you won't get past that first premise.