Lies are sinful...always?

[OzSpen]

To what end?

The good or evil in a person or society!

 

[OzSpen]

In my observation people mean very different concepts when they use that word.

Is "good vs. evil" another way of saying "what I like/dislike", or is there more to it, in your understanding?

"Moral determine the behaviour in moral issues" is tautological, isn´t it?


A vast majority of Christians would say "it´s morally wrong".

As far as I can tell there´s a variety of opinions on that among Christians.

I´d wager that a majority of Christians would say "It´s morally wrong.".

You're evading a discussion on how we determine morality/ethics.

 

[OzSpen]

Of course I can have objections, just like everybody else can. I might even have stronger arguments than a mere "I think it´s morally wrong." (which, strictly speaking, isn´t even an argument).

Something that is morally wrong leads to legislation to convict those who break morals by lying, murdering, stealing, catching suicide bombers, etc. There is a morally wrong argument and the Christian world view has a strong set of moral values in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20).

So does every other sort of moral construct. Your moral ideas dont prevent anyone from doing what they are determined to do.

Moral values do not prevent 100% of people from breaking the moral law, but they cause my country of Australia to be a relatively stable land without major crime and violence. There are South Africans fleeing to Australia to get out of the crime and violence in their country.

Your kind of morality does not encourage me to be a better citizen.

Assuming for a moment that I would want to do that - why do you think I am unable to take another personal autonomy away from another rson?

Try telling that to the London suicide bombers and the ISIS people slaughtering droves of people in Syria. They most certainly take away personal autonomy from people.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

In my observation people mean very different concepts when they use that word.

Is "good vs. evil" another way of saying "what I like/dislike", or is there more to it, in your understanding?

"Moral determine the behaviour in moral issues" is tautological, isn´t it?


A vast majority of Christians would say "it´s morally wrong".

As far as I can tell there´s a variety of opinions on that among Christians.

I´d wager that a majority of Christians would say "It´s morally wrong.".

You're ducking and weaving. I told you what I meant by moral values. Please take note of the content of what I wrote.

'I'd wager' is hardly a sound basis for evidence.

Oz

 

[RDKirk]

The good or evil in a person or society!

What are you defining as good or evil? See, you're just throwing out these words as though they had universal meaning, when history and the evening news ought to show you differently.

There are people who will tell you it's moral to set a bomb in a pop music concert filled with teenagers. Explain to me in objective terms not dependent on your own moral viewpoint why they are wrong.

 

[quatona]

Something that is morally wrong leads to legislation to convict those who break morals by lying, murdering, stealing, catching suicide bombers, etc. There is a morally wrong argument and the Christian world view has a strong set of moral values in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20).

There are other ways of thinking that lead to legislation.
But it´s good to know that we agree that morality is there for pragmatic purposes.

Moral values do not prevent 100% of people from breaking the moral law, but they cause my country of Australia to be a relatively stable land without major crime and violence.

Over here it seems to be more like the legislation.

There are South Africans fleeing to Australia to get out of the crime and violence in their country.

You think people in South Africa don´t hold moral ideas?

Your kind of morality does not encourage me to be a better citizen.

I´m not sure you know enough about "my kind of morality" in order to make such a statement.

Try telling that to the London suicide bombers and the ISIS people slaughtering droves of people in Syria.

Got their phone number?

They most certainly take away personal autonomy from people.

Which, according to you, is one of the purposes of morality.

 

[quatona]

'I'd wager' is hardly a sound basis for evidence.

Agreed - but when you ask me about what a group of people think, I´m afraid that´s as far as it gets: I have to guess.
Almost sounds like you disagree with my guess that a majority of Christians would call the suicide attacks "morally wrong".

 

[quatona]

You're evading a discussion on how we determine morality/ethics.

I do not really understand how you guys do it. That´s why I asked.

But when - as you seem to say - "morality" is about creating a functioning and enjoyable society (IOW: a utilitarian approach) our way of going about it is something like this:
Based on our values, we form an opinion as to what kind of society we want, and then - based on previous experiences - we behave in a way that promises to further these values and help towards such a society.

So the question - in view of the purpose of "morality" you postulated - would be "Is lying always detrimental to creating a functional and desirable society, or could it in certain cases contribute to it?"

 

[OzSpen]

What are you defining as good or evil? See, you're just throwing out these words as though they had universal meaning, when history and the evening news ought to show you differently.

There are people who will tell you it's moral to set a bomb in a pop music concert filled with teenagers. Explain to me in objective terms not dependent on your own moral viewpoint why they are wrong.

RD,

Anyone who violates God's moral laws commits evil. Anyone who supports God's moral laws is promoting good. These moral absolutes include:

12 “Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You must not murder.

14 “You must not commit adultery.

15 “You must not steal.

16 “You must not testify falsely against your neighbor.

17 “You must not covet your neighbor’s house. You must not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor" (Ex 20:12-17 NLT).​

Each one of these moral absolutes is found in the NT.

None of us can make moral judgments without moral boundaries. These boundaries can be provided by God, oneself or another person. The only reliable one to know what is best for humanity is God Himself.

Your worldview wants me to make moral decisions based on your terms: 'Explain to me in objective terms not dependent on your own moral viewpoint why they are wrong'.

My worldview, based on God's revelation in Scripture, provides objective moral judgments that determine right and wrong.

By the way, you also make your own moral judgments based on what you think is right or wrong. In my understanding they are 'subjective moral judgments'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There are other ways of thinking that lead to legislation.
But it´s good to know that we agree that morality is there for pragmatic purposes.

Over here it seems to be more like the legislation.

You think people in South Africa don´t hold moral ideas?

I´m not sure you know enough about "my kind of morality" in order to make such a statement.

Got their phone number?

Which, according to you, is one of the purposes of morality.

No, morality is not there for pragmatic purposes (it works) but for absolute reasons. Stealing is always wrong. Adultery is always wrong according to God's standard.

Regarding South Africans, my church holds an Afrikaans service and those who have fled the country tell me that there is a breakdown of law & order in that land with crime and violence rampant, so much so that they don't want to live in their country. Many of the people are destroying the land and causing terror among people. They have morality alright - disgusting out of control evil that is destroying the land.

This is what happens when individuals choose their own morality. Descending into chaos is guaranteed.

Oz

 

[quatona]

No, morality is not there for pragmatic purposes (it works) but for absolute reasons.

So you misspoke when you answered the question "To what end?" with "the good or evil in a person or society"? OK.

What do you mean by "absolute" reason?
Personally, I don´t care much for alleged "absolute reasons", I am more of a pragmatist interested in the well-being of people.

Regarding South Africans, my church holds an Afrikaans service and those who have fled the country tell me that there is a breakdown of law & order in that land with crime and violence rampant, so much so that they don't want to live in their country. Many of the people are destroying the land and causing terror among people. They have morality alright - disgusting out of control evil that is destroying the land.

So they do hold moral views. Apparently just not the ones you or I hold.

This is what happens when individuals choose their own morality.

Seems like you choose your own morality just like everybody else does.
Whether you (or me or anybody else) ascribe it to an alleged authority (and which) doesn´t change much about the effects.
And since, as you now say, the purpose of morality isn´t creating a functioning society, I fail to see how pointing to a non-functioning society is an argument, by your own criteria.

Descending into chaos is guaranteed.

There are secular countries that haven´t descended into chaos, and there have been theocracies that didn´t work out so well.

 

[OzSpen]

I do not really understand how you guys do it. That´s why I asked.

But when - as you seem to say - "morality" is about creating a functioning and enjoyable society (IOW: a utilitarian approach) our way of going about it is something like this:
Based on our values, we form an opinion as to what kind of society we want, and then - based on previous experiences - we behave in a way that promises to further these values and help towards such a society.

So the question - in view of the purpose of "morality" you postulated - would be "Is lying always detrimental to creating a functional and desirable society, or could it in certain cases contribute to it?"

quatona,

Utilitarianism promotes the ethic of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For Stalin and Mao, that was Communism.

I understand that you develop your own values to form an opinion of what is best for society. Here you hit the morality nail on the head. When you base your values on puny, sinful opinions, you are developing a society that is headed for sinful disaster.

We know what happened when sin entered the human race (Genesis 3). This is how Romans 8:20-22 (NLT) puts it:

20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
​

The whole of creation is under a curse and is groaning in 'pains'. All of our moral decisions are affected deep down by this fall into sin. That's why God needed to give us moral absolutes that are not made up by sinful human beings. Why? Otherwise, they will develop sinful kinds of right and wrong. God's standard are more sublime and critical than that.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So you misspoke when you answered the question "To what end?" with "the good or evil in a person or society"? OK.

What do you mean by "absolute" reason?
Personally, I don´t care much for alleged "absolute reasons", I am more of a pragmatist interested in the well-being of people.

So they do hold moral views. Apparently just not the ones you or I hold.

Seems like you choose your own morality just like everybody else does.
Whether you (or me or anybody else) ascribe it to an alleged authority (and which) doesn´t change much about the effects.
And since, as you now say, the purpose of morality isn´t creating a functioning society, I fail to see how pointing to a non-functioning society is an argument, by your own criteria.

There are secular countries that haven´t descended into chaos, and there have been theocracies that didn´t work out so well.

God's morals are absolute in that they NEVER change. I do not choose my own morals. They are revealed in Scripture by the Lord God Almighty who does not change.

No matter how you want to word it, secular values will always be sinful values that are contrary to God's absolute values. That does not mean secular people cannot do 'good' things in society, but their values are not promoted by the absolute values of God Himself.

You stated you are a pragmatist but that value system suffers from the 'what works' syndrome of sinful human beings. You choose your version of what works for you. The paedophile and terrorist choose what works for them. They all suffer from the same original sin problem - sinful thoughts and acts at the core of morality.

Oz

 

[quatona]

God's morals are absolute in that they NEVER change. I do not choose my own morals. They are revealed in Scripture by the Lord God Almighty who does not change.

Lots of big ifs there.

No matter how you want to word it, secular values will always be sinful values that are contrary to God's absolute values.

So when a believer and a non-believer hold the same values, the non-believer´s value is sinful?

You stated you are a pragmatist but that value system suffers from the 'what works' syndrome of sinful human beings.

Of course it does.
Your system, however, suffers from the facts
- that it´s based on several unsupported assumptions (God exists, God is the God as depicted in the bible, etc.), and
- the syndrome of human beings who might get the bible wrong.

You choose your version of what works for you. The paedophile and terrorist choose what works for them.

Well, a lot of terrorists argue with reference to an absolute moral system. I agree with you completely in that such references and claims aren´t really adding to the credibility of the claimants.

 

[Athée]

Athee,

So you couldn't have any objection to another who practised situation ethics of paedophilia because he believed it did not harm a child but a child is meant to bring him pleasure.

Situation ethics is built on a castle of straw that is easily blown away because it allows anyone anywhere to engage in any kind of morality as what is harmful varies from person to person. You wouldn't be able to impose your value choices on another as that would take personal autonomy away from the person's situation ethics.

What is your interpretation of 'the veil of ignorance mechanism'?

Oz

Situational ethics based on the principle of harm. One of the best things about reality is that it exists and we can investigate it. So when the pedorast says that sex with a child is good for the child we can investigate that claim. Moreover we can place it against values like autonomy and consent and show that there is objective harm being done.
As for the veil, to use your example if we had a bunch of people trying to decide if non consensual sex with minors is acceptable or not we have them all make that choice not knowing if, ha ing made their decision, they will be the adult or the child in the situation.

Definitely off topic but hopefully that clarifies my earlier position a bit for you

 

[OzSpen]

Lots of big ifs there.

So when a believer and a non-believer hold the same values, the non-believer´s value is sinful?

Of course it does.
Your system, however, suffers from the facts
- that it´s based on several unsupported assumptions (God exists, God is the God as depicted in the bible, etc.), and
- the syndrome of human beings who might get the bible wrong.

Well, a lot of terrorists argue with reference to an absolute moral system. I agree with you completely in that such references and claims aren´t really adding to the credibility of the claimants.

I'm talking about the foundation for ethics - the Lord God Himself (Yahweh/Theos) and his revelation of his will in Scripture.

I'm happy to debate the existence of God whenever, but that's for another thread.

A believer and a non-believer cannot hold the exact same values because the foundations are different. The foundations for the Sydney Opera House and the Brisbane Story Bridge are radically different. They cannot support the same structures.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Situational ethics based on the principle of harm. One of the best things about reality is that it exists and we can investigate it. So when the pedorast says that sex with a child is good for the child we can investigate that claim. Moreover we can place it against values like autonomy and consent and show that there is objective harm being done.
As for the veil, to use your example if we had a bunch of people trying to decide if non consensual sex with minors is acceptable or not we have them all make that choice not knowing if, ha ing made their decision, they will be the adult or the child in the situation.

Definitely off topic but hopefully that clarifies my earlier position a bit for you

Athee,

You would consider the homosexual male's (pedorast's) sexual harm based on values of autonomy and consent. That's your personal value system and a pedorast or padeophile could have values very different from yours. Autonomy and consent are your imposition on him.

How do I know? I'm a long term counsellor and counselling manager who has worked with a number of paedophiles and autonomy may be one of the values they accept but consent is often not one of them.

When you decide the values for any encounter, they are personal and individual and many individuals have the right to disagree with you. You, thus, have no means to decide that your values are the correct ones.

Situation ethics flounders on the rocks of autonomously invented values.

Oz

 

[quatona]

A believer and a non-believer cannot hold the exact same values because the foundations are different. The foundations for the Sydney Opera House and the Brisbane Story Bridge are radically different. They cannot support the same structures.

Well, then it should be obvious why your initial questions were pointless.

 

[quatona]

I'm talking about the foundation for ethics - the Lord God Himself (Yahweh/Theos) and his revelation of his will in Scripture.

I'm happy to debate the existence of God whenever, but that's for another thread.

Summary: So far we have just your belief that your "foundation for ethics" even exists and actually supports your ideas. For all intents and purposes this doesn´t help elevate your opinions beyond being subjective just like anybody else´s.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, then it should be obvious why your initial questions were pointless.

Foundations and boundaries need to be fixed. Unless you accept that stealing is an absolute that is always wrong, we can get nowhere in our discussions. Our worldviews are radically different.