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.
You can't deny that fancy term still links to our most basic human instincts. Which is not based on anything that can be agreed upon. One person believes euthanasia is moral, another does not. Both are dying horrible painful deaths. Which one is right?No, it's bodily autonomy. Moral concepts such as euthanasia are obviously concerned with autonomy and not survival.
You mentioned others shutting down to your questions. It's you who have done that the most often on this thread.Yeah, sure. I've kept my views and opinions so tightly guarded that no-one knows my position on morality whatsoever...
I agree. So how do we know if that's morally accurate from a societal point-of-view?So bullying without any actual physical harm would be immoral.
Many people interpret scriptures from their own human understanding. My point was you can have the same salvation and spiritual relationship with God that is extended to everyone. But it's a choice.Come on, now. You know as well as I do that different Christians hold different moral positions and they will each tell you that they are guided by what they personally think God wants.
So, you're an emotivist, like A.J. Ayer? Or a Communist? Please tell me it ain't so, Hans! Say it ain't so!
Fancy term?You can't deny that fancy term still links to our most basic human instincts. Which is not based on anything that can be agreed upon. One person believes euthanasia is moral, another does not. Both are dying horrible painful deaths. Which one is right?
Can't be verified? The proof is usually in the pudding.The idea that actions that benefit others is a morally good thing, is just a subjective opinion that can’t be verified.
Why take it up to the societal level? If someone is bullying someone else, i.e. causing mental distress just for the sheer pleasure of doing so, then it's wrong. As a society we can take steps to prevent it, but it's immoral on an individual level.I agree. So how do we know if that's morally accurate from a societal point-of-view?
I think you might have wandered in from the "West is collapsing - ahhhhhhh" thread.One of the strong merits of the OP comes from the fact that the secular states which took initial form with the Enlightenment and have now emerged more fully, have at long last been deprived of their religious roots and therefore their moral cohesion and authority. This has resulted in a widely acknowledged "crisis of authority in modernity," which is now occupying secular philosophers as much as it is religious thinkers. We are seeing, before our eyes, the disintegration of entire societies, particularly in the West, due to the lack of moral and social cohesion that was previously provided by religion.
To say that morality does not require an authoritative basis sort of overlooks this most pressing problem of our age.
So if a person came up to you in the street and told you they wanted you to kill them, would you do it?Can there be two different answers and both correct? Yeah, there can. We just ask the person involved. None of us are in a position to deny their decision.
If I had it then I'm sure I'd get as much from it as you undoubtedly do. But I can't choose to have a relationship with someone whom I don't believe exists. That ship sailed a very long time ago.Many people interpret scriptures from their own human understanding. My point was you can have the same salvation and spiritual relationship with God that is extended to everyone. But it's a choice.
It already has been. In education and workplaces there are now policies against bullying...you should know this. So...how did that happen if morality is subjective?Why take it up to the societal level?
I tend to agree here. Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape said much the same thing. If we use an argument that says causing uneccesary harm is immoral then we must be able to determine when harm occurs. And then note when it doesn't if we persuade people not to act immoraly in that instance.Can't be verified? The proof is usually in the pudding.
I never said I was an atheist. I believed in my own version of God. But I didn't necessarily agree with certain issues because I believe personal accountability for one's actions is paramount in living peacefully. Perhaps that's part of my upbringing, perhaps it's part of my interant nature, perhaps both.ut it prompts an interesting thought. Those who were atheists and held to what we might describe as secular views on, for example, ssm or abortion or contraception etc etc, if they have an epiphany and find they have a relationship with God, what happens to all their well thought out and definitive views on those matters?
You said you were an atheist, but it's a kinda personal question so I'm not directly asking you.
A guy on the street? I would doubt their sanity in the first instance, so no. I wouldn't. But if my wife was suffering from an incurable illness and was in pain and wanted to end it, then I would be quite prepared to do whatever was necessary to help her do so.So if a person came up to you in the street and told you they wanted you to kill them, would you do it?
Sorry, my bad.I never said I was an atheist. I believed in my own version of God. But I didn't necessarily agree with certain issues because I believe personal accountability for one's actions is paramount in living peacefully. Perhaps that's part of my upbringing, perhaps it's part of my interant nature, perhaps both.
Just because it's subjective doesn't mean we can't get general agreement on what is right or wrong. But note that even getting universal agreement doesn't then make it objective. Objective morality isn't dependent on a vote.It already has been. In education and workplaces there are now policies against bullying...you should know this. So...how did that happen if morality is subjective?
I think you might have wandered in from the "West is collapsing - ahhhhhhh" thread.
This "problem" you speak of. It sound like the problem of realizing that morality is *not* authoritative and figuring out how to deal with that reality. Or as I'd rather say: "The real issue in morality today is that we need think about how we construct a moral system given the non-existence of god." I don't expect many on this board to accept that position.
"...given the non-existence of god." I don't expect many on this board to accept that position.
So how do you determine that? Nelson doesn't agree with your view, is he in the wrong? It makes him feel good to laugh at others and cause them pain and humiliation, it makes him happy. Are you saying society should stop him from being himself and being happy?but it's immoral on an individual level.
Golden rule. Listen to Jesus. Would you like to be bullied? No. You have empathy. You know others would feel the same. Is it causing harm? Yes.So how do you determine that? Nelson doesn't agree with your view, is he in the wrong? It makes him feel good to laugh at others and cause them pain and humiliation, it makes him happy. Are you saying society should stop him from being himself and being happy?
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?