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.
I couldn't be less interested in what you think I could and couldn't do in this regard. And this particular matter is now closed.I'd be surprised if you actually could when push-comes-to-shove...
You said "facts are objective, morality ain't."What? What do you mean 'without facts'? What moral discussion doesn't have some facts on which to base a decision?
I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...You said "facts are objective, morality ain't."
So if morality ain't objective how do we determine facts about morality?
So you're saying death resulting from an accident is wrong?We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.
And you prove the point on who puts the blinders up here. We're paving a way to common agreement based on your idea of subjective morality. We are 2 people who obviously disagree on a lot of issues. So how do we determine who's right? We have to defer to an accepted societal standard of right and wrong. You say personal morality is based on a case-by-case basis, how do we determine common ground without going through them? I personally think you just wanted the Christians to not challenge your presumption that every answer defers to their God.I think we're done for a while. There's only so much nonsense I can take.
The only way moral views can be authoritative is if people join a group (like a religion,) and the people of the group all agree to allow whoever leads the group dictate their beliefs. The morality of the group leader will be authoritative over the people who joined the group.
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.
I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...
Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.
We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.
You wouldn't go wrong in investigating what Cosmides and Tooby say about evolutionary psychology. This is their 'primer':
It's relatively long. But a quick look at their take on reciprocal altruism (which has been mentioned a few times in this thread in relation to a basis for morality) would be worth a few minutes. It's near the end in a section headed Reasoning Instincts: An example, about ten 'pages' up from the bottom.
$49? I'll pass.So, Bradskii, I'm still looking through your source. Since we're trading sources (of whatever academic age), and since we're both interested in Psychology and the sciences, both hard and soft, here's my little contribution you might be intrested in. Consider it my starting point from which then more expansive literary research will come IF and WHEN some one person "demands" better answers from Christians.
Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey of contemporary issues. Baker, 1998.Brief book review:More souces available upon request.
$49? I'll pass.
If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.
$49? I'll pass.
If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.
$49? I'll pass.
If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.
If you disagree, tell me where I've gone wrong.No, not quite. That kind of thinking befits Communists, though.
If you disagree, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Don’t confuse morality with laws. What I’m saying applies strictly to morality; not laws.All you're asserting is a form of Instrumentalism, where laws are formed and arbitrated without any sense of the Rule of Law.
The men you speak of worked with laws; not moral beliefs.The point here is that someone like Marx (whom you're emulating in a way) attempts to duck out of any metaphysical necessities that Kant would have said we should seriously consider. So, we have people today who, affected by various forms of Marxist type thinking, who then proceed to just willy-nilly make up their own private list of "good deeds/bad deeds."
That’s because society operates by laws; not moral beliefs.The problem with your viewpoint is that it offers nothing in the way of any prescriptive levels of moral and/or social order for society to commonly operate by.
No man is an island when it comes to laws; but when it comes to morality, every man can be his own island, unless you are a mental slave and not allowed to think for yourselfRemember, "no man is an island."
The problem today is that people do the same thing with morality..................since morality, like laws, required the reference and use of various, certain Ethical frameworks.Don’t confuse morality with laws. What I’m saying applies strictly to morality; not laws.
Kant didn't refer to morals? Marx didn't critique the morals that he thought Capitalist had and thereby show that he, himself, was working from "some framework"? (A framework that had already dispensed with God ............................ )The men you speak of worked with laws; not moral beliefs.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.That’s because society operates by laws; not moral beliefs.
No. No. No. Uh-uh. That's a very gross comparison. A mental slave? Really? Geez. Whether a person is a mental slave or not doesn't depend soley on whether or not you think for yourself because there's other mitigating factors that mediate that whole attempt to slog through and make sense of this social world we live in. So, no. Spare me the rhetoric, Ken, and go grab yourself a book on Ethics. A good one, preferably.No man is an island when it comes to laws; but when it comes to morality, every man can be his own island, unless you are a mental slave and not allowed to think for yourself
It’s also an objective fact that anyone with a sound mind looking at those facts would determine that Jim’s behavior is wrong because of the objective harm it caused.I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...
Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.
We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.
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?