Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

God's word.

So a guy insulted you in a bar and God told you...what?

 

[Fervent]

So a guy insulted you in a bar and God told you...what?

38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[o] 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile,[p] carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.

 

[partinobodycular]

So then no morality is valid?

Which includes your God's.

 

[Fervent]

Which includes your God's.

I'll take His word over yours, but your opinion is noted.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, but if the Golden Rule is a real moral truth we have to explain how and why it is such a truth.

It's true in the sense that it results in a stable society and a life well lived. It says nothing about individual circumstances in random bars. You have to interpret it as you see fit.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'll take His word over yours,

I would expect nothing less.

 

[Bradskii]

38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[o] 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile,[p] carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.

How you respond wasn't the question. How do you determine that slapping someone is unacceptable? And then answer the matter of the girl being sent to her room. And there'll be as many examples of moral questions that only you can decide as you like.

 

[Fervent]

It's true in the sense that it results in a stable society and a life well lived.

Oh? That hardly seems to be the case, since most societies seem to operate on some lesser rule like the Silver or Bronze rule. The Golden Rule is needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion, especially since us and them dynamics tend to be much more capable of strengthening social bonds en masse.

It says nothing about individual circumstances in random bars. You have to interpret it as you see fit.

The issue with reasoning morality isn't about interpreting it, it's deriving it.

 

[Fervent]

How you respond wasn't the question. How do you determine that slapping someone is unacceptable? And then answer the matter of the girl being sent to her room. And there'll be as many examples of moral questions that only you can decide as you like.

You asked what God said, I provided what God said. Sure, it needs to be sorted out and interpreted but my denial of reason in morality isn't about being able to move from a moral foundation to a workable frame. It's getting that moral foundation at all through our reasoning faculties.

 

[Bradskii]

I'll take His word over yours...

Well...me? I take the best argument. I don't take anybody's say so unless they can show me why it's a good idea.

'That young girl should honour her father'.
'Yeah? The one that's been beating her and sexually assaulting her since she was a baby? Why?'

Maybe you wouldn't argue. Hard to tell.

 

[Bradskii]

You asked what God said, I provided what God said. Sure, it needs to be sorted out and interpreted...

And who does that?

 

[Fervent]

Well...me? I take the best argument. I don't take anybody's say so unless they can show me why it's a good idea.

Having seen what you think passes for a good argument, that's quite amusing.

'That young girl should honour her father'.
'Yeah? The one that's been beating her and sexually assaulting her since she was a baby? Why?'

Maybe you wouldn't argue. Hard to tell.

Case in point.

 

[Fervent]

And who does that?

It's a communal effort.

But as per your usual MO, you clipped the really important bits which is the defect of reasoning about morality being an inability to establish a foundation to build upon, not an inability to move from a foundation to a workable frame.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh? That hardly seems to be the case, since most societies seem to operate on some lesser rule like the Silver or Bronze rule. The Golden Rule is needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion...

'And I say to you, Do unto others as you would have them do to you'.
'Hey, no way mate. You're being needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion!'

Really?

 

[Fervent]

I would expect nothing less.

What can I say, I suspect the omniscient knows a thing or two that we don't. Maybe He has an answer to the is-ought problem that would satisfy,

 

[Bradskii]

Case in point.

It wasn't an argument. It was a question. It's the word of God. Are you going to suggest that He must allow for special circumstances? And the girl in the room?

 

[Fervent]

'And I say to you, Do unto others as you would have them do to you'.
'Hey, no way mate. You're being needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion!'

Really?

Yeah, let's not forget where such radical statements got Jesus. It's not about social order, because there's no need for such a lofty ideal to establish social order and there are arguably more effective "rules" for social cohesion.

 

[Fervent]

It wasn't an argument. It was a question. It's the word of God. Are you going to suggest that He must allow for special circumstances? And the girl in the room?

No "special" circumstances, just a correct understanding that Christian ethics are virtue ethics not deontological ethics. How many times must I repeat that before you stop presenting your straw dilemmas?

 

[Bradskii]

It's a communal effort.

I'm not interested in anyone else. I just wanted to know your position. And you've just agreed that you contribute your interpretation. I agree. It's what we all do.

That was the point. But gee, it took some getting to. You were really averse to admitting to it.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah, let's not forget where such radical statements got Jesus. It's not about social order, because there's no need for such a lofty ideal to establish social order and there are arguably more effective "rules" for social cohesion.

So you ignore the golden rule? No, of course you don't. You interpret it as regards the pertinent circumstances. Oh, sorry. It's a communal effort in doing that. But as you're included then we'll go with that.