Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

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.

I never denied that I do, my contention through the whole discussion has been that reason alone is insufficient because it cannot establish a foundation. Your attempts to turn it around on me are nothing but deflection.

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

I'm not averse to "admitting" anything, my position is irrelevant to the discussion we were having and your attempts to shift it onto me have been nothing but a distraction from the conversation.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

So must she honour her father? And the girl in the room?

 

[Fervent]

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.

I don't treat it as a "rule", though I wouldn't say I ignore it. I am far more interested in the command "Be holy, as God is holy"

 

[Fervent]

So must she honour her father? And the girl in the room?

Still pressing that deontological framework, should I count how many times I point out your error and you just keep bulldozing in the same direction?

 

[Bradskii]

I never denied that I do...

It's been my contention throughout that you are the only person who decides. That you are the sole arbitrar of your moral values. And you have rejected that outright. Yes, it's aften a communal decision as to what society accepts as being moral. But you contribute. You agree or disagree. You make up your mind. Even in the case of a direct divine command you think to yourself that there are circumstances where it's plainly idiotic to tell a girl that she has to show respect to her father.

And the girl in the room? There are other examples I'll bring up later where you have to decide. Where you will be the one who determines what is right and what it is wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Still pressing that deontological framework...

Then your position is that all rules or commands must be interpreted depending on the circumstances.

Look, you can't have it both ways. God either gives His command and you submit as told or He gives His command and you interpret it as you see fit, using whatever means you deem suitable.

It's been my position all along. That it must be one or the other. And I'm here to tell you that you use the same method as me. I interpret the act depending on the circumstances using whatever means I deem suitable.

 

[Fervent]

It's been my contention throughout that you are the only person who decides. That you are the sole arbitrar of your moral values. And you have rejected that outright. Yes, it's aften a communal decision as to what society accepts as being moral. But you contribute. You agree or disagree. You make up your mind. Even in the case of a direct divine command you think to yourself that there are circumstances where it's plainly idiotic to tell a girl that she has to show respect to her father.

You're clearly leaving out a major element in my view. I don't pretend that I know right from wrong, because if I didn't believe in Divine decrees I would be a nihilist and deny that there is such a thing as morality. God knows what is right, and He decides what that is. Not me. I just do my best to make sense of what He has provided on the matter.

And you continue to push the error of deontological ethics despite me pointing out that it is an error at least 4 times in direct reference to your question, and multiple times previously. It's not that I think there are exemptions to otherwise fixed rules, but that the whole idea that ethics is a "rule" based system is off base.

And the girl in the room? There are other examples I'll bring up later where you have to decide. Where you will be the one who determines what is right and what it is wrong.

Again, your question isn't really relevant to the ethical structure I use and believe to be the structure found in the Bible. You're tilting at a windmill that doesn't exist.

 

[Fervent]

Then your position is that all rules or commands must be interpreted depending on the circumstances.

My position is that there are no "rules" or "commands" but that ethics is about embodying attributes. There are other worlds than these.

Look, you can't have it both ways. God either commands you and you submit as told or He commands it and you interpret it as you see fit, using whatever means you deem suitable.

Not at all, you're just operating on a false premise that the only ethical structure that can be absolute is deontological ethics. Which I have repeatedly challenged, and you've offered no reply other than to just plow on with your blinders on.

It's been my position all along. That it must be one or the other. And I'm here to tell you that you use the same method as me. I interpret the act depending on the circumstances using whatever means I deem suitable.

And you're presenting a false dilemma, which leaves you arguing with strawmen of your own invention.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

But how does your unsubstantiated foundation trump anyone else's arbitrary one?

 

[Fervent]

But how does your unsubstantiated foundation trump anyone else's arbitrary one?

To what end?

 

[partinobodycular]

To what end?

Exactly, what does your foundation get you that @Bradskii's doesn't? Other than a philosophical argument that neither me nor @Bradskii care about, and a few inevitable differences of opinion. To what end is this much ado about nothing?

 

[Bradskii]

You're clearly leaving out a major element in my view. I don't pretend that I know right from wrong...

But you claim to. If you are asked a question on a simple moral matter then you don't shrug your shoulders and say that you really don't know right from wrong. You have an opinion. However it is generated. You declare a position, however it is come by. You look at the circumstances and make a decision that it seems wrong to you or right. Or that it is most definutely wrong or right. Whatever means you used to reach that position.

Everyone does this. And everyone can tell you on what basis they reach their conclusion. Saying that you 'don't pretend to know right from wrong' after declaiming that everyone else is doing it wrong is a cop out. You've just said the equivalent of 'You're doing it wrong but I don't know how to do it myself'.

And you continue to push the error of deontological ethics despite me pointing out that it is an error at least 4 times in direct reference to your question, and multiple times previously. It's not that I think there are exemptions to otherwise fixed rules, but that the whole idea that ethics is a "rule" based system is off base.

That is completely irrelevant to you answering the question. So you're saying that there are no hard and fast rules - which won't come as a surprise because it'swhat I've been trying to tell you for a very long time. That does not mean that moral questions are unanswerable. The ones I'm asking aren't. They are blazingly simple. Except that to answer them it shows that it's YOU making the decision. And for some bizarre reason you don't want to do that.

Again, your question isn't really relevant to the ethical structure I use and believe to be the structure found in the Bible. You're tilting at a windmill that doesn't exist.

Again, I don't care what 'ethical structure' you use. Whatever it is, I want you to give me what you think is the right answer.

 

[Bradskii]

Not at all, you're just operating on a false premise that the only ethical structure that can be absolute is deontological ethics.

Yet again, I don't care what 'ethical structure' you use or you think is valid. I just want you to answer the question. I know why you won't and you know that I know. It's why I keep asking it.

 

[o_mlly]

Rape is used as a weapon in war, the perpetrators obviously feel that rape can be acceptable as they use it instrumentally. It seems that "rape is bad" is not universally held.

So, your argument is that if anyone, at anytime, anywhere felt that an intrinsically bad human act is not so then that act is not intrinsically bad?

Perhaps I stumbled over a situation where I wouldn't feel any moral outrage regarding a rape, if I knew for a fact that the victim was a serial rapist I might not feel obliged to stop it. I can't be certain though until I am in presented with the actual situation.

? So, if the victim of rape is a serial rapist then the rape of that one is good? Your ideas betray that you are governed by your feelings. Not much point in continuing our exchange.

As an anecdote, years ago when I visited the Scandinavian countries, I was amazed at the public display of pornography. The displays were so prolific that I recall musing whether Scandinavian women were required to submit nude photos of themselves to obtain driver's licenses. At the same time, the numbers of rape cases, especially those committed by Muslim immigrants was, a growing concern. Men who had never seen a woman's naked ankle were raping Scandinavian women at an alarming rate. Gee, go figure.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

He won't stop. The argument he proposes is fatally flawed. His irrational argument works backward from a preferred (felt) conclusion to a set of flawed premises in support. And, the strawman is his MO.

Judge: "You're accused of rape. How do your plead?"
Defendant: "Not guilty. The prosecution evidence, although true, is completely and merely circumstantial."

 

[Fervent]

Exactly, what does your foundation get you that @Bradskii's doesn't? Other than a philosophical argument that neither me nor @Bradskii care about, and a few inevitable differences of opinion. To what end is this much ado about nothing?

It gets me an actual basis for morality that isn't just my personal opinion, which allows me to engage with people who share that foundation and work out normative ethics.

You may not care about the philosophical argument, but that doesn't render your so-called 'reasoning" any more sound. All that happens when you agree with true morality is you speak to your own condemnation.

 

[Fervent]

But you claim to. If you are asked a question on a simple moral matter then you don't shrug your shoulders and say that you really don't know right from wrong. You have an opinion. However it is generated. You declare a position, however it is come by. You look at the circumstances and make a decision that it seems wrong to you or right. Or that it is most definutely wrong or right. Whatever means you used to reach that position.

How we arrive is at least as important as where we get to. Reason alone never even gets out the gate without committing an error.

Everyone does this. And everyone can tell you on what basis they reach their conclusion. Saying that you 'don't pretend to know right from wrong' after declaiming that everyone else is doing it wrong is a cop out. You've just said the equivalent of 'You're doing it wrong but I don't know how to do it myself'.

Not at all.

That is completely irrelevant to you answering the question. So you're saying that there are no hard and fast rules - which won't come as a surprise because it'swhat I've been trying to tell you for a very long time. That does not mean that moral questions are unanswerable. The ones I'm asking aren't. They are blazingly simple. Except that to answer them it shows that it's YOU making the decision. And for some bizarre reason you don't want to do that.

It's perfectly relevant, because your questions are distractions from the central issue and depend on a false framework.

Again, I don't care what 'ethical structure' you use. Whatever it is, I want you to give me what you think is the right answer.

So now there's an absolute right answer? it's not just opinions?

Yet again, I don't care what 'ethical structure' you use or you think is valid. I just want you to answer the question. I know why you won't and you know that I know. It's why I keep asking it.

I don't care what you care about, your question depends on a false ethical structure. I'm not answering because your questions are deflections and i prefer to keep the main issue the main issue and not give any mind to distractions.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So, your argument is that if anyone, at anytime, anywhere felt that an intrinsically bad human act is not so then that act is not intrinsically bad?

It is not pointing at something being universally true at least. It creates the need for those who hold to something being universally accepted to try to explain why it is observable not so.

? So, if the victim of rape is a serial rapist then the rape of that one is good? Your ideas betray that you are governed by your feelings. Not much point in continuing our exchange.

It wouldn't cause me any moral outrage, when someone shoots at police and gets shot it doesn't cause me any moral outrage either. Yes, of course I'm governed by my feelings. They have been extraordinary good moral guides in my life.

As an anecdote, years ago when I visited the Scandinavian countries, I was amazed at the public display of pornography. The displays were so prolific that I recall musing whether Scandinavian women were required to submit nude photos of themselves to obtain driver's licenses. At the same time, the numbers of rape cases, especially those committed by Muslim immigrants was, a growing concern. Men who had never seen a woman's naked ankle were raping Scandinavian women at an alarming rate. Gee, go figure.

When was this? The current legislation governing public display of pornography has been in place since 1970.

11 § Den som på eller vid allmän plats genom skyltning eller annat liknande förfarande förevisar pornografisk bild på sätt som är ägnat att väcka allmän anstöt dömes för otillåtet förfarande med pornografisk bild till böter eller fängelse i högst sex månader. Det samma gäller den som med posten sänder eller på annat sätt tillställer någon pornografisk bild utan föregående beställning. Lag (1970:225).

Anyone who, in or near a public place, displays pornographic images in a manner likely to cause public offence by means of signage or other similar methods shall be sentenced for unlawful conduct involving pornographic images to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months. The same applies to anyone who sends pornographic images by post or in any other way without prior request. Act (1970:225).

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Really? Someone had broken down the statistics on rape by the religion of the perpetrator? Care to share a link in an appropriate forum?

The high rape rate is actively studied in Sweden, don't you worry. We are always trying to reduce rapes. There might also be other confounders when doing cross-nation comparisons of the rates as highlighted by this summary in English (https://bra.se/download/18.45e4b8e1...0_13_Reported_and_cleared_rapes_in_Europe.pdf)

That is a summary of the following report in Swedish (https://bra.se/download/18.45e4b8e1...nmalda_och_uppklarade_valdtakter_i_Europa.pdf)

 

[Fervent]

Yes, of course I'm governed by my feelings. They have been extraordinary good moral guides in my life.

If there is no external moral right and wrong, how could your feelings be "good moral guides"?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

If there is no external moral right and wrong, how could your feelings be "good moral guides"?

When I act in according to my moral feelings, it fills me with satisfaction. That seems good to me. Would another adjective be a better descriptor?

Edited to add! They have also kept me out of legal and social trouble without fail.