Morality without Absolute Morality

[o_mlly]

Yes, of course I'm governed by my feelings.

So, as suggested, further exchanged will not be productive.

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

Copenhagen. 1980's.

Someone had broken down the statistics on rape by the religion of the perpetrator?

Enter "Muslim rape cases across Scandinavia" into your search engine.

 

[Fervent]

From the last several days and just the ones that don't require context:













Are those enough? I'm not calling you out, just pointing out that you are making assertions and providing examples. In those posts and hundreds of others you have made it clear that your position on morality is that it comes from God and it is absolute. The thread is about morality *w/o* absolute morality. Now perhaps your presuppositions are so baked into to your thinking you don't view it as an assertion.

Those statements were merely addressing @Bradskii's insistence on me providing my moral basis, and were simply means of dismissing his distracting from my central contention with him which is regarding the futility of *reason* providing a sufficient basis for morality.

This recent reply to @partinobodycular illustrates the impact of your presuppositions.

So you claim.

No one is "feigning ignorance" of you god. We just don't think he exists. I don't know how hard it is realize that other people just don't believe in your god. They believe in gods that you don't believe in and vice versa.

I'll take the word of God over your word, even though you seem to think you are a god yourself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Those statements were merely addressing @Bradskii's insistence on me providing my moral basis, and were simply means of dismissing his distracting from my central contention with him which is regarding the futility of *reason* providing a sufficient basis for morality.

So you claim.

I can't help you if you can't see your own blindness.

I'll take the word of God over your word, even though you seem to think you are a god yourself.

And not only does this perfectly illustrate the issue, but you take it a step further by inferring something that was not implied. I certainly do not think I am a god. I am an ape. I don't think any god exists nor should any one or thing be worshiped. Your worldview seems so tightly wrapped around you thought that you can't even grasp that others do not experience what you do. It is sad.

 

[Fervent]

I can't help you if you can't see your own blindness.

I need no assistance from you. You have nothing worth buying into

And not only does this perfectly illustrate the issue, but you take it a step further by inferring something that was not implied. I certainly do not think I am a god. I am an ape. I don't think any god exists nor should any one or thing be worshiped. Your worldview seems so tightly wrapped around you thought that you can't even grasp that others do not experience what you do. It is sad.

You hold yourself as fit to judge God, and claim to know so much. You fancy yourself master of your own destiny, call it what you will.

 

[o_mlly]

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y".

If you modify your conditional slightly then you would have a rational case for bridging "is" to "ought": "If you need X, then you must do Y".

We ought to desire the real goods necessary to flourish as human beings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I need no assistance from you. You have nothing worth buying into

You hold yourself as fit to judge God, and claim to know so much.

I have offered no judgement of your god. Not believing he exists is not the same as judging. I haven't even offered judgement of your God-derived morals. I have only commented on your assumptions and failures to comprehend any other position.

You fancy yourself master of your own destiny, call it what you will.

Inventing things again, you are.

 

[Fervent]

I have offered no judgement of your god. Not believing he exists is not the same as judging. I haven't even offered judgement of your God-derived morals. I have only commented on your assumptions and failures to comprehend any other position.

A jeweler need not study fakes in order to know they're false, only familiarize himself with the real thing. It's not a lack of comprehension on my end, it's your failure to understand me and what it is I am saying.

Inventing things again, you are.

Just going by your statements about how much you know and other marks of pride you display.

 

[Bradskii]

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

What a ridiculous thing to say. If you give your personal answer then how in heaven's name can it be absolute? It will be your personal opinion. Every answer that you give, every line that you write, every statement that you make, every belief that you have, every position that you take - it's you doing it every time. You are the one that us responsible for every post that you make. You make them putting forward your own ideas.

You've painted yourself into such a tiny little corner insisting that there's no relative morality that you've got to the point where you are incapable of answering simple questions. You'll dance around them, you'll deflect, you'll do anything but give a simple answer. Because you know exactly what would then happen.

You'll be found out.

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.

The main issue is that answers that you give to questions will ones that you have determined to be correct. You don't want to do that so it has rendered you incapable of answering anything.

Edit: Yeah, I just realised. Apologies to all Police fans...

 

[Bradskii]

It is close to the topic in the OP than your stream of assertions about the existence of absolute morality.

(I have read the words of the prophets written on the subway walls.)

So how many Boomer music references can we insert into this dismal thread? I need something to Keep Me Hanging On.

 

[Fervent]

What a ridiculous thing to say. If you give your personal answer then how in heaven's name can it be absolute? It will be your personal opinion. Every answer that you give, every line that you write, every statement that you make, every belief that you have, every position that you take - it's you doing it every time. You are the one that us responsible for every post that you make. You make them putting forward your own ideas.

You asked about the "right answer", which seems to imply that you think there is a correct answer to your question and it isn't just arbitrary feelings.

You've painted yourself into such a tiny little corner insisting that there's no relative morality that you've got to the point where you are incapable of answering simple questions. You'll dance around them, you'll deflect, you'll do anything but give a simple answer. Because you know exactly what would then happen.

Relative morality is no morality at all. It's not my corner, it's you trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You'll be found out.

Found out? In what respect?

The main issue is that answers that you give to questions will ones that you have determined to be correct. You don't want to do that so it has rendered you incapable of answering anything.

Your questions are nothing but a distraction, so I've given them the answers that such distractions are due. God said it, good enough for me.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So how many Boomer music references

How many roads?

 

[partinobodycular]

You may not care about the philosophical argument, but that doesn't render your so-called 'reasoning" any more sound.

But doesn't your philosophical argument cut both ways?

For example, I assume that the following statement is true:

You believe that I 'ought' to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

But according to your ongoing argument it doesn't matter how many 'is' statements you make, you can never bridge the gap between what's true about Christ and why I ought to accept Him. As you've so often pointed out, there's no way to bridge that gap without resorting to sophistry.

So how is claiming that anyone 'ought' to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior anything other than sophistry?

 

[Fervent]

But doesn't your philosophical argument cut both ways?

If I was leaning on the strength of my own intellect, sure.

For example, I assume that the following statement is true:

You believe that I 'ought' to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

But according to your ongoing argument it doesn't matter how many 'is' statements you make, you can never bridge the gap between what's true about Christ and why I ought to accept Him. As you've so often pointed out, there's no way to bridge that gap without resorting to sophistry.

If i were making an intellectual appeal, sure. But the equation is simple, Jesus is the sole provider of eternal life. There's not a moral imperative I'm pushing, simply a proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ. I believe it is in your best interest to believe, but I'm not pushing it as a moral prescription any more than offering a starving man a bowl of stew is a moral prescription.

So how is claiming that anyone 'ought' to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior anything other than sophistry?

The morality is a separate issue from the appeal. You're free to reject the gift, it just seems to me that what is on offer by secularists is garbage in comparison.

 

[partinobodycular]

If i were making an intellectual appeal, sure.

But still, you can't make the leap from all your claims about Christ's divinity to the proclamation that people ought to accept Him.

But the equation is simple, Jesus is the sole provider of eternal life.

Again, you can't make the leap from what Jesus is, to the claim that therefore we ought to believe in Him. As you've so ardently pointed out, you can't get an ought from an is.

I believe it is in your best interest to believe, but I'm not pushing it as a moral prescription any more than offering a starving man a bowl of stew is a moral prescription.

It doesn't matter what you're pushing, you've been arguing for umpteen pages now that it can't be done.

You're free to reject the gift, it just seems to me that what is on offer by secularists is garbage in comparison.

Your opinion is duly noted. But the argument applies all the same, just as you're free to reject @Bradskii's claims about what we ought to do, he's free to reject your claims on the same grounds.

But I tell you what, I'll accept both yours and @Bradskii's claims with the same level of consideration, and I'll toss Hume's argument in the dustbin where I think it belongs.

 

[Fervent]

But still, you can't make the leap from all your claims about Christ's divinity to the proclamation that people ought to accept Him.

Again, you can't make the leap from what Jesus is, to the claim that therefore we ought to believe in Him. As you've so ardently pointed out, you can't get an ought from an is.

Not as a moral prescription, but the moral questions are separate.

It doesn't matter what you're pushing, you've been arguing for umpteen pages now that it can't be done.

Establishing a moral foundation, I've made no claims about being able to act in our own self-interest.

Your opinion is duly noted. But the argument applies all the same, just as you're free to reject @Bradskii's claims about what we ought to do, he's free to reject your claims on the same grounds.

Not at all, because I'm not making a moral argument when I preach the gospel. I'm declaring news.

But I tell you what, I'll accept both yours and @Bradskii's claims with the same level of consideration, and I'll toss Hume's argument in the dustbin where I think it belongs.

You're making a category error since my declaration of the gospel is not principally a moral proclamation. It is equivalent to saying it's a good idea to eat or drink nourishing food. You are free to refuse, but it's in your best interest to take the advice. Would you say a doctor who is giving his patient dietary guidelines is making moral prescriptions? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Bradskii]

You asked about the "right answer"...

Stop deflecting. I want to know what you consider to be the right answer.

 

[Fervent]

Stop deflecting. I want to know what you consider to be the right answer.

I'm not deflecting, I'm directly telling you I see your questions as a distraction and as such find no compelling reason to satisfy your demands.

 

[partinobodycular]

You're making a category error since my declaration of the gospel is not principally a moral proclamation.

Sorry, but Hume's is-ought argument doesn't apply solely to morals, it applies to any attempt to derive an ought from an is. In which case, it applies to your claim that we ought to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, simply because of who and what He is.

 

[Fervent]

Sorry, but Hume's is-ought argument doesn't apply solely to morals, it applies to any attempt to derive an ought from an is. In which case, it applies to your claim that we ought to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, simply because of who and what He is.

Again, your argument depends on the prescriptive being derived through reasoning. But it's not, it's arrived at through revelation. It's prescriptive nature isn't me starting at first principles and reasoning to a need for Christ, it's a truth revealed. So I am free to concede that I, of my own faculties, cannot reach prescriptive statements. And in that admission, I am admitting the need for Christ. My declaration is a take it or leave it offer, do with it what you will, though it seems to me to be in your best interest.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Legal and social questions are not strictly speaking morals. If the only thing that matters is your feelings, then you must deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong which renders statements about "morals" moot.

They still let me learn something about the person I talk to.

If there is no right or wrong, then there are no moral issues. You may as well hold that all of your preferences are moral questions, because there's nothing distinctive about your supposed "moral" feelings.

The experience of acting in accordance with "moral" feelings, is different than eating a good ice cream. As such I still find it useful to talk about moral feelings.