Situational Morality

foolsparade said:

wrong! at what point do you feel the need to barf up "god's gift"?

Click to expand...

Wow, hit & run post, huh? I guess he replied to the only words/concepts he(foolsparade) could understand.


Opinions are good, but close-mindedness is bad (Bert & Ernie terms for the conceptionally[nw] challenged).

solomon said:

Great argument, foolsparade. You've really outdone yourself with that one!
Honestly, it one the your best!
If Nietszche considered Christ an idiot, with an erudite argument like these, well, what more can I add. You are absolutely Christ-like, in the Nietzschean sense of course!
On a positve note, you really know how to work those cut and pastes.
Hmm, I just had a thought. Didn't Nietszche go to his deathbed thinking he was the crucified Christ? I wonder what this says about his own opinion he had of himself?

Click to expand...

I asked a question, you ignored question.. I wasn't aware that Nietzsche considered Christ an idiot, perhaps you can show evidence of this? No, Nietzsche went completely insane, and lived for ten years in darkness, unable to care for himself and eventualy recognized no one. He wrote a few letters in the early stages of his insanity in which he would sign his name as "the crucified one" or "Dionysus". Mental illnesses do exist and are not laughing matters.

foolsparade said:

I asked a question, you ignored question.. I wasn't aware that Nietzsche considered Christ an idiot, perhaps you can show evidence of this? No, Nietzsche went completely insane, and lived for ten years in darkness, unable to care for himself and eventualy recognized no one. He wrote a few letters in the early stages of his insanity in which he would sign his name as "the crucified one" or "Dionysus". Mental illnesses do exist and are not laughing matters.

Click to expand...

You're getting way off the subject. If you can't discuss (argue: in your case) the subject matter, ... leave.

And so what if he ignored your question. What difference does it make? You end up whining, either way. FOCUS!!

It's always a treat to hear Christians arrogantly explain their monopoly on morality.

placebo said:

It's always a treat to hear Christians arrogantly explain their monopoly on morality.

Click to expand...

True. But you make it sound like a monopoly on intelligance by weakly playing the opposing side. Move over, and let the "big dogs" fight it out. You know, someone with argument that has ... "teeth".

Situational Morality is a reality of all morality, no matter who you are. Try to establish any particular act as always being "wrong" and there will be an exception to the rule, depending on the situation invovled. To get to the point where no reasonable exception can be found, the act has to be so narrowed down within a very particular situational context, that it itself becomes a prime example of situational morality in itself.

For example, is it wrong to take another human life? Generally we say yes, but it really depends on the situation. More specifically, it is wrong without justification, such as self defense, which, arguably, would include many if not most lives taken in war. So we narrow it down to "murder" is wrong, with is the unlawful taking of a life, or killing without sufficient justification. Now we have to ask is it wrong to take some innocent life to save larger numbers of life? Look at the atoms bombs dropped on Japanese civilians at the end of WWII. That was the argument made.

Or does it matter who does the killing? Many religious moral "absolutists" claim an act is either right or wrong regardless of who does the act. But then bring up parts of the Bible where God takes the lives of innocent children, and they claim, but that's different because it's God doing the killing. If that's true, you've got another huge example of morality depending on the situation - namely who is doing the act.

See what I mean?

onionring said:

You're getting way off the subject. If you can't discuss (argue: in your case) the subject matter, ... leave.

And so what if he ignored your question. What difference does it make? You end up whining, either way. FOCUS!!

Click to expand...

Whinning?? try laughing.. don't be arrogant idiot please! There are enough of them here already.

onionring said:

... Move over, and let the "big dogs" fight it out. You know, someone with argument that has ... "teeth".

Click to expand...

Please let us know when they enter the building.

tcampen said:

... See what I mean?

Click to expand...

It's refreshing to hear someone make a point that can be understood without all the canned double-talk.

tcampen said:

Situational Morality is a reality of all morality, no matter who you are. Try to establish any particular act as always being "wrong" and there will be an exception to the rule, depending on the situation invovled. To get to the point where no reasonable exception can be found, the act has to be so narrowed down within a very particular situational context, that it itself becomes a prime example of situational morality in itself.

For example, is it wrong to take another human life? Generally we say yes, but it really depends on the situation. More specifically, it is wrong without justification, such as self defense, which, arguably, would include many if not most lives taken in war. So we narrow it down to "murder" is wrong, with is the unlawful taking of a life, or killing without sufficient justification. Now we have to ask is it wrong to take some innocent life to save larger numbers of life? Look at the atoms bombs dropped on Japanese civilians at the end of WWII. That was the argument made.

Or does it matter who does the killing? Many religious moral "absolutists" claim an act is either right or wrong regardless of who does the act. But then bring up parts of the Bible where God takes the lives of innocent children, and they claim, but that's different because it's God doing the killing. If that's true, you've got another huge example of morality depending on the situation - namely who is doing the act.

See what I mean?

Click to expand...

But in monotheism this is not a creator god and and a destroyer god. There is only one god responsible for all. A monotheiestic god cannot just be held accountable for the death of the "millions?" of so-called "innocents" slaughtered as accounted in the stories of the Bible. He is ultimately responsible for the death of us all. His sovereignty implies this responsibility.

Everybody dies. If one maintains that a Higher Power, or a ultimate creator exists, then one must understand that that Higher Creative power created a world in which death exists. Does the thought of death negate the value of your life? In a sense, the question posed this way goes beyond the question of whether or not there is a God. There will be death regardless of what we believe.

If the concept of God becomes trivialized so that he becomes the Joe-Sixpack warlord of a simple village, it may be possible to speak of the morality of God. But what kind of god would that be? ...hardly worth glorifying, in my opinion.

If however, one recognizes the value of their life as transcending the fact of their death, expressing gratitude just for the fact that one is alive is not an illogical attitude to hold.

With or without a god, the focus cannot be on avoiding death, but rather on fully living a life that is worth living. One need not look just to the pages of the Bible to understand that our survival and continuance as individuals and peoples has bee predicated upon our all-too-human, all-too-brutish natures. This fact has been written in our very genes.

For a Christian, to focus on the brutality of the message of the Bible to the exclusion of the deep sense of ethics and morality that is also present is an error, an heresy if you will in my own Catholic estimation. On the other hand, for us all as human beings, not to recognize the lessons of our own biology is an error as well. In the very act of living we are called upon to destroy. We must devour, and exert ourselves upon the world, or perish. That is not a fact of morality. It is a fact of natural reality.

While it is possible for pacifists to exist as sects within a larger society, it is very rare indeed for a tribe to actually survive following a strictly pacifist ideology. There are few examples. But as an example, take a look at a globe of northern Canada, if you have a moment. You may notice two lage lakes in the west Called Lesser Slave Lake, and Greater Slave Lake. These were named for the tribe of Indians indigeneous to the area, a very beautiful race of people from my own experience. However, Slaves were not the names they had for themselves; it was what the neighboring tribes of natives had for them.

In the atomic age, in the dark light of our own total annihilation, the problem of war and survival and morality has become a very thorny issue indeed.

If they are down cause she wants them there then I have suceeded

4 me

solomon said:

... For a Christian, to focus on the brutality of the message of the Bible to the exclusion of the deep sense of ethics and morality that is also present is an error, an heresy if you will in my own Catholic estimation. ...

Click to expand...

This is no different than saying, "for a Nazi, to focus on the brutality during Hitler's reign to the exclusion of the deep sense of ethics and morality that was also present is an error ... ."

It is hypocritical to dismiss and minimize all of the atrocities committed by God, and in the name of God, while at the same time claiming that God is the exclusive source of absolute morality.

solomon said:

... In the atomic age, in the dark light of our own total annihilation, the problem of war and survival and morality has become a very thorny issue indeed.

Click to expand...

I hope you are not counting on God and religion to save mankind from ourselves. All God and religion will do is speed up our demise.

tcampen said:

...But then bring up parts of the Bible where God takes the lives of innocent children, and they claim, but that's different because it's God doing the killing...

Click to expand...

Obviously, I lack the biblical reference knowlegde others possess...where is this in the Bible? I've never heard this before.

placebo said:

...I hope you are not counting on God and religion to save mankind from ourselves. All God and religion will do is speed up our demise.

Click to expand...

I hear what your saying, but could you explain it further ("speed up our demise")? Because with support it sounds like a quip and not a fact.

onionring said:

"...But then bring up parts of the Bible where God takes the lives of innocent children, and they claim, but that's different because it's God doing the killing..."

Obviously, I lack the biblical reference knowlegde others possess...where is this in the Bible? I've never heard this before.

Click to expand...

Think of Noah and that whole flood thing. Then think of all the young children, infants, newborns and unborn children who died in it. There are other examples of God destroying whole cities and nations as well.

solomon said:

But in monotheism this is not a creator god and and a destroyer god. There is only one god responsible for all. A monotheiestic god cannot just be held accountable for the death of the "millions?" of so-called "innocents" slaughtered as accounted in the stories of the Bible. He is ultimately responsible for the death of us all. His sovereignty implies this responsibility.

Click to expand...

Then Saddam and Hitler are not responsible for any deaths whatsoever? Or do those men share responsibility with God? Being ultimately responsible, yet doing nothing doesn't sound very right or just either. Perhaps I'm not getting your point.

Everybody dies. If one maintains that a Higher Power, or a ultimate creator exists, then one must understand that that Higher Creative power created a world in which death exists. Does the thought of death negate the value of your life? In a sense, the question posed this way goes beyond the question of whether or not there is a God. There will be death regardless of what we believe.

Click to expand...

True, but the nature of one's death should matter. If I live to be 100, I certianly won't complain about dying. But if someone wanted to take my life at 35, without any justification other than wanting the contents of my wallet, I just might have a problem with that.

If the concept of God becomes trivialized so that he becomes the Joe-Sixpack warlord of a simple village, it may be possible to speak of the morality of God. But what kind of god would that be? ...hardly worth glorifying, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

It is dangerous to start with the position that one should only worship something so great that whatever It does must necessarily be right and good to be worth worshipping, then evaluate Its acts according to that standard. If we used such methodology in our everyday lives, we'd still be living in caves, or more likely be extinct as a species.

If however, one recognizes the value of their life as transcending the fact of their death, expressing gratitude just for the fact that one is alive is not an illogical attitude to hold.

Click to expand...

Recognizing the value of life does not require life after death whatsoever. Such a belief cuts both ways - just look at suicide bombers.

With or without a god, the focus cannot be on avoiding death, but rather on fully living a life that is worth living. One need not look just to the pages of the Bible to understand that our survival and continuance as individuals and peoples has bee predicated upon our all-too-human, all-too-brutish natures. This fact has been written in our very genes.

For a Christian, to focus on the brutality of the message of the Bible to the exclusion of the deep sense of ethics and morality that is also present is an error, an heresy if you will in my own Catholic estimation. On the other hand, for us all as human beings, not to recognize the lessons of our own biology is an error as well. In the very act of living we are called upon to destroy. We must devour, and exert ourselves upon the world, or perish. That is not a fact of morality. It is a fact of natural reality.

Click to expand...

I'm really not focusing on the unfortunate aspects of the Bible, but rather pointing out the logical inconsistency of those who claim to oppose so-called "situational morals."

In the atomic age, in the dark light of our own total annihilation, the problem of war and survival and morality has become a very thorny issue indeed.

Click to expand...

No argument there!

There seems to be 2 methods of thinking, in regards to God "killing" people.

1)If death a part of life, and assuming life was created by God; that would mean that God created death (by creating life). Then if God cannot be evil.....can death be evil? And if death is not evil and God the creator destroys(death) that which He created in the first place ... where is the "wrongness"?

2)Opposite of that would be that death is evil. In this thinking, God murders everyone by giving them life. Of course, in truly believing this, we would have to charge parents with murder.

tcampen said:

Think of Noah and that whole flood thing. Then think of all the young children, infants, newborns and unborn children who died in it. There are other examples of God destroying whole cities and nations as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard of Noah and the flood, but I thought God sent the flood and killed people because they had become "so evil" (or something to that affect). Does "so evil" mean everyone but the children? I guess this is an issue if you believe that children are innocent, or if you don't believe in sin.

Of course, if you believe that children are "without sin", then at what age do the "acquire" it? Or if you don't believe in sin, then you (most likely) don't believe in God, so how do you argue that He murdered anyone? That would be like not believing in the Easter Bunny and legitimately trying to argue that he kills children. The only reason, I see, to argue that way, would be to aggravate people that believe in the Easter Bunny (or God). And that reason, IMO, would take away any validity of anything said by that person. It would a more proper argument to say "the Easter Bunny (God) does not exist.".

So, I assume you believe in God, and believe that children are innocent up to some specified age or occurrence? At what age/occurrence is that?

onionring said:

Yeah, I've heard of Noah and the flood, but I thought God sent the flood and killed people because they had become "so evil" (or something to that affect). Does "so evil" mean everyone but the children? I guess this is an issue if you believe that children are innocent, or if you don't believe in sin.

Of course, if you believe that children are "without sin", then at what age do the "acquire" it? Or if you don't believe in sin, then you (most likely) don't believe in God, so how do you argue that He murdered anyone? That would be like not believing in the Easter Bunny and legitimately trying to argue that he kills children. The only reason, I see, to argue that way, would be to aggravate people that believe in the Easter Bunny (or God). And that reason, IMO, would take away any validity of anything said by that person. It would a more proper argument to say "the Easter Bunny (God) does not exist.".

So, I assume you believe in God, and believe that children are innocent up to some specified age or occurrence? At what age/occurrence is that?

Click to expand...

I don't believe in a personal god, and I don't believe in the concept of sin as expressed by most people who consider themselves christian. Interestingly enough, I do believe that when the circumstances are narrow enough, you do infact achieve absolute morality.

As for God and Noah's time, yes that is God's "rationale" for killing everyone on Earth. Even if many people were acting very immorally, certianly not everyone was - including children. Yet, according to the story, God decided to kill everyone. When judging the act itself, without relying on WHO is doing the act, I find impossible to view such conduct as being good and driven by love.