Speaking Out Against Sin

[Moral Orel]

You might also consider that your own denial of my position isn't in and of itself a "defense" that your view of morality actually obtains as a form of moral reality...............................................but yet, here you are, feeling bent out of shape because I challenge your moral notions, notions which, as far as I can tell, you've basically never presented as being legitimized by any one particular ethical framework. So, when I see this kind of thing going on, I'm prone to press that person to come forth and make an admission as to what his/her ethical framework is by which he/she criticizes my more Christian point of view.

So, to simply for you to say that the scantilly clad gal in that other thread isn't immoral for wearing what she was wearing can't be also by necessity to affirm any ethical framework by which I must then kow-tow in either deference or respect. So, I don't kow-tow.

Also, keep in mind, Nick, that as a philosopher and aside from my Christian faith, I may respect people and their livelihood and "well-being," but that doesn't mean in any shape or form that I must absolutely 'respect' their ideas or their actions. Of course, if I happen to be a Christian on top of being a philosopher, then so much the worse for other people's ideas, especially if I think they're morally wrong.

Like I said, choosing what clothes to wear seems like an amoral thing to do. Not sure how I can pick which moral framework I should defend her with when morality isn't in question. It would be like weighing pleasure v suffering using utilitarian ethics about the proposition of whether I should write with a blue pen or a black pen. You claimed she done did something bad, you back it up. You think it's my job to prove she's morally good just because you've got nothing?

You aren't challenging my moral notions. You're stating your opinion. That's it. If you can give me some reason to take your interpretation of the Biblical dress code seriously, that would be a challenge to my moral notions. So state your opinion all you want. I don't mind one bit. In fact, I don't think anyone should feel like they aren't free to state their opinions. I am a hippie-liberal-douche and all, but I don't much care for my comrades shutting down speech either. All I'm pointing out is that you haven't elevated your position beyond that of an opinion, so there's no reason for anyone else to really consider it. I keep asking why I should consider it, and time and time again you respond with, "You just don't want me to speak!". I think you just don't want to be challenged, honestly.

You're just illustrating the point of the OP over and over again with this. You keep showing your hand that there's no reason for me to begin to consider your point of view as being applicable to anyone who's not a Christian. Maybe @devolved is right. Maybe you're just making people aware of your disapproval of their actions so that they'll be shamed into kow-towing to your interpretation of decency and that's all it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like I said, choosing what clothes to wear seems like an amoral thing to do. Not sure how I can pick which moral framework I should defend her with when morality isn't in question.

What do you 'mean' it's not in question? Sure it's in question, because it isn't clear that her mode of dress is conducive to respectful or even healthy social views about women, and in a certain kind of way, she is promoting by her dress the objectification of women, much in the way that Ariel Levy stated in my other thread on Female Chauvinist Pigs. Would you like to argue the point with Ariel Levy since she's not a Christian? I agree with some of the overlap that her points have with those from the Consersative Christian view (whether it's Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox).

It would be like weighing pleasure v suffering using utilitarian ethics about the proposition of whether I should write with a blue pen or a black pen.

That's bull! Her mode of dress does nothing to work against objectification of women in our current Anti-Christian Western culture. Can you honestly tell me that her mode of "hippie" or "Bohemian" or "Liberal-Illuminati" dress is non-objectifying?

you claimed she done did something bad, you back it up. You think it's my job to prove she's morally good just because you've got nothing?

Yes.

You aren't challenging my moral notions. You're stating your opinion. That's it.

Is it just my opinion that pornographers are a kind of leach upon society? Do they contribute to the overall utility of "good" or to individual virtue in our society? Do they create works of art that are uplifting, inspiring, and promote the better treatment of women?

Likewise, do women who dress like the gal in my other thread promote the de-objectification of women? I don't think they do. If anything, they stir competition among women and further objectification of women, especially with the power of the internet.

If you can give me some reason to take your interpretation of the Biblical dress code seriously, that would be a challenge to my moral notions. So state your opinion all you want. I don't mind one bit.
In fact, I don't think anyone should feel like they aren't free to state their opinions. I am a hippie-liberal-douche and all, but I don't much care for my comrades shutting down speech either. All I'm pointing out is that you haven't elevated your position beyond that of an opinion, so there's no reason for anyone else to really consider it. I keep asking why I should consider it, and time and time again you respond with, "You just don't want me to speak!". I think you just don't want to be challenged, honestly.

Then don't consider what I'm saying. In fact, no one is forcing you to respond to my threads here in the CF forums, are they, "hippie" Nick? If you can feel that you can ignore what I say, then do so.

You're just illustrating the point of the OP over and over again with this. You keep showing your hand that there's no reason for me to begin to consider your point of view as being applicable to anyone who's not a Christian. Maybe @devolved is right. Maybe you're just making people aware of your disapproval of their actions so that they'll be shamed into kow-towing to your interpretation of decency and that's all it is.

No, you're pretty much just not taking into consideration other things I've said here on CF. Of course, if people are non-Christian and feel that what I'm saying is worthless, I'm not surprised!

But, just don't act surprised in return that I also dare to open my mouth on behalf of a faith that has been prophetically blabbing for the past 2,000 years. And if it doesn't mean anything to you, then there may be various reasons why.

By your thinking thus far, there is no reason by which anyone here should see or can see that anything comporting with EITHER negative rights or positive rights exists and should be considered. Are you insinuating here that this gal in the other OP has either of these forms of rights that I should consider ... for some reason apart from Christian faith? I have to doubt that you do because if the writers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations couldn't come up with something substantive upon which to base their ethical conclusions, then what makes you think that I'm going to see something in what you say and thereby be dissuaded from a Christian point of view on ethics?

 

[Moral Orel]

What do you 'mean' it's not in question? Sure it's in question, because it isn't clear that her mode of dress is conducive to respectful or even healthy social views about women, and in a certain kind of way, she is promoting by her dress the objectification of women, much in the way that Ariel Levy stated in my other thread on Female Chauvinist Pigs. Would you like to argue the point with Ariel Levy since she's not a Christian? I agree with some of the overlap that her points have with those from the Consersative Christian view (whether it's Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox).

Is her mode of dress the cause of disrespectful or unhealthy social views about women? Is it impossible for women to dress in a way that inspires lust and for men to still consider them a person worthy of respect regardless of whether they have a desire to sleep with them or not? I don't see why not.

Think of the reverse. Men can walk around with their shirts off, and with a nice set of chiseled abs they can inspire lust in others. But we don't worry about them being treated as mere objects.

That's bull! Her mode of dress does nothing to work against objectification of women in our current Anti-Christian Western culture. Can you honestly tell me that her mode of "hippie" or "Bohemian" or "Liberal-Illuminati" dress is non-objectifying?

Neither does choosing a blue pen or a black pen. Just because something doesn't fight some other negative thing does not mean that it promotes that other negative thing.

You and I were both in a discussion on slavery in the Bible, though we weren't really talking to each other. Since the Bible doesn't explicitly command people to free their slaves, does that mean that it promotes slavery and encourages it? Is it a moral failing of the Bible to not take it's opportunity as a moral loudspeaker to put an end to a terrible institution? Can't have it both ways, bro.

Yes.

LOL

Is it just my opinion that pornographers are a kind of leach upon society? Do they contribute to the overall utility of "good" or to individual virtue in our society? Do they create works of art that are uplifting, inspiring, and promote the better treatment of women?

I think entertainment has value, so no, I don't think they're a "leach". And plenty of porno encourages men to please their women sexually, so I would count that as "better treatment" than simply using them for the man's personal amusement.

Likewise, do women who dress like the gal in my other thread promote the de-objectification of women? I don't think they do. If anything, they stir competition among women and further objectification of women, especially with the power of the internet.

Is it the responsibility of all women to promote de-objectification of women? If women stopped dressing trampy, is there some reason to think that men in general would start treating women in general better? I don't see any reason to think so.

Then don't consider what I'm saying. In fact, no one is forcing you to respond to my threads here in the CF forums, are they, "hippie" Nick? If you can feel that you can ignore what I say, then do so.

Ha! I was right. You just want your opinions to go unchallenged.

No, you're pretty much just not taking into consideration other things I've said here on CF. Of course, if people are non-Christian and feel that what I'm saying is worthless, I'm not surprised!

But, just don't act surprised in return that I also dare to open my mouth on behalf of a faith that has been prophetically blabbing for the past 2,000 years. And if it doesn't mean anything to you, then there may be various reasons why.

By your thinking thus far, there is no reason by which anyone here should see or can see that anything comporting with EITHER negative rights or positive rights exists and should be considered. Are you insinuating here that this gal in the other OP has either of these forms of rights that I should consider ... for some reason apart from Christian faith? I have to doubt that you do because if the writers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations couldn't come up with something substantive upon which to base their ethical conclusions, then what makes you think that I'm going to see something in what you say and thereby be dissuaded from a Christian point of view on ethics?

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your Christian point of view on ethics. All I'm saying is that it doesn't translate to other views of ethics. I've already said a couple times now that I'm not bothering to defend "reason" as the best way to decide on ethics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is her mode of dress the cause of disrespectful or unhealthy social views about women? Is it impossible for women to dress in a way that inspires lust and for men to still consider them a person worthy of respect regardless of whether they have a desire to sleep with them or not? I don't see why not.

Think of the reverse. Men can walk around with their shirts off, and with a nice set of chiseled abs they can inspire lust in others. But we don't worry about them being treated as mere objects.

Neither does choosing a blue pen or a black pen. Just because something doesn't fight some other negative thing does not mean that it promotes that other negative thing.

You and I were both in a discussion on slavery in the Bible, though we weren't really talking to each other. Since the Bible doesn't explicitly command people to free their slaves, does that mean that it promotes slavery and encourages it? Is it a moral failing of the Bible to not take it's opportunity as a moral loudspeaker to put an end to a terrible institution? Can't have it both ways, bro.

LOL

I think entertainment has value, so no, I don't think they're a "leach". And plenty of porno encourages men to please their women sexually, so I would count that as "better treatment" than simply using them for the man's personal amusement.

Is it the responsibility of all women to promote de-objectification of women? If women stopped dressing trampy, is there some reason to think that men in general would start treating women in general better? I don't see any reason to think so.

Ha! I was right. You just want your opinions to go unchallenged.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your Christian point of view on ethics. All I'm saying is that it doesn't translate to other views of ethics. I've already said a couple times now that I'm not bothering to defend "reason" as the best way to decide on ethics.

ok. whatever. [And yes, I read your entire post, so don't think I "skimped"....]

 

[devolved]

You aren't challenging my moral notions. You're stating your opinion.

What is the difference? From purely objective POV, that's what morality is - an opinion of a mind about how to behave in certain behavioral context.

Whether that opinion is from some consensus derived from trial-error process, or attribution to a divine mind is irrelevant for this conversation. Christianity actually accommodates both views.

While you are correct... part of my previous response was to a misreading to a comment of yours (I've missed a don't there). But the irony is that it actually opens up an even deeper set of issues that you have to confront when disusing this in terms of what morality is in any case.

There's an age-long Euthyphro dilemma, which I don't think is a dilemma at all if both ends of it are true. A Christian position is both. God, as a creator and a director, has a broader knowledge of the reality and such knowledge results in broader consequential awareness of any-given set of actions, which is what morality is. It's like asking whether people listen to a CEO/founder because he is their boss, or because he has a broader understanding of company's direction. Well, it's both. It's not a dilemma.

Thus, God would both know that it's good because he knows, but at the same time, with respect to someone who isn't aware, it is good because God says so. It's a typical relationship in any hierarchy of awareness. Our bodies and brains are modeled using the same principle of hierarchical "moralism" and we continually adjust "proper contextual behavior" to the environment that we are in. Of course some principles transcend time and space, and some are very specific.

Thus, in Christian worldview, whether you discover the consequential morality on your own, or whether it is something you derived through revelation... is irrelevant when it comes to what morality is - a proper contextual behavior in reality that actually does have a setting for proper behavior. The term sin, with all religious baggage it tends to carry, may hide the fact that it's just another term for "damaging behavior". Of course, we have to establish as to what it is damaging and why it is damaging. Much of it is axiomatic, but in Western Culture much of it is embedded in our language and judicial systems due to Judeo-Christian heritage we have. So it's not that grand of a task to show you that Biblical moral consequentialism, and generic consequentialism share quite a bit, as 2Philo referred to 95%. I think it's much much less, due to contextual nature of Bible written as instruction for that culture in terms of some specifics, but broader principles translate quite well.

Thus, a Christian could actually explain morality from both - a perspective of consequentialism (apart from revelation), and Biblical narrative that actually serves to demonstrate the principles through a narrative vehicle.


So, that's the end of part 1... now on to specifics that I think you are concerned about ...

 

[Moral Orel]

Whether that opinion is from some consensus derived from trial-error process, or attribution to a divine mind is irrelevant for this conversation. Christianity actually accommodates both views.

Except it doesn't in all cases. Like the example I used with Zippy (the one who actually made the 95% comment, not Philo) "taking the Lord's name in vain" cannot be accommodated in any way other than via a divine mind.

Thus, a Christian could actually explain morality from both - a perspective of consequentialism (apart from revelation), and Biblical narrative that actually serves to demonstrate the principles through a narrative vehicle.

Sure, they can do that some of the time. But equating sin with morality seems to be a way to sneak in things that are only relevant through divine command with things that are reasonable despite the existence of a god. Because people respect and can be swayed by a reasonable argument, but no one respects or is swayed by faith based assertions from any faith (or un-faith) besides their own; giving the perception of a reasonable argument adds legitimacy to something that otherwise wouldn't be considered valid in the least.

 

[Chriliman]

Except it doesn't in all cases. Like the example I used with Zippy (the one who actually made the 95% comment, not Philo) "taking the Lord's name in vain" cannot be accommodated in any way other than via a divine mind.

In Christianity, a divine mind(God) can speak through us. So when taking the Lord's name in vain you're taking both God's and man's(whomever God is speaking through) name in vain.

Even if you assume no God, it's still disrepectful to take someone's name in vain who is a respected figure. For instance, would you feel right disrespecting the name of Martin Luther King Jr?

 

[devolved]

Except it doesn't in all cases. Like the example I used with Zippy (the one who actually made the 95% comment, not Philo) "taking the Lord's name in vain" cannot be accommodated in any way other than via a divine mind.

We have to define what we are talking about, since historically this concept has little to do with using the word "God" as an expletive.

In the past the names of God(s) were used to in a similar way people say "I swear on my mother's grave" as a guarantee of certain truth - as an oath to secure trust.

So, yes, it still carries over, but not in a context you think it does. Even though (and especially since) you don't believe in a Biblical God, it would be generally-recognized as a "immoral thing to do" if you attempt to gain someone's trust by invoking the name of that God as an oath, if you have no intent on keeping that oath. That's lying, but it would be a special kind of lying that's more severe in it's consequences, much like breaking a contractual agreement today, or lying to a close friend about something important.

So, these things apply more than you think when you examine these against the original context of these in antiquity and not a typical expletives that Christians are irked by, largely because the concept went through various cultural iterations to include using "God" as an expletive, etc. While I could debate as why it's probably not a good idea either, I don't think it's as morally reprehensible as its original context.

Sure, they can do that some of the time. But equating sin with morality seems to be a way to sneak in things that are only relevant through divine command with things that are reasonable despite the existence of a god. Because people respect and can be swayed by a reasonable argument, but no one respects or is swayed by faith based assertions from any faith (or un-faith) besides their own; giving the perception of a reasonable argument adds legitimacy to something that otherwise wouldn't be considered valid in the least.

Again... I'll have to disagree with the first part of the above. Divine Command concept is merely a limitation of one's contextual awareness of the subject matter. I issue plentiful "divine commands" to my children as a parent, because they don't have contextual awareness of the subject matter. Once they do, then consequentialism can be both effective and viable.

It doesn't mean that simply because I command some morality to them that there isn't a way to play the same film through the projection lens of moral consequentialism. It's a much longer, and perhaps more boring film than most people care to watch or care about, and that's more about how our brains are wired to take shortcuts than it is about Christianity as a moral framework.

Likewise, you have to keep in mind that no moral framework is immune to the issue that you are pointing out above. We all smuggle some false things when we are appealing to contextual unknowns. But, these are never beyond examination or reasonable discussion. Honestly, I can't think of a Christian moral concept that can't be contextualized in our present moral framework with some relevance.

Of course there are fringe ones that would belong in that category, but I'm talking about the overlapping morality that most (if not all) Christians would agree on, independent of denominational differences.

 

[Moral Orel]

We have to define what we are talking about, since historically this concept has little to do with using the word "God" as an expletive.

So what if historically it wasn't about using it as an expletive? That's the only way there's something inherently wrong with doing it. If you have to link it to lying, then lying is the immoral thing and you're just tacking it on. Explain why it is immoral to shout "G D it!" when I stub my toe at home, alone. You said that all morality is somehow linked to "damage" before, right? What's the damage? Or are you saying that Christians wouldn't call this "sin"?

Again... I'll have to disagree with the first part of the above. Divine Command concept is merely a limitation of one's contextual awareness of the subject matter. I issue plentiful "divine commands" to my children as a parent, because they don't have contextual awareness of the subject matter. Once they do, then consequentialism can be both effective and viable.

This goes back to Euthypro. You issue a command because you know it's wrong without explaining why, sure. But if God is issuing commands because He knows they're wrong, then there is a "goodness" outside of God that He is beholden to. I made a thread a while back called "The Evil God Challenge". It was explained to me by many Christians, and corroborated with numerous "likes" and "agrees", that the definition of evil is whatever goes against God's nature, whatever that nature happens to be. An example that was used was that if God liked kicking puppies, then kicking puppies would be good. That has nothing to do with consequentialism, and if you still want it to, you'll have to impale yourself on one of Euthypro's horns.

 

[devolved]

So what if historically it wasn't about using it as an expletive? That's the only way there's something inherently wrong with doing it. If you have to link it to lying, then lying is the immoral thing and you're just tacking it on.

As I've said, it's not merely lying. It's a lying in a specific context of abusing sacred beliefs to gain trust or formulate contracts one doesn't intents to keep. Lying is not lying is not lying. Morality is contextual.

Explain why it is immoral to shout "G D it!" when I stub my toe at home, alone. You said that all morality is somehow linked to "damage" before, right? What's the damage? Or are you saying that Christians wouldn't call this "sin"?

Morality from a POV of consequentialism is more complex than damage, and this is a good example of such complexity.

Again, Christian concept of morality isn't that far from cultural one. Culture actually contextualizes is, and in any civilized cultural context you will find that using cursing and expletives as a cultural taboo linked to immoral behavior. In the very least, it demonstrates lack of sophistication, although these ideals were turned upside down by modern and post-modern culture that was driven by deconstructionism and rebellion against these norms.

Without writing a book on the subject, a very basic perspective on this would be ....

Expletives actually come from the back of your brain, which is more reactive as opposed to rational and reasonable. So, all of the typical invocations of sexual innuendos or rape, or religious requests for God to damn something is actually a very irrational response of the less sophisticated part of our brain that takes over in some situations.

That's why culturally, the use of expletives is a taboo issue. It's linked to irrational behavior in some aggressive, or even sexually aggressive context that abandons restrains of reason. And that's why we compare it to ideal behavior and see it as unfit, because there's a genetic "psychopath" in every one of us that can be invoked by triggering that irrational part of the brain that overpowers rationality and can be quite damaging.

And that's why we, or at least more sophisticated (or elitists ) of us, view creaming expletives at each other or things and situations, as less than ideal behavior with ideal being rational self-control ... and essentially a stoic behavior we admire in all of the superheroes when they face pain and problems.

So, if you your view of ideal includes cursing the leg of the table for not moving out of the way... I guess I have nothing more to say here

This goes back to Euthypro. You issue a command because you know it's wrong without explaining why, sure. But if God is issuing commands because He knows they're wrong, then there is a "goodness" outside of God that He is beholden to.

In Euthypro Plato actually points of that we shouldn't do what you are doing ... externalizing "goodness" as something that's not a contextual application of some behavior. And that's the problem with the "dilemma". It only exist if you reify morality into something that it's not, and thus you give an incomplete perspective on this issue from either side of the horn.

Morality is an ideal behavior in certain context, and it actually implies that there are limited number of actions one may take would fit in the box of "ideal". Why? Why would such even be the case?

Because reality that we occupy consists both of limited and limiting structures. For example, your place of dwelling isn't planet Earth. It's likely some house or apartment, and that place is likewise isn't some giant empty space. It's subdivided into rooms, and in each one of these rooms there are limited number of the ways to use that room in some ideal context. Why?

Well, because such is the structural purpose of those rooms. We defecate in bathrooms and not the kitchen. You could argue that it's not morally wrong to use your kitchen table as a bathroom, but I doubt you could argue that reasonably and seriously in the public square.

That's what morality is. It is a proper use of reality as we both recognize and give the purpose to certain contexts.

From our perspective, the awareness of these contexts are limited. We have to try and error, record and learn what to do and not to do and then pass that knowledge on to successive generations.

What we call "God" is the creator of the underlying structure itself. So, metaphorically speaking, when God created all of these mechanisms he(it) is the expert authority on the subject matter. So, just like if you would invite an guy who lived in a jungle to stay in your house and explain what the rooms are for, God could explain the purpose of the "rooms of reality".

The "goodness" in this context IS the contextual proper use, and it is the contingent on the mind of God as a creator who structured it for that use. Thus in that context, God "says so" because it actually is so. And it is so, because God designed it to be so.

Now, whether God is a concept that refers to extra-dimentional mind/force that structures reality, or it is some conceptual "guy upstairs" (would be a great Lebron SNL skit about the guy upstairs, living in his attic, who tells him what to do) is irrelevant to the point that we can recognize the context of morality as purposeful use of reality guided by some distilled ideals.

And whether they like it or not, that's essentially what religious people generically mean when they refer to God. It's the collective of highest ideals that sits on top of our conceptual map of reality. That's how we derive God, and then put some meat of these ideals through some stories that people copy and retell.

Hence, it's not a surprise that God and morality are equivocated by Christians.

 

[devolved]

An example that was used was that if God liked kicking puppies, then kicking puppies would be good. That has nothing to do with consequentialism, and if you still want it to, you'll have to impale yourself on one of Euthypro's horns.

The whole point of Plato is making through these dialogs is that we can't reify conceptual "shadows of reality" that don't exist apart from contingent sources.

The point being, a shadow, just like morality, isn't a thing. It's our judgement of context of certain reality we observe in respect to how we as humans fit in that reality. It's a projection of ideals that we recognize as "proper behavior" for us humans to perform in some context of reality.

It's contingent in a sense that there are consistent repetition in reality that we can hang certain expectations on, and in context of these consistencies we will find the best behavior in terms of congruent existence in that environment.

So, again, we need both, and we rely on both as humans. We rely on "divine commands" when we lack awareness of reality, and we then can echo these divine commands when we become experts in the mist of people who are not aware or don't understand the context. The problematic tangent for this is the "blind leading the blind", or successive generations repeating fallacies of the previous one, but that's a different subject.

The dilemma only exists if one detaches moral being from the reality to which it applies. And just because a Christian may verbalize such understanding doesn't mean that such is the official position of Christianity. Again, there are various degrees of understanding these philosophical concepts. Someone who prefers to be a "dogma golem" can only repeat bumper sticker slogans. It doesn't mean that there's viable reality behind these slogans, or that there are no other Christians who can communicate these concepts using broader perspective.

 

[Moral Orel]

Morality from a POV of consequentialism is more complex than damage, and this is a good example of such complexity.

No, we need to show what it is damaging and why it is damaging. Remember?

The term sin, with all religious baggage it tends to carry, may hide the fact that it's just another term for "damaging behavior". Of course, we have to establish as to what it is damaging and why it is damaging.

So if it isn't damaging, it isn't sin. Since you want to defend sin as equating morality, then it isn't immoral either.

So, if you your view of ideal includes cursing the leg of the table for not moving out of the way... I guess I have nothing more to say here

I have to write myself a note to remind me of something later. I have a blue pen and a black pen. Which choice is the ideal one? Some things are neutral. Not everything is on a spectrum from Good ---> Evil.

The dilemma only exists if one detaches moral being from the reality to which it applies. And just because a Christian may verbalize such understanding doesn't mean that such is the official position of Christianity.

William Lane Craig uses this reasoning of "God = Goodness itself" too. So it's a more widespread view than just my experiences on this forum. But how much of Christianity has an official position, really? Not much, in my opinion. All I have to go on is what Christians tell me since a lot of them also think that only Real Christians are actually capable of understanding the Bible anyways.

 

[devolved]

No, we need to show what it is damaging and why it is damaging. Remember?

No, because "damaging" is a concept which rooted in certain understanding of the framework you are using, which is generally the cultural framework that you copy. Likewise it's a rather generic term, meaning of which we have to unpack in every context of that use. And in either case you end up with invocation of some "ideal function" or "ideal structure" as a concept you invoke.

Doctors prescribed smoking in 1800s and early 1900s. What would I use to convince you that smoking is damaging then when cause-effect relationships regarding smoking was tangled in authoritative approach to medicine that has little to do with reality?

All of your reason would circle back to the framework you've adopted, which would be self-referential.

I have to write myself a note to remind me of something later. I have a blue pen and a black pen. Which choice is the ideal one? Some things are neutral. Not everything is on a spectrum from Good ---> Evil.

Come on, Nick. You know better than change the subject and evade the point by equivocating swearing to a choice of pen color.

Why do you think that people we would consider as "intelligentsia" swear less, even in context of atheistic moral framework? Why aren't there expletives in physics books, or Nobel acceptance speeches? These people obviously look down on such behavior. Why? Could you say that they follow the same rules of "unspoken" concepts of ideals that we tend to recognize as somehow "subpar"?

But why would it be subpar? Obviously they don't consider it to be on the same level as a choice of pens.

Likewise, when you are speaking from "inside the morality" about "neutral choices", hence it may seem to you that these are not moral choices when these already are. So, comparing a "moral choice" to another "Moral choice" would yield very little contrast. So, a choice between two kinds of greens wouldn't be so conflicting as a choice between a stick of a fried butter and a green.

Some things could be viewed morally inconsequential, but only in a context of a moral boundary of a "better choice". So, while you ARE choosing between two pens, you are choosing to write with a pen and not a shoe or a feather. And you are choosing to write on paper instead of someone's back. So, you are making a contextually moral choice when you are talking about a choice that doesn't result in "harm".

William Lane Craig uses this reasoning of "God = Goodness itself" too. So it's a more widespread view than just my experiences on this forum. But how much of Christianity has an official position, really? Not much, in my opinion. All I have to go on is what Christians tell me since a lot of them also think that only Real Christians are actually capable of understanding the Bible anyways.

I think that Craig's position is actually much more complex than that, given that he is a philosopher by trade.

The nominal language could be a problem in the way that you would read and reify it. Keep in mind that the very word God is actually derived from the word we now shifted to "good". So, good and God do have historical etymological equivocation in many languages... at least in the several languages that I speak.

So, there is basis for equivalency, because that's how we understand, use and communicate the concept of God. It's the ideal model of being that sits on the top of our hierarchy of values.

That's what God is, and coincidentally, that's what morality relies on when it comes to us measuring our behavior against that hierarchy of values.

And, odly-enough, swearing in virtually any civilized culture is considered to be more at the bottom than the top.

Why? These are not free-floating concepts. And that's the atheistic dilemma.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, because "damaging" is a concept which rooted in certain understanding of the framework you are using, which is generally the cultural framework that you copy. Likewise it's a rather generic term, meaning of which we have to unpack in every context of that use. And in either case you end up with invocation of some "ideal function" or "ideal structure" as a concept you invoke.

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me. "Damage" is your word choice. It isn't too much to expect you to stick to your own definitions. You said, and I quoted you word for word, that we need to establish "what it is damaging and why it is damaging". Now you say you don't need to do that? "No"?

Doctors prescribed smoking in 1800s and early 1900s. What would I use to convince you that smoking is damaging then when cause-effect relationships regarding smoking was tangled in authoritative approach to medicine that has little to do with reality?

If you didn't have the evidence, then you wouldn't be able to. That's kind of the point. If you don't have the evidence to show me that some sin is bad because it requires evidence that God exists, then you wouldn't be able to convince me not to do it.

Why do you think that people we would consider as "intelligentsia" swear less, even in context of atheistic moral framework? Why aren't there expletives in physics books, or Nobel acceptance speeches? These people obviously look down on such behavior. Why? Could you say that they follow the same rules of "unspoken" concepts of ideals that we tend to recognize as somehow "subpar"?

The same reason people refrain from scratching their butts in public. Perception. Just because people perceive swearing as low-class, low-intelligence, "subpar" behavior does not mean that they recognize it as actually being subpar. You need to explain why it is damaging and what it is damaging and what that damage is in an atheistic viewpoint. You can't simply appeal to:

successive generations repeating fallacies of the previous one

You haven't shown that "taking the Lord's name in vain" is anything other than this. All you've done is commit an ad populum fallacy. You've also changed the context from "at home alone" to "public speaking". You're trying to add extenuating circumstances to cloudy the issue. Stick to the question and "establish" what you said needs to be established.

Likewise, when you are speaking from "inside the morality" about "neutral choices", hence it may seem to you that these are not moral choices when these already are. So, comparing a "moral choice" to another "Moral choice" would yield very little contrast. So, a choice between two kinds of greens wouldn't be so conflicting as a choice between a stick of a fried butter and a green.

Some things could be viewed morally inconsequential, but only in a context of a moral boundary of a "better choice". So, while you ARE choosing between two pens, you are choosing to write with a pen and not a shoe or a feather. And you are choosing to write on paper instead of someone's back. So, you are making a contextually moral choice when you are talking about a choice that doesn't result in "harm".

Uh-huh. Just like how shouting "Darn it!" when I stub my toe isn't a sin. Or even just "Ouch!". What's the difference?

 

[devolved]

Sounds like moving the goal posts to me. "Damage" is your word choice. It isn't too much to expect you to stick to your own definitions.

It is moving of goalposts, because we are not playing on the same field, with the same ball, or even playing football. So, I have to shift your frame of reference, or at least provide some vantage point from which you may understand a POV that's different than yours in that regard.

You said, and I quoted you word for word, that we need to establish "what it is damaging and why it is damaging". Now you say you don't need to do that? "No"?

The reason I put "damaging behavior" in quotes is precisely because it's a generic label for categories of behavior. I use term "damaging" to loosely carry over the disruptive structural alteration concept that may relate some meaning to you. But you can't understand what I'm talking about with a reductionist approach.

If you need a reductionist version... then we need to establish why it is damaging in a specific context we are discussing. Morality is behavioral model with contextual applications. The behavioral world is complex. We chunk it up into contextual categories of similar behaviors. We then see which behaviors are ideal, and we the distill these into "virtues". These behavioral ideals then serve as moral benchmarks.

If you didn't have the evidence, then you wouldn't be able to. That's kind of the point.

Well, no. First of all, the first point is to your OP - I don't need to prove something to you to be correct about something and point you attention by merely making a proclamation.

Secondly, it's not like there was no contemporary scientific research and literature. Just to cite you one example:

The tobacco problem : Lander, Meta, 1813-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

It lays out very thorough evidence and appeal from both religious, scientific, and aesthetic POV as to why smoking is terrible, and does so in 1882! Of course, it's not the first of its kind either. Yet it took over a hundred years since the book publication for people to accepting these facts, with some still not thoroughly convinced even when evidence is widespread, or simply ignore these in broader context of hierarchy of values in which identity and pleasure are more integral to their sense of "well-being". And that's why we have these conversations.

So, the issue isn't evidence, but rather socially-mediated expectation of certain behavior. When smoking is glamorized and attached to masculinity and maturity, then appeal to evidence be irrelevant. If what means to be "a grown up man" would mean lighting up your first smoke, then health concerns are secondary in the hierarchy of values that one holds. We sacrifice health for "progress" or "status" all the time.

The point being is that there's much more to "convincing you" than you think is required, especially in context of psychological backfire effect when certain behavior is coupled to your identity.

We can't simply assume that when your beliefs are challenged then you acknowledge your wrongs and you alter your opinions. It happens in rare cases, but in most cases what actually happens is:

The Backfire Effect

On the other hand... you would have no problem of giving "provisional slack" to the items and claims that fit into your existing framework.

So, the true convincing usually takes a prolonged process of deconstructing emotional and identity attachment to certain concepts, and providing alternative frameworks of interpretation of reality, and that's not something that can be done in a moment where all one cares is to merely draw attention to unwanted behavior that you may ordinarily think is fine.

he same reason people refrain from scratching their butts in public. Perception. Just because people perceive swearing as low-class, low-intelligence, "subpar" behavior does not mean that they recognize it as actually being subpar. You need to explain why it is damaging and what it is damaging and what that damage is in an atheistic viewpoint. You can't simply appeal to:

Actually that's why they would abstain from swearing in public, because they actually recognize it being subpar in that context. So, they are conforming to behavioral standards, and these standards have functional necessity. I don't have to give you a lecture on evolutionary biology, sociology and psychology to prove to you something that you already practice in this very conversation . You already know all of this, otherwise you are irrationally abstaining from using swear words as an underlining technique for communicating ideas.

I could point you to some psychology behind such taboo status on swearing. But you already know that swearing is a generic expression of wrath that is reactionary in nature. So, people don't swear, because it signals the same concept.

You already know that screaming out "N^&&%&r" as an expletive would be problematic in context of a mindset that uses that language in context of some angry outburst that floats up when reason doesn't suppress such presets of the mind. It doesn't matter whether one does it at home, or in public. So one should be concerned as to why they are doing that, and considering some therapy-driven approach to some of their sub-surface attitudes .

There are plentiful sociological and psychological studies on this subject you can google up and verify and compare to. I don't understand why you would take a passive position to the subject and claim that someone has to put you through a class on theism and morality before that can communicate something that you already generally practice.

So, there's nothing unreasonable about our expectation to elevate our communication to the standards of stoico-Christain virtues of patience and mercy when it comes to our behavior and word choice. That's all sorts of existing evidence that it's a good idea.

If you are going to insist that swearing has zero moral implications in private, then it's much like giving you a book about problems with smoking in 1982, which was my entire point about bringing that up as an analogy.

You haven't shown that "taking the Lord's name in vain" is anything other than this. All you've done is commit an ad populum fallacy. You've also changed the context from "at home alone" to "public speaking". You're trying to add extenuating circumstances to cloudy the issue. Stick to the question and "establish" what you said needs to be established.

Nick, I've already explained to you the ACTUAL context for taking God's name in vain. It's a scholarly context and not the one that's rooted in some modern-day colloquialisms. You choose to ignore it and shift it to people who don't understand the actual context and demand that you stop swearing in private? Talk to these people. I have no idea what their individual reasons for equivocating second commandment with, let's say using "Oh my God" as expression of concern for someone.

I will argue that "G/d" is problematic as an expression of wrath for the same reason why "F^&^n Jews" would be problematic expression of anger that's rooted in some subconscious attitudes that should be examined.

Uh-huh. Just like how shouting "Darn it!" when I stub my toe isn't a sin. Or even just "Ouch!". What's the difference?

This is where you misunderstand what this is about.

If someone stubbed their toe and yelled out "F-ing N^&$r" or "F^&^n Jews" in private. No harm done, right? Would you need to prove to that person all of the philosophical basis for problems with racism? Could you really do that in a conversation? I doubt it. These are not rational perspectives, so why would you think rationality would work?

The same in your case, screaming "G-d" in your kitchen is irrational behavior. What rational approach do you expect me to take in order to convince you that such behavior is irrational, if it should be first be rather obvious to you that it's irrational.

If you think that it's perfectly reasonable and rational, then YOU need to defend that position, instead of injecting irrelevant fallacies and demanding me to "establish" context.

So, let's begin with that. Do you think that yelling out "G/d it" is a rational behavior?

 

[Moral Orel]

It is moving of goalposts, because we are not playing on the same field, with the same ball, or even playing football. So, I have to shift your frame of reference, or at least provide some vantage point from which you may understand a POV that's different than yours in that regard.

If you needed to move the goalposts all along, why did you place them where you did? If you have to convince me to come around to your frame of reference, why wouldn't you just start there? That's the whole point of the OP that you're missing.

The reason I put "damaging behavior" in quotes is precisely because it's a generic label for categories of behavior. I use term "damaging" to loosely carry over the disruptive structural alteration concept that may relate some meaning to you. But you can't understand what I'm talking about with a reductionist approach.

If you need a reductionist version... then we need to establish why it is damaging in a specific context we are discussing. Morality is behavioral model with contextual applications. The behavioral world is complex. We chunk it up into contextual categories of similar behaviors. We then see which behaviors are ideal, and we the distill these into "virtues". These behavioral ideals then serve as moral benchmarks.

Yes, please, establish why it is damaging in a specific context we are discussing. You keep evading what you said we need to do. Just do it already, or admit you are incapable.

Well, no. First of all, the first point is to your OP - I don't need to prove something to you to be correct about something and point you attention by merely making a proclamation.

That isn't what the OP asks, so no, it wasn't a point to the OP.

Actually that's why they would abstain from swearing in public, because they actually recognize it being subpar in that context. So, they are conforming to behavioral standards, and these standards have functional necessity.

So you said they refrain from swearing because they recognize it as subpar. I said you haven't demonstrated that, and you reply, "Yes-huh!". Demonstrate that it is damaging so that I can recognize it to.

I don't have to give you a lecture on evolutionary biology, sociology and psychology to prove to you something that you already practice in this very conversation . You already know all of this, otherwise you are irrationally abstaining from using swear words as an underlining technique for communicating ideas.

You just made that up about me. I know because you're wrong. Has your argument really become so desperate that you need to invent fictions? You're sounding like the YECs who like to say, "Everyone recognizes that the Earth needs a divine creator." You should try harder.

I could point you to some psychology behind such taboo status on swearing. But you already know that swearing is a generic expression of wrath that is reactionary in nature. So, people don't swear, because it signals the same concept.

No, it's not. I swear casually all the time. Sometimes I swear at people when I'm angry. You could call that wrath, but not all the time. So no, it isn't any more wrathful than "shucks" or "darn" or "shoot" or "golly".

You already know that screaming out "N^&&%&r" as an expletive would be problematic in context of a mindset that uses that language in context of some angry outburst that floats up when reason doesn't suppress such presets of the mind. It doesn't matter whether one does it at home, or in public. So one should be concerned as to why they are doing that, and considering some therapy-driven approach to some of their sub-surface attitudes .

There are plentiful sociological and psychological studies on this subject you can google up and verify and compare to. I don't understand why you would take a passive position to the subject and claim that someone has to put you through a class on theism and morality before that can communicate something that you already generally practice.

Yes, in a different context from what we've been talking about things would be different. So what?

And again, don't tell me what I do and don't do and why I do or don't do those things. You should know better. So yes, you do need to show me how swearing at home alone is immoral. I've been waiting.

If you are going to insist that swearing has zero moral implications in private, then it's much like giving you a book about problems with smoking in 1982, which was my entire point about bringing that up as an analogy.

No, it's nothing like that. Smoking at home alone is just as bad for your health as smoking out in public is.

Nick, I've already explained to you the ACTUAL context for taking God's name in vain. It's a scholarly context and not the one that's rooted in some modern-day colloquialisms. You choose to ignore it and shift it to people who don't understand the actual context and demand that you stop swearing in private? Talk to these people. I have no idea what their individual reasons for equivocating second commandment with, let's say using "Oh my God" as expression of concern for someone.

I will argue that "G/d" is problematic as an expression of wrath for the same reason why "F^&^n Jews" would be problematic expression of anger that's rooted in some subconscious attitudes that should be examined.

So is it immoral or not? Is it sin or not? If my example isn't a sin in your opinion, just say, "That's not a sin" and be done. For Pete's sake!

If someone stubbed their toe and yelled out "F-ing N^&$r" or "F^&^n Jews" in private. No harm done, right? Would you need to prove to that person all of the philosophical basis for problems with racism? Could you really do that in a conversation? I doubt it. These are not rational perspectives, so why would you think rationality would work?

What?? How bizarre. Who said the phrase and why they said it matters. Those phrases aren't inherently immoral either. If a black guy yelled the N-word, is he a racist?

Even if it was a white fella, who actually is a racist, that doesn't make the behavior immoral either. It might be a symptom of an immoral attitude that leads to other immoral behavior. But pointing that out doesn't show that yelling racial slurs all by yourself is immoral either.

If you think that it's perfectly reasonable and rational, then YOU need to defend that position, instead of injecting irrelevant fallacies and demanding me to "establish" context.

That's a bizarre shifting of the burden of proof. You want me to prove your straw man of my position correct? What??

No, if you want to claim "irrational behavior" = "immoral behavior" you prove it. That's your claim, not mine.

 

[devolved]

Even if it was a white fella, who actually is a racist, that doesn't make the behavior immoral either. It might be a symptom of an immoral attitude that leads to other immoral behavior. But pointing that out doesn't show that yelling racial slurs all by yourself is immoral either.

I'll just skip to the end, because that's where the disconnect is. You are separating brain function from behavior that's a continuum of that brain function. In reality, there is no separation.

Obviously, we structure the generic "legalized morality" around a concept that we can't read minds of other people... but the behavioral punishment is actually punishing a certain way of thinking, and not merely acting. Thus, you can't detach action from a mental preset that generate it, and that's something that Western philosophical tradition recognized fairly early.

What we are after is not merely ideal behavior, but an ideal mindset that expresses ideal behavior.

Now, I can't describe "ideal mindset" apart from methodological framework, along with all of the initial assumptions that I have to make to describe that framework. I'd have to write a book here, and it doesn't seem like you are interested in reading a book. You want a quick and dry response as to why X is wrong in this particular isolated context, and you don't even realize that "isolation of context" is your own subjective boundaries that you paint on reality... and there is no such context in reality of life. We are dependent on other contingencies.

So, a racist mindset in the public is a racist mindset at home, even though the public one may be veiled from expression by some layer of restraint.

The point being, that if the public context is the only restraint, then it would mean that lack of that context would mean free and unrestrained expression of that mindset.

So, the problem is not in action. The problem is with a mindset that directs that action.

That's a bizarre shifting of the burden of proof. You want me to prove your straw man of my position correct? What??

No, if you want to claim "irrational behavior" = "immoral behavior" you prove it. That's your claim, not mine.

Well, no. I did not say that irrational behavior is immoral. I've asked you whether you think such behavior is rational.

But, since we are on the subject of the burden of proof, you seem to misunderstand and misapply the concept here. You are doing something similar that Steve Crowder does with his "Prove me wrong series", which I do find a terrible starting point for any conversation on the subjects that presents.

So, right there and then, he is less interested in understanding why certain people think the way they do. He is more interested in finding ways to deflect criticism and showcase how wrong they are if they are unable to convince him wrong. So far, unsurprisingly, no one was able to change his mind about anything .

So, if I walk on the street with a sign "God exists, prove me wrong", it would be somewhat absurd.

So, when you say "I don't think throwing G/D expletives in private is wrong, prove me otherwise"... that's of itself is a claim that you have to first establish before you can begin defending it. But you haven't established that.

I could do what you do with any moral concept. I could ask... well, prove to me that murder is wrong if no one sees me or catches me doing it somewhere in the woods, if I murder a person who no one knows. It's the "Crime and punishment" scenario that I've referenced in the video earlier. You could refer to some concept of "We don't want to live in a society of people who do that", but I'm not doing it in a societal context. I'm doing it where no one will ever see or know.

What can you latch on to in order to prove to me that such action would be immoral, except to the mentality of a murderer that is incongruent with civilized society?

 

[devolved]

If you needed to move the goalposts all along, why did you place them where you did? If you have to convince me to come around to your frame of reference, why wouldn't you just start there? That's the whole point of the OP that you're missing.

Because it's not possible to start with a framework you are not using. I can only probe for overlapping context and attempt to explain things to you using these overlapping concepts.

 

[Moral Orel]

So, the problem is not in action. The problem is with a mindset that directs that action.

So you started with "damaging behavior" and now it isn't about it damage, nor is it about behavior. Ridiculous.

Because it's not possible to start with a framework you are not using. I can only probe for overlapping context and attempt to explain things to you using these overlapping concepts.

And you had it with "damaging behavior". I would have just called it "harm" but you saw pretty quickly that you couldn't demonstrate any damage or harm without changing contexts, so you had to move the goalposts.

So, when you say "I don't think throwing G/D expletives in private is wrong, prove me otherwise"... that's of itself is a claim that you have to first establish before you can begin defending it. But you haven't established that.

I haven't established that my opinion is what I say it is? Not sure what else I can do for you.

What can you latch on to in order to prove to me that such action would be immoral, except to the mentality of a murderer that is incongruent with civilized society?

Uh... The murder victim. Are you POEing me? You're not even being serious anymore, are you?

 

[devolved]

Uh... The murder victim. Are you POEing me? You're not even being serious anymore, are you

I am being semi-serious, it's obviously tong in cheek. I'm not a psychopath. But I can demonstrate that without theistic conception of morality you would merely rely on social conditioning than some rational context in certain scenarios.

For example, I'm a newly-born nihilist, and I'm taking that "without God, everything is permissible" fairly seriously. I understand that there is a social dynamics that gets in the way in some cases where societal contract punishes murder, and social social and evolutionary conditioning instills certain empathy-driven context.

But, none of it is "real", because in materialistic framework constrains are subjective.

So, I'm walking through the woods hunting, listening Zarathustra audiobook, and I run across a guy who runs away, and when I catch him he shares his life story. He got into bunch of legal and debt trouble, and he faked his death. Now he lives alone in the woods, and plans to die alone. He begs me not to tell anyone.

So a thought runs across my mind, since I've just done watching "the rope" by Hitchcock. Why not kill him? What would be so immoral about it?

So, without appeals to "socially-conditioned norms", please make a rational appeal why murder would be wrong in this context. Hint. Kantian Categorical Imperative will not work well, so save us both some time and avoid it.