The problem of evil

[Resha Caner]

Good point. In that case, it is a lack of applying reason and logic. You know that you wouldn't want to starve just because of the greed of others. Logic dictates that if you wouldn't want it to happen to you, it would be unjust and immoral to let your actions cause others to starve.

I was questioning how you used the word "empathy", so I don't understand why you took this turn. But whatever. Are you now suggesting empathy would never play a part? If it doesn't play a part in this example, I don't see how it would ever contribute to a morality system.

Also, all your "logic" does is restate the Golden Rule. Does all your logic simply confirm Biblical morality?

Because reason and logic are not subjective.
Everyone's ability to utilize algebra is different. That doesn't make algebra subjective or a personal whim.

So? Does every algebra student get the right answer?
Is morality just an algebra problem?

The only people without access are those who can't empathize, use reason, or use logic. Those who don't have empathy or the ability to reason and use logic we already excuse from wrongdoing since they are not moral agents.

Well, not really. It's not as if we turn them loose. We still take away their rights and lock them up. We just change the sign on the front door of the institution. So, are you suggesting an "Institution for the Terminally Illogical?"

And, as long as we're on the subject, why do people end up in jail?

You don't accept the rather obvious observation that almost all countries outlaw theft and murder?

First, I underlined the part of the statement to which I objected. Go back and check. But I understand. You don't have a citation for your claims.

Second, you oversimplify by using tautologies. Murder is unlawful killing and theft is unlawful possession of property. In that regard, the laws detailing what is considered murder and theft do vary from country to country.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you now suggesting empathy would never play a part?

I have been saying just the opposite for multiple posts now.

Also, all your "logic" does is restate the Golden Rule. Does all your logic simply confirm Biblical morality?

If the Bible describes clouds, that doesn't make clouds biblical.

The Golden Rule had been around for thousands of years prior to it's mention in the Bible. It can be found in the history of almost all major religions and ancient cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Antiquity

So? Does every algebra student get the right answer?
Is morality just an algebra problem?

How many times have I said that morality uses reason and logic?

Well, not really. It's not as if we turn them loose. We still take away their rights and lock them up. We just change the sign on the front door of the institution. So, are you suggesting an "Institution for the Terminally Illogical?"

We also release them once they can demonstrate the ability to use empathy, reason, and logic. We don't use corporal punishment on people who are mentally compromised, such as hard labor.

And, as long as we're on the subject, why do people end up in jail?

They break the law. Last I checked, humans are capable of being immoral.

First, I underlined the part of the statement to which I objected. Go back and check. But I understand. You don't have a citation for your claims.

Second, you oversimplify by using tautologies. Murder is unlawful killing and theft is unlawful possession of property. In that regard, the laws detailing what is considered murder and theft do vary from country to country.

First, I am arguing that morality is the result of empathy, in combination with reason and logic. If you think I am wrong, then please show how you think I am wrong.

Second, you can't find any commonalities between cultures for what they call theft and murder? Not a one?

 

[bhsmte]

I have been saying just the opposite for multiple posts now.



If the Bible describes clouds, that doesn't make clouds biblical.

The Golden Rule had been around for thousands of years prior to it's mention in the Bible. It can be found in the history of almost all major religions and ancient cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Antiquity



How many times have I said that morality uses reason and logic?



We also release them once they can demonstrate the ability to use empathy, reason, and logic. We don't use corporal punishment on people who are mentally compromised, such as hard labor.



They break the law. Last I checked, humans are capable of being immoral.



First, I am arguing that morality is the result of empathy, in combination with reason and logic. If you think I am wrong, then please show how you think I am wrong.

Second, you can't find any commonalities between cultures for what they call theft and murder? Not a one?

Well stated!

 

[FireDragon76]

I think western secular morality's basis is pretty fickle and fungible. In the Netherlands doctors now kill sexually abuse people to "end their suffering". That's just the consequences of a worldview steeped in nihilism and moral relativism. The moral of this story of course is that if you are a burden on people, you deserve to die. THAT is the godless world we are headed towards.

 

[Resha Caner]

If the Bible describes clouds, that doesn't make clouds biblical.

I never claimed the Golden Rule only appears in the Bible. You twist my words to avoid answering the question. I asked if all your logic does is confirm Biblical morality.

How many times have I said that morality uses reason and logic?

Logic and reason don't float in space by themselves. They need to confirm a premise. If your premise for morality isn't algebra, then what is it?

We also release them once they can demonstrate the ability to use empathy, reason, and logic. We don't use corporal punishment on people who are mentally compromised, such as hard labor ...

They break the law. Last I checked, humans are capable of being immoral.

Yet in both cases they judged for themselves. So who judged their judgement to be immoral and worthy of confinement?

First, I am arguing that morality is the result of empathy, in combination with reason and logic. If you think I am wrong, then please show how you think I am wrong.

Your argument. Your responsibility to support it. Just admit you don't have a citation.

Second, you can't find any commonalities between cultures for what they call theft and murder? Not a one?

I can find similarities and differences. So can't you find one difference? Not a one?

[edit] FYI, here is some support for their differences: http://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law The key statement is, "Important differences exist between the criminal law of most English-speaking countries and that of other countries."

 

[Resha Caner]

I think western secular morality's basis is pretty fickle and fungible.

As it stands currently, yes.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think western secular morality's basis is pretty fickle and fungible. In the Netherlands doctors now kill sexually abuse people to "end their suffering". That's just the consequences of a worldview steeped in nihilism and moral relativism. The moral of this story of course is that if you are a burden on people, you deserve to die. THAT is the godless world we are headed towards.

You're making it out to sound like doctors are making these decisions independent of the individual's wishes. Which isn't the case

 

[Locutus]

It's nice to be forgiven. Peaceful even.
I feel there is a great personal advantage.
.

Of course. Why wouldn't it be? We all like to imagine we're golden, despite our crapulence.

I'm not sure how or why pandering to this self-soothing, and technically infantile, desire is a good thing. More importantly, it's all about the self, so speaks nothing to the question of the suffering of others.

 

[Locutus]

If I wrong somebody, then go to a church and receive forgiveness from them, that's not a forgiveness that matters. That's an abdication of responsibility to set things right with the person or people who were actually wronged.

This doesn't mean the person (believer) doesn't also seek forgiveness from the wronged party. But it does indicate an overweening need for approval beyond that justified by the occasion/action. Not to mention an aversion to the 'work' of guilt.

 

[Locutus]

Most people who seek some kind of forgiveness through faith realize they have done wrong and want to live a better life. .

And yet they don't. There is not an iota of difference between Christians and non-Christians, when it comes to 'better life'. And if you care to look social justice as a measure, the non-religious are winning.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course. Why wouldn't it be? We all like to imagine we're golden, despite our crapulence.I'm not sure how or why pandering to this self-soothing, and technically infantile, desire is a good thing. More importantly, it's all about the self, so speaks nothing to the question of the suffering of others.

People find that, once forgiven, they are able to help others.

 

[Locutus]

Really? No influence from Christianity or other cultures? I need a historical citation that these 3 principles are what established the morality of "western societies".

.

western (European) 'morality' is primarily the product of Norse, Germanic, Roman, Brit, and Greek cultural influences. that's the social anthropology. that's the history. that's the science.

of course you can choose to believe it's one thing or another, and many do.

 

[Locutus]

People find that, once forgiven, they are able to help others.

But not all do. And many do 'whatever they can' without first demanding abdication from guilt via supernatural pardon.

Incidentally, I applaud you on the use of J Carter. A very fine human being, and the best President you guys ever had, or may ever have.

Mother T though, you can keep.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, I have to say I totally disagree on that one.

Frankly, the idea that the church can forgive your wrongs is immoral. It reduces ones empathy for others, thinking that making things right with them isn't as important as making things right with the church, when the church is ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

It's a disturbing practice that ranges from petty mistakes, to serious personal offenses like child molestation or rape. I'll bet you there's a number of people out there who committed serious crimes against others, and feel fine about it now because their church said they're good with god. That's an abdication of moral responsibility, and one that the church actively created and encourages.

One has the moral responsibility to fix themselves.
You can't fix others, even if you caused the damage.

 

[Locutus]

Logic and reason don't float in space by themselves. They need to confirm a premise. If your premise for morality isn't algebra, then what is it?

"

the 'premise' is that ethics (or morality) are simple survival mechanisms, evolved and enculturated.

 

[Locutus]

One has the moral responsibility to fix themselves.
You can't fix others, even if you caused the damage.

Yet so few do fix themselves. Again, believers are no more 'fixed' than the rest of us.

Why do you say 'you can't fix others' right after posting pics of mother T and james carter?

 

[SkyWriting]

And yet they don't. There is not an iota of difference between Christians and non-Christians, when it comes to 'better life'. And if you care to look social justice as a measure, the non-religious are winning.

How do we measure social justice?

 

[SkyWriting]

Why do you say 'you can't fix others' right after posting pics of mother T and james carter?

You can't fix a murderer or the dead. You can only pray they fix themselves.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I just don't see Christian belief in forgiveness, at least typically, as being some kind of blank cheque for psychopaths. Most people who seek some kind of forgiveness through faith realize they have done wrong and want to live a better life. It doesn't serve justice to demand those sorts of people be punished or treated umercifully.

You're missing my point.

My point is if those people realize they've done wrong and want to lead a better life, the only forgiveness that matters is what their victims would be willing to offer up.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This doesn't mean the person (believer) doesn't also seek forgiveness from the wronged party. But it does indicate an overweening need for approval beyond that justified by the occasion/action. Not to mention an aversion to the 'work' of guilt.

The person could certainly seek forgiveness from the wronged person, and a church. There's no question there.

However, the forgiveness granted by the church is still totally irrelevant. You didn't really address my point.