No seriously, you believe it's immoral. But just cause you think so doesn't mean it is. Right? I mean once again you have made yourself the arbiter of morality. By what authority do you make that claim?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No seriously, you believe it's immoral. But just cause you think so doesn't mean it is. Right? I mean once again you have made yourself the arbiter of morality. By what authority do you make that claim?If you're going to ask trite questions then I'm not going to play.
I have no authority. That's been explained umpteen times for heaven's sake. It is my opinion that it is immoral. It is in your opinion immoral. The vast percentage of people would have the opinion that it is immoral.No seriously, you believe it's immoral. But just cause you think so doesn't mean it is. Right? I mean once again you have made yourself the arbiter of morality. By what authority do you make that claim?
What evidence. ie., observable effects, demonstrate that his adulterous act harmed the relationship? None. He is not sorry, nor does he feel any remorse. Regarding his wife, he says to you, "Brad, ignorance is bliss; what she doesn't know can't hurt her (or me!). Why would I ever want to harm her (and me!) by telling her the truth?"He has harmed the relationship between them by cheating on her ...
(Edited to avoid the confusion of unnecessarily conflating the acts.)Now we are to decide if ... [the] lie is justified or not.
Adultery and lying are intrinsically evil acts. Neither a good intention nor any set of circumstances can make good an act that is evil in its object.It's your couple so maybe you have a hypothetical outcome in mind. Do you think he should tell her the truth?
If doing so makes it easier for you to make your prior post coherent, then go ahead ... as long as we don't have to visit the zoo.If you like, we can do it step by step. Maybe it'll be easier for you to follow. But that's up to you.
Firstly, do you agree that we are social animals?
So we have a preference for being in a group. We feel bad if we are excluded. I won't ask if you agree with that as it's a given. But would you agree that we generally avoid acts that might result is us being excluded?I have already asserted that we are social animals. Next?
So we have a preference for being in a group. We feel bad if we are excluded. I won't ask if you agree with that as it's a given.
Slow down, I'm trying to keep up. I don't feel bad at all that an atheist group, out of spite, excludes me. We are social animals but unlike all other social animals we are also political animals establishing our group preferences based on rational values that are freely, not instinctively (aka genetically), determined. We don't need a DNA test and a grasp of calculus to identify our preferred group. Do you agree?So we have a preference for being in a group. We feel bad if we are excluded. I won't ask if you agree with that as it's a given.
In our preferred political groups, we are inclined to conform and avoid acts contrary to our rationally agreed values. At the extreme, one would certainly avoid the act that absolutely excludes one from the group, ie., suicide.But would you agree that we generally avoid acts that might result is us being excluded?
Exactly. We avoid what might cause others to exclude us. What others may think of as undesirable characteristics. Such as cowardice. No-one, as I said, likes to be thought of as such. We'd feel shame if we abandoned a friend in adversity, rather than stand with him and help. You'd feel shame if someone bad mouthed your girl and you didn't say something. I mean, they used to shoot men who they thought showed cowardice in the face of the enemy.In our preferred political groups, we are inclined to conform and avoid acts contrary to our rationally agreed values.
IFF the others are rational in their decision to exclude.We avoid what might cause others to exclude us. What others may think of as undesirable characteristics. Such as cowardice. No-one, as I said, likes to be thought of as such.
Depends on the friend's act that provoked his adverse condition. I would feel no shame if my friend were justly in prison for violating the law. I would feel no need to defend a girl whose shameful act provoked justified "bad mouthing".We'd feel shame if we abandoned a friend in adversity, rather than stand with him and help. You'd feel shame if someone bad mouthed your girl and you didn't say something.
See above.I think it's pretty much a given that we'd try to avoid being considered a coward. So unless you disagree with that..?
There indeed might be situations where you felt justified in not taking action. But I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about situations where you feel you should have done something. But didn't. And that others feel the same about your lack of action. They, and you, think that you should have acted but you showed a lack of moral fibre.Depends on the friend's act that provoked his adverse condition. I would feel no shame if my friend were justly in prison for violating the law. I would feel no need to defend a girl whose shameful act provoked justified "bad mouthing".
You use the word "feel" quite often. Animals are ruled by their instincts; some people are similarly ruled by their feelings or emotions. Virtue is the acquired habit of choosing to deny control of our actions to disordered feelings and allow reason to rule. In time the disordered feelings are suppressed, and reason autonomously and without reflections rules our actions. We become morally free from enslavement by our passions.I'm talking about situations where you feel you should have done something. But didn't. And that others feel the same about your lack of action. They, and you, think that you should have acted but you showed a lack of moral fibre.
I think it's pretty much a given that we'd try to avoid being considered a coward. So unless you disagree with that..?
Why do you think that you'd be excluded for 'acting virtuously'? You'd be excluded for acting without virtue.If "others" exclude me for acting virtuously then I think it's quite obvious who has a problem.
Good grief. Whose posts are you reading? I can't remember the number of times that I've said that we are not individually controlled by our genes. They influence our thinking. They give us tendencies. But society has a greater role to play in how we decide to act.Let's speed up the exchange. You will eventually claim that like the animals, our genes control our actions. I disagree.
You're quite the exception, part. Can I ask if you empathise with others?Ah, and thus the value of my indifference... I don't care what others think. Some view apathy as a flaw... I view it as a virtue. I will do what is right and what is good to the best of my ability, without regard to what others may think... and that includes God.
This freedom from concern about the judgment of others leaves me free to do what my heart longs to do... and not what my lesser human frailties might compel me to do.
Can I ask if you empathise with others?
So, you agree that we are not determined solely by materials? That's an odd statement from a professed materialist.I can't remember the number of times that I've said that we are not individually controlled by our genes. They influence our thinking.
And here is the nonsense in your argument to explain the self-sacrificial act. You say at times we act against our own interests in order to belong to the group. However, one who commits the self-sacrificial act by definition absolutely and forever separates themselves from the group. That's a classic non-sequitur.And that 'right thing' in times of danger, in times when it is literally a case of do or die, of life or death, then many choose the latter. ... Sometimes it's a choice between living as a coward or dying with honour.
I contend that your explanation of the self-sacrificial act as a rational atheist is, well, irrational. That's how debate works.Now could it be that you are right instead? That it's God that has given us the love we have for our fellow travellers? And that is the reason for personal sacrifice? Well, it might be. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm pretty certain that I'm not but at least you have explained it from your point of view. I just don't think you're right. And now I have explained it from my point of view.
I do not doubt your view is held honestly; I contend your view is irrational. Nothing personal is implied. Why would you infer that?I'm afraid it's the usual. You are unable to accept that anyone has different views that are honestly held.
The site is the Christian Forum. I'm a Christian.I really have no idea why you are here.
You'd be better off arguing against what I actually said.So, you agree that we are not determined solely by materials? That's an odd statement from a professed materialist.
As I said, a point is often reached when it is preferrable to sacrifice oneself honourably rather than to live in shame. If you don't agree then counter that position. Argue that it never happens. Address the point.And here is the nonsense in your argument to explain the self-sacrificial act. You say at times we act against our own interests in order to belong to the group. However, one who commits the self-sacrificial act by definition absolutely and forever separates themselves from the group. That's a classic non-sequitur.
Your post consists of nothing more than 'that's an odd statement' and 'that's a non sequitur' followed by 'it's irrational'.I contend that your explanation of the self-sacrificial act as a rational atheist is, well, irrational.
I am.You'd be better off arguing against what I actually said.
That is not in question. I know why a Christian would self-sacrifice. The question is why an atheist (no belief in an afterlife) would self-sacrifice when, in his worldview, that is all that there is?As I said, a point is often reached when it is preferrable to sacrifice oneself honourably rather than to live in shame.
Sure. Give us a verifiable example of a professed atheist who self-sacrificed for the sake of an "acquaintance".Argue that it never happens. Address the point.
Yes, I agree. The only explanation for your repetition of this nonsense is the aforementioned Goebbels method.I'm repeating myself too often.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?