I know one when I see one.
You are missing the point here by being nickpicky on the details.
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.
I know one when I see one.That was a direct answer, not a tangent.
You are missing the point here by being nickpicky on the details.Abstract thinking is part of reality,
I know one when I see one.
You are missing the point here by being nickpicky on the details.
@Ana the Ist
We are clearly at cross-purposes. This will be my last reply to you in this thread. I am unconvinced that a fruitful discussion is possible.
1: I did not address your questions about "not getting bogged in semantics", because it would have done so if I had. You claimed witch-hunters were OT realists, so I showed you witch-hunting arose without any OT input of any sort. A mistranslation or understanding was later roped in, but the OT has little to do with the phenomenon. This is a circumferential idea anyway, as moral relativists are just as likely, if not more, to kill.
2. Which brings us to the fact that we don't even seem to agree when someone is a relativist or realist. The Nazis called themselves relativists, they denied explicitly the existence of an absolute morality. Quote Hitler as much as you want, but context will make this clear.
The Nazis believed that the Aryan race was superior genetically to the Jewish. This was a 'realist' claim, but no moral position came in as of yet. They held that Supermen could transcend the limitations of morality placed upon them by the weak, in fact had a right to. In that way they would create the new morality according to their own Will. So the Nazis considered the Jews evil and their extermination a moral good, but by their own morality created according to their Will. This is a relativist position, though couched in the rules of moral or ethical behaviour, as they determined what this would be.
They did the same with Christianity, crafting a 'Positive Christianity' shorn of its 'negative' elements such as 'blessed are the meek' or Semitic elements. In this way, they could then paint it as dedicated to the German Volk, with Jesus as an Aryan opposing Jewish weakness. So you find many quotes of Hitler speaking good of Jesus or such, but what he means thereby has to be made plain. The Nazis aren't some weird Other, that somehow determined a heretofore hidden universal truth of evil Jews, but an outgrowth of 19th century moral relativism - in fact predicted to come to being by 19th century intellectuals like Dostoevsky and Nietsche.
3. I gave you the article on Conversion and Somatoform disorders and their historical classifications, to show that it has little connection to Mass Hysteria. It may elicit it though. So the fact that you couldn't find it there was exactly my point. And again, you linked no experts on the topic. It is not sociology that we were discussing. The only expert article linked was the one I linked, I am afraid.
4. The Slave Trade arose from economic necessity. It was strenuously opposed by the Church, even by Archbishops of Mexico and prelates tasked with overseeing the New World. These were hardly unimportant naysayers. But Mammon often prevails, as occured in this case, and the Church had to come to terms with facts on the ground. It is a similar position to Catholicism opposing birth control or abortion - some churches or groups will buck the trend of the Church, siding with popular opinion, while Religious Tradition and Magisterium will dig in its heels. Read Hugh Thomas' excellent histories of the colonisation of Latin America and this will be plain..
Who determines the structure of an atom? On a naturalistic account of morality, cooperation is just an intrinsic part of any organizational system, whether at the cellular level or the societal level. Toss in conscious, rational thought and you would have a hard time justifying not acting accordingly.
The point is two or more subjective beings exist objectively and therefore objective morality exists. It’s objectively good to treat each other with love and kindness.
Who determines the structure of an atom? On a naturalistic account of morality, cooperation is just an intrinsic part of any organizational system, whether at the cellular level or the societal level. Toss in conscious, rational thought and you would have a hard time justifying not acting accordingly. Corruption isn't bad just because we don't like it--it does have a detrimental effect on a society. Social experiments do fail.
On a traditional theistic account of morality, on the other hand, the good doesn't emerge from the natural order, but is itself the underlying nature of reality from which everything that exists has its origin. But I really don't think atheists should get too worked up over the theistic side of things. Stick to atheistic moral realism.
I usually argue for naturalistic moral realism, but for something different, here's a taste of WLC's favorite enemy, Atheistic Moral Platonism: In Defense of Non-natural, Non-theistic Moral Realism
Eating meat -- sinful, or not?
Remember that if you ever venture over into the politics forums and see how the Conservatives and Liberals (attempt to ) debate one another.
You told me the "traditional Christian answer." I want the objective morality folks are claiming exists.
The second half of my post was not the traditional Christian response. I'm less keen on the idea of humans having dominion over animals than the Bible is, though that could be because modern culture and our distance from our source of food is clouding my judgment on this issue.
I'm pretty cool just saying that compassion leads to genuine wellbeing, and wandering around hating everyone is going to rebound and make you miserable. Good luck subjectively deciding that nursing grudges is going to cause you to prosper emotionally.
Is a prisoner, in a US prison, going to have "genuine wellbeing" by acting with compassion to all those in his community?
Or is it far more likely to lead to him being used, abused, and possibly injured/killed?
Do you suppose that a prisoner is less human by virtue if being a prisoner?
Or just that compassion is a weakness rather than a strength?
I can't even imagine why you would ask this....care to expand upon this question?
In prison? Undoubtedly. There may be brief moments...once in a great while....where compassion may be useful, but for the most part it will mark you as prey to a bunch of predators, and a liability to all others.
Prison is one of multiple environments where compassion will definitely not lead to genuine wellbeing.
Not really, other than that prisons are not necessarily devoid of compassion any more than prisoners are, it might look different, and be less publicly displayed, but I don't see any reason why it would be absent.
If compassion is simply 'useful' then I would not really consider it compassion.
I've never been incarcerated, and I have no desire to find out, and I would agree that the public display of compassion may well mark you as prey, but it's absence will simply mark you out as worthless, to those who might otherwise defend you, so choose your poison.
In any event, I would dispute the idea that compassion is ever an actual weakness, and it certainly would require far more strength to maintain it, than to rid yourself of it.
The second half of my post was not the traditional Christian response. I'm less keen on the idea of humans having dominion over animals than the Bible is, though that could be because modern culture and our distance from our source of food is clouding my judgment on this issue.
Most moral realists aren't claiming the type of "objective morality" you think we are. Just because we don't think it's merely subjective doesn't mean it's codified somewhere. I'm pretty cool just saying that compassion leads to genuine wellbeing, and wandering around hating everyone is going to rebound and make you miserable. Good luck subjectively deciding that nursing grudges is going to cause you to prosper emotionally.
I take it you've never been inside a prison or known anyone who has.
If this is what you believe...best stay out of prison.
That's nice...but we're talking about a person's wellbeing. Being compassionate won't help when you're being raped or having your head stomped in.
I've been inside a prison and have known people who have been imprisoned.
I have every intention to stay out of prison.
No, neither will being a 'prick'. However someone else having compassion (or even me having compassion for someone else) and then subsequently intervening on this basis, might. (don't mistake compassion for passivity)
Which is something which rarely happens in prison. Simply put, if those in prison shared your view of compassion... then prisoners would generally be treating each other with compassion. Instead, its viewed as weakness... and quickly causes one to be victimized. The general rule it s that prisoners come out as worse criminals than when they came in...and its because they have to suppress emotions like compassion specifically for their wellbeing.
Once again, you miss the forest by focusing on the trees. I not the one who can't tell any difference between abstract thinking and reality.You literally said that abstract thinking wasn't part of reality.
You claimed objective morality exists -- noting that I don't disagree, I wanted to see it applied to a real-world scenario.
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?