Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#528
#528
Orange_Crush said:
I would think your studies in Marriville would have helped you understand that, having studied the specific cultural aspects of them, and the specific statements that God made to Israel before, during, and after giving the law to them.
Click to expand...

Please explain, and be specific. What exactly made it to where a perfect god would need to change his views, which ironically are tied into your views on morality. It seems that a perfect god would have simply forgiven the sinners in the beginning.
 
#529
#529
rjd970 said:
No, I'm using the way I would want to be morally treated as my basis. An omnipotent being isn't needed. If I were a child rapist, then obviously I am not viewing the child as a facet of my moral concern.
Click to expand...

Do you live that out? If "ought" is opinion, then do you live that out?
 
#530
#530
If the individual dictates morality why are there common morals? Are these morals inherent from birth in all intelligent life?
 
#531
#531
Vol8188 said:
Please explain, and be specific. What exactly made it to where a perfect god would need to change his views, which ironically are tied into your views on morality. It seems that a perfect god would have simply forgiven the sinners in the beginning.
Click to expand...

I already explained that. He did not change his views. The context changed. He gave specific laws and penalties to a specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. We no longer sacrifice animals either, because the context has changed and the animal sacrifices were never given to gentiles.

In the UK, the law is "you can turn left at a red light". In the US, you can turn right at a red light. They are two different laws, given to two different groups of people, and both of them fit their purpose.

God still views adultery as wrong. He just hasn't given us the job of sentencing because we are not a theocratic nation. Israel was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#533
#533
rjd970 said:
What? No, I wouldn't want to be murdered, so I don't murder. It also happens to be criminal law, because I suspect the vast majority of people feel the same way.
Click to expand...

It wasn't in Nazi Germany. So, societally it broke down as "wrong" there, no?

But do you live out PKT's worldview? He can't say something is "really" wrong. He can just define how he would act. To be rationally intact, if someone raped his kid, all he really has at his disposal is:

"Hell. That sucked. I wouldn't have done that because I disagree with him as to what is appropriate and what is not. I really hate that he caused harm, pain and anguish in my family, but... and like I said, I wouldn't have done it for my own intellectual reasons, but again... I can't really judge his actions outside of myself. I can't judge his actions. Hell. I wish he hadn't have done that."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#534
#534
Humans possess intellect - specifically the ability to reason. We also possess the ability to love, to practice empathy, to be loyal, etc. We can, and do, learn from our own and others' experiences. I believe these qualities enable subjective morality in society. Subjective morality is good in that it allows multiple perspectives and fosters diversity. With that said, there are certain morals that are pretty much shared within the subjective - no murder, theft, slander, etc.

Looking back through human history we appear to be improving in the morality department, for the most part. We learn. We grow.
 
#535
#535
Orange_Crush said:
It wasn't in Nazi Germany. So, societally it broke down as "wrong" there, no?

But do you live out PKT's worldview? He can't say something is "really" wrong. He can just define how he would act. To be rationally intact, if someone raped his kid, all he really has at his disposal is:

"Hell. That sucked. I wouldn't have done that because I disagree with him as to what is appropriate and what is not. I really hate that he caused harm, pain and anguish in my family, but... and like I said, I wouldn't have done it for my own intellectual reasons, but again... I can't really judge his actions outside of myself. I can't judge his actions. Hell. I wish he hadn't have done that."
Click to expand...

It broke down in Nazi Germany because of the racial dogma that preceded it. To the Nazis, there were classes of people regarded as sub-humans. Given that dogma as believed truth, empathy and the moral landscape was skewed.

The question of ethics/morality should be answered in the present. As I stated, if morality is regarded as a set of knowledge, then that knowledge can progress and regress. We don't stone adulterers anymore even though it was widely accepted in biblical times (and still in parts of the world today). Obviously there has been shifts in the moral landscape that transpire over time and cultures.
 
#536
#536
gcbvol said:
Humans possess intellect - specifically the ability to reason. We also possess the ability to love, to practice empathy, to be loyal, etc. We can, and do, learn from our own and others' experiences. I believe these qualities enable subjective morality in society. Subjective morality is good in that it allows multiple perspectives and fosters diversity. With that said, there are certain morals that are pretty much shared within the subjective - no murder, theft, slander, etc.

Looking back through human history we appear to be improving in the morality department, for the most part. We learn. We grow.
Click to expand...

Many people have reasoned that they should steal, kill and destroy. How do you respond to them, except that they have a different opinion than you? How do you seek justice? Do you send people to prison for differences of opinion?
 
#537
#537
rjd970 said:
It broke down in Nazi Germany because of the racial dogma that preceded it. To the Nazis, there were classes of people regarded as sub-humans. Given that dogma as believed truth, empathy and the moral landscape was skewed.

The question of ethics/morality should be answered in the present. As I stated, if morality is regarded as a set of knowledge, then that knowledge can progress and regress. We don't stone adulterers anymore even though it was widely accepted in biblical times (and still in parts of the world today). Obviously there has been shifts in the moral landscape.
Click to expand...

It is a set of knowledge that seeks to tell others what they "ought" to do. Whatever the breakdown of Nazi Germany, how will you inform them that they "ought" not look at Jews as subhuman. I mean, it was their society. It was their moral opinion that Jews should be treated as less than human. How do you tell them they were wrong because of a different opinion than yours?

I watched a documentary on the Nazi treatment of German sympathizers recently. It was brutal. Bonhoeffer wasn't Jewish, and he was killed by the gov't in a concentration camp because he spoke out against the Nazis. That was their society. How do you tell them their societal moral opinion was less valid than your societal moral opinion?
 
#538
#538
Orange_Crush said:
Many people have reasoned that they should steal, kill and destroy. How do you respond to them, except that they have a different opinion than you? How do you seek justice? Do you send people to prison for differences of opinion?
Click to expand...

I mentioned how there are some behaviors that are viewed in a pretty standard way even with subjective morality (murder, theft, destruction). We learn from our mistakes ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."). We typically understand 'the greater good', which helps us discern what comprises something more than a difference of opinion. I would never claim that subjective morality will produce only healthy fruit; humans possess many poor traits along with the good. Overall, though, I believe it to be good as most people (societies) leverage intellect and experience to improve.
 
#539
#539
gcbvol said:
I mentioned how there are some behaviors that are viewed in a pretty standard way even with subjective morality (murder, theft, destruction). We learn from our mistakes ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."). We typically understand 'the greater good', which helps us discern what comprises something more than a difference of opinion. I would never claim that subjective morality will produce only healthy fruit; humans possess many poor traits along with the good. Overall, though, I believe it to be good as most people (societies) leverage intellect and experience to improve.
Click to expand...

So recluses and isolated peoples are screwed out of having morality?
 
#540
#540
SergeantVol said:
So recluses and isolated peoples are screwed out of having morality?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Do we not also pass down experiences and morals to our children? Of course they then continue to evolve with their own experience, education, etc.

Certainly the morals possessed by the groups you mentioned are likely to vary from your or my morals, but they still possess morals. In fact, they could have morals which could prove ultimately superior. That's part of the good in terms of subjective morality.
 
#541
#541
Orange_Crush said:
It is a set of knowledge that seeks to tell others what they "ought" to do. Whatever the breakdown of Nazi Germany, how will you inform them that they "ought" not look at Jews as subhuman. I mean, it was their society. It was their moral opinion that Jews should be treated as less than human. How do you tell them they were wrong because of a different opinion than yours?

I watched a documentary on the Nazi treatment of German sympathizers recently. It was brutal. Bonhoeffer wasn't Jewish, and he was killed by the gov't in a concentration camp because he spoke out against the Nazis. That was their society. How do you tell them their societal moral opinion was less valid than your societal moral opinion?
Click to expand...

That is like asking how you tell muslim theocracies they are wrong for executing homosexuals, or punishing rape victims. How would you go about doing that with your truths? How would that work? Hey look, the bible says so?

I guess you could ask if they would want to be treated that way. But their response would be that they are actually human, not Jewish.

Who's to say we have it all figured out right now in our culture? Here we are in the 21st century and pot is legal and homosexuals are getting married. Is it really wrong because you believe your God says its wrong? What makes your opinion more sound?

(not saying you agree or disagree with the above, just an exercise, of course)
 
#542
#542
gcbvol said:
I mentioned how there are some behaviors that are viewed in a pretty standard way even with subjective morality (murder, theft, destruction). We learn from our mistakes ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."). We typically understand 'the greater good', which helps us discern what comprises something more than a difference of opinion. I would never claim that subjective morality will produce only healthy fruit; humans possess many poor traits along with the good. Overall, though, I believe it to be good as most people (societies) leverage intellect and experience to improve.
Click to expand...

You're still smuggling some things in.

I mentioned too that there are those who disagree with you on morality. What defines you opinion as more valid than theirs? You allude to social order above selfish ambition. What in this descriptive universe prescribes that one should give up selfishness for societal benefit? That's a tautology. "You should be unselfish for the benefit of others."

By why? Convince me that I should give up my own benefit for the greater benefit. You smuggled in the concept of the "greater" benefit. You smuggled in the idea that societal benefit is "better" than personal benefit.

Is it just social enforcement? Then morality becomes nothing more than "might makes right". I could get a few of my strong, well-armed, selfish friends and overthrow that society. Create a new one. Then morality is anything we say.

Or is it popular vote? In a society of people that likes raping women, then does rape become moral? Especially since it would fulfill my natural desire to leave the most offspring possible?

I think there may be some specifics per this relative morality that you haven't thought about. First, it's a tautological statement that one should be unselfish because they should be unselfish. Next it leads to "might makes right" and "right by popular votes.

You made a great deal about "common" self-evident morals. I agree. But if they are relative, how do you pose your morals as better than those held by people of different opinions? I ask again... Would you send someone to prison for a different opinion? Where is justice among mere opinions? Might makes right? Popular vote? See above...
 
#543
#543
rjd970 said:
That is like asking how you tell muslim theocracies they are wrong for executing homosexuals, or punishing rape victims. How would you go about doing that with your truths? How would that work? Hey look, the bible says so?
Click to expand...

Arguing which moral standard is the right objective standard is entirely different than claiming that there is no moral standard and everyone's opinion is equally valid. At least the two groups would have the ability to argue with one another without being self-contradicting.

rjd970 said:
I guess you could ask if they would want to be treated that way. But their response would be that they are actually human, not Jewish.
Click to expand...

That would do a lot. They could say, "Why should I care? I have the gun. It's a stupid question."

You would have no right to track them down in Argentina and bring them to trial for war crimes. There really were no war crimes. They were just people with a different, equally valid opinion, who lived in a society different than yours. Get off your moral high horse.

rjd970 said:
Who's to say we have it all figured out right now in our culture? Here we are in the 21st century and pot is legal and homosexuals are getting married. Is it really wrong because you believe your God says its wrong? What makes your opinion more sound?
Click to expand...

What a self-contradictory, hypocritical question.

Just kidding. :)

I would say that it is an objective moral truth given by God. You may not agree. But at least I can claim an objective moral truth. You can't. You can't even claim enough moral objectivity to say I would be wrong if I killed them for my beliefs. Hey... We just have different opinions. No big deal.

(Just an exercise; obviously I wouldn't. My objective moral belief would prohibit my doing so.)

rjd970 said:
(not saying you agree or disagree with the above, just an exercise, of course)
Click to expand...

I understand. I always enjoy our discussions. :)
 
#544
#544
Orange_Crush said:
You're still smuggling some things in.

I mentioned too that there are those who disagree with you on morality. What defines you opinion as more valid than theirs? You allude to social order above selfish ambition. What in this descriptive universe prescribes that one should give up selfishness for societal benefit? That's a tautology. "You should be unselfish for the benefit of others."

By why? Convince me that I should give up my own benefit for the greater benefit. You smuggled in the concept of the "greater" benefit. You smuggled in the idea that societal benefit is "better" than personal benefit.

Is it just social enforcement? Then morality becomes nothing more than "might makes right". I could get a few of my strong, well-armed, selfish friends and overthrow that society. Create a new one. Then morality is anything we say.

Or is it popular vote? In a society of people that likes raping women, then does rape become moral? Especially since it would fulfill my natural desire to leave the most offspring possible?

I think there may be some specifics per this relative morality that you haven't thought about. First, it's a tautological statement that one should be unselfish because they should be unselfish. Next it leads to "might makes right" and "right by popular votes.

You made a great deal about "common" self-evident morals. I agree. But if they are relative, how do you pose your morals as better than those held by people of different opinions? I ask again... Would you send someone to prison for a different opinion? Where is justice among mere opinions? Might makes right? Popular vote? See above...
Click to expand...

You are crossing the bridge between morality and legality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#545
#545
SergeantVol said:
Your reference uses atheism and being agnostic in the same categories. It goes further to classify not really religious as being atheist.
Click to expand...

Atheists, agnostics and 'secular people' are all defined in detail for the purposes of the study and referred t as such throughout individually.

At any rate, semantics aside - my point stands, the more secular a country, the lower the murder rates. The more religious the country, the higher the murder rate. The States that tend to be most religious have the highest violent crime rates and the least religious, the lowest crime rates.
 
#547
#547
PKT_VOL said:
You are crossing the bridge between morality and legality.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this discussion, the bridge is short. I am not speaking to tax law. I am speaking to justice, which does not exist without morality. You don't have justice in your professed worldview where everything is just an opinion. You have... well... competing opinions with no true way of prescribing which opinion is more valid than the other.

You can either use:

Popular vote, which has to smuggle morality in to get to justice. You can have a society that votes that it is legal to rape women. It is legal, but not just.

You can have a society where the strong make laws that it is legal to rape women. It is legal, but not just.

You can decide societal morality, but it will eventually come down to a person or a group of persons saying that their moral opinion is more valid than another's-- and it will entail one society telling another society that their moral opinion is more valid than another's.

You are saying-- "No matter what you think, you "ought" not do this and that."

In a descriptive, mechanized universe, you are prescribing "ought".

Edit: I guess I need to make explicit that when you cross that threshold of claiming that your moral opinion is the valid one, you have appealed to an objective moral law, whether you realize it or not.
 
Last edited:
#548
#548
Vol8188 said:
Then why do we no longer stone people for adultery? It seems to me like your "perfect god" may not have made such a great set of rules the first time.
Click to expand...

You really should do some research and study some theology before posting in a debate such as this. Your posts and comments really make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
 
#549
#549
Orange_Crush said:
For the purposes of this discussion, the bridge is short. I am not speaking to tax law. I am speaking to justice, which does not exist without morality. You don't have justice in your professed worldview where everything is just an opinion. You have... well... competing opinions with no true way of prescribing which opinion is more valid than the other.

You can either use:

Popular vote, which has to smuggle morality in to get to justice. You can have a society that votes that it is legal to rape women. It is legal, but not just.

You can have a society where the strong make laws that it is legal to rape women. It is legal, but not just.

You can decide societal morality, but it will eventually come down to a person or a group of persons saying that their moral opinion is more valid than another's-- and it will entail one society telling another society that their moral opinion is more valid than another's.

You are saying-- "No matter what you think, you "ought" not do this and that."

In a descriptive, mechanized universe, you are prescribing "ought".
Click to expand...

Again, morality =/= legality. Hell, there are a lot of GOP posters on here that make that distinction clear when it comes to homosexuality. They believe it is a sin, a wrong act, but do not oppose it legally because of two consenting adults.

Legality evolves force (and government power); morality is just a mere opinion. So, although I think adultery is wrong, I do not think someone should be legally punished (by force) for said action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#550
#550
PKT_VOL said:
Again, morality =/= legality. Hell, there are a lot of GOP posters on here that make that distinction clear when it comes to homosexuality. They believe it is a sin, a wrong act, but do not oppose it legally because of two consenting adults.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. I believe it is wrong, but do not seek to have laws made. That's inconsequential to the point.

PKT_VOL said:
Legality evolves force (and government power); morality is just a mere opinion. So, although I think adultery is wrong, I do not think someone should be legally punished (by force) for said action.
Click to expand...

I am speaking to justice. You can not have justice without morality. You can not have justice without an objective law among competing opinions. The fact that you can't understand this distinction says a lot.

I am speaking at the societal level to show that relative morality is still sneaking in objective law, even at the societal level. Please don't let that confuse the issue by thinking I'm just speaking to government.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top