Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?
Easy. The limit is something called the "majority".
|
Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?Easy. The limit is something called the "majority".
Interesting that you would say that. I think that there are a lot of people here that would disagree with you on that. Starting with Kirth...
;-)
|
|
Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?Easy. The limit is something called the "majority".
After thinking about it, this really doesn't answer the question either. I wasn't asking what makes something a law. I was asking at what point do personal "morals"/opinions/feelings/whatever become "law". Where does "right for me" become "right for everyone"?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?Easy. The limit is something called the "majority".
Sweet! Let's bring back racial segregation. What, that's wrong? But the majority supported it!
You didn't answer the question.What was your point in doing it here?Why would I not do it here? But I'll leave it at that.
OK, you asked for it: Because I felt like it.
Have you even read it?
Yup and I was surprised that it was even more violent and contained even more bigoted views than I thought. It sometimes still gives me the urge to go to one of those churches were anyone can preach/talk about a certain part of the bible and then cite one of the "not politically correct" verses. Like Revelation 2:20-23 or 1 Timothy 2:11-2:12. Or any of the endless barbarisms of the OT.
Actually that's the point of the New Testament. (Not the only point, but a big one.) And Charlie Bell was trying to show and demonstrate that. The Sermon on the Mount goes into how we get that a bit. There's a lot of "You have heard it said/written/etc." followed by "but I say ..." There are quite a number of places where this is done/shown. But if you are looking for a list of "civic laws" and a separate list of "moral laws", then no, there isn't one. But in ignoring or not accepting the passages that deal with exactly what you are talking about, you become exactly the kind of person you have an issue with.
But that is what I'm talking about. If Jesus makes certain statements in one part of the book it doesn't mean others are to be taken the same way. This is just subjective reinterpretation.
Also I do not disclaim in the least that there are passages in the bible that coincide with our modern morals. What I reject is saying that the bible is the source of absolute morals and then only cherry-picking certain statements that support them and ignoring ones that don't.
Sweet! Let's bring back racial segregation. What, that's wrong? But the majority supported it!
As a European I'm no expert on American history, but AFAIK the Civil Rights Act was a piece of legislation in a democratic country. If it didn't have the support of the majority it wouldn't have lasted.
Also, you are proving my point of moral relativism. During racial segregation most people thought it was morally right, this view changed over time, as you prove with your indignation.
|
|
What I reject is saying that the bible is the source of absolute morals and then only cherry-picking certain statements that support them and ignoring ones that don't.
Have I done that?
But that is what I'm talking about. If Jesus makes certain statements in one part of the book it doesn't mean others are to be taken the same way. This is just subjective reinterpretation.
Actually, for a lot of it, yes it does. I guess that it would have been nice if Jesus had actually taken the entire Levitical Law, line by line, and given everyone a more "correct" interpretation for it. Instead he gave us the general idea on how to go about it and said "you guys are smart -- figure out the rest of it".
(As long as the Sermon on the Mount is, you can still read it in its entirety in less than a half hour. I have a strong suspicion that the actual sermon took FAR longer than that -- meaning that, at the very least, it most likely isn't "complete". Meaning that we are largely left to our own devices to figure it out for ourselves. I guess that it could have been "complete" and we would have had a document that rivaled the current healthcare bill in complexity -- which would have, again, taken us further away from what Jesus was trying to get across.)
Interesting that you would say that. I think that there are a lot of people here that would disagree with you on that. Starting with Kirth...Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?Easy. The limit is something called the "majority".
Don't blame me! John Stuart Mill made an excellent case that protection of minority rights against the "tyranny of the majority" was in fact a higher-outcome strategy -- he didn't use the language of game theory, of course, but it's simple to translate. In other words, given the basic "rule" that people get together and write laws, or pick people to write laws for them, and set up a system of punishment and forgiveness in order to encourage people to follow those laws, there are several ways of approaching it. Of those, a straight "majority-rules" proposition, although appealing at first, after a number of turns proves to be a less successful strategy than using a "preservation of agreed-upon 'rights' for everyone" critereon for laws.
However, AFAIK leaving a choice between two methods of calculating attack bonuses is quite unusual.
Cross-posting between threads is all too common, though...
What was your point? There are lots of places you can exercise your "freedom of expression". What was your point in doing it here?
Are we still trying to silence dissent in the guise of preserving civility? I'd better go ensure my papers are in order before I post here.
Talk about offensive...
|
|
Like Revelation 2:20-23 or 1 Timothy 2:11-2:12.
And you really know how to pick them...
1 Timothy 2 really needs to be taken in context. And should really be included with 1 Timothy 3. It talks about appropriate worship conditions in the church. There are some things that are mentioned that are very much signs of the time (like braided hair) and a few other things. Many churches struggle over this passage and try to enforce certain things in the church. I still think that the overall message with the passage is the discussion of what makes an "appropriate worship". Very much by nature, this will change. (For the record, our current pastor is a woman.)
Revelation 2 is a bit more difficult. Not because of how "bad" or "wrong" it is. But because I really have no idea what it's talking about. The passage(s) talk about "letters" to different "churches". Generally condemning them for something or other. The feel of the passage in question makes it sound like there was someone who was practicing "sexual immorality" and bringing others along with her. The thing is that I've heard more different takes on these and other passages in Revelation that I'm not sure that anyone will truly know what "correct" is. Here's what I think about it. These were not actual "letters" to churches but rather takes on stereotypes to make a number of points. That we need to be careful not to just go with the majority -- because a "simple majority" isn't always right. That there are some sins and some practices that actually cause more harm than just to the individuals in question. That "Jezebel" isn't actually a person in this case but rather a sort of "title".
Don't blame me! John Stuart Mill made an excellent case that protection of minority rights against the "tyranny of the majority" was in fact a higher-outcome strategy -- he didn't use the language of game theory, of course, but it's simple to translate. In other words, given the basic "rule" that people get together and write laws, or pick people to write laws for them, and set up a system of punishment and forgiveness in order to encourage people to follow those laws, there are several ways of approaching it. Of those, a straight "majority-rules" proposition, although appealing at first, after a number of turns proves to be a less successful strategy than using a "preservation of agreed-upon 'rights' for everyone" critereon for laws.
But how are these 'agreed upon rights' obtained. I suspect through negotiation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
@Charlie Bell: You don't seem to understand how morals work in reality.
Quite on the contrary. Moral principles are absolutes, but how they play out in practice depends on the circumstances involved. The principles do not change, only the circumstances: Aristotle's universals vs. particulars. Ethical practice is a matter of prioritization.
For instance, you make much of your First Amendment rights (which nobody here is challenging). If you agree with the Founding Fathers that those rights are "inalienable," you're a moral absolutist. In reality, men and women with rifles and a sense of civic duty are the reason you enjoy those rights.
Even if a person thinks that they have moral absolutes (like not to kill anyone or not to kill any innocent) these can change (sometimes very quickly, especially in extreme situation). I remember reading an article about a special forces soldier in Afghanistan. They were on a mission to capture or kill some Taliban and while waiting for nightfall, close to the Taliban's house, a boy shepherding goats discovered them. They made a vote in the group about killing the boy or not. The soldier relating the account was the only survivor of the group and had voted against killing the kid, which turned out to be their downfall. In the article the soldier cursed himself for being such a liberal coward and said it was a great mistake, that he never should have decided that way.
I am a U.S. Army combat arms officer and a veteran of the Afghan campaign in which this tragedy occurred. I am not someone who needs an explanation of military ethics. You read articles about it. I live or die by it.
Also, common morals are not based on "nebulous" concepts. They are based on common consensus also called (secular) "laws" that are created in a democratic process. I am shocked that I must point this out.
There are so many problems here I hardly know where to begin. So, if legality is the benchmark (which in itself is an assertation of an absolute morality), you're OK with Uganda's law making homosexuality a capital offense? Apartheid? Soviet-era gulags? Slavery in Antebellum America? Cause hey, they're legal. Moreover, just because something is law, does that give it the force of a moral obligation? We drive on the right in America. Are Brits immoral because they drive on the left? Much of the body of law is arbitrary, not based on any kind of moral principle whatsoever.
Of course we can condemn foreign cultures for their morals/laws.
Not without asserting an absolute moral standard.
But we do it on a different basis. We see it as the reason they are so unprogressive societies compared to ours and NOT because our morals are in a religious sense somehow superior.
By condemning another society's morals, you are precisely claiming that your own are superior, whether they are based on religion or not. In other words, you're claiming a moral absolute.
|
|
What was your point? There are lots of places you can exercise your "freedom of expression". What was your point in doing it here?Are we still trying to silence dissent in the guise of preserving civility? I'd better go ensure my papers are in order before I post here.
Talk about offensive...
Not trying to be offensive. Apparently his "point" was "because I felt like it".
Here was his original post --
I generally find it quite strange that most believers and especially fundamentalists don't see that the interpretations and moral lessons taken from religious doctrines change over time and thus PROVE that there is no moral (or other) absolutism for which their doctrines (or religion in general) are a basis.
I mean even the most hardcore christian fundamentalists wouldn't support the death penalty for adultery (I hope).
Another hilarious thing are the moderate religious people that say religious texts shouldn't be taken literally and that they're all a matter of interpretation. But then, why treat it seriously (especially as "word of god") in the first place? If it's all just subjective interpretations of supposedly wise theologians, who says they know more about how to live in a society than sociologists (that actually do scientific research about the subject) or anybody else for that matter?
I don't remember there being any talk about "moral absolutism" to begin with. So I'm not sure what this "PROVES". But apparently it was important enough to put it in all caps to better "prove" his point. (Being "because I felt like it".) Then talking about "hilarious things" that "moderate religious people" believe or say isn't generally a good way to begin a "civil discussion" with said "moderate religious people".
Again, it's not what was said, but rather how. When your very first post on the thread is one that appears (not just to Christians but to others) as though you are trying to pick a fight, then there was probably something wrong with how it was said.
Are we still trying to silence dissent in the guise of preserving civility?
1. Example statement: "You are a total moron for believing a single word of that demented crap."
Commentary: While a legitimate opinion, it's worded somewhat poorly given the gratuitous personal insults.2. Example statement: "Please understand, though, that I do not share your reasons for thinking so: specifically, I don't accept Corinthians 21 (or any other part of the Bible) as evidence of a divine plan."
Commentary: Now you've given a legitimate reason for disagreeing, while making a legitimate effort to address the other person's framework.
3. Example statements: "It's very arrogant of you to fail to accept the book that offers us all salvation through God's plan." / "Acts 12 proves that anyone who doesn't believe in God is misguided and wrong." / "Anyone who doesn't follow the Bible has no morals."
Commentary: Again, refusal to engage the other person's frame of reference, and personal insults to boot.
4. Example statement: "Please make your points by citing references, and omit words like 'wacko.'"
Commentary: Legitimate requests to facilitate civil discussion.
5. Example statement: "Refusing to accept God's obvious Truth is shameful, and admitting it is just plain rude."
Commentary: No, your assumption of sole ownership of Truth is possibly erroneous, and pointing that out is necessary.
|
|
Don't blame me! John Stuart Mill made an excellent case that protection of minority rights against the "tyranny of the majority" was in fact a higher-outcome strategy -- he didn't use the language of game theory, of course, but it's simple to translate. In other words, given the basic "rule" that people get together and write laws, or pick people to write laws for them, and set up a system of punishment and forgiveness in order to encourage people to follow those laws, there are several ways of approaching it. Of those, a straight "majority-rules" proposition, although appealing at first, after a number of turns proves to be a less successful strategy than using a "preservation of agreed-upon 'rights' for everyone" critereon for laws.Interesting that you would say that. I think that there are a lot of people here that would disagree with you on that. Starting with Kirth...Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?Easy. The limit is something called the "majority".
I just know that you live in "majority ruled Baptist land" and don't see that as being the best way to go about things all the time.
Still curious as to your take (and others) on the balance between "right for me" and "right for everyone". I know that this is something that kind of crosses between religion and politics -- making it REALLY messy -- but I have a number of ideas on "laws" and "morals" that seem to differ from the majority. Starting with -- often when "morals" are brought up, many people bring up the laws to try and justify them. Yet I see them as two very different things. Yet many seem to use one to get to the other and the whole thing seems to end up rather cyclical.
(Am I making any sense at all?)
|
|
Where do societal (sp?) "morals" start and personal "morals" end? Basically, at what point do we push off "morals" as "laws"?
That is a doosey of a question isn't it?
Something can be both moral and a law. Example: it is wrong to kill people without certain circumstances. In this case the moral nature is in protecting the victim, but the legal nature is in protection of society. The law, in this case, *is* the golden rule used in a wider framework than that of the individual.
If there are but three people in the entire world it is still wrong to kill one of those persons. It doesn't matter that the others think it was great to kill the other, might did not make it right in this case because it explicitly ended the existence of another. Therefore it cannot be the majority that determines what is moral here.
It also cannot be the majority that determines the law, since there has never been a perfect communistic society. If a perfect communistic society were to have existed, this would be a plausible argument at the least. Since one has not existed, then determination of the law always falls on the hands of the few and not the majority. What is actually the case: it falls into the hands of those who have power.
In most societies, power falls into the hands of just a few. This is true even of democratic societies. Power may be derived from the masses, but it always falls into the hands of the few to create and implement laws. Take for example coalition governments. They're created by an effective representative minority holding power over a simple majority. Another case is dictatorship, where but one person rules.
So, since there is no effective way to say that laws are determined by majority... they are not relative by nature. They must be derived directly from morality. But whence does morality come from?
If I didn't have a game to go to in about an hour, I'd answer that. Give me a day or so, I'll come back and answer again (though I basically answered this question a few pages back).
Regards,
Studpuffin
often when "morals" are brought up, many people bring up the laws to try and justify them. Yet I see them as two very different things. Yet many seem to use one to get to the other and the whole thing seems to end up rather cyclical.
Understood. I'd view useful laws as ones which promote higher-end results -- and since I've defined that as "moral," I'd be saying that useful laws should reflect these sorts of pragmatic "morals."
However, other people define "moral" as "what my book says," and since the books don't usually agree, we end up with a breakdown. Laws therefore should NOT be based on those morals, unless they also coincide with the first kind.
In the current situation, it's even muddier, because a lot of laws are based on the first sort of morals (e.g., the Bill of Rights), some on the second (e.g., nudity is illegal), and some on no morals at all, but rather on attempts to consolidate and/or retain power or influence.
Given that situation, "moral" and "legal" should be made very clearly distinct from one another, as you've stated.
Quite on the contrary. Moral principles are absolutes, but how they play out in practice depends on the circumstances involved. The principles do not change, only the circumstances: Aristotle's universals vs. particulars. Ethical practice is a matter of prioritization.
The fact that you agree to prioritization IS moral relativism. It means in certain situations you have different moral standards by which you decide. The moral "principles" you describe are just concepts and as such any characterization of them is irrelevant. What makes moral laws absolute or relative is how they are applied in reality (ie if a moral law is absolute for someone he applies it in each and every situation without fail).
For instance, you make much of your First Amendment rights (which nobody here is challenging). If you agree with the Founding Fathers that those rights are "inalienable," you're a moral absolutist. In reality, men and women with rifles and a sense of civic duty are the reason you enjoy those rights.
Same as above. Just because I might consider a law as 'absolute' (which I don't, since I acknowledge that it didn't always exist and was created at a certain point), does NOT mean it is in reality.
There are so many problems here I hardly know where to begin. So, if legality is the benchmark (which in itself is an assertation of an absolute morality), you're OK with Uganda's law making homosexuality a capital offense? Apartheid? Soviet-era gulags? Slavery in Antebellum America? Cause hey, they're legal. Moreover, just because something is law, does that give it the force of a moral obligation? We drive on the right in America. Are Brits immoral because they drive on the left? Much of the body of law is arbitrary, not based on any kind of moral principle whatsoever.
The problem with these examples of laws is the following. Either the 'laws' weren't achieved through common consensus and are thus just arbitrary rules of a dictatorship OR they were achieved through consensus and were considered moral. The example for the latter are slavery laws. Your ancestors considered slavery perfectly acceptable under every moral standard. The fact that you consider it amoral today doesn't change that fact. THAT is moral relativism in action.
Also, if you drove on the right in the UK you would endanger the lives of others, thus not following that law would make you amoral.Not without asserting an absolute moral standard.
Wrong. A relative moral standard is totally sufficient. We're just saying our society is more advanced because of our current liberal laws.
We can measure how "advanced" our society is by measuring life expectancy (for example).By condemning another society's morals, you are precisely claiming that your own are superior, whether they are based on religion or not. In other words, you're claiming a moral absolute.
I never denied saying our relative (ie current) morals are superior (see above). Again, this has nothing to do moral absolutes.
An example (for Moff) as to how I see morals (in my sense of the word, not others') as properly interacting with laws:
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Not trying to be offensive. Apparently his "point" was "because I felt like it".
Here was his original post --
????
My "point" was in my original post. After you asked WHY I made this point HERE, I said because I felt like it.
1 Timothy 2 really needs to be taken in context. And should really be included with 1 Timothy 3. It talks about appropriate worship conditions in the church. There are some things that are mentioned that are very much signs of the time (like braided hair) and a few other things. Many churches struggle over this passage and try to enforce certain things in the church. I still think that the overall message with the passage is the discussion of what makes an "appropriate worship". Very much by nature, this will change. (For the record, our current pastor is a woman.)
Both your explanations PERFECTLY underline my point, that people use subjective interpretations to rationalize away the "non-politically correct" parts of your doctrine.
"...needs to be taken in context" -- Classic. My question: Says who? Your bible? Nobody braids their hair nowadays? So what if it talks about appropriate worship. It says women are to shut up. There's no denying it. If you say that by nature it changes over time, your saying the bible is just a historical document. What makes any of it an authority for modern times then?Revelation 2 is a bit more difficult. Not because of how "bad" or "wrong" it is. But because I really have no idea what it's talking about. The passage(s) talk about "letters" to different "churches". Generally condemning them for something or other. The feel of the passage in question makes it sound like there was someone who was practicing "sexual immorality" and bringing others along with her. The thing is that I've heard more different takes on these and other passages in Revelation that I'm not sure that anyone will truly know what "correct" is. Here's what I think about it. These were not actual "letters" to churches but rather takes on stereotypes to make a number of points. That we need to be careful not to just go with the majority -- because a "simple majority" isn't always right. That there are some sins and some practices that actually cause more harm than just to the individuals in question. That "Jezebel" isn't actually a person in this case but rather a sort of "title".
If you aren't sure what it says or means here, how can you be sure about any other part of the bible? The rest is yet again a subjective interpretation. I could interpret it as saying that Jesus will rape that women named Jezebel. Your interpretation wouldn't be anymore valid than mine. BTW this is exactly what religious schisms are all about and shows why there are hundreds of different denominations most of which claim to have the one and only truth (absolute).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
As a European I'm no expert on American history, but AFAIK the Civil Rights Act was a piece of legislation in a democratic country. If it didn't have the support of the majority it wouldn't have lasted.
I didn't see this until after I wrote that about the 1st Amendment, but if you live in a democratic country where you have a legal right to freedom of expression, my point still stands regardless of your actual location. Your country's troops ensure that you get to enjoy the rights that you possess naturally. Absolute principle = you have a right to freedom of expression. Practice = people with guns protect you from bad people who would take away your rights.
Also, you are proving my point of moral relativism. During racial segregation most people thought it was morally right, this view changed over time, as you prove with your indignation.
I'm not indignant, I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Either you think certain things are wrong no matter the circumstances (and you're really a moral absolutist) or you think any possible wickedness could be justified by a simple majority.
|
|
However, other people define "moral" as "what my book says," and since the books don't usually agree, we end up with a breakdown. Laws therefore should NOT be based on those morals, unless they also coincide with the first kind.
Thanks guys. I think we're touching on what I'm trying to figure out. But I'm not quite there yet. I'll give it another shot or two. (Because I'm not all that sure if I know what I'm trying to figure out.)
"Law" -- Keep the Sabbath holy. Well, what does that mean? (I know what that means -- it's rhetorical -- keep reading.) I feel that the "moral" behind the law is to make sure to take a good break from the week, to be sure to take time out to spend with friends and especially family, and (if you are religious) be sure to take deliberate time to devote to God (or whatever is equivalent). But maybe that isn't morally specific enough. Then we have to make it more specific so that people get the "idea". Keep people from walking more than a half mile on that day. You can't press a gas pedal more than three times that day. You have to spend time in a church at least 5 hours. Etc. Because otherwise you are not "moral" enough. Or then we get into others' actions. My boss made me work an extra half hour on that day. These friends demanded more time on that day which isn't fair to these other friends. Now we should make this "moral" law an actual law to "benefit" the people.
While the above scenario is somewhat silly, I would really prefer not going back to the time when you can't carry more than 2.5 lbs. any distance at all because that would mean you weren't "keeping the Sabbath". Yet you can't buy alcohol on Sunday. Which is apparently better morally since the majority ruled it that way. (And the irony is that Saturday is technically the "Sabbath".) Is it more "moral" to kill a criminal "before their time" or is it more "moral" to lock them up in a tiny room for the rest of their lives until they die "naturally"?
I think I'm trying to figure out when (as Kirth puts it) "morals" begin to "promote higher-end results."
Understood. I'd view useful laws as ones which promote higher-end results -- and since I've defined that as "moral," I'd be saying that useful laws should reflect these sorts of pragmatic "morals."
However, other people define "moral" as "what my book says," and since the books don't usually agree, we end up with a breakdown. Laws therefore should NOT be based on those morals, unless they also coincide with the first kind.
In the current situation, it's even muddier, because a lot of laws are based on the first sort of morals (e.g., the Bill of Rights), some on the second (e.g., nudity is illegal), and some on no morals at all, but rather on attempts to consolidate and/or retain power or influence.
Given that situation, "moral" and "legal" should be made very clearly distinct from one another, as you've stated.
When I talk about "laws" being equivalent to "morals", I'm mainly talking about fundamental laws that are in our countries' Constitutions. Or things like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Just because some laws are morally neutral, it does not mean that all are.
|
|
Since we're running a little late:
It seems to me that "criminal" laws derive from certain morals, specifically to prevent punishments from outweighing the crime. Criminal laws seem to exist to protect the accused from having things escalated against them, or at least to spell out what the repurcussion is for committing a crime.
I didn't see this until after I wrote that about the 1st Amendment, but if you live in a democratic country where you have a legal right to freedom of expression, my point still stands regardless of your actual location. Your country's troops ensure that you get to enjoy the rights that you possess naturally. Absolute principle = you have a right to freedom of expression. Practice = people with guns protect you from bad people who would take away your rights.
My freedom of expression is NOT an absolute right. In no place has such a right existed for eternity. It is a right that had to be fought for and that must be defended. If I went to North Korea I wouldn't have that right, and no matter how much I claim that it is an absolute right I would not have it.
I'm not indignant, I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Either you think certain things are wrong no matter the circumstances (and you're really a moral absolutist) or you think any possible wickedness could be justified by a simple majority.
Every possible wickedness HAS BEEN justified by a majority that thought it perfectly moral (slavery being just an example). This is exactly why there are no absolutes. If you go to Afghanistan and ask them if a woman should have the same rights as a man the overwhelming majority will tell you "no", precisely because they think that is the moral thing to do. The only absolute there is, is that Afghanistan is a less developed country than ours BECAUSE of their "bad" (from our perspective) morals.
|
|
Since we're running a little late:
It seems to me that "criminal" laws derive from certain morals, specifically to prevent punishments from outweighing the crime. Criminal laws seem to exist to protect the accused from having things escalated against them, or at least to spell out what the repurcussion is for committing a crime.
The accused or the victim? Also, what makes a moral become a "criminal" law? (I'm not getting what you're saying -- feeling especially obtuse today. Must be the cold medicine.) It sounds like the "moral" part of the law comes into play with the punishment rather than the crime.
It seems to me that "criminal" laws derive from certain morals, specifically to prevent punishments from outweighing the crime.
Crime: A guy grows some plants in his backyard (or closet).
Punishment: Guy spends 7 years being raped in a max-security prison. When he gets out, he is not permitted to hold down a job, for the rest of his life, because of background checks.Yeah, no way that punishment outwieghs the crime.
Or did you mean "criminal laws SHOULD derive from ... , but sadly, they don't"? In the latter case, I'd agree.
There's no denying it.I was wrong. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in trying to engage in a civil discussion. You are more intent on telling others how wrong they are than in listening to what they have to say. I was wrong and now I'm done.
Please explain to me in a civil way what it says here:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
I said there's no denying that it says women should shut up.
|
|
It seems to me that "criminal" laws derive from certain morals, specifically to prevent punishments from outweighing the crime.Crime: I grow some plants.
Punishment: I spend 7 years being raped in a max-security prison. When I get out, I am not permitted to hold down a job, permanently, because of background checks.Yeah, no way that punishment outwieghs the crime.
Or did you mean "criminal laws SHOULD derive from ... , but sadly, they don't"? In the latter case, I'd agree.
I said they would "seem" to, but there are going to be examples to the contrary. Some laws exist for what amount to very bad reasons, or at best ambiguous ones and a policy was enacted to deal with it. Things like nylon are a reason not to grow certain plants, but it's not exactly a good reason. At best, you can come up with some ambiguity that isn't applied evenly across the board.
However, an eye for an eye could be called somewhat balanced (though I'm not a proponent of the death penalty), since it doesn't escalate to killing others (family & friends). At best, this is also ambiguous and based upon circumstance.
What is neat about our legal code is its flexibility. There are minimums and maximums in place. Unfortunately, it is sometimes easier to deal with some crimes than others. It'd be nice to catch that serial killer before he kills again, but the cops already know where to go for some crimes.
Power corrupts, and power isn't necessarily held by the majority. More often, it's concentrated in the hands of the few. They get theirs first, it's unfortunate.
|
Every possible wickedness HAS BEEN justified by a majority that thought it perfectly moral (slavery being just an example). This is exactly why there are no absolutes.
Your argument fails to account for the fact that a majority claiming wickedness is justified does not make wickedness justified. That is, the majority can be wrong.
|
|
Your argument fails to account for the fact that a majority claiming wickedness is justified does not make wickedness justified. That is, the majority can be wrong.
Every possible wickedness HAS BEEN justified by a majority that thought it perfectly moral (slavery being just an example). This is exactly why there are no absolutes.
+1
Your argument fails to account for the fact that a majority claiming wickedness is justified does not make wickedness justified. That is, the majority can be wrong.
But only from our (the present majority) current point of view OR from the point of view of a minority at that time. Take slavery in the US. At the time most people thought it absolutely moral to own slaves (except for the slaves themselves and a few enlightened thinkers).
Just because we know that our current morals are better for society, does not mean we would have thought so if we lived in those times (in fact chances are pretty bad if you look at the majority back then).
But only from our (the present majority) current point of view OR from the point of view of a minority at that time. Take slavery in the US. At the time most people thought it absolutely moral to own slaves (except for the slaves themselves and a few enlightened thinkers).
Or from the point of view of non-zero-sum solutions. The rules (state of existence in a communal society) of the "game" in 1700 are insufficiently different from the current rules in order to have different outcomes. Therefore, what's "moral" (a more successful strategy) now is the same as it was in 1700. Slavery, if wrong now, was also wrong then. What the majority declare to be moral does not, by itself, influence the outcome of the game simulation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The fact that you agree to prioritization IS moral relativism. It means in certain situations you have different moral standards by which you decide. The moral "principles" you describe are just concepts and as such any characterization of them is irrelevant. What makes moral laws absolute or relative is how they are applied in reality (ie if a moral law is absolute for someone he applies it in each and every situation without fail).
No. That makes morality situational, and therefore practical, not relative. The relativity or absolutism of any particular ethical system is based on its foundational principles, not its practice. I always use the same set of moral principles, but not every principle in that set applies to every ethical problem. For instance, I don't wonder whether it will violate my principle against sleeping with women other than my wife if I fudge the speed limit while driving. Deciding whether or not to fight in Afghanistan required a larger portion of principles that interacted with each other. Also principles exist independent of any individual's practice or failure to practice them.
The problem with these examples of laws is the following. Either the 'laws' weren't achieved through common consensus and are thus just arbitrary rules of a dictatorship OR they were achieved through consensus and were considered moral. The example for the latter are slavery laws. Your ancestors considered slavery perfectly acceptable under every moral standard. The fact that you consider it amoral today doesn't change that fact. THAT is moral relativism in action.
Also, if you drove on the right in the UK you would endanger the lives of others, thus not following that law would make you amoral.
This argument can be reduced to: "laws must be founded on common consensus to be valid." That is a statement of a moral principle as an absolute. You really cannot proclaim your own relativism without tripping over an absolute.
On the other hand, as a moral absolutist, I have no problem making the claim that slavery and tyranny are wrong. Just because a bunch of people think something is right at the time (or can get away with it) doesn't mean that it is.
Wrong. A relative moral standard is totally sufficient. We're just saying our society is more advanced because of our current liberal laws.
We can measure how "advanced" our society is by measuring life expectancy (for example).
A relative moral standard cannot do anything except illustrate differences. It can't make any kind of value judgment without appealing to a higher standard (such as, "more advanced is better" or "higher life expectancy is better"). Here you appear to be asserting a utilitarian ethic. Would you consider yourself a utilitarian?
1. Example statement: "You are a total moron for believing a single word of that demented crap."
Commentary: While a legitimate opinion, it's worded somewhat poorly given the gratuitous personal insults.2. Example statement: "Please understand, though, that I do not share your reasons for thinking so: specifically, I don't accept Corinthians 21 (or any other part of the Bible) as evidence of a divine plan."
Commentary: Now you've given a legitimate reason for disagreeing, while making a legitimate effort to address the other person's framework.3. Example statements: "It's very arrogant of you to fail to accept the book that offers us all salvation through God's plan." / "Acts 12 proves that anyone who doesn't believe in God is misguided and wrong." / "Anyone who doesn't follow the Bible has no morals."
Commentary: Again, refusal to engage the other person's frame of reference, and personal insults to boot.4. Example statement: "Please make your points by citing references, and omit words like 'wacko.'"
Commentary: Legitimate requests to facilitate civil discussion.5. Example statement: "Refusing to accept God's obvious Truth is shameful, and admitting it is just plain rude."
Commentary: No, your assumption of sole ownership of Truth is possibly erroneous, and pointing that out is necessary.
All well and good. But having been on the wrong side of "why don't you just go away" posts before, being rude is not sufficient condition for being excluded from a conversation. In addition, accusations of rudeness are sometimes levelled to avoid having to cope with the substance of a post.
Someone pissing me off isn't a good reason for me to try to silence them.
|
|
There's no denying it.I was wrong. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in trying to engage in a civil discussion. You are more intent on telling others how wrong they are than in listening to what they have to say. I was wrong and now I'm done.Please explain to me in a civil way what it says here:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
I said there's no denying that it says women should shut up.
No.
"...needs to be taken in context" -- Classic. My question: Says who? Your bible?
This comment was so bad I can't even begin to describe. Why should we take ANYTHING in context? What kind of comment was that? We therefore should not take any laws in context. The Constitution. War and Peace. Nothing should ever need to be taken in context?
I did answer your question. You said that I was wrong because I was taking the passage in context.
You said -- and I quote -- "Women should shut up."
You are not worth my time.
Therefore, what's "moral" (a more successful strategy) now is the same as it was in 1700. Slavery, if wrong now, was also wrong then. What the majority declare to be moral does not, by itself, influence the outcome of the game simulation.
Not necessarily. In the specific example perhaps (which is what the enlightened thinkers recognized), but if you take the extreme example of a tribal society that has trouble to find enough food for their daily survival, too many liberties are counterproductive. It is much more effective to have a single strong leader that keeps all others in line, so the group works more effectively together.
In the other extreme, our high-tech society who's most important output is finding creative new ways in science, individual liberties are most effective and thus paramount.One can see everything in between (especially before the "scientific method" was formalized) as a transition. With survival shifting from day-to-day survival to long-term (big problems: sicknesses, asteroids) survival and thus a gradual regression of hierarchies (such as monarchies, dictatorships, patriarchy and slavery).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Please explain to me in a civil way what it says here:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
I said there's no denying that it says women should shut up.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Are you upset at Christians for espousing moral absolutes with which you disagree, or are you upset at Christians for backing down from moral absolutes you think they should be espousing? Are you saying that Christians teach that women should shut up and you think that's wrong, or are you saying that Christians don't teach that women should shut up, and you think that's "hilarious"?
This comment was so bad I can't even begin to describe. Why should we take ANYTHING in context? What kind of comment was that? We therefore should not take any laws in context. The Constitution. War and Peace. Nothing should ever need to be taken in context?
I did answer your question. You said that I was wrong because I was taking the passage in context.
You said -- and I quote -- "Women should shut up."
You are not worth my time.
I'm not saying one can't take anything in context. I am asking: WHO says to take it in context? YOU or the bible? The bible doesn't in that part, thus it's you. And that makes it a subjective interpretation. That's all I said.
We can apply the same to your example.
I said "women should shut up" AND I am saying you need to take it in context.
No. That makes morality situational, and therefore practical, not relative. The relativity or absolutism of any particular ethical system is based on its foundational principles, not its practice. I always use the same set of moral principles, but not every principle in that set applies to every ethical problem. For instance, I don't wonder whether it will violate my principle against sleeping with women other than my wife if I fudge the speed limit while driving. Deciding whether or not to fight in Afghanistan required a larger portion of principles that interacted with each other. Also principles exist independent of any individual's practice or failure to practice them.
It is simply impossible to have pre-made moral opinions about every possible situation (which is an infinity). And even if it were possible, you would still change them because you never experienced all the situations before and thus didn't have enough information to make your moral opinion at the time.
This argument can be reduced to: "laws must be founded on common consensus to be valid." That is a statement of a moral principle as an absolute. You really cannot proclaim your own relativism without tripping over an absolute.
Consensuses change over time. They are NOT absolute.
A relative moral standard cannot do anything except illustrate differences. It can't make any kind of value judgment without appealing to a higher standard (such as, "more advanced is better" or "higher life expectancy is better"). Here you appear to be asserting a utilitarian ethic. Would you consider yourself a utilitarian?
These differences that are illustrated are absolute (as in factual). Median life expectancy in the US IS vastly higher than in Afghanistan, that's an absolute fact.
Moral absolutists that claim that the bible is the basis for their absolute morals must explain why they don't consider all the moral laws of the bible valid (such as the morality of slavery or the inferiority of women). Or more generally, why the reasons for not choosing certain laws (such as classifying them into "types") are not subjective and thus arbitrary and NOT absolute.
|
|
Alch : this thread :: vinegar : baking soda volcanoI think that by his own logic, he is in the minority, therefore he is wrong. Well at least he is wrong now. He may not be wrong 10 years from now, but that doesn't really matter.
To be honest, I haven't really done much but skim the posts here since Alch started posting. Nothing to do with him; I just tend to glaze over when morality philosophy becomes the topic.
|
|
I am asking: WHO says to take it in context? YOU or the bible? The bible doesn't in that part, thus it's you. And that makes it a subjective interpretation. That's all I said.
Off the top of my head, there really isn't anything that actually says that it must be taken in context. Including your original post. Your subsequent post is just a subjective interpretation of the post. It's all just so silly. Seriously. Are you really going to go on about how nothing in the Bible expicitly states that it must be taken in context, therefore we should be able to take any random verse out of context to try and assertain what the point of that verse was? And then apply that same logic to every printed document you find?
Wow.
|
|
I just tend to glaze over when morality philosophy becomes the topic.
Actually, I'm mildly interested in the "morality philosophy". I largely grew up in the Christian home dogma -- "We are the only ones with real morals..." Which is crap. But I sometimes have a difficult time understanding other viewpoints as a result.
There are some things that most people agree on as being "moral" and there are a lot of things that people disagree on. Religion seems to be only part of the overall equation, yet it's something that makes for an easy target (or excuse). Since few other people here lived as I did, I'm interested in how they get/got to where they are with regard to "morals".
Some species of moral relativism:
* Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[1]
* Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.[2]
* Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[1]
I shall consider descriptive relativism agreed upon by all, since I can't imagine anybody past the age of three hasn't encountered such situations. It seems obvious to me that meta-ethical relativism is also true. Our morals are quite heavily influenced by our upbringing, just like everything else about us.
Which leaves us with normative relativism. It's obvious that there is no general consensus across cultural lines, across time, or the like as to any kind of unified theory of morality. It's not science. But of course the second part is much more problematic. In one sense it's trivial to say that we should tolerate others who differ from us and let them be. But not all differences are created equal. Whether or not someone flips a light switch on Friday at 10 PM doesn't ordinarily make any difference to anybody. Likewise whether or not one plays D&D. This stuff is trivial. It's none of our business.
But what if one is running a gigantic international conspiracy to rape children and conceal the rapists, actively assisting them in raping again? What if one is in the habit of flying planes into buildings? What if one is committing genocide? Or torturing?
Just to pick a few obvious examples.
These differences differ, and a good case can be made that they don't so much contact into the paradox of tolerance as shoot screaming into it in the middle of a fireworks factory. In tolerating such behaviors, we defeat ourselves by facilitating the very thing that we sought to prevent by extending tolerance in the first place.