Some questions for those who consider themselves 'social liberals'

[Sparkly Mary]

Originally Posted by Truth Teller

Good point.


How about "endanger" instead of "harm".

Again, who defines endanger?
To some, formula feeding is endangering a child by not providing it with the best nutrition, missing out on antibodies, specially designed proteins and fats.
To others, it's perfectly acceptable.

To some, leaving a 12-year old home alone for 20 minutes is endangering that child.
To others, it's perfectly ok to leave an almost-teen home for 20 minutes or even longer.

I'm not trying to be a hard-ass, but it's so hard to have a hard, fast rule on anything that would be agreed upon by all.

[lily]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Wright

Also true, but perhaps we would disagree ont he reasons. I think there is homogeneity of morals around the world not because of some absolute truth, but because human beings share common physiological, psychological and spiritual traits.

Well, I didn't say the homogeneity was ONLY because of natural law (or an objective moral standard). Yes, it's also because human beings share innate attributes such as a conscience, a mind, intuition, etc.

Yet it's possible to ignore or 'destroy' one's conscience, and that does happen. That's why extremely messed up people are more able to do things they wouldn't do, if they were mentally and spiritually healthy, and sober and clear-minded.

So it's both those things, an objective moral standard that exists, and that we all share those qualities I brought up above.

By the way, have you ever read CS Lewis' classic book 'Mere Christianity?' If not, you really should. Especially (at least) the first few chapters, because he goes into all these things we are talking about right now, and I love the way he explains it, so clearly and logically... you reall should read that book. Don't let the title put you off.

Glad we agree.
However moral truth is not just any truth. For moral absolutists, moral truth is as factually solid as, say the chair you are sitting on.
For others, moral truth truly is in the eye of the beholder, in fact many of those same folk would remind you that the chair you are sitting on is also in the eye of the beholder, and that if there is any fundamental reality about the chair to be learned, we are not equipped to see anymore than a sliver of that reality, highly dependant on our vantage point, physiology, state of mind, etc, etc, etc.

I wouldn't quite put it that way in regard to moral absolutists. I definitely believe there is an objective moral standard. But with your chair example, you seem to be implying that it's always clear and easy for absolutists. (correct me if I'm wrong). But that's not the case, there are times when I'm not sure about rightness/wrongness of a particular action. So if you are implying that people who believe in an objective moral standard always claim to know all the answers, that is false and misleading.

Like with any truth (let's take mathematics for example) I may not always know what the answer is, but I know there is an answer. Does that make sense?

As far as what you said about moral relativists, yes, I agree that moral relativists see moral truth as in the eye of the beholder. No argument there.

Those who are not absolutists (moral or otherwise) do not deny that there maybe immutable, and objective reality out there - they simply smile when human beings claim to know what that is.

Ok, I'm glad we're having this conversation because now we're actually getting somewhere. What you are describing perhaps is not a true moral relativist, but someone who is agnostic on the issue. Someone who simply says, "I don't know either way." Yes, there are people like that.

But there ARE also people (as you can see on this thread) who make the definitive statement, "It's all relative, there are no moral absolutes."

And for those of us who are not moral relativists, again, I don't claim to know all the answers. But I do know there is a transcendent, objective standard that exists, whether we agree with it or believe it or not.

Sorry. I know its annoying when you have gone to a lot of trouble to spell things out and then people hop in without reading it all. I'm pretty exhausted right now - my schedule has only intensified, so I'll have to leave it for another day... I have no doubt that what you wrote is interesting and thought provoking: I find you much changed, and far more analytical in your approach than in years past - I'm enjoying it.

No worries. You actually have been responding to most of the things I brought up.

What makes something right then? What would be your answer to that?

Some people call it natural law, but what it really comes down to is the source of all life, and source of all truth, God. For the nonbelievers here, do me a favor for the sake of argument, think about this for a moment. Assume for the moment that God exists, ok? If human beings were designed and created, don't you think that same creator would give us certain rules to live by? So we can live together in a healthy, beneficial way? And don't you think that creator would instill in us an inner sense of right and wrong? Which we are free to follow or ignore? Again, for the sake of argument think about that and answer yes or no please.

The laws of property that allow the rich man to live in luxury while his neighbor starves, and to exploit the condition of his 'brother', are not right either, so why is it wrong for the neighbor to steal something the rich man would never even miss, if it is to simply stay alive?

People can rationalize just about anything. I could say, "My evil rich neighbor doesn't really need that car, he has a few others. I'm being exploited as a poor person, so it's not REALLY wrong if I steal his car."

But it's still wrong. Did the rich man do something wrong? He might've, in fact it's a safe bet to say that he did, because ALL human beings do wrong in one way or another, but (excuse the cliche) two wrongs don't make a right.

I really meant it when I said this boils down to two types of people and their way of apprehending the world. Those who want to be able to resolve the big questions of what we should do with ourselves with a set of simple rules, and those who see that those rules are only the beginning - that the way in which those rules interact with the world create a picture of infinite complexity, and that rules represent guidelines, fences, which generally serve beneficial purposes, but which may not always be called for or beneficial.

I think you're the one who is over-simplifying it with the "there are two kinds of people" statement. Everything you said may sound great, but the reality is, there are so many problems with the concept of moral relativism (I didn't even get into all of them here) and at the end of the day, it fails and it always contradicts itself. People may say that is what they believe and that is what is true, but they don't act like it. They contradict themselves every time. So, the truth comes out in their actions, as opposed to their words and rationalizations.

That's not quite right. Moral relativism does not necessarily state that objective truth does not exist. Personally, I think we have every reason to believe that objective truth is unknowable to man - it is a certainly a lofty ideal to yearn for, and striving for it is certainly beneficial, but to believe one has attained it is hubris.

Well hold on a second. There are different kinds of relativism, there is cognitive (or truth) relativism and moral relativism. We were only talking about moral relativism here. So yes, I'm sure there are many moral relativists who also believe in objective truth, I'm not denying that.

You are mistaken to think that moral relativism says no opinion is better than another. It says that opinions are better than others in certain circumstances - circumstances without which a comparison is meaningless.

No MORAL opinion. Again, I didn't say it means no opinion in general is better or worse than another. We were strictly talking about moral/ethical relativism.

So yes, moral relativism DOES mean that no morality is better or worse than any other, so that means no moral opinion (if moral relativism is true) can be better or worse than any other.

No, those who do not ascribe to absolutism have learned to live with the honest quandary that if they steal in such a way in order to survive, it was right if they tried hard to find a better solution but failed, and were going to perish. The question of an objective right or wrong does not prevent them from believing in that personal truth.

Well, yes, as I said before, people can rationalize almost anything, or they can sincerely believe that what they were doing was not wrong. But again, as with any truth, it is not dependent on what people believe or don't believe. They are free to ignore it or go against it, yes. But there are consequences for our actions. (that's a topic for a whole other thread)

I could not disagree more: there are effective real world measures of morals and ethics: indeed they exist in the first place for us to live together fruitfully in an atmosphere that is mindful of the common good. As such, progress can be defined by each step a society takes in the direction of allowing individuals the freedom to express themselves, care for one another, develop their unique abilities and learn to apply them in a balanced manner, enhance each other's experiences, and live fulfilling lives in a context of mutual respect, safety, strength and tolerance.

Well, sure people can make up their own definitions about what "progress" is, you expressed your idea of what progress is above.

When I used the word "progress" I was basically going by this definition: 5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.

or this one: 3.Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress

I underlined the pertinent part. So now that I told you what definition I'm going by, answer this. In terms of morality/ethics, if there are no objective moral truths, independent of our own opinions, then how can true moral "progress" (improvement, betterment) exist? It can't, unless there is a universal standard or measure. You can't measure progress of something, if it's all relative. You can come up with your own definition or thoughts on what is progress, sure. But that doesn't make it true progress.

We all have different ideas of what is "progress." For some, it means the legalization of euthanasia, or legalizing same sex marriage, or legalizing child prostitution, or whatever.

So, if progress is soley defined as the achievment of certain goals, then the above could be "progress" for the people who had those goals. But the above examples can't be TRUE moral progress, unless there is an objective, universal moral standard that exists, independent of our own beliefs or opinions that says those things are right. You can't have true actual moral progress (betterment, improvement) unless there is a standard, or measure. You can't measure something like that, if it's all relative. Can you see it now?

Better only has any meaning in a context. The absolutist is the one that states the context is not important, and that truthes transcend all contextual considerations.

"Better" is a matter of opinion, unless there is an actual universal measure of what is right/wrong, good/bad, better/worse. I'm not sure how you can keep denying that, Malcolm.

So you are mistating the position of the relativist in order to dismiss his position.

It sounds like you, like a few others here, have a different definition of what moral relativism is. Please give me your definition, in a clear, concise way, because as I said to Javaman, there's no point in arguing about it if we're going by two different definitions.

Better, to the starving man, means having food to eat. Should he stop to ponder whether that better is universal, objective, unwavering and everlasting? Of course not - not if he wants to live.

Yes, that is "better" to the starving man, no argument there! But it still doesn't make stealing right. Is it understandable? Definitely. Is it forgiveable? Absolutely, if one asks for forgiveness.

Because he is so close to the harsh realities of starvation, he immediately sees the futility of such thoughts: hunger itself, the biggest truth looming in his world, is not immutable unwavering nor everlasting. He knows that once he has food, he will not be hungry anymore, at least for a while. He is forcefully aware of the changing, evolving and fluid nature of reality - why would he stop his quest for food to wonder if taking that food is right in some eternal manner?

This does not mean that he cannot ask himself what the consequences of his actions will be, and seek to obtain food in a way that does not harm other to any large degree. When he asks himself such a question, he is a human being, doing the best he can. Not a God. Not a saint. Not a remarkably righteous man who a deity might applaud for his truly meaningless self-sacrifice, but a human being pushed to a small transgression of morality because of the far greater transgressions of the person he had to steal from to stay alive.

The absolutist does not care about the transgressions of the person he stole from - he cares about nothing of the real world situation. The world falls away, and a harsh spotlight falls on the thief, and he is branded a transgressor of some universal law. Yet, the universe itself is absent from that judgement - it is made in a vacuum.

Ah, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, until that last paragraph. You're making a blanket statement about absolutists that is false and misleading, and unless you are God, you simply can't speak for what other people think or feel, you are not omniscient.

I believe in an objective moral truth, but I care about real situations. I don't condone stealing, but as a Christian, I want to help the poor or those who cannot speak for themselves, because that is God's heart. I want to care about the things God cares about, and I want to have a broken heart for the things that breaks God's heart. There are so many scriptures in the bible about helping the poor, or people who are being unjustly sentenced, or people in need, (either physical or spiritual)

I also believe when Jesus said, "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

(for those who want to read the parable, here it is):

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Matthew 25:34-40

So it is very wrong of you to make a sweeping generalization that "absolutists don't care" - I care, but unlike some, I don't see stealing as the answer. I see giving as the answer. Giving, teaching, helping. Not stealing.

To say something is wrong in any absolute sense is absurd in my eyes, and to believe that does not negate any ordered appraisal of human society and existence - it merely requires that we see shades of grey between wrong and right, and even many varieties of rights and wrong: that we accept that we are fallible creatures navigating those troubled waters, and very prone to latching on to absolutes because of that very fact.

I think you're misunderstanding the position of those of us who don't believe in moral relativism. No one ever said that we always have the answers, and of course there are some situations that are more tricky than others. But as with any truth, not having all the answers 100% of the time doesn't mean there aren't answers. If I don't know what 179,562 x 456,993 is, I'm not going to say, "there is no answer." I just don't know it.

And can you please answer my question in this post - the one towards the bottom of the post, where I brought up 2 scenarios and asked for your true thoughts on those things. Thanks!

[Truth Teller]

Originally Posted by Sparkly Mary

Again, who defines endanger?
To some, formula feeding is endangering a child by not providing it with the best nutrition, missing out on antibodies, specially designed proteins and fats.
To others, it's perfectly acceptable.

To some, leaving a 12-year old home alone for 20 minutes is endangering that child.
To others, it's perfectly ok to leave an almost-teen home for 20 minutes or even longer.

I'm not trying to be a hard-ass, but it's so hard to have a hard, fast rule on anything that would be agreed upon by all.

Good points.

[Java_man]

Wouldn't Levitican law and Sharia law qualify as "Absolute Morality" from a higher source with a "Fixed Frame of Reference" as well ?

[grimrebuke]

Originally Posted by Java_man

Wouldn't Levitican law and Sharia law qualify as "Absolute Morality" from a higher source with a "Fixed Frame of Reference" as well ?

Yes. And if you look at the exchange between TT and Mary, you may come to realize something I did a long time ago: "absolute morality" and "higher law" are, by their nature, inherently immoral.

[lily]

Originally Posted by Java_man

Wouldn't Levitican law and Sharia law qualify as "Absolute Morality" from a higher source with a "Fixed Frame of Reference" as well ?

No, and don't let the christianity-hater above (grimrebuke) deceive you. I don't know the details of Sharia Law, but just because it's a "law" from a religion doesn't make it from God. (I'm sure you know that already, I'm just saying)

Unlike the new-agey teaching that "all religions are true" or "all paths lead to the same place," (which would make Sharia Law 'true') Jesus teaches that there are false and deceptive teachings out there, including religions or teachings that go against God's will and nature. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." We can believe Him or not. But notice how He didn't say, "There are multiple ways or contradicting truths out there, and they all lead to God!" No, that's not what He said. He stated HE was the way.

So even if many Muslims believe that Sharia Law is "absolute truth" from God, it doesn't make it so. Truth is not dependent on what we believe or don't believe. Thats' why it's SO important to seek the truth and to not think we can just make up whatever truth we want, because it doesn't work that way.

And as for levitical (or Mosaic Law)... Most of the laws you are talking about were temporal. The Mosaic covenant was not an eternal covenant, it was a covenant God made specifically for the Israelites at that time, and it was a conditional covenant. There are whole books in the bible written about how there is a NEW covenant, and that is Jesus. So, the Mosaic covenant made with the Israelites is referred to as "Old Covenant". There may be still some laws that are repeated in the New Testament, or certain principles that still apply. But to answer your question, most of those were not absolute, but temporal laws given to a specific group, for a specific time.

[AlbertJ]

lily hasn't voted in the poll.

[Malcolm Wright]

Originally Posted by Java_man

Wouldn't Levitican law and Sharia law qualify as "Absolute Morality" from a higher source with a "Fixed Frame of Reference" as well ?

They would.

[Malcolm Wright]

Before responding to that post, I'll show you where your problem is with definitions.

From Wikipedia:

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths (neither objective nor subjective). Instead, Moral Relativism makes claims relative to social, cultural, or historical circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.

Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity. (i.e. "Following one's conscience".)

Moral relativism differs from value pluralism — which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Moral relativism, in contrast, grants the possibility of moral judgments that do not accept such limits. As well, moral relativism should not be taken as the more extreme stance of moral nihilism, which completely denies the existence of any objective morality.

I don't think I need to add much to this: you are stigmatizing moral relativism by looking at its extreme limits, and actually surpassing them and venturing into the realm of moral nihilism.

Originally Posted by lily

Well, I think that is a very good rule to live by. But think about this... IF relativism is true, then the Golden Rule is not any better than the morality of, say, Jeffrey Dahmer. (the serial killer who raped, tortured, dismembered and cannibalized innocent people who became his victims)

It is better in your opinion, of course, but that is all.

Its not just a matter of opinion, as you keep trying to make it, but of context.

You also make a mistake in speaking of the morality of Dahmer: his morality does not differ so much from your's and mine: he knew what he was doing was wrong by societies values and he shared those values, having been raised in this society. He just couldn't stop himself. He did not have some sort of moral code that justified his actions.

The ONLY way in which we can meaningfully speak of 'better' morality, is in when we say what it is better FOR. And as soon as you say that, you have left the realm of moral absolutism and entered the realm of moral relativism.

You might say that your morality is better for God: it pleases him more. That is context. You are a relativist. The reason you can't accept that you are a moral relativist in stating that is because you cannot accept that your idea of God is not absolutely true. You can't see your God as a God amongst many others: you see him as the one God whose judgment ends all jdugments.

So if you look at a starving man and see him steal a scrap of bread, and you say 'this displeases God so it is immoral' (regardless of any compassion you might also feel), you feel you are being a moral absolutist, whereas in fact you are saying 'this act displeases the Christian God, so it is immoral according to Him, and he is the God I chose because of my context in society, history and geography.

You are by definition unable of recognizing the relativity of your own judgment system because you have posited (not analyzed) that it is the absolute, universal and everlasting truth.

You are right when you say that doesn't mean you always think you know everything, but fundamentally, you think you know for certain that what is good is what pleases the Christian God.

So (to take it to its extreme) if moral relativism is true, then the act of brutally raping/torturing/murdering an innocent child is NO worse or better than the act of selfless love, kindness and compassion towards a child.

No, relativism does not say it is no better. It says that without context, saying it is better or worse is meaningless. If you say 'I think its better to give selfless love than to murder, moral relativist will ask you, relentlessly, perhaps: 'better for what?', 'or better for who', or 'better for what situation'?

This doesn't mean he doesn't agree with you that from where HE stands also, love is better than murder in almost every way, or situation. It means that he recognizes that his vantage point is not the end all or be all AND that without providing a context to a judgment, it is meaningless.

When you finally answer him truthfully and say 'better for the Christian God' (which you avoided in this thread until I brought you to speak openly about it), you have provided context, and have become a relativist.

That's why you intuitively did not want to provide the context of your own Christian value system - you know on some level that once you do, you have provided context, and are no longer being a moral absolutist even though you believe your faith provides an absolute. The acknowledgement that it is based on faith, personal faith rooted in your own experience, era, society, etc... is what makes you a relativist - so it is natural that you should shy away from discussing that at first in this thread. Now that we have approached the topic, perhaps you can see your dilemma.

Now (to all the moral relativists here)- I know, of course that your personal opinion is that in those 2 examples, the former is abhorrent and the latter is good. BUT, can you really honestly say that the latter (the example of kindness and compassion) is not objectively better than the former?

No, from what we can tell, it is not objectively better. For you to be able to say it is, you would have to be aware of what objectivity (or God) prefers. As it happens, you do think you are aware of this, so your take is not surprising.

Now you are asking me as an individual to say what is better: so you are appealing to my opinion, my context, my relative vantage point. Were you aware that you were doing that, even though you used the word 'objectively'? I can't give you anything more than my best attempt at objectivity, which is flawed to an unknowable degree. My best attempt at objectivity is yes: love is better than murder. But that attempt at objectivity is rooted in the largest circle of empathy I can draw: that of the avoidance of unnecessary suffering of living beings. Objectivity is a much larger circle, and I can't lay claim to speaking from it. Without admitting it, you feel you can lay claim to speaking from it, because you have the word of the Christian God to lay as an absolute foundation to your claim.

Do you really, in your heart of hearts believe that there is no transcendent truth that love, compassion and kindness is better than brutally raping/torturing/murdering a child?

I believe that there is transcendant EVERYTHING. If I so chose, I could reach spiritual awareness and transcendance through destructive and harmful practices. I choose to seek spiritual awareness through constructive, and stability-building practices. So I turn towards the transcendant love, compassion and kindness because I 'believe' as you say, that it is better than brutal rape/torture/murder. But that is my belief.

You are mistaking belief for truth. I do not mistake my belief for absolute truth. I just live it. I suppose it is inherent in your belief to mistake it for absolute truth and so there is such a need to bring others to your belief, and to negate other forms of truth as not of the One True God. I work from the principle that effectiveness is the measure of truth: I should not need to convince others of what I believe. If what I believe is beneficial and more appropriate for the world at this time, then the world will naturally lap up whatever example I can provide, just by living my belief.

(I'm sure you guys will love me for using that extreme example, but to demonstrate the point sometimes an extreme example is necessary)

Its ok - you can perhaps try to find a more extreme example because that one does not demonstrate your point. In your conclusion, the crux of your argument relied on the verb to 'believe'. So I think no matter what example you find, you will always need to rely on asking me if I believe something to be objectively better than something else. And my answer will always be yes or no, with the caveat that true objectivity is not attainable. Most people don't even try to attain it. A good example of this is that you assumed, without inquiring, that Dahmer's discordant morality caused him to kill and eat people. It didn't, and if you want to even hope to give appraisals that approach objectivity, you have to look carefully at fact, context, all those things that make a moral judgement... relative. If it is not relative, it is in relation to nothing, and so means nothing.

[lily]

I'll respond to this later. But again, it appears we're going by two different definitions. I wanted you to give me your definition in YOUR words. I hope you will still do that, please give me YOUR definition, in a clear, concise way, and then maybe we can go from there.

And also, please answer this question. Do you believe there are ANY moral absolutes, yes or no? Please answer yes or no, even if you think there is only 1, that would still count as a moral absolute, ok?

[Malcolm Wright]

I've already taken more time than I can afford to respond, but this stood out from your other post:

So it is very wrong of you to make a sweeping generalization that "absolutists don't care" - I care, but unlike some, I don't see stealing as the answer. I see giving as the answer. Giving, teaching, helping. Not stealing.

The answer to what?
You see you removed the problem from its context, EXACTLY as I said moral absolutists do. The context was a starving man who steals just enough to survive from his rich and exploitative neighbor.

Without even realizing you were doing it, you first transformed the example into someone stealing a car from his neighbor because his neighbor has several. You effectively dodged the example I gave you and replaced it with one softer in everyway. I faced your Dahmer example head on... Effectiveness is a measure of truth, remember, and I was able to be effective against your example, while you had to dilute mine.

The second thing you did was to remove the example - the context - entirely. You forgot about the context, and retained only the immoral behavior: stealing, and then in the most general and vague and unapplied terms, said stealing was not the answer: selfless giving was.

It is my duty to bring you back to earth, and back to our starving man. Is the answer for him to give selflessly to the rich man who would rather see him die than spare something he doesn't even know he has? Surely not.

The only practical answer, and indeed the most loving one, is for him to steal that piece of bread. If his response is to love his cruel neighbor and give what little he possess in energy and belongings to him, then he has signed his own death warrant. Where is there love for his own self if he does that? He too is a child of God and disserves his own caring attention as much as his neighbor does (if not more, given the circumstances). The loving way is for him to take just enough for him to survive - more might be portrayable as greedy or vengeful. Getting rid of the effectively murderous neighbor by murdering him would be the most extreme solution. But choosing the middle way of taking just enough to survive avoids murdering himself, and murdering the other, and greed as well. How can that be wrong? I'm not talking about minimally wrong, or unworthy of compassion, I mean how can it be wrong at all? Only if you posit that there is an entity beyond the frame of reference, who has fixed ideas that never change. That's your frame of reference - your relative morality. It is relative to that hypothesis which you have elevate to the status of absolute truth.

As for true wrongs not making a right: one huge wrong, and one strange, ineffective right don't make more of a right either. If the starving man doesn't steal that bread that the rich man doesn't even know he has - he dies. Does that make a right? The way I see it, it makes an even bigger wrong!

It is a strange sort of magical thinking to think that by being virtuous in accordance to one of ten commandments, that offers no solution to the quandary our starving man is in, some sort of right comes out of the equation when in fact, two greater wrongs come from it: the man dies, and the rich man keeps bread he did not know he has, which will go stale and be wasted, and he will not learn the error of his ways...

[grimrebuke]

Originally Posted by lily

No, and don't let the christianity-hater above (grimrebuke) deceive you. I don't know the details of Sharia Law, but just because it's a "law" from a religion doesn't make it from God. (I'm sure you know that already, I'm just saying)

Where do you get Christianity-hating? Elaborate, if you can. I notice most of the time when you are called out on a lie you just vanish.

Originally Posted by lily

Unlike the new-agey teaching that "all religions are true" or "all paths lead to the same place," (which would make Sharia Law 'true') Jesus teaches that there are false and deceptive teachings out there, including religions or teachings that go against God's will and nature. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." We can believe Him or not. But notice how He didn't say, "There are multiple ways or contradicting truths out there, and they all lead to God!" No, that's not what He said. He stated HE was the way.

Now, wait a second here, because you are double-talking. The Bible is a book of a religion. You said that just because a religion calls something a law does not make it from God. But then you use the book and laws of a religion as examples of what IS from God. So, by all means, give us an example of a law handed down by God that is 1. not relative, and 2. not derived from religion.

[grimrebuke]

Originally Posted by AlbertJ

lily hasn't voted in the poll.

Do you suppose that is because the intention is to create an environment where she can attack the statements or fragments of statements of others without having to have her own ideology questioned on its own merit? There is a logical fallacy that suggests that, if you can not prove you are right, then I must be right. If not A, then B. And B requires no proof other than the slightest doubt in A. The dishonest person, knowing B is absurd or factually-disproved, instead refuses to allow B to be the subject of debate and focuses on A alone.

So you get

I'll respond to this later. But again, it appears we're going by two different definitions. I wanted you to give me your definition in YOUR words. I hope you will still do that, please give me YOUR definition, in a clear, concise way, and then maybe we can go from there.

And also, please answer this question. Do you believe there are ANY moral absolutes, yes or no? Please answer yes or no, even if you think there is only 1, that would still count as a moral absolute, ok?

[BooRadley]

The whole point of pushing moral absolutism is to try to promote religious law. If there are absolute rights and wrongs, they must come from somewhere. That somewhere is God. We have to make righteous law, so we have to make it from law. It has to come from the Bible.

[hadit]

Originally Posted by Truth Teller

Does it always have to come from "morality" though?

From where else can it come?

Isn't it just plain common sense that a society that allows murder and assault is not going to last very long?

No. It would devolve into the strong dominating the weak, where brute force dictates the ways in which people would relate.

Not by everyone.[/quote]

I believe you would be hardpressed to find total agreement on almost any issue.

[AlbertJ]

Originally Posted by grimrebuke

Do you suppose that is because the intention is to create an environment where she can attack the statements or fragments of statements of others without having to have her own ideology questioned on its own merit? There is a logical fallacy that suggests that, if you can not prove you are right, then I must be right. If not A, then B. And B requires no proof other than the slightest doubt in A. The dishonest person, knowing B is absurd or factually-disproved, instead refuses to allow B to be the subject of debate and focuses on A alone.

I know what it is like to be on the other end of the lilystick and I openly support questioning her ideology on its own merit. I've known lily for a few years now and I can tell you that at her most obtuse moments she is without a doubt being completely honest.

Respect the kitty.

[Truth Teller]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

The whole point of pushing moral absolutism is to try to promote religious law. If there are absolute rights and wrongs, they must come from somewhere. That somewhere is God. We have to make righteous law, so we have to make it from law. It has to come from the Bible.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

And my spiritual phlosphy is closer to the "new agey" stuff that lily refers to in a derogatory manner.

And Mary has made me rethink several things (kudos to her).

But,at the same time ,aren't there at least a couiple of things that are absolute?

How can anyone not say it is wrong to rape an infant?

Originally Posted by hadit

From where else can it come?

Common sene,experience,trial and error.

No. It would devolve into the strong dominating the weak, where brute force dictates the ways in which people would relate.

That's not the way it has always turned out.

In my lifetime alone, large parts of society has reached out to people who were margianlized decades earlier.

I believe you would be hardpressed to find total agreement on almost any issue.

Duh.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Truth Teller

How can anyone not say it is wrong to rape an infant?

There have been epidemics of that in parts of Africa. Obviously there are some people who feel that raping babies as a token to ward off the evil spirits that cause AIDS is considered acceptable.

Morality is man-made. Dogs don't have morality. Wolves don't have morality. Apes don't have morality. Only people have morality. People invent morality the same way we invent gods. We build them to encourage the kind of societies we want to live in. Most people don't want to live in a society where babies get raped.

[Truth Teller]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Dogs don't have morality.

I'm not sure about that.


A mother lion or bear would fight for her cubs,I'd call that morality.

How many stories have we heard about dogs (or other animals) instinctively saving people from attackers or some other disaster?

I'd call that moraility.

Most people don't want to live in a society where babies get raped.

And why don't they want to live in that soicety when they could just as easily could choose otherwise?

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Truth Teller

I'm not sure about that.


A mother lion or bear would fight for her cubs,I'd call that morality.

How many stories have we heard about dogs (or other animals) instinctively saving people from attackers or some other disaster?

I'd call that moraility.

I'd like to see a pack of wild dogs save someone in a disaster.

Originally Posted by Truth Teller

And why don't they want to live in that soicety when they could just as easily could choose otherwise?

Because babies are cute? Because the tribe will fail if the next generation is killed? The point is that some people, and quite a few of them, think it's okay to rape babies if that's what you have to do to ward off the spirits that cause AIDS.