|
I don't know what morality is or isn't just that it exists. I can't imagine a world without it because as long as we have language and culture we have morality. Morality=culture, even when the culture in question is highly immoral somehow. And that is called a paradox my friends
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
I don't see how a true moral relativist can condone putting anyone in prison, or even in establishing any laws whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Also culture and morality define themselves so to ask to define them precisely is to revert to tautologies. "What is culture?" "What that group of people have between them" "what do those people have between them?" "Culture"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
The Dennis System posted:I don't see how a true moral relativist can condone putting anyone in prison, or even in establishing any laws whatsoever. moral relativism is inherently illogical. this is obvious to literally anyone who even slightly examines the issue, but it is a popular bullshit fiction everyone supports in public because it helps us get along despite our radically divergent ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:Are you a moral relativist? Do you believe in moral relativism? I personally am not. I believe that there are universal moral values. I believe we can discover the best moral values through reason. I also believe, personally, in religion. I do not believe in any particular religion, but I just believe it's all real. I believe moral relativism is extremely bad and that people shouldn't just be able to do whatever they want with no consequences. But I open this up to you. What do you think? 'Universal Moral Values' sounds like a cop out to avoid admitting arbitrary imposition of will I'm not a philosopher but what would you base that poo poo on anyways?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
a moral relativist is someone who thinks it is more important that we all get along than that the truth be upheld.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:'Universal Moral Values' sounds like a cop out to avoid admitting arbitrary imposition of will
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
is there a term for "I often think the universe is purposefully loving with me" if so that's me
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:I think you're onto something with 'imposition of will,' but I don't think it's arbitrary. you don't have to impose your will on anyone. literally all you have to do is hold to the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
godstalking
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
oval office raja posted:is there a term for "I often think the universe is purposefully loving with me"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:moral relativism is inherently illogical. this is obvious to literally anyone who even slightly examines the issue, but it is a popular bullshit fiction everyone supports in public because it helps us get along despite our radically divergent ideologies. But if some culture is doing something hosed up, performing female genital mutilation for example, then we can't just agree to disagree and leave it at that, we have to stop them from doing that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
music for this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0QH4K7JXpI The Dennis System posted:But if some culture is doing something hosed up, performing female genital mutilation for example, then we can't just agree to disagree and leave it at that, we have to stop them from doing that stuff. you are right, it has to be stopped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
OP you should read the Abolition of Man by C.S.Lewis. it's something like a 50 page essay in three parts, first part is just him bitching about the moral relativists of his era corrupting the youth, second part he lays out a pretty solid argument for Natural Law, third part he cross references several religions to see what *everyone* agrees on. It made me think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:I think you're onto something with 'imposition of will,' but I don't think it's arbitrary. Where's it come from? And whatever you point to, why can't someone else point to something else at from the same level? What if I view man's highest form as an individual able to predominate over others? Contrastingly, what if I view man's highest form as a cell of a body able to drive higher level dynamics? Not a slime mold of hierarchical individualists but a living body of egalitarian communitarians? There'd be radically differing universal bases for the radically differing universal moralities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
monkey posted:OP you should read the Abolition of Man by C.S.Lewis. it's something like a 50 page essay in three parts, first part is just him bitching about the moral relativists of his era corrupting the youth, second part he lays out a pretty solid argument for Natural Law, third part he cross references several religions to see what *everyone* agrees on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Where's it come from? And whatever you point to, why can't someone else point to something else at from the same level?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:Thanks for the recommendation. I've been meaning to check out C.S. Lewis for a while now. I'm listening to that Tortoise song posted above and it's getting me in the mindset to talk about God. C.S. Lewis is great, he is very easy-going and reasonable about everything, and funny too
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
I'm assuming a universal moral code requires a fixed point somewhere. Are you? I've been assuming you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I'm assuming a universal moral code requires a fixed point somewhere. Are you? I've been assuming you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:Thanks for the recommendation. I've been meaning to check out C.S. Lewis for a while now. I'm listening to that Tortoise song posted above and it's getting me in the mindset to talk about God. C.S. Lewis made the dumbest argument for Christianity being true that I've ever heard. His argument was basically that Jesus claimed to be God, and since Jesus didn't seem to be insane, he must actually be God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
I'm a divine command theorist, but I don't believe God ever made any commands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:The fixed point is the golden rule. By the logic of the golden rule, if I want a hot woman to grab my crotch then it's okay for me to go ahead and grab her crotch. The golden rule doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Tribal societies are pretty much what we looked like pre-Christ, indulging revenge. Christ taught us that revenge was actually not the moral thing. The Icelanders didn't know about Christ and that's why their society was so big on revenge. In primitive societies, revenge is justice, but Christ showed us that this isn't so. Christ was just a messenger. Buddha was another messenger. The Romans knew the saying "Don't shoot the messenger," but back then it referred to arrows, not bullets. That's how they got away with crucifying Christ, through a loophole. It didn't say anything about crucifying the messenger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
The Dennis System posted:By the logic of the golden rule, if I want a hot woman to grab my crotch then it's okay for me to go ahead and grab her crotch. The golden rule doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
The Dennis System posted:C.S. Lewis made the dumbest argument for Christianity being true that I've ever heard. His argument was basically that Jesus claimed to be God, and since Jesus didn't seem to be insane, he must actually be God. Lots of people criticize him on these grounds but his argument is right. If Jesus claimed to be God but was not he must've been insane. But he wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDYAqz603TESir John Feelgood posted:Tribal societies are pretty much what we looked like pre-Christ, indulging revenge. Christ taught us that revenge was actually not the moral thing. The Icelanders didn't know about Christ and that's why their society was so big on revenge. In primitive societies, revenge is justice, but Christ showed us that this isn't so. Christ was just a messenger. Buddha was another messenger. The Romans knew the saying "Don't shoot the messenger," but back then it referred to arrows, not bullets. That's how they got away with crucifying Christ, through a loophole. It didn't say anything about crucifying the messenger. drat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Liar, lord, or loon is a false trilemma. It's not even an argument that's really about the argument itself. It's meant to be used as a social bludgeon against anyone who would question the divinity of Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I don't know what morality is or isn't just that it exists. I can't imagine a world without it because as long as we have language and culture we have morality. Morality=culture, even when the culture in question is highly immoral somehow. And that is called a paradox my friends
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Everyone knows that the true moral codes are held in a vase guarded by the mythical beast Xkkggrxflrs
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Would Jesus pull a lever that pushes a fat man into the path of a trolley that saves the idea of a universal morality?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Luke 6:31. Goodnight and good thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
The Dennis System posted:C.S. Lewis made the dumbest argument for Christianity being true that I've ever heard. His argument was basically that Jesus claimed to be God, and since Jesus didn't seem to be insane, he must actually be God. the trilemma isn't an argument for christianity being true and he didn't mean it to be. he meant it as an argument against people making wishy washy statements like "I don't believe Jesus was god but I think he was a great moral teacher". the point was that (in Lewis's view) a man who said the things Jesus said without being God would have to be crazy or lying, and therefore it doesn't make sense to praise him as a teacher while simultaneously denying his divinity Torka fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
I didn't go beyond philosophy 101 back in college, and that was some time ago, so I really don't know the tautological terms any more. That doesn't make me a deep thinker though. That said, I have no idea if I am a moral relativist or not. I do believe the universe has a natural order to it, whether divinely orchestrated, or by coincidence, or what. I also am not presumptuous enough to assume I'm significant enough to be able to grasp that order in any recognizable way. That said, we do exist within the universe as part of it, so it behooves us to try to follow some sort of natural order. Unfortunately, the trouble lies in that paradox where we're too small to see how we should behave in light of everything else to existence, yet we are left without explicit guidelines, floating aimlessly along our course. And because of that, we lose sight of what things are definitely "good", and which are not. That's how we get lawmakers pushing for homophobic legislation, or have kids who try a small amount of marijuana for the first time treated as dangerous as criminal kingpins with heroin empires. I mean, there's several basic rules we all know in our hearts to follow if we want to be good: Don't hurt or kill each other, don't take things that would be missed without permission, etc etc; and we do our best to follow these tenants, but we also allow ourselves to get wrapped up in all these weird rules and ideas that really don't have a black and white, easy to follow direction. And frankly, this even goes beyond to the big ones when we have the wiggle room. I mean, it's okay for a soldier to kill, for instance. Or gray logic for stealing has always been around. Like the old chestnut of the thief that takes bread so his family will eat. Which then makes me think about things like media piracy, which is vastly widespread, to the point of grandmothers doing it regularly, and small children. Realistically, I understand just how little this sort of thing effects bread getting to mouths in this day and age, yet it's still stealing, which we all know is wrong, yet so many of us do. Where's the justification in this gray zone? Recently for a lark I took an internet quiz to determine my RPG style alignment, and I ended up with "Chaotic Evil" without expecting it, as I have this strong overarching faith that there is order to the universe and all things, yet maybe the fact that I so easily slip into these gray areas without much hesitation explains my results. Like I said, I don't know the terminology anymore, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm going over familiar territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
was jesus even real? i'm just asking quiestions here
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Just as long as you're not Morally Inept
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
F Stop Fitzgerald posted:was jesus even real? i'm just asking quiestions here
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
F Stop Fitzgerald posted:was jesus even real? i'm just asking quiestions here I believe there's a very strong argument that he was. However, the argument that he was an apocryphal creation are just as strong. Unfortunately, any concrete proof either way is now nearly 2 millennia gone from us. So we'll never have a definite answer. That said, a very strong set of moral codes was built around the belief that he did exist, one that is in the top 5 of the world, and mostly has good things to say. I think that in and of itself is something worth humoring at least a little.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Torka posted:the trilemma isn't an argument for christianity being true and he didn't mean it to be. he meant it as an argument against people making wishy washy statements like "I don't believe Jesus was god but I think he was a great moral teacher". the point was that (in Lewis's view) a man who said the things Jesus said without being God would have to be crazy or lying, and therefore it doesn't make sense to praise him as a teacher while simultaneously denying his divinity That makes a lot more sense. If that's true then I retract my statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
I think it's wrong to call the first part of the Bible the Old Testament and the second part the New Testament. I personally believe the first part should be made a part of the New Testament and we should just call the whole thing the Testament. Tear down the wall à la 1989.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:32
|
|