Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Festus · 26-10-2011 09:38PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

sorry for the delay peeps, was busy, & loath as I am to dredge up a gracefully aging post, couldnt have an accusation of stalling on my rap sheet!

Perhaps you could elaborate. There is nothing in your post that supports unjust slavery, or that suppports the kind of slavery we consider abhorrent - the type of slavery that allows for the abuse of slaves or the treatment of them as objects.

Are there any of us here who could claim not to be slaves? While most of us have the freedom to chose who we work for, few of us have the freedom to chose that we work for no one. Those who fall into the latter category are either masters of their own business, or are of independant means. Either way they are slaves to the taxman.

Regardless of whether we consider ourselves slave or free, we are all either slaves to God, or sin.

ISAW · 27-10-2011 03:10AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Society isn't based on statements about morals, thus society isn't based on moral nihilism (or moral objectivism) which are (drum roll please) statements about morals.

It is based on the actual morals (murder is wrong). Which is why a society based on the moral "Murder is absolutely wrong" will be completely different to the society based on the moral "Murders is absolutely right" even if both these morals fall under moral objectivism.

You are contradicting your own terminology.. Right and wrong are morals. "murder is wrong" is a statement about an act which is considered immoral. You are claiming "murder is wrong" and "Murder is right" are morals. All you are doing is sophistry. It seems you are attempting to move away from the idea that people base societits on philosophies. As Morbert suggested these philosophies are either true or false and are mutually contradictory.

I have argued that to a moral objectivist society should be based on principles which come from outside themselves. Absolute principles which are not just arrived at by majority decision or made up in peoples imagination. To a relativist no such principle exists and to a nihilist such a concept makes no sense.

Apparently not since you have trouble saying society is not based on statements about morals. Statements about morals are meta-ethical statements. And as you say society is not based on them.

A society can be based on a completely false philosophy or a statement about a completely false philosophy. We don't know for certain God exists but a society can be based on belief in God and can be based on statements about what belief in God implies.
To a moral objectivist who believes in God all this boils down to the fact that God ( or some other source of morals) exists. Of course it could be all wrong and we could base society on something else. So off we go and try it out. And what do we find? Societies based on morally objective philosophies survive and thrive and those based on atheism relativism or nihilism result in piles of corpses and are doomed to destruction

Correct. And moral nihilism is not a moral. Thus it does not tell you what is right and wrong.

No it telly you no such thing as morals exist. and if you base a society on that philosophy you get chaos.

Look ISAW you clearly have zero clue what moral nihilism actually means. You have wasted a good amount of time arguing with both me and Morbet and you still seem to think that moral nihilism is a moral value rather than a meta-ethical statement about what morals are in the first place.

I know you may try and justify your philosophy and when put in a place where it is clear such a philosophy leads to destruction you indulge in sophistry . Please don't try to tell me I don't understand. I understand quite well where relativism and nihilism leads. I understand the lesson of history - that atheistic regimes slaughtered tens of millions of people. If moral nihilism is adopted as a core philosophy of any civilization those people are doomed to destruction.

Roger Hassenforder · 27-10-2011 07:35AM

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate. There is nothing in your post that supports unjust slavery, or that suppports the kind of slavery we consider abhorrent - the type of slavery that allows for the abuse of slaves or the treatment of them as objects.

Are there any of us here who could claim not to be slaves? While most of us have the freedom to chose who we work for, few of us have the freedom to chose that we work for no one. Those who fall into the latter category are either masters of their own business, or are of independant means. Either way they are slaves to the taxman.

Regardless of whether we consider ourselves slave or free, we are all either slaves to God, or sin.

elaborate?...im not supporting slavery.
i was asked to provide evidence to support my claim that slavery was condoned by various church luminaries.
How that sits in your little world of gods and angles is up to you.
If your so inclined, please provide evidence that we are all either slaves to your god or sin using nonchristian sources, as i have had to use Christian to support mine.
Actually dont bother.

Zombrex · 27-10-2011 11:33AM

ISAW wrote: »

You are contradicting your own terminology..

I assure you I'm not. The confuse here is that you mistakenly believed moral nihilism was a system of morals. It isn't, it is a statement about the nature of morality itself.

ISAW wrote: »

Right and wrong are morals. "murder is wrong" is a statement about an act which is considered immoral. You are claiming "murder is wrong" and "Murder is right" are morals.

Ok yes murder is the wrong term to use since murder by definition is illegal killing. Replace murder with killing.

This though is not central to the point at hand, it is simply an example to show the difference between moral statements (killing is wrong, killing is right) and statements about morality (morals are objective).

Communism and Christianity are two completely different moral philosophies. Both are objectivist in nature, so both require that morals are in fact objective.

ISAW wrote: »

It seems you are attempting to move away from the idea that people base societits on philosophies.

Not at all, I've no issue with the idea that people base societies around philosophies, but not every philosophical statement is used to base a society around.

As you say yourself societies are not based around statements about morality, despite such statements clearly falling into the realm of philosophical discussion.

Societies aren't based around the idea that 2+2=4 either.

ISAW wrote: »

As Morbert suggested these philosophies are either true or false and are mutually contradictory.

Corret. Moral nihilism is either true or it isn't. Same with moral objectivity, it is either true or it isn't, in that there either is an objectively correct set of moral standards or there isn't.

Of course even if it is true finding out if claims as to what these standards are true or not is another matter.

ISAW wrote: »

I have argued that to a moral objectivist society should be based on principles which come from outside themselves. Absolute principles which are not just arrived at by majority decision or made up in peoples imagination.

You can suggest that all you like, I fail to see what you think it achieves since ultimately it is the subjective opinion of the person as to what the objective standard is that decides what they fall.

Stalin was an moral objectivist, so was Hitler. They believed in the objective correctness of their philosophies. To Hitler it was objectively determinable that Jews were evil and plotting to bring down German and that they must be destroyed. To him this was not simply his opinion, but an objective truth that he demanded all others follow lest they themselves were to be considered evil. For Stalin it was a self evident truth that the stability of society as a whole was more important than the suffering of individuals.

For every American Declaration of Independence you have a Nazi holocaust. For every I fail to see what problem you think people believing in objective morals solves.

ISAW wrote: »

A society can be based on a completely false philosophy or a statement about a completely false philosophy. We don't know for certain God exists but a society can be based on belief in God and can be based on statements about what belief in God implies.

Correct. That is a society based on a set of values and principles. It is not a society based on a statement about the nature morality.

ISAW wrote: »

To a moral objectivist who believes in God all this boils down to the fact that God ( or some other source of morals) exists. Of course it could be all wrong and we could base society on something else. So off we go and try it out. And what do we find? Societies based on morally objective philosophies survive and thrive and those based on atheism relativism or nihilism result in piles of corpses and are doomed to destruction

Again you are confusing the concepts here. I believe that morality is relativist and I would call himself a moral nihilist, so I can say that the morality in the USSR was relativist (ie it was just Stalins opinion).

That doesn't mean Lenin and Stalin thought that. The people running the USSR were moral objectivists. They believed things were objectively wrong or right.

This is precisely the problem with a philosophy like Communism, it is impossible to argue against true believers because they are convinced they are objectively correct and any other opinion is objectively wrong (which is interesting because I'm not sure Marx was an objectivist, but like so much of Communism I think Marx would be horrified if he met Lenin or Stalin).

You seem to think if people believe in moral objectivism that means they will be all puppy dogs and rainbows. Nothing could be further from the truth.

ISAW wrote: »

No it telly you no such thing as morals exist. and if you base a society on that philosophy you get chaos.

Again that is simply not true. You can keep saying it over and over again, but that doesn't make it any more true.

It is no more true than saying that if you base a society on moral objectivism you get the USSR.

Of course that isn't true, if you base a society on Communism (a moral objectivist philosophy) you get the USSR.

If you base a society on another objectivist philosophy (such as Christianity) you get a completely different society.

So you cannot say that moral objectivism produces a particular society, it depends on the actual morals themselves, not the meta-ethical description of morals.

ISAW wrote: »

I understand the lesson of history - that atheistic regimes slaughtered tens of millions of people. If moral nihilism is adopted as a core philosophy of any civilization those people are doomed to destruction.

Communism is not a moral nihilist philosophy, it was a moral objectivist philosophy. Lenin did not start his essays with by saying In my opinion\

Does this fact condemn all other moral objectivist philosophies to the trash heap?

Of course not, because it is far less important that a society is based on a moral objectivist philosophy than what the actual moral philosophy is itself.

Morbert · 27-10-2011 03:20PM

ISAW wrote: »

And if it were truth we would all be dead. But we are not all dead. What can you conclude from that?

That is not the case at all. I said before that even if I accepted that, if people acknowledged moral nihlism, they would be dead (I don't accept this at all.), this does not show that moral nihlism is true or false. It shows that people must believe moral nihlism is false. The capability of a society to function under a belief is not a reflection of the truth or falsehood of that belief.

Furthermore how can you know if it is the truth or not. It is a belief. and it is based on the belief that what you say are human constructs actually are only human constructs.

I am not going back down the tedious "Can we know things" route that a lot of discussions degenerate into.

ISAW · 28-10-2011 09:33AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Societies aren't based around the idea that 2+2=4 either.

I beg to differ. Orwellian society was in fact based on the idea that mathematical absolutes such as 2+2=4 could be believed not to be true. The orwellian nightmare in fact reflects what happens should relativism/nihilism take over a society.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/18.html

But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.
...
'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'
...
We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out. The command of the old despotisms was "Thou shalt not". The command of the totalitarians was "Thou shalt". Our command is "Thou art".

Corret. Moral nihilism is either true or it isn't. Same with moral objectivity, it is either true or it isn't, in that there either is an objectively correct set of moral standards or there isn't.

Of course even if it is true finding out if claims as to what these standards are true or not is another matter.

You can suggest that all you like, I fail to see what you think it achieves since ultimately it is the subjective opinion of the person as to what the objective standard is that decides what they fall.

Nuff said. You obviously believe a 1984 world and a nihilistic or relativist nightmare world is my subjective opinion. I won't bother to post more on that.

Morbert · 28-10-2011 02:39PM

2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true either. We can easily construct a consistent number ring such that 1+1 = 0, for example.

And for the hell of it:

Zombrex · 28-10-2011 06:52PM

ISAW wrote: »

I beg to differ. Orwellian society was in fact based on the idea that mathematical absolutes such as 2+2=4 could be believed not to be true. The orwellian nightmare in fact reflects what happens should relativism/nihilism take over a society.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/18.html

Have you actually read "Nineteen Eighty Four"? The Orwellian society was based around objective moral absolutes, passed down by the Party that were to be followed and accepted without question by the population, that was one of the things that Orwell was satirizing in the book.

lmaopml · 28-10-2011 11:34PM

Morbert wrote: »

2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true either. We can easily construct a consistent number ring such that 1+1 = 0, for example.

Good luck getting people to believe that it's easy to believe that a whole number of two plus another two does not equal four, and how necessarily true it should be, and whether 2 + 2 can be trusted in mathematics, don't mind when you explain you can't depend on it being so and then regard 'reality' to reflect same.

Is this not touching on how necessarily true anything is? I thought we opposed this sort of thing, especially when basing truth on mathematic possibilities? We presume so much, but can depend on nothing?

Morbert wrote:

And for the hell of it:

Or indeed to believe that Hitler was a Christian of any kind, given that everybody mostly knows somebody who is a real Christian, and lives without prejudice or worldly passion below the radar, lives and dies perhaps unsung, but invaluable. For shame - anybody would actually think Hiltler was Christian - especially a genuine historian. Hitler was many things - Christian is not one of them.

CiaranMT · 29-10-2011 12:33AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Or indeed to believe that Hitler was a Christian of any kind, given that everybody mostly knows somebody who is a real Christian, and lives without prejudice or worldly passion below the radar, lives and dies perhaps unsung, but invaluable. For shame - anybody would actually think Hiltler was Christian - especially a genuine historian. Hitler was many things - Christian is not one of them.

This cop-out, it's so handy for you 'real' Christians. Must be a life-saver in debates.

The Quadratic Equation · 29-10-2011 12:41AM

Morbert wrote: »

2 + 2 = 4 isn't necessarily true either. We can easily construct a consistent number ring such that 1+1 = 0, for example.

And for the hell of it:

I love it when you guys quote Hitler as a truthful, upstanding and trustworthy source for your arguments.

CiaranMT · 29-10-2011 09:55PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I love it when you guys quote Hitler as a truthful, upstanding and trustworthy source for your arguments.

Umm, wut?

lmaopml · 29-10-2011 11:00PM

CiaranMT wrote: »

This cop-out, it's so handy for you 'real' Christians. Must be a life-saver in debates.

Well, it must be refreshing for those of you who would like to assign Christian values how you see fit these days, and 'tag' Hitler as Christian for whatever purpose - the big baddy Christian, who posed as Catholic and Protestant and everything else when it suited his agenda.....

Hitler was not Christian. Christians died fighting Hitler - don't forget it!

.... and in actual fact, you, in a spectacular way do not understand Christianity. Well done! You hate something you know nothing of.

Morbert · 31-10-2011 07:19PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I love it when you guys quote Hitler as a truthful, upstanding and trustworthy source for your arguments.

Your post makes no sense.

lmaopml wrote:

Or indeed to believe that Hitler was a Christian of any kind, given that everybody mostly knows somebody who is a real Christian, and lives without prejudice or worldly passion below the radar, lives and dies perhaps unsung, but invaluable. For shame - anybody would actually think Hiltler was Christian - especially a genuine historian. Hitler was many things - Christian is not one of them.

The purpose of the picture was not to argue that Hitler was a Christian. It was to show that Hitler was a moral objectivist, and to argue that moral objectivism does not predispose a person to abhor killing and genocide, and moral nihilism does not predispose a person to embrace killing and genocide.

lmaopml · 31-10-2011 09:35PM

Morbert wrote: »

The purpose of the picture was not to argue that Hitler was a Christian. It was to show that Hitler was a moral objectivist, and to argue that moral objectivism does not predispose a person to abhor killing and genocide, and moral nihilism does not predispose a person to embrace killing and genocide.

I don't think moral nihilism necessarily predisposes a person to embrace killing either ( Christians believe man is made in the image of God, I would fully expect to meet shyte so called Christians, and very upstanding Atheists, just because of that ).

While I understand the thought processes behind a moral nihilist, and how the 'term' comes about to explain 'morals' in a natural way - I don't believe that people 'actually' are in everyday life living as moral nihilists, even self pigeon holed moral nihilists.

I think at the base line that it is commonly understood that, for instance killing ones baby ( to go back to Zombrex's example ), is never under any circumstances 'right'. So at the base level, I can see an objective truth as a foundation of moral values. I sincerely ( no kidding...lol..) see that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' and imo I cannot muddy those terms, they're yes and no to a question, they ARE the way people live. I think moral nihilism is only a shadowy version of reality -

- but then, I guess you could say, 'that's just your opinion man'..lol...

...but 'I' think I'm right, and I could most certainly be too...:)

Zombrex · 31-10-2011 10:07PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think moral nihilism necessarily predisposes a person to embrace killing either ( Christians believe man is made in the image of God, I would fully expect to meet shyte so called Christians, and very upstanding Atheists, just because of that ).

While I understand the thought processes behind a moral nihilist, and how the 'term' comes about to explain 'morals' in a natural way - I don't believe that people 'actually' are in everyday life living as moral nihilists, even self pigeon holed moral nihilists.

I think at the base line that it is commonly understood that, for instance killing ones baby ( to go back to Zombrex's example ), is never under any circumstances 'right'. So at the base level, I can see an objective truth as a foundation of moral values. I sincerely ( no kidding...lol..) see that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' and imo I cannot muddy those terms, they're yes and no to a question, they ARE the way people live. I think moral nihilism is only a shadowy version of reality -

- but then, I guess you could say, 'that's just your opinion man'..lol...

...but 'I' think I'm right, and I could most certainly be too...:)

What about people who think it is right to kill your own baby? You think it is wrong, they think it is right.

Why do you think your opinion happens to match the objective moral standard of the universe and theirs doesn't?

And if it turned out in fact that theirs did match the objective standard of the universe would that mean anything to you? Would you therefore think that baby killing was ok? Or would you simply refuse to accept it was actually the objective standard of the universe?

lmaopml · 31-10-2011 10:25PM

No Zombrex. I simply don't make any excuses, and rely on consulting the 'current understanding of nature' alone for saying certain things are what is wrong or what is right. I believe they 'are' thus, and I think more than a few people who would like to murky the water but also believe so - and certainly live that way - they don't live in 'reality' consulting their nihilism before assigning 'value'.

Or, at the baseline appeal to our understanding of 'evolution' and survival of the fittest, for saying outright that something is wrong or right, positive or negative, on or off, black or white, reality or not reality. Our very understanding is based on the principle that we can assess and give certainty to some things...

I abhor very deeply that when you scrape the surface of this 'view of life' on our 'so called' moral reality, that it's foundation is that we are all pretty much chemical love junkies, nothing 'actually' exists, mother of sorrows, cry me a river, you can't even trust you're own opinion because you are just another zombified life form living in a chemical dreamworld - It's self defeating for it's very proponents!

- I reject that, I don't believe that, and I find it difficult to believe that humans are a chemical and biological accident to observe this wonderous universe, and to explore it, and fight with people on the internet about what we think of it...lol...

..but that's just my opinion..and I could very well be hitting the nail on the head, and maybe you're right, and you should start a blog too, I'll 'like' you on my facebook

Zombrex · 03-11-2011 11:23AM

lmaopml wrote: »

No Zombrex. I simply don't make any excuses, and rely on consulting the 'current understanding of nature' alone for saying certain things are what is wrong or what is right.

Yes, that is exactly the point. Even people who believe in objective morality largely ignore it and believe what they themselves think is right and wrong, often changing their believes on what is the objective morality to be in line with their own beliefs rather than the other way around.

lmaopml wrote: »

Our very understanding is based on the principle that we can assess and give certainty to some things...

And yet morality is always subjective and in fact that is how we like it.

As I said if you were told that the objective moral standard says it is ok to kill babies you would simply refuse to accept that. No one would genuinely go "Oh ok so it is ok to kill babies" and then do so unless they were already a psychopath who already thought it was ok to kill babies.

Belief in objective morality is largely meaningless, it is just something some people tell themselves to feel better about what they believe and feel better about how to justify what they believe. When it comes down to it no one actually believes 100% in objective morality nor would they actually want it.

If the objective moral standard conflicted with their own they would just refuse to accept the objective moral standard.

lmaopml · 03-11-2011 09:52PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, that is exactly the point. Even people who believe in objective morality largely ignore it and believe what they themselves think is right and wrong, often changing their believes on what is the objective morality to be in line with their own beliefs rather than the other way around.

I totally agree - but that has nothing to do with whether an objective 'right' and 'wrong' in fact exists.

And yet morality is always subjective and in fact that is how we like it.

No. That is how some people 'like' it - that is not true of everybody - some people regard a higher right and wrong as actually existing.

As I said if you were told that the objective moral standard says it is ok to kill babies you would simply refuse to accept that. No one would genuinely go "Oh ok so it is ok to kill babies" and then do so unless they were already a psychopath who already thought it was ok to kill babies.

So you agree that it is 'wrong' to kill babies - it's not a shade of grey wrong, it's just 'wrong'.

Belief in objective morality is largely meaningless, it is just something some people tell themselves to feel better about what they believe and feel better about how to justify what they believe. When it comes down to it no one actually believes 100% in objective morality nor would they actually want it.

Well that's just more of the above. 'Some People', may do many things, they may indeed not believe that there is a right and wrong, and disagree with those who 'do' believe that any kind of progress we make is built on our understanding of some absolutes - right and wrong - may be hard to define always, but they are the MOST important - imo ....

If the objective moral standard conflicted with their own they would just refuse to accept the objective moral standard.

Well, I think that's just lazy fact finding, and a really sad view in some ways...choking, and defeatest. Foundations of nihilism 101 -

In fact there are millions and millions of people who have a higher philosophy of life than just saying if it 'fits' me and it feels good than I'm worth it - There are millions of examples of people who don't live their life based on what they see as 'objectively' satisfying to them alone as the truth - In fact, they rise above the brain chemicals and animal instincts to become 'more' than the sum of their parts, to defy nature, to see something more - That's 'Spirit'.

God raises you up! Some things tear you down if you build yourself up around them alone...

Imo

Roger Hassenforder · 03-11-2011 10:43PM

lmaopml wrote: »

So you agree that it is 'wrong' to kill babies - it's not a shade of grey wrong, it's just 'wrong'.

all babies....at all times?

lmaopml · 03-11-2011 11:46PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

all babies....at all times?

There is a vast difference between Roger Hassenforder saying that killing babies is 'ok' because he decided so, or because a country is overpopulated etc. etc. or that the child is less than human - or just even, 'less' because of their maturity etc.

- and an omnipotent God decreeing the life of a child and calling them home without blemish, according to his will...but with a purpose.

A vast ocean of difference...

One sees only subjectively and accepts 'evil' for it's own inherent sake.....and the other recognises that there is an alternative and something greater, more beautiful, very powerful - that 'years' put in can sometimes ascertain in this life, and indeed years put in can dull too - we and can only grasp at it every now and then...and try to emulate and understand and listen to the quiet voice - It's not something obvious, it's something written on our hearts, subtle, but there nonetheless...It's what defines us.

Zombrex · 04-11-2011 01:53AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I totally agree - but that has nothing to do with whether an objective 'right' and 'wrong' in fact exists.

No, it has to do with why people think objective right and wrong in fact exists. After all remove people supposing its existence and what do you have left to support its existences.

lmaopml wrote: »

No. That is how some people 'like' it - that is not true of everybody - some people regard a higher right and wrong as actually existing.

Not if it conflicts with their own. There isn't a person alive on this forum who would think raping babies is morally ok simply because the objective standard of the universe said it was.

lmaopml wrote: »

So you agree that it is 'wrong' to kill babies - it's not a shade of grey wrong, it's just 'wrong'.

I think it is wrong to kill babies, but that is "just" my opinion as people here like to say. I don't pretend my opinion reflects some objective moral standard of the universe.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well that's just more of the above. 'Some People', may do many things, they may indeed not believe that there is a right and wrong, and disagree with those who 'do' believe that any kind of progress we make is built on our understanding of some absolutes - right and wrong - may be hard to define always, but they are the MOST important - imo ....

So if it turned out that killing babies was in fact perfectly ok and moral you would believe that it was?

Or do you have faith that what ever the objective moral standard of the universe is it just happens to aline with your own personal standards when it comes to baby killing?

lmaopml wrote: »

In fact there are millions and millions of people who have a higher philosophy of life than just saying if it 'fits' me and it feels good than I'm worth it - There are millions of examples of people who don't live their life based on what they see as 'objectively' satisfying to them alone as the truth

What does satisfaction got to do with anything? I asked you if it turned out that killing babies was morally ok according to the objective standard of the universe would that mean that you would happily kill babies without feeling guilt or remorse for doing so because it was in fact ok?

Or would you simply refuse to believe that this is actually what the objective standard was?

Roger Hassenforder · 04-11-2011 08:10AM

lmaopml wrote: »

There is a vast difference between Roger Hassenforder saying that killing babies is 'ok' because he decided so, or because a country is overpopulated etc. etc. or that the child is less than human - or just even, 'less' because of their maturity etc.

- and an omnipotent God decreeing the life of a child and calling them home without blemish, according to his will...but with a purpose.

A vast ocean of difference...

One sees only subjectively and accepts 'evil' for it's own inherent sake.....and the other recognises that there is an alternative and something greater, more beautiful, very powerful - that 'years' put in can sometimes ascertain in this life, and indeed years put in can dull too - we and can only grasp at it every now and then...and try to emulate and understand and listen to the quiet voice - It's not something obvious, it's something written on our hearts, subtle, but there nonetheless...It's what defines us.

no, its a very simple question, one you've avoided to answer:
(& im not asking you to explain why a baby might have died)
So, again, is it ever ok to kill babies?

Festus · 04-11-2011 10:56PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So, again, is it ever ok to kill babies?

I would say no and if you disagree perhaps you would care to say why the baby should die and how the killing of a baby for the sake of killing a baby can ever be a morally good thing.

Roger Hassenforder · 04-11-2011 11:02PM

at least thats two of us here.
interested to hear what lmaopml has to say though....

lmaopml · 04-11-2011 11:53PM

I don't know what is difficult to understand Roger.

From a Catholic perpective, when one takes 'right or wrong' into their own hands in a 'subjective' way without appealing to a 'greater' good - than they are acting on their own discretion, subjectively - there is a difference between 'vengence' and seeking 'justice' or preserving 'good'..Now, 'preserving good' is worth thinking on. We don't live in a world that is 'perfect' - we aspire to.

Very many people do not decide the life of 'innocents' subjectively, but see an inherent value, whether they are Catholic or not - I think this is 'noble' - and I would love to hear the anthem for humanity that says it isn't...and see where that leads...Would you like to start??

... and likewise very many people think that a life of an innocent is a transgression on their own value, and bring out the weighing scales in a very personal way and judge based on how valuable they see strictly 'themselves'.

There is such a thing as 'Just War' too - I'm sure you have heard of it? Sometimes, innocents die - Augustine, many centuries ago defined it. From a Catholic perspective, there are wars that are 'just' because they preserve good things, in a fallen world.

Zombrex · 05-11-2011 12:14AM

Festus wrote: »

I would say no and if you disagree perhaps you would care to say why the baby should die and how the killing of a baby for the sake of killing a baby can ever be a morally good thing.

Deuteronomy 3
2 But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not fear him, for I have delivered him and all his people and his land into your hand; and you shall do to him just as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.’
...
5 All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns. 6 We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. 7 But all the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty.

Roger Hassenforder · 05-11-2011 10:16AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't know what is difficult to understand Roger.

From a Catholic perpective, when one takes 'right or wrong' into their own hands in a 'subjective' way without appealing to a 'greater' good - than they are acting on their own discretion, subjectively - there is a difference between 'vengence' and seeking 'justice' or preserving 'good'..Now, 'preserving good' is worth thinking on. We don't live in a world that is 'perfect' - we aspire to.

Very many people do not decide the life of 'innocents' subjectively, but see an inherent value, whether they are Catholic or not - I think this is 'noble' - and I would love to hear the anthem for humanity that says it isn't...and see where that leads...Would you like to start??

... and likewise very many people think that a life of an innocent is a transgression on their own value, and bring out the weighing scales in a very personal way and judge based on how valuable they see strictly 'themselves'.

There is such a thing as 'Just War' too - I'm sure you have heard of it? Sometimes, innocents die - Augustine, many centuries ago defined it. From a Catholic perspective, there are wars that are 'just' because they preserve good things, in a fallen world.

Augustine hasnt much credibility outside of Christianity.
And you've danced nicely around the question, im not asking about collateral damage, or greater good.
I asked is it ever acceptable to kill (an innocent) baby. given the above answer, i think we both know what you cant admit. Buts thats ok, your answer has clarifed it for me.

to add to Zombrex's list:
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Hosea 9:11-16
Ezekiel 9:5-7
Exodus 12:29-30
Jeremiah 51:20-26
Leviticus 26:21-22
Isaiah 13:15-18

etc. etc. etc.

smegmar · 05-11-2011 10:24AM

I'm not sure if this has been posed already but a good objective judgement of morality, what is good and what is bad, can be seen with the "Categorical Imperative" as put forward by Immueal Kant in the early 17th century

The three maxims of the imperative are:
1. All people must be treated as a rational agent. (do not lie or deceive)

2. Universality, imagine if everyone did/used/said it all the time.

3. Your advise must always be for the categorical imperative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Festus · 05-11-2011 07:53PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

at least thats two of us here.
interested to hear what lmaopml has to say though....

Actually at least three but I'm having difficulty understanding why you don't understand this

lmaopml wrote: »

So you agree that it is 'wrong' to kill babies - it's not a shade of grey wrong, it's just 'wrong'.

Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Comments