What is your definition of morality?Moral Good.
Moral Good.
What ought to be/do and what not ought to be/do.
Good and bad behaviour as opposed to just behaviour.
Moral Good.
What ought to be/do and what not ought to be/do.
Good and bad behaviour as opposed to just behaviour.
Moral Good.
What ought to be/do and what not ought to be/do.
Good and bad behaviour as opposed to just behaviour.
So how do you tell if an action is morally good?Is it loving.
People's idea of what is good and bad behaviour can be very different indeed. For instance, some think it is immoral to have a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex.Is it loving.
So who is being immoral here? And why do you think it is immoral?
I'm reliable assured by those who purport to know that the gay sexy times most certainly are. Equally I'vecome acrossencountered people who fall either side of the question when it comes to prophylactics...
That doesn't seem to stop many of the religious - particularly Christian and Muslim - mouthpieces sallying forth.
O.
So who is being immoral here? And why do you think it is immoral?
This just a list of terms without definition: ' good', bad', 'ought to do', 'ought not to do'.I think there is an initial point to be made before we get onto a more philosophical sociological and perhaps psychochemical approach to the question namely:
Since this is the Philosophy board perhaps a better place to start would be to consider these terms (and any others) with reference to one (or more) of the various philosophical approaches to morality: perhaps start with the one that you feel most closely aligns with your own considered position.
Personally, I don't think anyone involved in the sex is being immoral, because I can't see anyone that's being harmed or restrained. If all the believers do is express their individual disquiet then I still don't see any immorality involved.Why would you think it is immoral? What is it you are ''seeing''?
If, however, the believers try to influence the civil law to enforce their beliefs on others via regulatory restrictions, then I see something immoral.
So how do you tell if an action is morally good?
Why would you think it is immoral? What is it you are ''seeing''?
For myself, ideally, when I say something is morally wrong, my first reaction is of something which offends my nature. The wrongness I feel might take the form of disapproval, disgust, abhorrence, even fear, depending upon the situation. I then try to assess the wrongness of the situation according to my values,( which may well have their origin in my culture and my upbringing). in as rational a way as possible(e.g. by trying to ascertain as many facts regarding the situation as possible or by trying to consider in as level headed a way as possible the points of view of others.) The result of all this is something which I would call my moral opinion. No god needed or wanted.Do you think that which is rational is also moral?
I see someone trying to restrict other people's behaviour without sufficient justification -Why do they need justification? what is immoral about not having it?
I think there is an initial point to be made before we get onto a more philosophical sociological and perhaps psychochemical approach to the question namely:
''Any fucking moron that bangs on loudly about what is good and bad, what people ought and ought not to be doing and comes on here with no concrete idea of why that is so or an at the end of the day it's all relative is a fucking moron''.
My own position is we should love God and love our neighbour.
What is there to love about the Biblical god? It would be worse than loving Hitler or any other despot.The greatest commandments of course love God, love yourself, love your neighbour, and love your enemies. Is God your enemy?(I can't answer that only you can) are you his?
Do you think that which is rational is also moral?
No, I didn't say that at all. I suggested that I would try to include a rational view as part of my assessment.How do you think that would help you come to a decision on the morality of a situation?
The greatest commandments of course love God, love yourself, love your neighbour, and love your enemies. Is God your enemy?(I can't answer that only you can) are you his?
It would be my enemy if it actually existed.Why?
Why do they need justification? what is immoral about not having it?
Why?
Because we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights affords people liberty (Article 3) and freedom from 'arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home...' (Article 12).Why is it immoral? Yes there is a bit of paper but there could be a bit of paper that says it's ok. Which would be moral?
Infringing on that with arbitrary interference is immoral.
I think there is an initial point to be made before we get onto a more philosophical sociological and perhaps psychochemical approach to the question namely:
''Any fucking moron that bangs on loudly about what is good and bad, what people ought and ought not to be doing and comes on here with no concrete idea of why that is so or an at the end of the day it's all relative is a fucking moron''.
My own position is we should love God and love our neighbour.
Why is it immoral? Yes there is a bit of paper but there could be a bit of paper that says it's ok. Which would be moral?
Have you ever read the Bible and seen the terrible deeds attributed to it.?Mankind has several terrible deeds attached to it in fact we live in terrible deedsville some deeds more terrible than others. What I glean from the bible is the world was a kind of a Garden and we wanted it to be different. I see no reason to deviate from those understandings.
Mankind has several terrible deeds attached to it in fact we live in terrible deedsville some deeds more terrible than others. What I glean from the bible is the world was a kind of a Garden and we wanted it to be different. I see no reason to deviate from those understandings.
Because we, collectively, as humanity, have identified what we consider to be moral, and that doesn't conform to it.I wasn't personally privy or involved in the production of those documents and neither were you. They may well have identified them to be moral but why? Not everybody is a signatory and some of those who were wish to opt out of this type of thing.
Mankind has several terrible deeds attached to it in fact we live in terrible deedsville some deeds more terrible than others.
What I glean from the bible is the world was a kind of a Garden and we wanted it to be different.
I see no reason to deviate from those understandings.
I wasn't personally privy or involved in the production of those documents and neither were you.
They may well have identified them to be moral but why?
Not everybody is a signatory and some of those who were wish to opt out of this type of thing.
Not sniping....... just engaging in socratic dialogue.
If god exists it is responsible for everything that is wrong in this world, as it supposedly created human nature.It isn't necessary to see it that way, I see it this way. It's like if the council gave me a council house and I'd trashed it up I could hardly blame the council.
It isn't necessary to see it that way, I see it this way. It's like if the council gave me a council house and I'd trashed it up I could hardly blame the council.
So far as you've revealed so far - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - you weren't involved in the Bible that you're putting forth as an alternative source?Where have I put forth the bible as an alternative source? That I think is rather in your head. Firstly the bible isn't the end all of the Christian experience. It doesn't hold the same significance as the Old testament does for Jewish believers or the Koran has for Islam. There is the law, the legal, yes, but there is also the sprit or the spirit of the law So now I am not putting laws arrived between peoples as an alternative to the bible or visa versa.
Because it's our best current effort at defining a set of rules that make people's lives better, as determined by the people who want better lives.But in terms of morality what have you got against those who think there lives would be better with slavery, Lebensraum, sweated labour, persecution, pogrom, apartheid and ghetto for others? Other than a bit of paper?
Where have I put forth the bible as an alternative source?
Firstly the bible isn't the end all of the Christian experience.
It doesn't hold the same significance as the Old testament does for Jewish believers or the Koran has for Islam.
But in terms of morality what have you got against those who think there lives would be better with slavery, Lebensraum, sweated labour, persecution, pogrom, apartheid and ghetto for others? Other than a bit of paper?
Except if the council told you that you weren't allowed to use the vlert, but only after you'd made your way outside told you that 'vlert' was the type of door they'd fitted to your council house, and because you'd broken that rule all of your descendants that would ever live were threatened with eternal punishment, even the ones that didn't know about the council, let alone the rule...I've just about got all that. If you've mucked up your house, It was not the council housing department that sent the Housemuckerupper round was it? First of all the council have been sent a kind of a social worker who we can either tell to shove of or invite in.
I've just about got all that. If you've mucked up your house,
It was not the council housing department that sent the Housemuckerupper round was it? First of all the council have been sent a kind of a social worker who we can either tell to shove of or invite in.
Since you bring up the question of descendents? Will their environment and upbringing lead them to try to improve their legacy? Accept help? Maintain the house in the order the original ancestors left it in? Or make an even bigger hash of it ....keeping the curtains closed with a smog of fag smoke or even worse setting fire to the house or knocking down an important wall to extend the kitchen/diner?
In your pushing Christianity, generally.Your misunderstanding of Christianity is shocking for someone on a religion ethics board and yet I'm the one getting Dunning Kruger and courtiers reply.
Not mucked up the house, used a part of the house for the function it was designed for, but against the poorly enforced and communicated wish of the council.We burn in hell because that's how we like it. That is why we get drunk smoke and set fire to the mattress so we burn and so do the kids.(are you beginning to savvy? vis a vis original sin?)
Your council worker is telling us we can either join his cult of homophobic misogynists (he isn't one, but his management team are implementing those policies) or we can still burn in hell because great granddad used the inconvenient door.
Maybe - which bit of those temporal crimes are they allegedly being punished for? Oh, they aren't, they're being punished for the 'Original Sin' of not understanding a poor instruction from a second rate designer...
It isn't necessary to see it that way, I see it this way. It's like if the council gave me a council house and I'd trashed it up I could hardly blame the council.
Your misunderstanding of Christianity is shocking for someone on a religion ethics board and yet I'm the one getting Dunning Kruger and courtiers reply.
Please read my description of Christianity.
The Bible does not hold the same place in Christianity as the OT does in Judaism or the Koran does in Islam.
In fact, the NT isn't official until a couple of centuries later. That is what you should be taking on board.
You see in those centuries there wasn't really a document to be pushed.
Christianity therefore must be something different to what you are supposing.
In your pushing Christianity, generally. Not specifically in this thread, obviously, because gods forbid you actually take a stance and contribute rather than simply sniping.Yeh, I'm glad we've gone from ''humanity's'' to ''lot's of people's'' for the sake of keeping it real. What we shouldn't get into though is thinking that Christians are not humanity and these documents are necessarily atheist or secular humanist
For your particular stance on Christianity, perhaps. If you aren't referring to the New Testament, though, then what have you got... nothing. You've got 'how you feel' or possibly even 'how you think Jesus would feel', which is still about what you think. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just lots of people's accumulated sense of 'what they think the best of us should do'.
The collective wisdom of a humanity that's attempting to learn from those mistakes - 'which are mistakes because of the pain and misery they caused - and move humanity forward.But we could be talking technology or intellectual progress here. Do bits of paper move humanity forward morally? Why, getting back to the subject, are they moral? How do they move individuals forward morally considering say most people who voted in Britain voted Tory, arguably the most toxic, immoral, pernicious and /or cowardly variety and those that didn't vote do anything to stop them and evangelical christians in America are supporting a man who is the most unchristlike person ever who thinks he's God( I think i've given clues as to that one to which we can add prosperity gospel,replacementism, dominionism and manifest destiny)
Given that your system (whether or not you consider to be dependent, reliant upon or merely vaguely interested in the scriptures) has both promoted and rejected each of these horror show that you've cited, but hasn't come up with anything clear on a code or way forward, what's your better alternative?Here we go. Christians are against international law?....I suspected we'd get there....given that there are lots of christians around, are you suggesting that Christianity has had no hand whatsoever in the formulation of international law?
You are not comparing like with like.Of course I am.
It certainly isn't what you've chosen to focus on Namely The Nazi positive christians, Prosperity Gospellers, Bible belters, televangelists and Lateran councillors of the 13th century.
I've read it. It sounds lovely. Look at Christianity in the world; it's not the same.
.
Of course I am.
How do you think that would help you come to a decision on the morality of a situation?
No you are not.OK Let's do this your way. The world was comfortable enough to promote the evolution of intelligent apes called humans. Who is it who has brought the world to climate catastrophe? Who is it that has fought wars etc.? Who is it who has made species upon species extinct?
OK Let's do this your way. The world was comfortable enough to promote the evolution of intelligent apes called humans. Who is it who has brought the world to climate catastrophe? Who is it that has fought wars etc.? Who is it who has made species upon species extinct?
Even if I feel and think that I am correct in my moral thoughts in any given situation there might be important points which I have dismissed or overlooked. However if it was demonstrated to me that some particular moral thought or action of mine was wrong, then I would try to analyse why it might be wrong, and if then I was convinced of this wrongness, I would try to adjust accordingly. That seems to me to be a rational way forward.Sometimes I don't arrive at the moral decision. Sometimes I find reasoning doesn't help me sometimes I act on the spur of the moment because I have to. I find myself contemplating morality far more as a Christian than when I was an unbeliever and then it was chiefly others and not my own. I consider the moment I decided for whatever reason that something was absolutely and convincingly morally wrong and totally repugnant as an awakening to what morality entails and moral relativism had no answer to what I had witnessed. A year or so after that I had become a Christian.
How do you arrive at your moral decisions?
Is it loving.
IF god exists it is all down to that entity, by creating human nature it should have known exactly how they would behave. However, as its existence is highly unlikely it is humans who are responsible for climate change and all that is wrong in the world.Why does responsibility and action transfer from humanity to God in the event of God's existence. What would that even look like ? How do you think that might be evidenced? It sounds like you are proposing that the guilt and penalty should be shouldered by God?
What makes you think the same decisions would not be taken if God did exist. Why does responsibility and action transfer from humanity to God in the event of God's existence. What would that even look like ? How would that be evidenced? How are you even able to make moral arbitration at all and in any case?
For myself morality is tied to wellbeing, if you morality is not tied to wellbeing, then I do not consider that moral.Well, it is, a bit, I think, perhaps, Be Rational but there are problems with this wellbeing thing. First of all it's so damn vague. Whose wellbeing are we talking about? And what about the wellbeing of the psychopath and sociopath? Can you expand on what you mean?
I use well being as described by Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty.Would you say Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty are moral absolutists or realists?
Once you agree a goal with regard to morality then you can derive oughts
Would you say Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty are moral absolutists or realists?What do you say that they are?
What do you say that they are?I'm not sure Seb, do you have the lowdown on these guys vis a vis their moral philosophy?
Would you say Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty are moral absolutists or realists?
Sometimes I don't arrive at the moral decision. Sometimes I find reasoning doesn't help me sometimes I act on the spur of the moment because I have to.
I find myself contemplating morality far more as a Christian than when I was an unbeliever and then it was chiefly others and not my own.
I consider the moment I decided for whatever reason that something was absolutely and convincingly morally wrong and totally repugnant as an awakening to what morality entails and moral relativism had no answer to what I had witnessed. A year or so after that I had become a Christian.
I'm not sure Seb, do you have the lowdown on these guys vis a vis their moral philosophy?Nope.
It certainly isn't what you've chosen to focus on Namely The Nazi positive christians, Prosperity Gospellers, Bible belters, televangelists and Lateran councillors of the 13th century.
Yeh, I'm glad we've gone from ''humanity's'' to ''lot's of people's'' for the sake of keeping it real. What we shouldn't get into though is thinking that Christians are not humanity and these documents are necessarily atheist or secular humanist.
But we could be talking technology or intellectual progress here. Do bits of paper move humanity forward morally?
Why, getting back to the subject, are they moral?
How do they move individuals forward morally considering say most people who voted in Britain voted Tory, arguably the most toxic, immoral, pernicious and /or cowardly variety and those that didn't vote do anything to stop them and evangelical christians in America are supporting a man who is the most unchristlike person ever who thinks he's God( I think i've given clues as to that one to which we can add prosperity gospel,replacementism, dominionism and manifest destiny)
Here we go. Christians are against international law?....
I suspected we'd get there....given that there are lots of christians around, are you suggesting that Christianity has had no hand whatsoever in the formulation of international law?
In any case we seem merely to be at the stage where what is moral is only moral because somebody or a group says it is.
Why is it really moral?
And what role do you have personally in making moral decisions?
Why does responsibility and action transfer from humanity to God in the event of God's existence. What would that even look like ? How do you think that might be evidenced? It sounds like you are proposing that the guilt and penalty should be shouldered by God?
I can agree with that. Sometimes, depending on the situation, I find the options to be finely balanced, and, sometimes, one has simply to make a moral decision fast.Hi enki
I have no problem with that at all. For me, I have no problem contemplating morality without being a Christian. Each to their own.
Thanks for that insight. As I have already said, I don't have any problem in deciding some things are morally repugnant to me. For me, that entails only my own attitudes, which in most cases don't deviate from the accepted norm, as I would expect in evolutionary terms. For you, I assume, your moral imperative led to you becoming a Christian and deciding that morality was objectively intrinsic to your new faith.(Please correct me if I am wrong). For me, I don't see morality as particularly objective at all. I don't see any situation as moral/immoral, good/bad at all, only in the minds of the humans contemplating it.
Yes I am if it exists and is responsible for creating human nature.So what are looking at? What penalty should be put on God? Would a trial with God in the Dock be sufficient?
Hi enki
Thanks for your reply which has left me with two or three thoughts.
Firstly I wonder whether the reasoning we are doing to arrive at moral decisions is moral reasoning or reasoning with moral truths about a real moral landscape. Something akin to abstract or mathematical reasoning perhaps.
Secondly when I look at the world, empircally I see nothing moral which leads me to believe that there is nothing moral in matter but that doesn't stop me from seeing metaphorically morality played out in situations sometimes where it is the key feature of that situation.
Implicitly they are secular - in particular Article 18 on freedom of conscience, religion and thought. I wasn't aware there was any implication in 'humanity' or 'lots of people' that it didn't include Christians.let me just get my New Atheism checklist Outrider........ Cultural impact of religion on morality airbrushed out of history CHECK
They are part of the process - documenting what we agree is the first step of collectively holding each other to account and building a basis for future generations raised with those precepts as the norm to manifest them more frequently without having to be watched to the same extent. They don't move us forward, but they are tools that we are using to move ourselves forward.What has been done by a hopefully representaive group of human beings can be altered by it.....as we have seen in Britain where we are threatening to remove ourselves from this kind of legal morality. People voted forthis in Britain IN THEIR DROVES. So whose right? The Forty year old Blairite in 2000 who supported observing these rights and laws or the sixty year old Boris voter he has become in the intervening 20 years?
Because that's what we've created them to be - we have collectively asked 'what's moral', and they're our best current answer.then they turn out not to be terribly good or should I say aimed at at the little people since governments seem immune. They are also a tacit admission that we are immoral as well as morals and can't be trusted without these instruments on morality.
You might find the Tories vileIn my unbelieving days I was one.,
I'm not a fan myself,but are you sufficiently not a fan?
but they are constrained by our current acceptable standards in ways they wouldn't have been only decades agoA few decades ago they wouldn't have got a way with suggesting herd immunity even for a minute. This level of death in care homes would be a national scandal. Now? A shrug in Bimingham England but uproar whenever american evangelicals do something in Birmingham Alabama. Talk about not noticing the plank in your own eye
- the Shemima Begum case at the moment is just one example.with all that's going on in our largely secular country and your focus is on Shemima Begum? Fucking astounding
Evangelical Christians in America are supporting the DrumpfturdHere we go again....airbrush the role of christianity in the shaping of international law, focus on christians on just giving the bad things......what about the horrendous state of the largely secular UK which is nothing like the USA. It has the highest Covid mortality in the world and the people responsible for that are ten points ahead in the polls! And the best you can come up with is ''Not a fan''.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I try to explain how I see how morality begins.I can't say that does it for me and why it's a bad thing to enforce rules on emotions and why it seems naturally right to impose laws to impose moral activity and make moral arbitration. In other words to use an emotive example, why is it right to have laws protecting minorities particularly why should it apply to someone when emotionally they don't care?
I have suggested that a scenario is, of itself, neither moral nor immoral. It seems to depend on how we, as human beings, view it. For instance, on a personal level, someone who has recently been bereaved, might react with strong emotions to some particular action or object which reminds them of their loved one. This does not mean that the action or object has some intrinsic quality associated with this emotion, it simply means for that person it becomes a trigger to set off the emotion. For another person it may have no such meaning. Morality, it seems to me, is something like this writ large. By that, I mean that the vast majority of human beings react in roughly similar ways to particular acts, either with abhorrence or commendation, and we give these feelings the names morality/immorality because, by doing so, it encourages others to react as we do.
Who caresQuoteWell you are quoting them. If they are then I find myself marching some of the way in lockstep with them.
So what are looking at? What penalty should be put on God? Would a trial with God in the Dock be sufficient?
I can't say that does it for me and why it's a bad thing to enforce rules on emotions and why it seems naturally right to impose laws to impose moral activity and make moral arbitration. In other words to use an emotive example, why is it right to have laws protecting minorities particularly why should it apply to someone when emotionally they don't care?
As I said for me moral realism is like mathematical realism or truth writ large.
let me just get my New Atheism checklist Outrider........ Cultural impact of religion on morality airbrushed out of history CHECK
What has been done by a hopefully representaive group of human beings can be altered by it.....as we have seen in Britain where we are threatening to remove ourselves from this kind of legal morality.
People voted forthis in Britain IN THEIR DROVES. So whose right? The Forty year old Blairite in 2000 who supported observing these rights and laws or the sixty year old Boris voter he has become in the intervening 20 years?
Again I am not against the laws but their basis in morality seems a fragile thing and a moveable feast
then they turn out not to be terribly good or should I say aimed at at the little people since governments seem immune.
They are also a tacit admission that we are immoral as well as morals and can't be trusted without these instruments on morality.
In my unbelieving days I was one,
but are you sufficiently not a fan?
A few decades ago they wouldn't have got a way with suggesting herd immunity even for a minute.
This level of death in care homes would be a national scandal. Now?
A shrug in Bimingham England but uproar whenever american evangelicals do something in Birmingham Alabama.
Talk about not noticing the plank in your own eye with all that's going on in our largely secular country and your focus is on Shemima Begum? Fucking astounding
Here we go again....airbrush the role of christianity in the shaping of international law, focus on christians on just giving the bad things......what about the horrendous state of the largely secular UK which is nothing like the USA.
It has the highest Covid mortality in the world and the people responsible for that are ten points ahead in the polls!
But of course, I digress. What is that makes your stance more moral?
Well, it is, a bit, I think, perhaps, Be Rational but there are problems with this wellbeing thing. First of all it's so damn vague. Whose wellbeing are we talking about? And what about the wellbeing of the psychopath and sociopath? Can you expand on what you mean?
The psychopath and sociopath are outliers a d ot part of the group. We lock them up generally to keep them away.Psychopathy and sociopathy are not outliers. They are key factors in getting on and to the top these days. As for locking them up, I'm afraid there are a few still
It's not vague, morality to me is ties to doing the least harm.
So when Homosexuality was anathema, was that right or wrong. If it was right then and wrong now will it be right in future? Why was the anathematisation of homosexuality right then and wrong now, How does the situation affect morality when it is after all just a changing situation.
That's the nature of morality - look at, culturally speaking, how quickly it's gone from homosexuality being anathema to publicly acceptable in the UK, look at how quickly racism has become unacceptable in most places, and equally look at how slowly gay marriage is being adopted in the US.
We are neither inherently moral nor immoral, given that morality is both situational and constructed. We watch ourselves and each other because morality is a constantly evolving understanding.
So when Homosexuality was anathema, was that right or wrong.
If it was right then and wrong now will it be right in future?
Why was the anathematisation of homosexuality right then and wrong now
How does the situation affect morality when it is after all just a changing situation.
When you say involving do you mean moral progress?
How is that measured?
It seems to me that morality in your scheme is almost indistinguishable from cultural hegemony, political power and social fashion.
In which case where does morality actually come in?
With all due respect to the wellbeingers and do no harmers does that mean that if we let others do harm we can still be moral?
In our constant evolution of morality then what is it our understanding is changing about?
That rather depends on your precepts - for me, I'd say it was wrong because it was an unwarranted infringement in light of the lack of any obvious harm arising from the activity.Seems to me that I'm correct in my conclusion that your conception of morality doesn't contain much if any morality. Certainly the redundancy or capability of redundancy of the term morality is fairly obvious. Of course since we seem to have arrived at it, why are your precepts better than mine.....or to put it more correctly, why are my precepts better than yours?. Your scheme seems to have no real answer.
That depends on if we change the fundamental precepts upon which we make the judgement or if more information comes to light.
Because authoritarian laws and hangovers from explicitly Christian ideas of 'sin' were considered more important than individual liberty in the culture of the time - in my opinion it was as morally wrong then as it would be now, but I wasn't there growing up in that climate.
In a constantly developing way - morality is not something outside of culture, it's part of the framework of culture. As one changes, so the other adjusts to accommodate and vice versa.
Progress is a subjective claim - like biological evolution, it's a change to whatever's most suitable at the time, to try to make an absolute claim is fraught with peril given that the precepts of morality are subjective in the first place. If you take the idea of personal liberty until and unless there's demonstrable harm to be a reasonable basis for morality then I'd suggest that we've seen progress over the last century, yes. If you have other foundational understandings you might take a different view; I suspect much of the Chinese populace, for instance, where compliance with societal norms appear to given much more weight, might think that morality has foundered in the last few decades.
If only we had a metric...
Pretty much - it's the elements of those concepts that are explicitly concerned with how we should rather than necessarily how we are.
It doesn't 'come in', it 'comes out' - it's a product of society, not something impinging on society.
That's a question in that framework - some people would enact 'Good Samaritan' laws, others would value the personal liberty to close your eyes and not get involved as more important. Personally I like to think I'd probably get involved if I saw something happening that I thought needed intervention - on some occasions I have (an old lady being accosted on a train late last year springs to mind), whereas on other occasions I haven't (I've walked past any number of individuals in London claiming to be homeless and begging for money).
What we, collectively, aspire to be.
O.
Seems to me that I'm correct in my conclusion that your conception of morality doesn't contain much if any morality.
Certainly the redundancy or capability of redundancy of the term morality is fairly obvious. Of course since we seem to have arrived at it, why are your precepts better than mine....
or to put it more correctly, why are my precepts better than yours?
Your scheme seems to have no real answer.
Anyway thanks for your input
If you're looking for some external source or absolute morality no, but then I don't see that there is one of those.I'm sorry but as nice as an explanation of a term is, if it makes that term redundant then it isn't really an explanation of the term is it.
Individually they aren't, but then if we're only concerned with ourselves we don't need morality, we just behave as we'd like. We only need morality within a culture or society, and then our individual take on it is better or worse dependent upon how closely it cleaves to the moral centre.
I'm pretty sure it's not going to come to that.
It does, but you'll have to accept that my answer is that it depends, which isn't surprising in a morally relativist system.
No problem.
O.
I'm sorry but as nice as an explanation of a term is, if it makes that term redundant then it isn't really an explanation of the term is it.
Similarly an explanation of morality which ends up with no actual possibility of moral arbitration is a bit of a non starter.
Anybody who holds with moral irrealism who under other circumstances would not support anything that isn't real purports to being moral is a bit of a humbug n'est pas?
Just for clarity, moral absolutism has a specific meaning that any action such as stealing is always wrong. In theory you could be a moral subjectivist and a moral absolutist - though I don't think anyone is.
...
If morality is absolute, if there's a clear objective right and wrong and any relative system is just 'moral irrealism' and waffle how do you account for the significant change in what's considered to be sinful and acceptable between the New and Old Testaments?
O.
Really since moral arbitration is akin to this years pantomime isn't it the person with the craziest wig who gets to choose what's IN and what's out this year?
There's always the mechanism for arbitration
Really since moral arbitration is akin to this years pantomime isn't it the person with the craziest wig who gets to choose what's IN and what's out this year?
In other words on what authority does arbitration occur?
So how do you tell if an action is morally good?If it leads, or can be expected to lead, to an increase in general happiness. Rule-utilitarianism is the only ethical theory that makes sense.
If it leads, or can be expected to lead, to an increase in general happiness. Rule-utilitarianism is the only ethical theory that makes sense.
You're the advocate for the silly hat people telling us why shellfish aren't as much of a problem now as they used to be, I suppose the calm, reasoned consideration of experienced judges probably seems a bit 'off the wall' for you.Don't you think there are problems equating the Law with morality?
The authority of the populace that, directly or indirectly, appoints them to the post.
O.
Yes as I said wellbeing.Firstly Do we know what is good for us? For example it was thought industrial wealth and consumerism was progress only to find we had severely caned the ecosystem and our environment plus we suffer from diseases of overindulgence.
There is a Chinese story of a farmer who used an old horse to till his fields. One day, the horse escaped into the hills and when the farmer's neighbours sympathised with the old man over his bad luck, the farmer replied, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?" A week later, the horse returned with a herd of horses from the hills and this time the neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good luck. His reply was, "Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows?"Good story, but I notice nobody does or commits anything in it, it is things happening to them. There is a moral to the story but is there any morality in the story.
Then, when the farmer's son was attempting to tame one of the wild horses, he fell off its back and broke his leg. Everyone thought this very bad luck. Not the farmer, whose only reaction was, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?"
Some weeks later, the army marched into the village and conscripted every able-bodied youth they found there. When they saw the farmer's son with his broken leg, they let him off. Now was that good luck or bad luck? Who knows?
Firstly Do we know what is good for us? For example it was thought industrial wealth and consumerism was progress only to find we had severely caned the ecosystem and our environment plus we suffer from diseases of overindulgence.OK, so we have imperfect knowledge and wisdom, and may get it wrong: but what else, other than wellbeing/happiness, should we aim at? At least if we're aiming at that, we might hit it at least some of the time.
Secondly Given that people often don't know what is good for them there is a temptation for certain folks to know what is good for them and enforce it as well as those who know what is good for themselves who get to enforce it. At the moment that is often the billionaire technocrat.
So, BR. What does well being look like? who's going to decide it? who is going to enforce it?
Good story, but I notice nobody does or commits anything in it, it is things happening to them. There is a moral to the story but is there any morality in the story.
OK, so we have imperfect knowledge and wisdom, and may get it wrong: but what else, other than wellbeing/happiness, should we aim at? At least if we're aiming at that, we might hit it at least some of the time.I'm wondering whether happiness and well being could conflict with morality.
The story seems to be making the point that it can be difficult to know what's good or bad. It can depend on perspective. Your good may be my bad today but tomorrow that might reverse. How often do we really know what's for the best? Do we even know why we make the moral choices we do? What makes me different from you in these respects depends surely on a constellation of things that have happened to each of us historically, so is there such a difference between what I do and what happens to me? How much of our cherished belief in moral agency is just a rationalisation after the fact?You are right in that hindsight makes prophets of us all. But is the honest mistake morality? Going into something knowing or damning the consequences for a knowingly short term fix sounds more in the realm of morality.
I'm wondering whether happiness and well being could conflict with morality.No and no. don't be silly. Increasing happiness is the only purpose of morality, so there is no conceivable situation in which it would be wrong to increase general happiness (not necessarily my happiness: it might be necessary for me to sacrifice my life if that will lead to a net increase in happiness).
Could we get into a position where we could say....yes we can increase happiness in this situation but ought we.
No and no. don't be silly. Increasing happiness is the only purpose of morality, so there is no conceivable situation in which it would be wrong to increase general happiness (not necessarily my happiness: it might be necessary for me to sacrifice my life if that will lead to a net increase in happiness).Forgive me but your unhappy conclusion at the end isn't doing much for my conception of happiness. What does general happiness look like and why have I got the Bee Gees "I started a joke" going on in my head.
Forgive me but your unhappy conclusion at the end isn't doing much for my conception of happiness. What does general happiness look like and why have I got the Bee Gees "I started a joke" going on in my head.What do you suggest as an alternative for morality to seek to promote?
What do you suggest as an alternative for morality to seek to promote?Before I answer that I'm not sure either yourself nor Be Rational have sufficiently "De vagued" either well being or happiness. Now if you can explain how morality is effective for them rather than just a redundant idea you may very well achieve that.
Before I answer that I'm not sure either yourself nor Be Rational have sufficiently "De vagued" either well being or happiness. Now if you can explain how morality is effective for them rather than just a redundant idea you may very well achieve that.I think WM was using 'morality there to promote' as a figure of speech i.e. we employ morality to promote something
What is morality there to promote if not happiness? HOW ABOUT ITSELF?
I think WM was using 'morality there to promote' as a figure of speech i.e. we employ morality to promote somethingI think I mean morality for the sake of its self. Morality put to the service of something certainly doesn't make sense and yet here you are suggesting it.
You seem to be granting morality some active agency of its own. Sounds nonsensical to me "morality promotes morality". Even "humans engage in moral acts to promote morality" doesn't make much sense.
Utilitarianism will do; like democracy it's the lesser of several evils.
Before I answer that I'm not sure either yourself nor Be Rational have sufficiently "De vagued" either well being or happiness. Now if you can explain how morality is effective for them rather than just a redundant idea you may very well achieve that.
What is morality there to promote if not happiness? HOW ABOUT ITSELF?
Its ot vague.Presumably if we have any of the good stuff we all get it from the same place.
Where do you get your morality from.
Dont tell me the bible!
Presumably if we have any of the good stuff we all get it from the same place.
Talk a bit about well-being........what Do you mean?
That is complete and utter nonsense, even by your standards. Morality refers beyond itself, or it is nothing.
What is morality there to promote if not happiness? HOW ABOUT ITSELF?
That is complete and utter nonsense, even by your standards. Morality refers beyond itself, or it is nothing.It may refer beyond itself but to what and where and then if those thing it refers to actually make it a redundant term, then what? I’m not saying your wrong, I just want a couple of examples. It seems to me that well-being and happiness could be pursued themselves.
If you do not use well being where do you get your morality from.Shouldn’t morality come before well being.
It might be partly the Bible and in a way extra to the morality all westerners get from the bible by dint of cultural heritage. But yes, If you think it does not please demonstrate. I think I get morality by way of it being a conduit from the real source.
It cannot be the bible and I think I can demonstrate that, so where does your morality come from?
Wonders to self has Vlad's answered Floo's question in the second post with a coherent answer. Reads thread. Sees he has not. Is unsurprised.Reply 3
Reply 3Fails to be a coherent answer.
Fails to be a coherent answer.In a plethora of answers to morality that effectively make the term morality redundant you have to alight on my answer.
In a plethora of answers to morality that effectively make the term morality redundant you have to alight on my answer.Apart from the whataboutery here, any other answers not being good make no difference to the lack of coherence of your answer.
Apart from the whataboutery here, any other answers not being good make no difference to the lack of coherence of your answer.Morality is what we ought to do. What is incoherent about that?
Morality is what we ought to do. What is incoherent about that?So ought I to have rolls or sliced bread for breakfast?
So ought I to have rolls or sliced bread for breakfast?Yes.
Morality is what we ought to do. What is incoherent about that?
That's very, very silly, even for you...What is silly about it?
So ought I to have rolls or sliced bread for breakfast?If there is not an ought not attached to this then yes ....either or both.
What is silly about it?
It's a pointless, useless, and circular.Ah so it IS what we ought to do.
How do we decide what we ought to do?
Ah so it IS what we ought to do.
How do we decide? Moral reasoning.
What are you asking me for? You're the one who said you had an answer.I’m just recapping your question then answering. We decide using moral reasoning.
I’m just recapping your question then answering. We decide using moral reasoning.
If there is not an ought not attached to this then yes ....either or both.So how is it decided whether an 'ought' is attached? That's where your answer was not coherent.
I’m just recapping your question then answering. We decide using moral reasoning.Can you explain what you think 'moral reasoning' is, and how it works? A worked example would be good.
Okay, misread that. So morality is what we ought to do and we decide what we ought to do using "moral reasoning", so it's circular, as I said.Neither has any body else. I on the other hand have retained the idea of morality by introducing lights and ought nots. That’s why nearly Sane came unstuck with his should I have toast or rolls. Since there is no should not it is not a moral issue.
You still haven't told us anything useful or coherent about morality, let alone provided an answer.
Neither has any body else. I on the other hand have retained the idea of morality by introducing lights and ought nots. That’s why nearly Sane came unstuck with his should I have toast or rolls. Since there is no should not it is not a moral issue.You do know you actually need to demonstrate if someone has 'come unstuck' rather than just assert it, don't you? I did ask how you determine what a moral question is but so far no answer. So you can do it in reply. Or rather it is possible for someone to attempt to do so. You mebbes not so much.
Moral reasoning is not just reasoning but reason which is based on a moral reality in which we all move. So if we are incompetent at it it is Moral incompetence rather than just incompetence. So the most erudite, gifted, charismatic, intelligent of us could also be the most morally incompetent.
Can you explain what you think 'moral reasoning' is, and how it works? A worked example would be good.
So how is it decided whether an 'ought' is attached? That's where your answer was not coherent.Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.
Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.This is just introducing more undefined terms and assertions. Even for my very low expectations, you managed to effortlessly limbo dance under them.
This is just introducing more undefined terms and assertions. Even for my very low expectations, you managed to effortlessly limbo dance under them.That if you like and even if you don’t like is bollocks.
Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.
That if you like and even if you don’t like is bollocks.an incoherent explanation is worthless. Your use of 'redundant' here is unexplained and not a normal term in this context so your sentences using it are in no sense coherent.
Any other explanation of morality leaves the term morality redundant. Any explanation that leaves it intact is better than one which makes it redundant.
So there is a moral reality or the whole thing is effectively just arsepull of the type you wouldn’t even dream of engaging with if it was just ordinary reasoning which was involved.
If we have a faculty that can "detect" a moral landscape, then why do people fundamentally disagree about it? If they do disagree, how do we decide who is right?Well let's run with with your contention that people fundementally disagree about it and put that up against two arguments used against moral realism. 1) That Humans reach a moral concensus the triumph of which has already been spelt out by Outrider earlier in this thread.
You seem to be trying to assert the objective reality of morality but in a totally useless way. Even if objective morality exists, it might as well not exist if we have no reliable way to access it.But doubtless you will be crossing your fingers that the subjective morality of people broadly is intersubjective between a majority of actors who aren't fundamentally disagreeing on what is right and wrong.
an incoherent explanation is worthless. Your use of 'redundant' here is unexplained and not a normal term in this context so your sentences using it are in no sense coherent.The term redundant is used to refer to the phrase Moral behaviour as properly understood in say empiricism and naturalism. Since all we can do effectively is observe behaviour and anything like any capacity to detect a moral landscape is rejected then the word moral here is meaningless and a mere label. So in a phrase like moral behaviour the ''moral'' part is unnecessary and therefore redundant because of the sufficiency of the term behaviour.
Your second paragraph is an empty assertion.
The term redundant is used to refer to the phrase Moral behaviour as properly understood in say empiricism and naturalism. Since all we can do effectively is observe behaviour and anything like any capacity to detect a moral landscape is rejected then the word moral here is meaningless and a mere label. So in a phrase like moral behaviour the ''moral'' part is unnecessary and therefore redundant because of the sufficiency of the term behaviour.Irrelevant, empty, sense free ramblings.
Since no self respecting materialist, empiricist, naturalist would tolerate any serious mention of 'Beautiful' behaviour or 'classy' behaviour why should we take the term moral behaviour as used by the same people any more seriously and why do they?
Well let's run with with your contention that people fundementally disagree about it and put that up against two arguments used against moral realism. 1) That Humans reach a moral concensus the triumph of which has already been spelt out by Outrider earlier in this thread.
If people fundamentally disagree. How is it possible to reach ANY consensus let alone international law? Secondly the only people who seem to buck consensus on wellbeing, according to Be Rational are 'Outliers' and these people are socio and psychopathic.
Now out of yours or there views I tend to side with them and say there is no fundamental disagreement about what is good or bad on a lot of what the basic commandments or laws should be.
But doubtless you will be crossing your fingers that the subjective morality of people broadly is intersubjective between a majority of actors who aren't fundamentally disagreeing on what is right and wrong.
I think we should and do go thermostatic on morality never seemingly capable of resting on the true moral point to enjoy it but always trying to find it/return to it.
I think we should and do go thermostatic on morality never seemingly capable of resting on the true moral point to enjoy it but always trying to find it/return to it.
Perce,Only in fantasy Hillside if the word moral is effectively a redundant word in the phrase 'moral question' because if ''moral'' is what you wanna make it anyway (which is what you are about to argue), then they are not actually disagreeing on moral questions........So anything you might have to say isn't now worth the trouble.
Even by your abysmal standards this is incoherent nonsense. The point is that people are able fundamentally to disagree about moral questions
Irrelevant, empty, sense free ramblings.How can it be irrelevant when apparently anything is relevant as far as morality goes. Anything less than moral reality and the word morality is fucking irrelevant, sense free and fucking empty for goodness sake.
Only in fantasy Hillside if the word moral is effectively a redundant word in the phrase 'moral question' because if ''moral'' is what you wanna make it anyway (which is what you are about to argue), then they are not actually disagreeing on moral questions........So anything you might have to say isn't now worth the trouble.
Have a nice day.
How can it be irrelevant when apparently anything is relevant as far as morality goes. Anything less than moral reality and the word morality is fucking irrelevant, sense free and fucking empty for goodness sake.Empty vacuous assertion with a begging the question fallacy. Not even amounting to drivel.
Except of course for viewers in Scotland.
Perce,
So much wrongness crammed in to so few words.
1. Nothing about morality being human-made makes it “redundant”. Why would it?
2. Moral opinions aren’t just what people “want to make” them. They’re a mix of intuition – seeing a child beaten instinctively just feels wrong to most people – and reasoning, generally about more nuanced moral questions when there are pros and cons to be weighed up.
3. Yes they are disagreeing on moral questions. A moral question doesn’t cease to be a moral question because it isn’t aligned to your concept of what a moral question should be.
4. Yes it is “worth the trouble” if you bother just this one to engage honestly with it…
…oh, hang on though. What am I thinking.
5. You’re trying an argumentum ad consequentium - one of the various fallacies on which you rely.
6. If you think that moral question can’t be moral questions without a universal set of morals how can aesthetic questions about music or art be aesthetic questions without a universal set of rules for good and bad music/art?
Apart from all that though…
Perce,If you are saying well actually morality isn't really real then the word moral becomes redundant. Any subsequent piece containing the word moral is redundant. That is why I gave your last post.....The last post.
Even by your abysmal standards this is incoherent nonsense. The point is that people are able fundamentally to disagree about moral questions – unlike actual universal properties like gravity when you don’t get to decide for yourself whether they apply to you.
Why and how majorities often cohere around various moral precepts – that murder is morally wrong for example – is a second order issue, readily explained nonetheless by the personal and societal advantages of such determinations.
Most people will cohere around harmonious music being better than discordant music, around sunsets being more visually pleasing than images of road accidents. Does this mean that there must be aesthetic realism too, an objective aesthetic “landscape” that’s universally “out there” that we should identify, or does it mean instead that we respond with a mix of intuition and reasoning to moral questions just as we do to aesthetic ones?
From an admittedly crowded field of wrong arguments, WLC’s effort to claim objective morality that you’re aping here seems to me to be the most obviously stupid of all.
As that’s what we observe in the real world – people vote for other people who broadly at least reflect their moral outlooks, and those people in turn tend to enact laws that reflect those outlooks – why the need to cross your fingers?
Elephant bananas transmogrify hypnotically.
Hey, it’s funs this random word selection! OK, your turn again…
If you are saying well actually morality isn't really real then the word moral becomes redundant. Any subsequent piece containing the word moral is redundant. That is why I gave your last post.....The last post.Which make 'manners' 'real'. Again your use of redundant here shows that you have no knowledge or understanding.
Shouldn’t morality come before well being.It might be partly the Bible and in a way extra to the morality all westerners get from the bible by dint of cultural heritage. But yes, If you think it does not please demonstrate. I think I get morality by way of it being a conduit from the real source.
Do you approve of slavery?The epistles show Christians were already in the business of freeing slaves when becoming christians which was probably uncommon in the wider Roman community. Christians were bound to treat people better.
The bible does.
If you don't what morality did you use to ignore the slavery passages in the bible?
Do you approve of slavery?No, do you?
The epistles show Christians were already in the business of freeing slaves when becoming christians which was probably uncommon in the wider Roman community. Christians were bound to treat people better.Why are you lying?
Slavery in the Roman empire was an awful experience and an atrocious abuse occurred. The Romans are generally forgiven for slavery because of their culture but not it seems any Christian romans who had slaves.
What should be remembered is that slaves too became Christian in great numbers so the impression that Christianity was a slavers religion is false.
In fact when an equally particularly horrible form of slavery sprang up in the americas. Black slaves started there own vibrant iteraton of christianity.
How do you know I ignore the slavery passages in the bible?
Why would you say slavery is wrong?
Why are you lying?What do you find to be untrue?
What do you find to be untrue?Your denial of the bible. The how hard you can beat a slave for example. If they survive a week you support that. You worship that.
Your denial of the bible. The how hard you can beat a slave for example. If they survive a week you support that. You worship that.I neither deny it’s in the bible nor am I compelled to support it and also I don’t support it.
I neither deny it’s in the bible nor am I compelled to support it and also I don’t support it.so you subjectively cherry pick.
Why do you think it’s wrong if you do not have any system of moral arbitration?
so you subjectively cherry pick.You are trying hard to get me to see that slavery is wrong. Either you are pulling that out of your arse or you are making moral equations which pitch out the answer slavery is wrong.
And subjectivity.
Show moral realism.
Don't you think there are problems equating the Law with morality?
I haven't, but since you've asked... I don't think there should be, but in practical terms I think there often is.Can you explain what you mean when you say morality is near infinitely nuanced?
Morality is near-infinitely nuanced and, no matter how complex you try to make it, the law never will manage to match that capacity for nuance. Match that in with political influence which - certainly in recent years in many Western nations - has taken to adopting relatively extremist positions to try to engage/secure votes and voters, and you have the law being deployed for political point-scoring more than to try to document or crystallise an understanding of moral principles.
O.
Can you explain what you mean when you say morality is near infinitely nuanced?
That the combination of specific background elements to any given incident, so many of which can have an influence, are incalculable.Yes I can see how somebody might see it that way. But another way of looking at this is that the players or actors in any situation are people. Surely that simplifies things.
O.
Yes I can see how somebody might see it that way. But another way of looking at this is that the players or actors in any situation are people. Surely that simplifies things.
In the scheme you propose I can see the parameters increasing if we have conflated morality with other goals.
The epistles show Christians were already in the business of freeing slaves when becoming christians which was probably uncommon in the wider Roman community. Christians were bound to treat people better.
Slavery in the Roman empire was an awful experience and an atrocious abuse occurred. The Romans are generally forgiven for slavery because of their culture but not it seems any Christian romans who had slaves.
What should be remembered is that slaves too became Christian in great numbers so the impression that Christianity was a slavers religion is false.
In fact when an equally particularly horrible form of slavery sprang up in the americas. Black slaves started there own vibrant iteraton of christianity.
How do you know I ignore the slavery passages in the bible?
Why would you say slavery is wrong?
The epistles show Christians were already in the business of freeing slaves when becoming christians which was probably uncommon in the wider Roman community. Christians were bound to treat people better.
Slavery in the Roman empire was an awful experience and an atrocious abuse occurred. The Romans are generally forgiven for slavery because of their culture but not it seems any Christian romans who had slaves.
What should be remembered is that slaves too became Christian in great numbers so the impression that Christianity was a slavers religion is false.
In fact when an equally particularly horrible form of slavery sprang up in the americas. Black slaves started there own vibrant iteraton of christianity.
Why would you say slavery is wrong?
The bible advocates slavery.QuoteI find nothing in it recommending slavery to me or you.See previous answer.
Do you and if not why not?
And yet slavery was entirely normal in Dark Ages Britain,Hang on........I'll get my violin.
See previous answer.
So you did not think the bible advocates slavery?So Early Isrealite slaveowners had laws governing them.
Exodus 21
English Standard Version
Laws About Slaves
21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,a]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated herb]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;"> for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
12 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. 14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
17 “Whoever cursesc]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[c] his father or his mother shall be put to death.
18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,d]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekelse]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[e] of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Laws About Restitution
33 “When a man opens a pit, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restoration. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.
35 “When one man's ox butts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and share its price, and the dead beast also they shall share. 36 Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall
Hang on........I'll get my violin.
Does it have a response in it, or is this you sliding away from addressing the point?That slavery had a bit of a comeback in medieval times.
O.
That slavery had a bit of a comeback in medieval times.
Yes religion featured highly in those times, yes, without it things might have been a lot worse, and yes the church had a lot of bad habits too but civilisation as it was was a rough affair.
But we as modern people had better watch it as far as slavery is concerned as it is making a hellish of a comeback.
When I read people on here say yeh but we've got it under control,I think certainly not as in control as I thought.
Regarding Black people being worse off with religion. Now that seems to be a perfect example of conflating morality with another goal.
The danger of conflating morality with wealth is that you fall prey to equating prosperity with virtue as the prosperity gospellers have and as white secularists have in a more subtle way with consumerism and taxpayer ism angry Bitish Conservative values......still ahead in the polls and the portal to damnation for hordes.
I suggest you read GK Chesterton or revisit him if you already have since I think your assumptions need a blast of something.
If you are saying well actually morality isn't really real…
…then the word moral becomes redundant.
Any subsequent piece containing the word moral is redundant.
That is why I gave your last post.....The last post.
This one is for Bluehillside ..........aren’t we all? But not exclusively.
What differences do you think there are between morality and aesthetics?
Those pretty heavily religious times.
Yes......was...... Being challenged as to whether one believes in owning slaves or burning witches is though the genetic fallacy writ large. When were you last on a website asking Germans whether they supported the final solution......or for that matter, asking atheists whether they thought Pol Pot was a bit over the top?
It might also have been a lot better, given that some of the justification for the slavery was religion.
We need to watch for how we treat people, but I'm mindful of not equating 'modern slavery' - a range of distasteful practices which are all against the laws of most nations - with actual slavery which wasn't just accepted or condoned by nations, it was legislated for and was the foundation for some of the economies of the time. Yes past times. It's an awful business, but it's nothing like the same awful business.
Perce,I enjoy the same guilty pleasure of hearing the old standards eek out of your thinking, for want of a better word, as squeezing pimples.
What does “really real” mean? It’s “really real” inasmuch as it exists as a useful/essential human construction, but there’s no good reason to think it’s “really real” in the sense of an objectively “out there” universal stuff, let alone one that we could somehow tap into by subscribing to various ancient “holy” texts.
Of course it doesn’t. It’s no more redundant than aesthetics is redundant. I set out for you why you're wrong here, only for you to ignore the arguments and repeat the same un-argued assertion nonetheless. It’s your assertion though, so you justify it.
BS – see above.
The last post was sounded on your efforts here long ago. Just repeating an un-argued and reason-denying assertion doesn’t somehow validate it.
“aren’t we all? But not exclusively” what?
In their objects, lots; in their construction, none. Perhaps if you hadn’t just ignored the explanations you were given for why this is so you wouldn’t need to ask.
I enjoy the same guilty pleasure of hearing the old standards eek out of your thinking, for want of a better word, as squeezing pimples.
Perce,Demonstrate that morality and aesthetics are different in their objects but the same in their construction.
Semi-literate gibberish. I guess when you can't answer even simple questions incomprehensible avoidance is the only recourse left to you.
Demonstrate that morality and aesthetics are different in their objects but the same in their construction.
If you feel torn between pleading that you have done, that you think it was a waste of time or fucking off back to your colouring books......For you I would recommend option 3.
Perce,I’m giving you a chance Hillside. You seem to revel in the notion of morality being so similar to aesthetics. If you cannot come up with the distinction then we are justified in asking which term, aesthetics or morality are you going to make redundant. There is no having your cake and eating it here I’m afraid not even for the Tsar of the turdpolisher.
I did and you ignored it.
I have no idea what you get from your unrelenting dishonesty, but if ever you do feel like actually attempting at least an argument to justify your clam that human-made morality would be "redundant" then give it a go.
As you’ve never justified anything you assert though, probably not a good idea to hold my breath on that one…
I’m giving you a chance Hillside.
You seem to revel in the notion of morality being so similar to aesthetics.
If you cannot come up with the distinction…
…but then we…
…are justified in asking which term, aesthetics or morality are you going to make redundant.
There is no having your cake and eating it here I’m afraid not even for the Tsar of the turdpolisher.
And the age of modern slavery is happening in pretty heavily secular times.
Yes......was...... Being challenged as to whether one believes in owning slaves or burning witches is though the genetic fallacy writ large.
When were you last on a website asking Germans whether they supported the final solution......or for that matter, asking atheists whether they thought Pol Pot was a bit over the top?
Modern slavery is actual slavery.
Usually qualification by slavery type is frowned on in your circles as excuse and yet here you are saying, well, it’s not real slavery.
Not only is that dangerous nonsense which allows this sort of thing to flourish, it is the fallacy of modernity, the fallacy of progress, and the fallacy of secularity, in your case thinking it impossible for actual slavery to exist today in your backyard, post enlightenment and in a secular society.
Which of course allows it to flourish and not seen as any real problem.......It’s not actual slavery after all.
Dark age and medieval times Times were society scraping by held together by among other things ,although I can’t think what, Religion. It was a time of dynastic ambition and plenty of dirt shit and tribalism turning into feudalism yes. Turning it into an age of slavery is arrant historical revisionism.
That slavery has made a comeback shows more, I would have thought that progress was in reverse.
Secular does not mean 'not religious', remember - how many of those modern slavers are religious people, do you think?Amazing .I'm wondering how and where to direct my incredulity that people holding your view actually exist and that is even after being on this message board for years.
I wasn't suggesting that you did, I was pointing that claiming 'Christianity' didn't make it clear which side of the debate you were on at the time.
The former I'm not sure that I ever have been, but I'd be interested in the answer, we all know there's still an undercurrent of it out there. The latter, well, today... here, now, it's the sort of thing that's dribbled out on a semi-regular basis. What makes you think that atheists have a particular stance on whether Pol Pot's actions - which don't derive from his atheism - were over the top?
You realise, of course, that asking about the actions of people where there actions are incidental to a trait is fundamentally different to asking about the actions of people specifically in regard to a trait they are openly claiming is their motivation... you get that difference?
Really? Can you tell me which governments are enforcing the laws regarding ownership of people?
It's not slavery, that's just an emotive shorthand. It's not acceptable behaviour, I can understand why they've adopted the terminology, but it's fundamentally different to actual slavery.
Don't talk shit. There's a fundamental difference between a social institution that's part of the foundation of the economic system of a nation and which is actively protected by the government, and illegal activity exploiting vulnerable people in the criminal fringes.
No-one is saying that it's not a problem, but it's not slavery.
Wiktionary - Slavery - slavery (usually uncountable, plural slaveries)
An institution or social practice of owning human beings as property, especially for use as forced laborers.
A condition of servitude endured by a slave.
(figuratively) A condition in which one is captivated or subjugated, as by greed or drugs.
Where is it legal to own people in the world in the current day? Where in the world has a statute book that applies property law to people?
Dark age and mediaeval times were societies defining in- and out-groups on a number of criteria, one of which was religion and propogating wars of conquest based on those categorisations. I am not turning into an age of slavery, slavery was a fairly significant part of the economies of Europe at least at the time, and continued to be so until well into the 19th Century in most places.
Slavery has not made a comeback, the term has been recycled for a modern usage which is the nature of language. That we have identified modern exploitative practices as 'slavery' could be seen as progress, given that we obviously don't have a current need for it to describe actual slavery.
O.
Amazing.
I'm wondering how and where to direct my incredulity that people holding your view actually exist and that is even after being on this message board for years.I'm so gobsmacked for once I dont know what to say. Do you really think there are two sides to the slavery question along the lines of Christianity?
Secondly having fought to pick myself of the ground.....can I ask you how apparently just being a bit beastly to the mentally challenged, the desperate and a few Philippine maids has been in your view unnecessarily termed as slavery?
Thank you.Your status of holding despicable views on this issue is already out there IMHO.That is not the the question here. Why is it referred to as Modern Slavery if it isn’t anything of the sort?
Are you asking me if I think there should be, or if historically there have been? Historically it's without question that there have been. In order to be able to say whether there should have been or not I'd have to take a stance on which is the 'correct' interpretation of the various scriptural and canonical outputs of the various churches, and I'm not sure there is a definitive answer in there.
Is it legal for someone to openly own them, supported by legislation enforced by the government? If it's not, then it's simply not slavery - slavery is the ownership of people as property; not treating them as though it is (which is despicable) but actually having the legal right to do so, being able to call upon the various arms of the government to reinforce your ownership.
It doesn't reduce the effect on people, it doesn't make it any more acceptable, but it does mean that it's not slavery.
I fail to see how this is such a challenge to understand - what definition of slavery are you employing that confuses this issue?
O.
Your status of holding despicable views on this issue is already out there IMHO.That is not the the question here. Why is it referred to as Modern Slavery if it isn’t anything of the sort?What despicable views does Outrider hold on this issue IYO?
What despicable views does Outrider hold on this issue IYO?That it isn’t slavery.
Your status of holding despicable views on this issue is already out there IMHO.
That is not the the question here.
Why is it referred to as Modern Slavery if it isn’t anything of the sort?
That it isn’t slavery.Why is thinking it a bad thing but not fitting in with the definition of slavery despicable?
I think though he’s probably ok around here making enough mood music on LGTBQ and atheist zeal has been used to cover shortcomings.
That it isn’t slavery.
I think though he’s probably ok around here making enough mood music on LGTBQ and atheist zeal has been used to cover shortcomings.
Why is thinking it a bad thing but not fitting in with the definition of slavery despicable?Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,
Your denial of the bible. The how hard you can beat a slave for example. If they survive a week you support that. You worship that.
Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,
I’m surprised by you asking since you to my recollection consider anything you find homophobic tantamount to supporting the killing of gay people. You of all people should understand where I am coming from.
Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,If you say something is bad and should be stopped you are not turning a blind eye. The rest of your post is a irrelevant lying tu quoque.
I’m surprised by you asking since you to my recollection consider anything you find homophobic tantamount to supporting the killing of gay people. You of all people should understand where I am coming from.
This is your best post in ages.
Perce,Are you saying slavery is a redundant term in the phrase “modern slavery”?
Outy explained to you a difference in legal definitions - that difference exists as a matter of fact. He also made clear that he thinks that de facto slavery that does not entail the legal ownership of people is also despicable. How much clearer could he have been about that, and how much dishonesty does it require for you to misrepresent him so egregiously and so obviously?
This is your best post in ages.
This is your best post in ages.Would you say that because one doesn’t believe that modern slavery is modern slavery one worships slavery?
Are you saying slavery is a redundant term in the phrase “modern slavery”?
Why is it referred to then as modern slavery ?
Would you say that because one doesn’t believe that modern slavery is modern slavery one worships slavery?
Or are such shitty equations reserved for people one hates Nearly Sane.
Perce,Asking questions is lying is it?
No, that's just you lying again. What I'm actually saying (and, more to the point, Outy said several times quite clearly) is that IN LAW the term "slavery" requires the lawful ownership of people. That though does not for one moment imply that de facto slavery that doesn't meet that definition isn't also despicable.
Would you say that because one doesn’t believe that modern slavery is modern slavery one worships slavery?No, because that's you using a false equivalence. I say that you worship the god of the Bible because you state that you do. I point out that the god of the Bible supports slavery and beating slaves - because it says that in the Bible. You don't call the god of the Bible 'despicable' - you worship it.
Or are such shitty equations reserved for people one hates Nearly Sane.
Asking questions is lying is it?No making statements that Outrider supports explotation is lying. And you have just lied about that lie in this post. Why do you lie so much? Is it pathological? Is it exciting for you?
Why is it called the Modern slavery act of 2015 then.?
Turdpolishers, pacemakers, electronic atheist dictionaries on full boys. Ha ha ha
Asking questions is lying is it?
Why is it called the Modern slavery act of 2015 then.?
Turdpolishers, pacemakers, electronic atheist dictionaries on full boys. Ha ha ha
No making statements that Outrider supports explotation is lying. And you have just lied about that lie in this post. Why do you lie so much? Is it pathological? Is it exciting for you?I don’t think he supports it or condones it. I leave stupefyingly ludicrous equations like that to you.
Perce,yyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
No, but lying about what they say is and you should stop doing it.
Because it's "An Act to make provision about slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and about human trafficking, including provision for the protection of victims;... " The Act uses "slavery" in its title as short form description for all such offences, but does not say that they all meet the more narrow legal definition of slavery.
If you weren't so determined to misrepresent what people actually say and instead bothered to look it up yourself you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this.
Pathetic.
yyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
I don’t think he supports it or condones it. I leave stupefyingly ludicrous equations like that to you.You said his views were despicable because he was turning a blind eye. That's the lie that you have lied about here.
I would stop at him having a dangerous attitude which allows this to flourish.....and for what? That he can keep this shit about Old Testament slavery and if people were proper Christians they would support it....afloat.
It also reinforces fallacious notions of modernity, progress and secularity......imho.
Unfortunately I fear the arseclenchingly stupefying hypocrisy going on here will never see the light of scrutiny.
So Early Isrealite slaveowners had laws governing them.
What has that to do with non slave owning 21st century non isrealites? Or even non slave owning Early Isrealites?
These laws are supposedly from God and laws that it found morally good.Several points here. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to man. He truly shows us what God is like.
If you believe in this God why do you think his rules on slavery are not moral.
I assume of course that you do not think owning people is morally good.
Several points here. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to man. He truly shows us what God is like.
Secondly it is possible that religion evolves or as Jesus put it. The spirit will lead you INTO all truth.
Thirdly. After the fall imafraid everything becomes infused with immorality. Gods will being an environment that is paradise. So I'm afraid we are mainly into lesser or greater evils
And finally you are majoring on the OT Now I've been accused of cherry picking but to cherry pick the whole OT? That is some feetbut sadly not impressive. Of course unless you are a moral realist criticising ANY morality cannot be reasonably seen as anything but arsepull.
Any claim that morality is a form of aesthetic ism is highly suspect. I MO
Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,
So does this mean you think gods musings about the morality of slavery is wrong?What I am saying is that after the fall of Man the world itself is never not infused with moral wrong. Divorce by any accounts shows that where it occurs there has been human incompatibility and human alienation and yet, it is often the lesser of two evils.
How does calling people trafficking people trafficking, and work-ganging work-ganging, and exploitation exploitation in a technical discussion on actual slavery equate to turning a blind eye to them?Not seeing it for what it is.
Not seeing it for what it is.
So what's your working definition of slavery that differs from the dictionaries, then? I've explained mine, and why I think it's significant in this context, and how I don't make the differentiation in everyday life, but don't let little things like nuance get in the way, just pop out your explanation of why there's no difference between modern day work-ganging and the 17th Century trans-Atlantic slave trade and we can all consider ourselves as enlightened as you appear to think you are.This is amazing. You are the ones turd polishing modern slavery into not at all actual slavery because there is no religious component to it and, I'm the one in the Dock!
O.
This is amazing. You are the ones turd polishing modern slavery into not at all actual slavery because there is no religious component to it and, I'm the one in the Dock!
This MB community has certainly experienced geographic isolation to the point where it is evolutionary at variance with the universal and legal recognition that modern slavery is forms of,er,slavery.
Quite amusing. Points for use of keech.This is to certify
That Out Rider has been both inducted into
The worshipful company of Turdpolishers
B.Hillside General Secretary
And received into membership of the Caledonian brotherhood of Keechsheeners
Chief Sheener N.sane.
Quite amusing. Points for use of keech.Thank you......
Thank you......You have that role for life
Who's the moderator general of the brotherhood this year?
What I am saying is that after the fall of Man the world itself is never not infused with moral wrong. Divorce by any accounts shows that where it occurs there has been human incompatibility and human alienation and yet, it is often the lesser of two evils.
Those who supported the decision to drop the atom bomb in WW2 argue it avoided a land invasion. Again one had to be the lesser of two evils.
And that might be why we see bad things happening in the OT.
Since I get accused of wanting to hand wave the bad stuff away. I will say I am prepared to own this lesser evils idea
It is also alternatively possible that these laws were passed by people who didnt actually realise they shouldn't just be making laws about slavery but abolishing it. On the other hand there must have been Israelites who didnt want slaves on moral grounds and were within the rules not to have them.
So the point is I find nothing anywhere to say that God saw slavery and thought that it was good. But he is and has been dealing with fallen human beings on a personal local national and international level.
This is to certify
That Out Rider has been both inducted into
The worshipful company of Turdpolishers
B.Hillside General Secretary
And received into membership of the Caledonian brotherhood of Keechsheeners
Chief Sheener N.sane.
So why are the supposed words of God on the subject of slavery not something like thou shalt not own people as property instead of the rules setting out exactly the opposite?Is there a commandment "Thou shall keep slaves".I didn't k now that.
Should I presume that your decision to attempt satire instead of making a point constitutes an admission that you were talking keech?not really. How does a witty accusation of you polishing leech constitute me talking it?
O.
You have that role for lifeAh....sheener emeritus.
not really. How does a witty accusation of you polishing leech constitute me talking it?
Several points here. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to man. He truly shows us what God is like.
Secondly it is possible that religion evolves or as Jesus put it. The spirit will lead you INTO all truth.
Thirdly. After the fall imafraid everything becomes infused with immorality. Gods will being an environment that is paradise. So I'm afraid we are mainly into lesser or greater evils
And finally you are majoring on the OT Now I've been accused of cherry picking but to cherry pick the whole OT?
That is some feetbut sadly not impressive. Of course unless you are a moral realist criticising ANY morality cannot be reasonably seen as anything but arsepull.
Any claim that morality is a form of aesthetic ism is highly suspect. I MO
What I am saying is that after the fall of Man the world itself is never not infused with moral wrong.
Divorce by any accounts shows that where it occurs there has been human incompatibility and human alienation and yet, it is often the lesser of two evils.
Those who supported the decision to drop the atom bomb in WW2 argue it avoided a land invasion. Again one had to be the lesser of two evils.
And that might be why we see bad things happening in the OT.
Since I get accused of wanting to hand wave the bad stuff away. I will say I am prepared to own this lesser evils idea
It is also alternatively possible that these laws were passed by people who didnt actually realise they shouldn't just be making laws about slavery but abolishing it. On the other hand there must have been Israelites who didnt want slaves on moral grounds and were within the rules not to have them.
So the point is I find nothing anywhere to say that God saw slavery and thought that it was good.
But he is and has been dealing with fallen human beings on a personal local national and international level.
So still not actually making the argument, I see... I'll wait.
Perce,ja
A faith assertion, not an argument.
Outy,
I went for a bike ride today through some beautiful countryside, and in one of the villages we pass though is a house that was previously a pub. There's a sign on the wall that tells you that it was previously the Three Horseshoes, that it closed in 1956 and was converted into a private dwelling etc. I reckon that if you turned up there expecting the barmaid to bring you a nice pint of Old Wobbly Geriatric you'd wait less time than you'd wait for an actual argument from Perce.
ja
A faith assertion, not an argument. Si
A faith assertion, not an argument. yep
And here is the punchline Hillock. They are my faith assertions not what you nor any of the Worshipful company say are my faith assertions .
Is there a commandment "Thou shall keep slaves".I didn't k now that.
Besides,Did you know that the OT was written by and for the people of Isael?
Did you know that non Israelites are only covered by the Noachite laws apparently.No not many Goyim like you and me do.
God was clear about garments etc but instead of being clear on slavery he set out the rules needed to keep and own slaves.God was not happy with the human race for much after the fall I'm afraid. That is why Jesus had to be.
This show that God was quite happy for humans to own others as property.
Do you think owning people as property and being allowed to beat them is morally good?
Perce,I'm afraid be rational has just said God was happy with slavery. Was Bluehillside there criticising him for assertion. Was he fuck.
Bizarre. Anyway, if you want to assert your faith assertions there’s a faith sharing area to do that. If on the other hand you want to post on a discussion forum then you’ll need to do an awful lot better than enter them as if they were facts.
It takes a long time to get you there, but this is a repeating pattern: you think you have an argument to justify your faith beliefs; you try to express it; it’s quickly shown to be false; you lie and insult and divert from the falsifications; then you repeat the mindless faith assertions as if they were facts in any case.
Rather sad really.
God was not happy with the human race for much after the fall I'm afraid. That is why Jesus had to be.
I'm afraid be rational has just said God was happy with slavery. Was Bluehillside there criticising him for assertion. Was he fuck.
Is BH hypocritical. Fucking right he is.
Perce,Hillside. Geologists paleontologists etc are still examining the lower older strata for evidence of you proving theist logical fallacy and your demolition of well,pretty much everything.
A god beset with petty human emotions like being a bit pissed off eh?
Anyway, once again you've posted a mindless faith claim on a discussion forum as if it was a contribution to a conversation. Would it help you if I gave you a link to the faith sharing area so you could stop wasting your and other peoples' time here?
Alternatively you could I suppose try an actual argument for once - maybe that explanation for why human-made morality would be "redundant" that you keep running away from would be a useful place to start?
Perce,Hillside. Geologists paleontologists etc are still examining the lower older strata for evidence of you proving theist logical fallacy and your demolition of well,pretty much everything.
A god beset with petty human emotions like being a bit pissed off eh?
Anyway, once again you've posted a mindless faith claim on a discussion forum as if it was a contribution to a conversation. Would it help you if I gave you a link to the faith sharing area so you could stop wasting your and other peoples' time here?
Alternatively you could I suppose try an actual argument for once - maybe that explanation for why human-made morality would be "redundant" that you keep running away from would be a useful place to start?
Hillside. Geologists paleontologists etc are still examining the lower older strata for evidence of you proving theist logical fallacy and your demolition of well,pretty much everything.
Now I'm not a Full Hillsidesettlingallargumentsinfavourof his atheismmyther but one does wonder.
God was not happy with the human race for much after the fall I'm afraid. That is why Jesus had to be.
Perce,Well let's test the idea that it isn't a redundant term in yours and others thinking and therefore your thinking doesn't actually address morality. Which is what I'm really arguing. I think you are misrepresenting what my argument is. You are effectively saying Cultural hegemony successfully reinforces taste and fashion. See Your take can be explained without reference to morality.
I know flat out lying is your thing, but if only the better to cover your tracks you really should try to be a bit less obvious about it. Your standard operating procedure is to attempt an argument to justify a faith belief, I and others quickly tell you why the argument is wrong, and instead of even attempting to rebut the falsification you ignore it, lie about it or insult it. It’s disgraceful behaviour and I have no idea what you get from it – maybe as NS suggested your lying excites you in some way?
Incomprehensible avoidance noted.
Anyway, can we now take it that you’re never even going to bother trying to argue for your argument-free assertion that human-made morality would be “redundant”?
Funny that.
Well let's test the idea that it isn't a redundant term in yours and others thinking and therefore your thinking doesn't actually address morality.
Which is what I'm really arguing.
I think you are misrepresenting what my argument is.
You are effectively saying Cultural hegemony successfully reinforces taste and fashion.
See Your take can be explained without reference to morality.
So what you say is my argument actually isn't.
So let's try something else......
Let's choose an immoral behaviour. Not modern slavery. I'm not sure we can agree on whether that is immoral or whether you think it's just being a bit firm with the servants. Let's choose say racism. Now we can agree it is immoral behaviour,but what have you got to put up against those that think it isnt?
Perce,An excellent example of how you have taken something like burden of proof and violated it.
Dear god – I know you’ve never understood the burden of proof principle, but could you at least try just for once to grasp it this time? You were the one who asserted that human-made morality would be redundant, so it’s your job to justify the clam with an argument. All I need to do is to conclude that – so far at least – you’ve provided no such argument so there’s no need to take the claim seriously.
You haven’t argued anything yet – just asserted it.
No, that’s impossible because – so far at least – you haven’t made an argument. There’s nothing to misrepresent.
What I’m “effectively saying” is, “what is your argument to justify your claim that human-made morality would be redundant?”
Er, no. My “take” is that it can be explained without reference to your asserted claim about morality that you’re unable to justify with an argument.
Stop lying. I don’t say that anything is your argument – you don’t have one.
No, let’s not. Let’s instead try you finally telling us what argument you have to justify your claim that human-made morality would be redundant, or instead admit hat you don’t have one so it’s just an unqualified assertion..
Reason and argument that I think to be persuasive. That diversion though doesn’t allow you to slide off the hook again about the problem you keep running away from when you make the assertion that human-made morality would be redundant: what argument do you have to justify your assertion?
An excellent example of how you have taken something like burden of proof and violated it.
If you are saying morality is human made you don't get to say
The burden of proof is on the person who disagrees with that.
So fuck off with that shit.
As it happens. I've put my argument how your model of morality contains effectively no moral content and nothing that cannot be explained in terms other than morality.
You can try substituting cultural hegemony with something else. Unless that something is morality the result is always going to be whatever you suggest the term morality seems to be redundant. If people are moral it is because they are still in touch with moral reality.
Perce,
Utter bollocks. Human-made morality supposedly being “redundant” was your claim, not mine. It’s your job therefore to justify it. Your entire post was an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. Didn’t work though did it.
Again, if you want to make that assertion then justify it with an argument. What’s stopping you?
No it isn’t – there’s nothing to prove as there’s only your un-argued assertion on the table. Is it your burden of proof to justify your non-agreement with my assertion that leprechauns love tap dancing? Why not?
You’re the one who asserted human-made morality to be redundant. When do you propose to attempt at least an argument to justify your claim?
When you fuck up you really go all in don’t you.
No you haven’t. You’ve just asserted it to be so, but you’ve offered no argument at all. Stop lying.
You can try shifting the burden of proof all you like, but you’re still just reifying your entirely un-argued assertion that any morality other than your assertion of what it should be must be wrong. So yet again:
DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”?
Look, I’ll even get you started:
Dear Blue,
On various occasions I have asserted that human-made morality would be redundant. Until now I have never attempted an argument to justify that claim, so there has been no reason to take it seriously. I now have that argument that I set out as follows…
There you go – all you have to do now is to complete the rest.
Surely you must have something in the locker right?
Anything at all?
No?
Perce,I'm sure your scratching are like a glimpse of Disneyland to your atheist Chummosbut the wee problemo is is what you are saying my argument is isnt my argument.
Utter bollocks. Human-made morality supposedly being “redundant” was your claim, not mine. It’s your job therefore to justify it. Your entire post was an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. Didn’t work though did it.
Again, if you want to make that assertion then justify it with an argument. What’s stopping you?
No it isn’t – there’s nothing to prove as there’s only your un-argued assertion on the table. Is it your burden of proof to justify your non-agreement with my assertion that leprechauns love tap dancing? Why not?
You’re the one who asserted human-made morality to be redundant. When do you propose to attempt at least an argument to justify your claim?
When you fuck up you really go all in don’t you.
No you haven’t. You’ve just asserted it to be so, but you’ve offered no argument at all. Stop lying.
You can try shifting the burden of proof all you like, but you’re still just reifying your entirely un-argued assertion that any morality other than your assertion of what it should be must be wrong. So yet again:
DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”?
Look, I’ll even get you started:
Dear Blue,
On various occasions I have asserted that human-made morality would be redundant. Until now I have never attempted an argument to justify that claim, so there has been no reason to take it seriously. I now have that argument that I set out as follows…
There you go – all you have to do now is to complete the rest.
Surely you must have something in the locker right?
Anything at all?
No?
Vlad, if you could see your way to explaining in there what definition of slavery you're working from that doesn't involve the legal ownership of people that'd be helpful too.
O.
I'm sure your scratching are like a glimpse of Disneyland to your atheist Chummosbut the wee problemo is is what you are saying my argument is isnt my argument.
I wouldn't say morality is redundant…
I'm saying how you use the word it is redundant since the words you pair it with suffice or the sense in which you use the word morality has another term which can replace it.
Vlad, if you could see your way to explaining in there what definition of slavery you're working from that doesn't involve the legal ownership of people that'd be helpful too.Are these people working for nothing Yes
O.
Are these people working for nothing Yes
Are they forced to do so.
Are they being kept in sub human conditions yes
Are there laws against this Yes...... Not actually slavery is it then.
Of course it's fucking slavery.
Perce,I'm not going to make that argument because it isnt my argument. Since it isnt my argument I dont need to retract it.
Does your lying get you excited or something?
Yet again: I CANNOT BE SAYING WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS OR ISN’T BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T MADE ONE.
Clear enough for you now?
What you said was that human-made morality would be redundant. Are you standing by that un-argued assertion, or are you now resiling from it?
Incomprehensible, (and irrelevant) gibberish.
Yet again: YOU ASSERTED THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”. WHAT ARGUMENT DO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM?
It’s ok old son, really it is. Rather than keep twisting in the wind about this why not just admit that you don’t have one so we can all move on? You’d feel much better for it if you did.
I'm not going to make that argument because it isnt my argument. Since it isnt my argument I dont need to retract it.
If I ever make that argument I would immediately retract it.
And above and beyond all that what you mean by morality isnt morality as I have demonstrated.
I shall say zis only once. Genuine Morality is never redundant. It can even spring out of someone like yourself.
Perce,I've just done a search Hillside and the phrase "Human Made morality is redundant"......is yours. Not mine.
Yes it fucking is (and it’s an assertion rather than an argument in any case). You’ve asserted several times that human-made morality would be “redundant”, is “arse pull”, isn’t “real” morality etc. Why lie about that now?
Do it then.
Liar. Now that you’ve just made the same un-argued assertion again, if you think you’ve demonstrated it then tell us what that demonstration was. I’ve never seen it.
What the fuck are you even trying to say here? What makes morality “genuine” – or are you just repeating your previous un-argued, non-justified, non-demonstrated assertion about that?
Once more: WHAT ARGUMENT DO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ASSERTION THAT HUMAN-MADE MORALITY WOULD BE “REDUNDANT”, “ARSE PULL”, “TURDPOLISHING”, NOT “REAL” ETC?
If you don’t have an argument to justify the assertion – and clearly you don’t – then just say so.
Are these people working for nothing Yes
Are they forced to do so.
Are they being kept in sub human conditions yes
Are there laws against this Yes...... Not actually slavery is it then.
Of course it's fucking slavery.
I've just done a search Hillside and the phrase "Human Made morality is redundant"......is yours. Not mine.
Wah wah wah waaaaaaaaah.
No, it's exploitation, it's illegal, there is legal recourse, there are active government policies prohibiting it, it's fundamentally different from slavery which wasn't just those practical concerns but it was the normalisation of those, it was the state actively impressing those conditions on people, not criminals having to do so in the dark crevices of society.Outrider. The modern slavery act 2015 or as you would have it The modern not actually slavery Act is I understand it partly a consolidation of all slavery legislation.
If you can't grasp how that makes things fundamentally different, I'm not sure how I can explain it to you any more simply.
O.
Outrider. The modern slavery act 2015 or as you would have it The modern not actually slavery Act is I understand it partly a consolidation of all slavery legislation.
So prior to 2015 people are getting done for slavery as they are post 2015. This demonstrates that if people are being prosecuted and declared guilty then a defence of it isnt actually slaveryis not recognised.
You and Hillside have thus made yourselves look foolish.
Because it's "An Act to make provision about slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and about human trafficking, including provision for the protection of victims;... " The Act uses "slavery" in its title as short form description for all such offences, but does not say that they all meet the more narrow legal definition of slavery.
If you weren't so determined to misrepresent what people actually say and instead bothered to look it up yourself you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this.
Perce,So much for your bullshit "No argument has been made" and.
I see you haven’t take my advice to make your lying less obvious then:
“Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.”
Reply 125
“That if you like and even if you don’t like is bollocks.
Any other explanation of morality leaves the term morality redundant. Any explanation that leaves it intact is better than one which makes it redundant.
So there is a moral reality or the whole thing is effectively just arsepull of the type you wouldn’t even dream of engaging with if it was just ordinary reasoning which was involved.”
Reply 127
“The term redundant is used to refer to the phrase Moral behaviour as properly understood in say empiricism and naturalism. Since all we can do effectively is observe behaviour and anything like any capacity to detect a moral landscape is rejected then the word moral here is meaningless and a mere label. So in a phrase like moral behaviour the ''moral'' part is unnecessary and therefore redundant because of the sufficiency of the term behaviour.
Since no self respecting materialist, empiricist, naturalist would tolerate any serious mention of 'Beautiful' behaviour or 'classy' behaviour why should we take the term moral behaviour as used by the same people any more seriously and why do they?”
Reply 131
“Only in fantasy Hillside if the word moral is effectively a redundant word in the phrase 'moral question' because if ''moral'' is what you wanna make it anyway (which is what you are about to argue), then they are not actually disagreeing on moral questions........So anything you might have to say isn't now worth the trouble.”
Reply 135
“How can it be irrelevant when apparently anything is relevant as far as morality goes. Anything less than moral reality and the word morality is fucking irrelevant, sense free and fucking empty for goodness sake.”
Reply 136
“If you are saying well actually morality isn't really real then the word moral becomes redundant. Any subsequent piece containing the word moral is redundant. That is why I gave your last post.....The last post.”
Reply 139
So now you’ve been caught out again, and as you just claimed to have demonstrated something rather than just asserted it perhaps you’d be good enough to tell us after all this time what the demonstration is.
What’s stopping you?
So much for your bullshit "No argument has been made" and….
Nothing in what I said equating to YOUR phrase "Human made morality is redundant."
What you seem to be doing here is what you always do. Strut out on stage like some kind of Lord Flasheart deliver some flowery bollocks to the gallery and hope they run off for a celebratory wristie not noticing what utter wank it is.
Again I have said nothing suggesting genuine morality is redundant.
The modern slavery act 2015 or as you would have it The modern not actually slavery Act is I understand it partly a consolidation of all slavery legislation.
So prior to 2015 people are getting done for slavery as they are post 2015. This demonstrates that if people are being prosecuted and declared guilty then a defence of it isnt actually slaveryis not recognised.
You and Hillside have thus made yourselves look foolish.
Only to the extent that we keep coming back and expecting something better from you.
And the Modern Slavery (capitalised, because it's a proper noun in part to point out that it's not the conventional usage of 'slave') applies wherever a 'person holds another in slavery or servitude'... so even the legislation that you're citing - which very clearly is making the activity ILLEGAL, not legalising it, differentiates between slavery and other forms of exploitation. This is explicitly based upon Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that people shall be free of slavery or forced labour... so also not limited to slavery.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
No, because the legislation wisely includes other forms of servitude into 'Modern Slavery'.
Only to the extent that we keep coming back and expecting something better from you.
O.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
One bollocks atheist argument jumped over another atheists arguments back and another bollocks atheist argument jumped over another atheist arguments back and the first bollocks atheist argument jumped over the second atheists back and the second bollocks atheist argument jumped over the third bollocks atheist arguments back.
They were only playing leapfrog
They were only playing leapfrog
They were only playing leapfrog
As the third bollocks atheist argument jumped over the fourth atheist arguments back.
I'll get me coat.
Perce,Tantrum? :-\. Taking the piss out of you :D
Latest tantrum over? Good. Now then, any chance of you finally attempting at least an argument of your own or are you determined to rely on insult in the hope you'll get away with it that way?
What with all that crashing and burning you've been doing I'm surprised you'd need one.
Anyway, should we now abandon any hope at all of you finally managing an argument to justify your un-argued assertion about what "genuine" morality must be?
Anything?
No?
Tantrum? :-\. Taking the piss out of you :D
Perce,I Hillside have taken the words Cultural Hegemony........crossed them out.........and with my bestest crayon have written “Morrils” instead.
So after all your lying, insults, prevarication, diversionary tactics and general fucking around we can sum up your position about morality thus:
“I Perce believe the only “genuine” morality to be some sort of objective property of the universe that certain believers can identify by reference to various “holy” books, but only the ones I happen to think are the real ones. I cannot or will not however even attempt an argument to justify this remarkable assertion such that anyone else should take the claim seriously.”
Fair enough?
I Hillside have taken the words Cultural Hegemony........crossed them out.........and with my bestest crayon have written “Morrils” instead.
Perce,Jowelsquivering and Sweat issuing profusely from the sides of his fleshy dome like head, Vlad cautiously entered. Bondsides steely features emerged into the half light. A firefight ensued but an instinctive ceasefire ensued as The long fingers of Japanese Masterspy Miss SuDo turned on the lights of the lean to.
That'll be more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect making its ever-welcome return then:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Jowelsquivering and Sweat issuing profusely from the sides of his fleshy dome like head, Vlad cautiously entered. Bondsides steely features emerged into the half light. A firefight ensued but an instinctive ceasefire ensued as The long fingers of Japanese Masterspy Miss SuDo turned on the lights of the lean to.
Bond side spoke first......”That’s a Smith and Wesson Vladfinger....and you’ve had your six”. No more was said as Bondside emptied the last barrel of his Dunning Kruger into Vladfingers well fed form.
We have collectively generated a set of acceptable behaviours which, over time, we have expanded and amended and adjusted with an eye to improving our lot - what's your alternative?What is it that makes them acceptable? Who is we.
O.
You sound as if you require a few barrels of very strong coffee. ;D ;D ;DYou certainly sound as though you need a couple of barrels.
What is it that makes them acceptable? Who is we.
My alternative is a moral realism which is centred on the universe being beloved of God.
We are the people it applies to. What makes it acceptable is that it's part of the social contract we're all invested in to one degree or another.I’ m sorry but you are still in my view nowhere near having any mechanism of moral arbitration because it cannot be without a point of reference which exists other than everyone having there own.
So fairy stories and the delegation of moral responsibility to someone else... how is following instructions 'moral'?
What's the source of this morality - is your god choosing what's moral or not (in which case why is their decision any more valid than ours?) or are they revealing some underlying absolute morality (in which case how do we know they've interpreted it correctly?)
O.
I’ m sorry but you are still in my view nowhere near having any mechanism of moral arbitration because it cannot be without a point of reference which exists other than everyone having there own.
Now there are atheist moral realists so we are having more of a philosophical debate.
If there is a moral reference point it’s nature cannot be unconscious since unconscious material has not one iota of morality about it and that is why an ultimate moral being is proposed.
Why are you beholden to some external source of morality - why can morality not be our collective agreement on what's appropriate or desirable behaviour?If there is no external point of moral reference then it does then become more of a question of taste in which any supposed moral arbitration claimed is mere malarkey.
There may well be, I'd put the same question to them.
But that's only after you've decided that humanity isn't a sufficient source for morality, which you've not explained. And if you're reliant on a 'god' for your morality, why is it alright for that god to decide that what's moral has changed, but it's not OK for us to do the same?
If there is no external point of moral reference then it does then become more of a question of taste in which any supposed moral arbitration claimed is mere malarkey.
I’m not arguing that humanity is a sufficient source of morality.
You are and I look forward to your non sentimental justification. As it happens humans are a source of immorality although I’m neither ruling SUFICIENT immorality in or out.
At the moment your moral theory suffers from a lack of moral arbitration with the added problem that you might be talking about something other than morality.
I Hillside have taken the words Cultural Hegemony........crossed them out.........and with my bestest crayon have written “Morrils” instead.
If there is no external point of moral reference then it does then become more of a question of taste in which any supposed moral arbitration claimed is mere malarkey.
I’m not arguing that humanity is a sufficient source of morality.
You are and I look forward to your non sentimental justification. As it happens humans are a source of immorality although I’m neither ruling SUFICIENT immorality in or out.
At the moment your moral theory suffers from a lack of moral arbitration…
…with the added problem that you might be talking about something other than morality.
It's not malarkey, it's just not pretending that there's a definitive answer, that it's down to us to determine what we think are right and wrong in any given situation.or it could be there is an actual moral focal point or moral reality.
But you are - you're saying that if we collectively have a system of morality that's somehow not enough, that it's "malarkey".
Humanity is the source of human behaviour, including the various judgements of that human behaviour, yes.
It doesn't lack attribution, it's just that you don't appear to like that attribution despite accepting that it's viable somehow.
O.
or it could be there is an actual mroral focal point or moral reality.
Offering a viable alternative might be ok…
…if only one of is offering moral theory and you think that if you offer a possibility it blows moral realism away but this is a case where we are both offering a moral theory....but it's hard to find morality or immorality in yours if it's actually foldable in yours.
What it does betray is pretence in holding the default position across the board.
Perce,Sigh.....If it's just a question of taste then it is just cultural hegemony which decides what is good and bad making courts and conventions etc a form of cultural pantomime. If it is a form of aesthetics then the term morality becomes redundant. In any case there has to be a lot of let's pretend that in your explanation. You wouldn't accept that anywhere else.
First, that’s your basic, common-or-garden argumentum ad consequentium fallacy: “If X, then consequence Y” (Y being something you don’t like the sound of), therefore X must be wrong”.
Second, “taste” is wrong but essentially morality being what we intuit and reason it to be is basically right.
Third, “moral arbitration” is fine at a personal and at societal levels because prevailing moral positions are those that achieve the greatest consensus. The notion that we should instead go to some ancient texts (but only the ones you happen to subscribe to) for a set of moral instructions that are often by moderns standards horrible, that don’t address at all sorts of important moral questions, and that are themselves often internally incoherent or contradictory is bizarre.
Fourth (as I explained before and you just ignored) the analogy with aesthetics is still a perfectly good one (morality being if not an offshoot of aesthetics then at least a close cousin of it). Intuitively people respond positively and negatively to various images, sounds etc and consider them to be “good or “bad”, and often too they will add reason to support or change these positions. We do these things quite readily without appealing to some notion of universal standards for good/bad art, good/bad music etc so what’s so special about morality that it can’t work the same way?
Then you should be.
Gibberish.
No it doesn’t – see above.
Only if we accept your assertion about what “genuine morality” must be, but as we know you’re unable to produce an argument to justify that claim there’s no reason so far at least to take it seriously.
Sigh.....If it's just a question of taste then it is just cultural hegemony which decides what is good and bad making courts and conventions etc a form of cultural pantomime. If it is a form of aesthetics then the term morality becomes redundant. In any case there has to be a lot of" let's pretend that..." in your explanation. You wouldn't accept that anywhere else.
Or it could be there is an actual moral focal point or moral reality.
Offering a viable alternative might be ok if only one of is offering moral theory and you think that if you offer a possibility it blows moral realism away but this is a case where we are both offering a moral theory....but it's hard to find morality or immorality in yours if it's actually foldable in yours.
What it does betray is pretence in holding the default position across the board.
Perce,Thin stuff.
It “could be” that there are tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri too. How does a "could be" help you?
It is OK because it has the signal advantage of being reason-based and, therefore, plausible.
Have you dropped a tin of alphabet soup and photoshopped the results into a reply or something? What are you even trying to say here?
Make that two tins.
Sigh.....If it's just a question of taste then it is just cultural hegemony which decides what is good and bad making courts and conventions etc a form of cultural pantomime.
If it is a form of aesthetics then the term morality becomes redundant.
In any case there has to be a lot of let's pretend that in your explanation.
You wouldn't accept that anywhere else.
Thin stuff.
I understand that to catch anything meaningfully moral in your moral theory scientists will be putting a tank of liquid nitrogen in a deep mine under Essex to detect any interaction at al.