Spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Japanese cultural mores vs Chinese cultural mores vs Russian cultural mores vs Maori cultural mores vs the various Native American cultural mores vs Aztec cultural mores vs Incan cultural mores vs Olmec cultural mores vs... and on and on and on...

O.

So if it is just a question of taste what is it to be tonight an evening with Beethoven, mugging a pensioner or what?

Seems that any one can replace morality with aesthetics but that puts them in the same league as having someone’s Liver with Chianti and Fava beans.

Also how does a cultural more count as evidence if it is not an objective thing?

Does it count in fact as morality or isn’t something a bit more amorphous than that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So if it is just a question of taste…

Actually a matter of instinct and reason, to varying degrees.

…what is it to be tonight an evening with Beethoven, mugging a pensioner or what?

Relevance to the claim of objective morality? If someone wants to assert objective morality then it’s their job to demonstrate such a thing – just collapsing into a sort of Poundland argumentum ad consequentiam when this is pointed out is just deflection.

Seems that any one can replace morality with aesthetics…

No one has done that. Rather it’s just been explained to you (yet again) that morality and aesthetics are epistemological equivalents – we intuit and reason our way to positions on both, but that’s all. 

…but that puts them in the same league as having someone’s Liver with Chianti and Fava beans.

It doesn’t but, even if it did, how would that help you with your a prori claim of objective morality? Not liking a (supposed) outcome of one explanations does not thereby by justify another (for which by the way there’s no evidence at all).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually a matter of instinct and reason, to varying degrees.

Relevance to the claim of objective morality? If someone wants to assert objective morality then it’s their job to demonstrate such a thing – just collapsing into a sort of Poundland argumentum ad consequentiam when this is pointed out is just deflection.

No one has done that. Rather it’s just been explained to you (yet again) that morality and aesthetics are epistemological equivalents – we intuit and reason our way to positions on both, but that’s all. 

It doesn’t but, even if it did, how would that help you with your a prori claim of objective morality? Not liking a (supposed) outcome of one explanations does not thereby by justify another (for which by the way there’s no evidence at all).

A. Ayer of instinct and reason?

Positive assertion......You know what you have to do.

Morality and aesthetics epistemological equivalents ..........ditto.

Aesthetics is reached by intuition and reason? ........again, a positive assertion.

Run along and do what you have to do there’s a good chap.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A. Ayer of instinct and reason?

Positive assertion......You know what you have to do.

Morality and aesthetics epistemological equivalents ..........ditto.

Aesthetics is reached by intuition and reason? ........again, a positive assertion.

Run along and do what you have to do there’s a good chap.

Your continued dishonesty and deflection is noted. If you have anything other than a badly flawed argumentun ad consquentiam (you have a rare ability by the way not only to bet the farm on a fallacy but to fuck up even the construction of it) to justify your claim of objective morality then, finally, produce it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your continued dishonesty and deflection is noted. If you have anything other than a badly flawed argumentun ad consquentiam (you have a rare ability by the way not only to bet the farm on a fallacy but to fuck up even the construction of it) to justify your claim of objective morality then, finally, produce it.

At the moment I am not proposing anything You are. Do your duty ......or become a hermit and live in a shack in the woods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

At the moment I am not proposing anything You are. Do your duty ......or become a hermit and live in a shack in the woods.

You’ve asserted objective morality many times, and the best you’ve ever managed to justify the claim is an argumentum ad consequentiam. Every time that’s been falsified you’ve lied about the falsification, then run away.

If you have something better than that to justify the claim, produce it; if not, stop wasting everyone’s time. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’ve asserted objective morality many times, and the best you’ve ever managed to justify the claim is an argumentum ad consequentiam. Every time that’s been falsified you’ve lied about the falsification, then run away.

If you have something better than that to justify the claim, produce it; if not, stop wasting everyone’s time.

I have promoted moral realism just as there is a mathematical realism and a physical realism.

You have equated morality with aesthetics, said that both are a product of reason. Please demonstrate how.

When you say the parallel of morality is aesthetics in one place and and argue that something is morally wrong for everybody in another, which is the big stinking lie?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have promoted moral realism just as there is a mathematical realism and a physical realism.

Another lie. You haven’t “promoted” it, you’ve asserted it to be so, but have never been able to construct an argument to justify the assertion.

You have equated morality with aesthetics, said that both are a product of reason. Please demonstrate how.

Instinct and reason, to varying degrees.

Aesthetics: most (though not all) people find a sunset to be beautiful; most (though not all) people find images of death to be ugly. Many (though not all) will cohere around positions of what’s “good” art, though what was once considered good art may no longer be so and vice versa as the Zeitgeist changes. When asked why they feel that way, responses will range “from “it just feels beautiful/ugly” to “here are some reasons to justify my position that (say) Guernica is great art and the woman scratching her backside on the tennis court is not”.

Morality: most (though not all) people find charitable acts to be morally good; most (though not all) people find murder to be morally wrong. Many (though not all) will cohere around positions of what’s “good” morality, though what was once considered good may no longer be so and vice versa as the Zeitgeist changes. When asked why they feel that way, responses will range “from “it just feels good/bad” to “here are some reasons to justify my position that (say) monogamous marriage is morally good and polygamous marriage is not”.

The objects may be different, but the construction is the same and no amount of the argumenta ad consequntia you attempt changes that. 

When you say the parallel of morality is aesthetics in one place and and argue that something is morally wrong for everybody in another, which is the big stinking lie?

Your straw man here is the only big stinking lie. I’ve expressly said no such thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Another lie. You haven’t “promoted” it, you’ve asserted it to be so, but have never been able to construct an argument to justify the assertion.

Instinct and reason, to varying degrees.

Aesthetics: most (though not all) people find a sunset to be beautiful; most (though not all) people find images of death to be ugly. Many (though not all) will cohere around positions of what’s “good” art, though what was once considered good art may no longer be so and vice versa as the Zeitgeist changes. When asked why they feel that way, responses will range “from “it just feels beautiful/ugly” to “here are some reasons to justify my position that (say) Guernica is great art and the woman scratching her backside on the tennis court is not”.

Morality: most (though not all) people find charitable acts to be morally good; most (though not all) people find murder to be morally wrong. Many (though not all) will cohere around positions of what’s “good” morality, though what was once considered good may no longer be so and vice versa as the Zeitgeist changes. When asked why they feel that way, responses will range “from “it just feels good/bad” to “here are some reasons to justify my position that (say) monogamous marriage is morally good and polygamous marriage is not”.

The objects may be different, but the construction is the same and no amount of the argumenta ad consequntia you attempt changes that. 

Your straw man here is the only big stinking lie. I’ve expressly said no such thing.

I am at a loss to see where intuition instinct and reason come into an argument your making for them.

So what is the reason that something is bad? Of course you are stymied  now by needing to appeal to consequences.

Check mate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am at a loss to see where intuition instinct and reason come into an argument your making for them.

As I just spelled it out for you, why?

So what is the reason that something is bad?

See above. Sometimes it just feels bad. Sometimes we make an argument to justify the position that we think it is bad. Sometimes we combine the two. 

Of course you are stymied  now by needing to appeal to consequences.

No, that’s your problem every time you collapse into an argumentum ad consequentiam remember?

Check mate.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

Better luck next time though.

PS Any thoughts on why you flat out lied (again) when you said I'd argued "something is morally wrong for everybody" when I've consistently said precisely the opposite of that? Gravity is the same for everyone, morality isn't. That's the point FFS. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As I just spelled it out for you, why?

See above. Sometimes it just feels bad. Sometimes we make an argument to justify the position that we think it is bad. Sometimes we combine the two. 

No, that’s your problem every time you collapse into an argumentum ad consequentiam remember?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

Better luck next time though.

PS Any thoughts on why you flat out lied (again) when you said I'd argued "something is morally wrong for everybody" when I've consistently said precisely the opposite of that? Gravity is the same for everyone, morality isn't. That's the point FFS.

How then do you propose to proceed with a moral position on, say, slavery since you have no means of arbitration?
Moral realism avoids the contradiction between your action ... You speak in terms of things being wrong for others and yet think it is but a question of taste.

In terms of reason why is slavery unreasonable? What answer can you give without including the consequences of moralities. Come on Hillside. You propose morality is a question of reason. Exemplify.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How then do you propose to proceed with a moral position on, say, slavery since you have no means of arbitration?
Moral realism avoids the contradiction between your action ... You speak in terms of things being wrong for others and yet think it is but a question of taste.

In terms of reason why is slavery unreasonable? What answer can you give without including the consequences of moralities. Come on Hillside. You propose morality is a question of reason. Exemplify.

Oh no you don’t. Let’s deal with your last lie first. Again: why did you flat out lie when you said I'd argued "something is morally wrong for everybody" when I've consistently said precisely the opposite of that?

Deal with your lie, then I’ll deal with you latest stupidity (though frankly there’d be little point as you’d just lie about that too as you have before).
 

[Outrider]

So if it is just a question of taste what is it to be tonight an evening with Beethoven, mugging a pensioner or what?

Seems that any one can replace morality with aesthetics but that puts them in the same league as having someone’s Liver with Chianti and Fava beans.

Also how does a cultural more count as evidence if it is not an objective thing?

Does it count in fact as morality or isn’t something a bit more amorphous than that?

The cultural more is an objective thing, we can look at it (in some instances look back at it) and it's the same thing for everyone - their interpretation may differ, but it is.

It is a little deeper than a superficial, although I can see that it is a form of aesthetic feedback - it's about how a particular society expresses what it has chosen to value.  What society you were brought up in will influence what you, therefore, choose to value, and in turn how you interpret various cultural influences (both your own and others).  That's why you get so much talking at cross purposes around ideas like women's rights in fundamentalist Islamic areas, or individual liberty vs state compliance in contested places like Hong Kong.

O.

[Enki]

How then do you propose to proceed with a moral position on, say, slavery since you have no means of arbitration?
Moral realism avoids the contradiction between your action ... You speak in terms of things being wrong for others and yet think it is but a question of taste.

In terms of reason why is slavery unreasonable? What answer can you give without including the consequences of moralities. Come on Hillside. You propose morality is a question of reason. Exemplify.

I think slavery is a bad thing.

I make what I consider to be moral decisions all the time and yet I have no underlying belief that  morality is anything but a human concept conditional only on the fact that there are humans around to portray it. The fact that I live my life as if some sort of morality actually existed is not evidence that it actually does.

I actually see morality as a human construct which attempts to deal with all manner of situations which have no intrinsic moral value in themselves. As I see it, the morality I feel is  based upon the need for social cohesion, driven by the qualities of empathy, compassion and altruism and and fashioned by culture, nurture and rationality. I would suggest that my personal morals are a result of these, and capable of wide interpretation given any particular 'moral' situation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh no you don’t. Let’s deal with your last lie first. Again: why did you flat out lie when you said I'd argued "something is morally wrong for everybody" when I've consistently said precisely the opposite of that?

Deal with your lie, then I’ll deal with you latest stupidity (though frankly there’d be little point as you’d just lie about that too as you have before).

What I want to get across to you is that every time you judge the moral performance of anyone other than yourself that is in fact contrary to your actual moral philosophy.

The point about slavery is that it is a popular trope in atheist theist discussion. It is framed as a bad thing regardless of where and when it happened. That contradicts any concession to cultural mores contained in your moral philosophy.

Under any other circumstances IMO you would not base any judgement pertaining to other people or institutions on such a vague and debateable foundations as your moral philosophy.

May I ask you again do you think that slavery has always been wrong.

Finally, Are you also not of the opinion that moral behaviour can be described as enlightened self interest? If so that is an appeal to consequences....whereas a morality based on such as “Love unconditionally” is not.

[Outrider]

What I want to get across to you is that every time you judge the moral performance of anyone other than yourself that is in fact contrary to your actual moral philosophy.

The point about slavery is that it is a popular trope in atheist theist discussion. It is framed as a bad thing regardless of where and when it happened. That contradicts any concession to cultural mores contained in your moral philosophy.

Except that we aren't talking about whether it was justifiable within the context of the society it was in, we are pointing out that people who tout the Judao-Christian God as a source of absolute and perfect morality fail to acknowledge that it failed to take any sort of stance against slavery which isn't a justifiable practice in any rational morality.  Either you have to espouse the idea that slavery somehow isn't immoral, or you have to accept that this represents a failure of some sort in the sequence of God-inspiration through to documentation of the Testaments.

May I ask you again do you think that slavery has always been wrong.

Yes, I think slavery has always been wrong.  Have the people at the time thought that, at times yes, but they've convoluted themselves into thinking that it wasn't really slavery because the people it was being done to weren't properly human, or they convinced themselves it wasn't slavery when it was done to them, or they just didn't care enough to worry about it.  Others thought it was perfectly fine, I suspect.

Finally, Are you also not of the opinion that moral behaviour can be described as enlightened self interest?

In many instances, yes.

If so that is an appeal to consequences....whereas a morality based on such as “Love unconditionally” is not.

Except that the instruction to 'love unconditionally' is an interpretation of the desire of a god who will judge you  - enlightened self-interest once again.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that the instruction to 'love unconditionally' is an interpretation of the desire of a god who will judge you  - enlightened self-interest once again.

O.

Unconditional love equals self interest.......hmm an “interesting” and highly debatable equation.

To counter the notion I call on two biblical passages and Charles Aznavour.

Though He destroy me yet shall I worship him.

and Paul’s statement that he would want people saved even if he himself had to be sent to hell.

Charles Aznavour and the lyrics of She.

Also

https://biblehub.com/1_john/4-18.htm

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that we aren't talking about whether it was justifiable within the context of the society it was in, we are pointing out that people who tout the Judao-Christian God as a source of absolute and perfect morality fail to acknowledge that it failed to take any sort of stance against slavery which isn't a justifiable practice in any rational morality.  Either you have to espouse the idea that slavery somehow isn't immoral, or you have to accept that this represents a failure of some sort in the sequence of God-inspiration through to documentation of the Testaments.

Yes, I think slavery has always been wrong. 

Except that your either or isn’t an either or if you view humanity as fallen and we are now in a state of lesser or greater evils.
I accept that god inspiration may not be as sure fire as god dictation.

Slavery has always been wrong contradicts any idea of equality of cultural mores and indeed slavey as an aesthetic as I believe you have suggested morality to be a variant of. Amerite?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What I want to get across to you is that every time you judge the moral performance of anyone other than yourself that is in fact contrary to your actual moral philosophy.

And what I want to get across to you is that it’s no such thing. When you judge someone else’s opinion about what’s good art or music to be inferior to you own – the Birdie Song being less good than Beethoven’s fifth for example – are you acting contrary to your actual aesthetic philosophy? Why not? What means of “arbitration” do you use to make this judgement?     

The point about slavery is that it is a popular trope in atheist theist discussion. It is framed as a bad thing regardless of where and when it happened. That contradicts any concession to cultural mores contained in your moral philosophy.

No it doesn’t. I think it is and always has been a bad thing when seen through the lens of the morality I have here and now. That doesn’t though mean I also think the slaveowners were knowingly acting morally badly with reference to the morality available to them.     

Under any other circumstances IMO you would not base any judgement pertaining to other people or institutions on such a vague and debateable foundations as your moral philosophy.

Why not? I can judge anything I like, and don’t need claims of certainty or absolutes to do that. I think slavery is wrong. I cannot conceive of an argument that would make me change my mind about that. I could be wrong though about that though. QED. That’s the point FFS – my “philosophy” is precisely situated on making judgements with no appeal to certainty.       

May I ask you again do you think that slavery has always been wrong.

In my opinion, yes.

Finally, Are you also not of the opinion that moral behaviour can be described as enlightened self interest?

Pretty much, yes. Altruism (the father of morality) seems to align very well with personal advantage, tribal cohesion etc. That’s why it seems to exist in proto forms in some other species too. Try looking up Bill Hamilton to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton   

If so that is an appeal to consequences....whereas a morality based on such as “Love unconditionally” is not.

Well that was stupid. The appeal to consequences concerns deciding that an explanation cannot be right when you don’t like its consequences. This is the trap you fall into on a regular basis. Reasoning that morality emerged from behaviours that are evolutionarily advantageous on the other hand is a conclusion based on careful examination of facts and evidence. See Bill Hamilton again.

And ANYWAY… none of your dull misunderstandings, arguments from incredulity and other assorted fallacies take you one step of an inch of an iota toward demonstrating that there’s such a thing as objective morality, let alone that it resides in some ancient texts you choose to find more persuasive than other ancient texts that others find more persuasive.

That’s your big problem here – not so much that you get everything wrong about the nature of morality, but that you have no cogent arguments at all to demonstrate your claim of objective moral truths. Why not finally have a go at that without collapsing immediately into the fallacious thinking you usually attempt?           

[Outrider]

Unconditional love equals self interest.......hmm an “interesting” and highly debatable equation.

So is your contention that people's motivation in behaving morally is enlightened self-interest - that the two coincide is an explanation for why particular cultures may have adopted those mores over time, but it doesn't necessarily speak to the motivation of the individual at the moment.  In the same way I suspect that most people who follow the religious principle to try to live unconditionally don't actually do it BECAUSE they consciously think they will be judged... nevertheless, it's there in the background to exactly the same extent.

Though He destroy me yet shall I worship him.

Sounds like battered person syndrome to me.

and Paul’s statement that he would want people saved even if he himself had to be sent to hell.

I could be cynical and say that politicians will say anything, but let's take him at face value: I don't believe in hell or salvation, but if it ends up that I'm going to hell because I don't believe I wouldn't want everyone else to come with me, that's not a viewpoint particular to religion, that's a humanitarian belief.

Charles Aznavour and the lyrics of She.

I'm not the most poetic of souls, by nature, but reading that comes across more as a stalker who doesn't actually know her than anything else.

https://biblehub.com/1_john/4-18.htm

I'm trying to be a little more cautious about scripture, for a number of reasons (increasing awareness of just how far from the original cultural interpretations much of even the earliest translations were, the old adage that even the Devil can quote scripture leading to it being a hiding to nothing, the range of intepretations of any given section, the ease with which elements can be interpreted in different ways when devoid of the context in which there place)... but that being said:

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Within the understanding of Christianity none of us are perfect, so presumably this 'perfect' love can only be God's?  For us, as humans, there will always be at least tiny frisson of fear, even if it's only the fear of rejection - if you don't fear rejection in a relationship then you have an issue, because you are in a place where you think that there is no way they could contemplate leaving, and then you stop putting in the effort.

Maybe that's why God doesn't talk to us any more, the way he allegedly used to?

That said - and, again, thinking about the context in which things are set - this is a message purporting to be about a relationship with a being that explicitly threatens with punishment for transgression, so to come with this section and ignore the fact that threat of punishment is there is disingenuous, is it not?  If God's love for us is perfect love, and we need not fear punishment, then why is there the threat of punishment?  If god's love is unconditional (is any other kind of love 'perfect'?) then how can we somehow fail or be fallen, how can we be discarded if we are perfectly loved?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And what I want to get across to you is that it’s no such thing. When you judge someone else’s opinion about what’s good art or music to be inferior to you own – the Birdie Song being less good than Beethoven’s fifth for example – are you acting contrary to your actual aesthetic philosophy? Why not? What means of “arbitration” do you use to make this judgement?     

No it doesn’t. I think it is and always has been a bad thing when seen through the lens of the morality I have here and now. That doesn’t though mean I also think the slaveowners were knowingly acting morally badly with reference to the morality available to them.     

Why not? I can judge anything I like, and don’t need claims of certainty or absolutes to do that. I think slavery is wrong. I cannot conceive of an argument that would make me change my mind about that. I could be wrong though about that though. QED. That’s the point FFS – my “philosophy” is precisely situated on making judgements with no appeal to certainty.       

In my opinion, yes.

Pretty much, yes. Altruism (the father of morality) seems to align very well with personal advantage, tribal cohesion etc. That’s why it seems to exist in proto forms in some other species too. Try looking up Bill Hamilton to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton   

Well that was stupid. The appeal to consequences concerns deciding that an explanation cannot be right when you don’t like its consequences. This is the trap you fall into on a regular basis. Reasoning that morality emerged from behaviours that are evolutionarily advantageous on the other hand is a conclusion based on careful examination of facts and evidence. See Bill Hamilton again.

And ANYWAY… none of your dull misunderstandings, arguments from incredulity and other assorted fallacies take you one step of an inch of an iota toward demonstrating that there’s such a thing as objective morality, let alone that it resides in some ancient texts you choose to find more persuasive than other ancient texts that others find more persuasive.

That’s your big problem here – not so much that you get everything wrong about the nature of morality, but that you have no cogent arguments at all to demonstrate your claim of objective moral truths. Why not finally have a go at that without collapsing immediately into the fallacious thinking you usually attempt?           

To equate morality with taste is the mark of the sociopath. It is no wonder that some of you guys creep me out.
You still need to establish that either or both are intuition, reason and instinct. If that were so then the terms aesthetics, taste and morality are redundant.
And since you have made them redundant you are really in no position to judge what is right or wrong about it.

Altruism is proto morality. What is proto immorality? Start with Bill Hamilton? In terms of the gross anthropomorphism you are suggesting wouldn’t we be better off starting with Walt Disney?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So is your contention that people's motivation in behaving morally is enlightened self-interest - that the two coincide is an explanation for why particular cultures may have adopted those mores over time, but it doesn't necessarily speak to the motivation of the individual at the moment.  In the same way I suspect that most people who follow the religious principle to try to live unconditionally don't actually do it BECAUSE they consciously think they will be judged... nevertheless, it's there in the background to exactly the same extent.

Sounds like battered person syndrome to me.

I could be cynical and say that politicians will say anything, but let's take him at face value: I don't believe in hell or salvation, but if it ends up that I'm going to hell because I don't believe I wouldn't want everyone else to come with me, that's not a viewpoint particular to religion, that's a humanitarian belief.

I'm not the most poetic of souls, by nature, but reading that comes across more as a stalker who doesn't actually know her than anything else.


I'm trying to be a little more cautious about scripture, for a number of reasons (increasing awareness of just how far from the original cultural interpretations much of even the earliest translations were, the old adage that even the Devil can quote scripture leading to it being a hiding to nothing, the range of intepretations of any given section, the ease with which elements can be interpreted in different ways when devoid of the context in which there place)... but that being said:

Within the understanding of Christianity none of us are perfect, so presumably this 'perfect' love can only be God's?  For us, as humans, there will always be at least tiny frisson of fear, even if it's only the fear of rejection - if you don't fear rejection in a relationship then you have an issue, because you are in a place where you think that there is no way they could contemplate leaving, and then you stop putting in the effort.

Maybe that's why God doesn't talk to us any more, the way he allegedly used to?

That said - and, again, thinking about the context in which things are set - this is a message purporting to be about a relationship with a being that explicitly threatens with punishment for transgression, so to come with this section and ignore the fact that threat of punishment is there is disingenuous, is it not?  If God's love for us is perfect love, and we need not fear punishment, then why is there the threat of punishment?  If god's love is unconditional (is any other kind of love 'perfect'?) then how can we somehow fail or be fallen, how can we be discarded if we are perfectly loved?

O.

The passage from John in context talks about love perfected in a person , a human person.
Fear is a indicator of how loving a relationship is. If there is a lot of fear there is little love for God.
Entering into a relationship with God starting with metanoia or change of mind from unwillingness to willingness changes one’s attitude to God and when not estranged God changes from the mad uncle with a playroom in the attic for his favourites and a furnace in his basement to being loving parent friend or gracious entity.

[Outrider]

The passage from John in context talks about love perfected in a person , a human person.

Seems self-contradictory to me to suggest that humans are capable of this 'perfect' love whilst being at the same time unavoidably and inherently 'flawed'.

Fear is a indicator of how loving a relationship is. If there is a lot of fear there is little love for God.

Not necessarily, fear is an indicator of how confident you are in the relationship, and how that love is manifested, and your own history with relationships - someone with a history of bad relationships is going to fear, regardless of how good a relationship is.  A relationship with God has that threat of eternal punishment hanging around in the background - if you believe, then the prospect of eternal torment is going to bring an element of fear to that relationship.  Coupled with a narrative that you are inherently unworthy and, depending on the sect you're part of, nothing you can do will change that and you are at the mercy of God's grace I'd suggest that fear is an intrinsic part of that dynamic.  After all, isn't there a significant segment of the Christian (at least) populace who'd quite openly describe themselves as 'God-fearing'.

Entering into a relationship with God starting with metanoia or change of mind from unwillingness to willingness changes one’s attitude to God and when not estranged God changes from the mad uncle with a playroom in the attic for his favourites and a furnace in his basement to being loving parent friend or gracious entity.

It doesn't remove that threat, though, does it?  You might be able to ignore it, you might be able to see past it, but it's still there, and it's hardly the fault of people whose experience is to take threats seriously if they can't see past that.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

To equate morality with taste…

What I actually said was instinct and reason in varying degrees, not “taste”. Taste is whether or not I like Marmite; if I don’t, I can’t reason my way into liking it. By contrast I may at one time intuitively have found, say equal marriage to be wrong but now I can reason that it’s a good thing.     

… is the mark of the sociopath.

Actually it’s the “mark” of a thinking being able to adjust his morality with sense and reason. By contrast the sociopathy I see is in those who comment atrocities citing “holy” texts to justifies them. How would you propose to change the mind of someone whose rationale is “but that’s my faith”?     

It is no wonder that some of you guys creep me out.

The irony…

You still need to establish…

I don’t need to establish anything. You’re the one claiming objective morality – it’s your job to establish that, preferably without collapsing into fallacies again.

…that either or both are intuition, reason and instinct.

Why wouldn’t they be, given that you have no problem with other fields of human judgement (aesthetics for example) being these things?
 

If that were so then the terms aesthetics, taste and morality are redundant.

Why?

And since you have made them redundant you are really in no position to judge what is right or wrong about it.

I’ve done no such thing. Stop lying.

Altruism is proto morality. What is proto immorality? Start with Bill Hamilton? In terms of the gross anthropomorphism you are suggesting wouldn’t we be better off starting with Walt Disney?

Why are you parading your ignorance? It’s not something you should be proud of.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually it’s the “mark” of a thinking being able to adjust his morality with sense and reason. By contrast the sociopathy I see is in those who comment atrocities citing “holy” texts to justifies them. How would you propose to change the mind of someone whose rationale is “but that’s my faith”?     

The irony…

I don’t need to establish anything. You’re the one claiming objective morality – it’s your job to establish that, preferably without collapsing into fallacies again.

Why wouldn’t they be, given that you have no problem with other fields of human judgement (aesthetics for example) being these things?
 
Why?

I’ve done no such thing. Stop lying.

Why are you parading your ignorance? It’s not something you should be proud of.

If you are not a sociopath I am relieved although I think that necessarily means you are conflicted in your understanding of morality somewhere.

Unless I am mistaken, You make the term morality doubly redundant since not only can it be replaced with the term aesthetics or taste but even that is made redundant by it's explanation as instinct, intuition and reason. Unless I am mistaken you haven't actually established the links between these and why we should go on to describe instinct combined with intuition combined as ''taste'' and then derive ''morality'.

In terms of Bill Hamilton, he can only get to 'morality' by leaping out of strictly empirical science into some domain which contains a bit of science and a bit of something else. Science of course doesn't observe moral behaviour rather it observes mere behaviour and that is that. And that adds triple redundancy to the term 'morality'. Also there is a conflict that if you are saying morality is not objective then it cannot be scientifically observed.