T
Tomahawk
Guest
Hey Tom, thought I'd let ya know I understood what ya did.
Ultima Avatar
New Member
It was a mix. Soldier, civilian: killing, murder; morality's basis on what? That was my last post basically.
[b said:
Wow. Now I'm really confused.
My post was simply to state if morality is relative, then what makes things right or wrong. And what stops me from stealing money from Eon if I deem it's OK? Who's to say I'm wrong if it's all relative?
Hmmm, perhaps I should state, I don't believe in moral relativism. I believe there are absolutes.
Anyway, like I said, I believe we are on the same page on this.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Here we go with the "If <insert group here> say that <insert distasteful action here> is right, does that make it right" argument.
The answer is that NO it does not change YOUR subjective interpretation of THEIR morality. See, the issue is that YOU think murder is wrong, changing your physical location in the world, or the people you're surrounded by changes nothing of consequence, since the issues we're dealing with are INTERNAL to you.
So it is with my soldier example. To a military officer, or someone sympathetic with the military, that soldier has done his duty in difficult circumstances. To a peace protester, the soldier has committed state sponsored murder, killing someone merely because a person in a position of power told him to.
To the person who suggested my statement that sometimes I wish Christianity (not Christians, just Christianity) could be stamped out was extremist, well I agree with you. It is. However I do so only out of self defence. The fact is that Christians, as has been said in this thread, believe it is their duty to judge others according to Christian law. I always worry that one day I'll find myself tied to burning wood, because cleansing by fire has gone back into fashion again.
Eon
The answer is that NO it does not change YOUR subjective interpretation of THEIR morality. See, the issue is that YOU think murder is wrong, changing your physical location in the world, or the people you're surrounded by changes nothing of consequence, since the issues we're dealing with are INTERNAL to you.
So it is with my soldier example. To a military officer, or someone sympathetic with the military, that soldier has done his duty in difficult circumstances. To a peace protester, the soldier has committed state sponsored murder, killing someone merely because a person in a position of power told him to.
To the person who suggested my statement that sometimes I wish Christianity (not Christians, just Christianity) could be stamped out was extremist, well I agree with you. It is. However I do so only out of self defence. The fact is that Christians, as has been said in this thread, believe it is their duty to judge others according to Christian law. I always worry that one day I'll find myself tied to burning wood, because cleansing by fire has gone back into fashion again.
Eon
lets be realistic
As far as the bible is concerned being gay is not what god wants. therefore to him it's sin.
He's God, his argument isn't relative. You face him with sin, it's over
So the only argument it, do i have sin or no sin.
before GOd these are you only choices..
It's in the bible
Accept it or not. the choice is yours, with it's consequences.
choose life
sealcomm
As far as the bible is concerned being gay is not what god wants. therefore to him it's sin.
He's God, his argument isn't relative. You face him with sin, it's over
So the only argument it, do i have sin or no sin.
before GOd these are you only choices..
It's in the bible
Accept it or not. the choice is yours, with it's consequences.
choose life
sealcomm
Eon, I still don't think your soldier example is very good. Unless...perhaps we are talking about two different things.
The reason I don't like the soldier example is because I am not talking about whether a soldier is allowed to kill or whether they are murdering. That is a completely different topic, in my opinion. Perhaps others disagree. Personally, I feel the soldier is doing their duty, but I can totally see the other side as well.
On the other hand, I'm talking about plain ol' murder. No soldier incident. I'm talking about plain ol' stealing. Not a beggar with no money.
So do you believe if someone thinks it's OK to murder someone...they can go ahead and murder someone with no consequence?
Boy! I just still have so many questions in which I would like to know your opinion.
Eon, do you personally believe murder is wrong? If so, what makes it wrong? What about lying? Swindling? Stealing?
If morality is relative, who makes the rules? And how can you tell someone else they are wrong?
Well, this is a very sad statement, as it is probably true in many cases. Personally, in the case of morality, I don't believe them just 'because the bible says so.' I believe in an absolute that exists, and am trying to discuss this outside of what the bible says. That said, I also believe God placed those in the Bible because He knows right and wrong. He knows what is healthy for us and unhealthy. What is damaging to us/others and what is helpful.
The reason I don't like the soldier example is because I am not talking about whether a soldier is allowed to kill or whether they are murdering. That is a completely different topic, in my opinion. Perhaps others disagree. Personally, I feel the soldier is doing their duty, but I can totally see the other side as well.
On the other hand, I'm talking about plain ol' murder. No soldier incident. I'm talking about plain ol' stealing. Not a beggar with no money.
[b said:
So do you believe if someone thinks it's OK to murder someone...they can go ahead and murder someone with no consequence?
Boy! I just still have so many questions in which I would like to know your opinion.
[b said:
Eon, do you personally believe murder is wrong? If so, what makes it wrong? What about lying? Swindling? Stealing?
If morality is relative, who makes the rules? And how can you tell someone else they are wrong?
[b said:
Well, this is a very sad statement, as it is probably true in many cases. Personally, in the case of morality, I don't believe them just 'because the bible says so.' I believe in an absolute that exists, and am trying to discuss this outside of what the bible says. That said, I also believe God placed those in the Bible because He knows right and wrong. He knows what is healthy for us and unhealthy. What is damaging to us/others and what is helpful.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
The definition of murder is an illegal death, but it is also used colloquially to describe an immoral death, so I'll assume we're using the word in that context.
The interesting thing about Good and Evil, is that the definition stems from your own conscience. Your conscience guides you as to whether the things you are doing are right or are wrong. But your morality is an internal construct - the history of the Christian church (and other religions) is a history of the war between a dogmatic, external, conscience and a personal, internal, conscience.
The main difference between a theological conscience and a personal conscience is that the theological conscience does not take any notice of context. For example, the 10 Commandments are VERY black and white as to what is right and what is wrong. Personal morality, however, is very much alive to the concept of context excusing immoral actions.
A classic example would be the Solider example I gave. The bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL. It doesn't say THOU SHALT NOT KILL, UNLESS IN SELF DEFENCE OR AS PART OF A STATE MANDATED ARMY ENGAGED IN COMBAT OPERATIONS OR UNLESS THE DEATH IS AN ACCIDENT. Of course, there is now some debate as to whether the actual line is THOU SHALT NOT MURDER, but to say that without defining what is or isn't murder makes it a suggestion rather than a commandment, and all the other commandments are quite clear. Murder is a subjective term requiring moral interpretation, none of the other commandments allow creative interpretation.
Let's leave the specific question of "Thou shalt not kill" for now, though, and return to this idea that conscience is the arbiter of right and wrong, and that conscience relies on context. A classic example was the part of the post above, where the idea was posited that I had sidetracked the discussion onto another topic by discussing the rights and wrongs of a soldier killing. SSquared suggested that, whilst interesting in its own right, we should return to considering a plain Murder or a plain old Theft rather than these moralistically difficult questions of a starving man stealing to feed his family or a soldier killing on the battlefield. But this itself makes my point - theft is either right or it is wrong, it cannot be right under some circumstances and wrong under others. If Right or Wrong are universal concepts, then they have to be GLOBALLY universal - and that means that there is no room for contextual interpretation. Contextual interpretation is an earthly device, and is only useful for determining whether earthly punishment is deserved, not for whether an Evil Act has been comitted.
If you're a Christian, then you believe that there is an external arbiter, one who can interpret context globally and universally. The only problem is that this interpreter DOESN'T CARE whether evil acts are comitted or not. Let's take your starving beggar versus embezzling CEO example. Earthly judgement would say that the CEO is worse than the beggar because the CEO stole out of greed whilst the beggar stole out of need. Of course Divine justice DOESN'T CARE whether need or greed was the impulse. Both have stolen, have comitted an immoral act and are stained by it. Grovelling that you had to feed your family won't ameliorate your punishment one iota - it's eternal damnation for you.
HOWEVER if either or both of the wrongdoers admitted their guilt, admitted their personal worthlessness, but remembered that Jesus had died for their sins and thus acquitted them, both would be suitable candidates for heaven. Bizarely, from our point of view, if the CEO admitted he stole from greed and was unworthy, save for Christs intervention, but the beggar replied that there was nothing else he could do, and that God was at fault for creating a world where people could starve to death through no fault of their own, the CEO would be elevated and the Beggar damned for eternity.
Given the truth of those statements, you should conclude that the idea of a globally universal code of ethics is incorrect. The only arbiter that you are willing to accept doesn't even CARE about contextual interpretation, or even about the concepts of right and wrong, it all comes down to how you answer a single question when you get to the "judgement". In which case it is clear that Right and Wrong are as much an internal definition for Christians as they are for anyone else. You guys might derive your code of ethics from what you consider to be a deific source, but your imposition of them on yourselves and ultimately on other people stems from an earthly desire to do so, and not from a divine mandate.
Eon
The interesting thing about Good and Evil, is that the definition stems from your own conscience. Your conscience guides you as to whether the things you are doing are right or are wrong. But your morality is an internal construct - the history of the Christian church (and other religions) is a history of the war between a dogmatic, external, conscience and a personal, internal, conscience.
The main difference between a theological conscience and a personal conscience is that the theological conscience does not take any notice of context. For example, the 10 Commandments are VERY black and white as to what is right and what is wrong. Personal morality, however, is very much alive to the concept of context excusing immoral actions.
A classic example would be the Solider example I gave. The bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL. It doesn't say THOU SHALT NOT KILL, UNLESS IN SELF DEFENCE OR AS PART OF A STATE MANDATED ARMY ENGAGED IN COMBAT OPERATIONS OR UNLESS THE DEATH IS AN ACCIDENT. Of course, there is now some debate as to whether the actual line is THOU SHALT NOT MURDER, but to say that without defining what is or isn't murder makes it a suggestion rather than a commandment, and all the other commandments are quite clear. Murder is a subjective term requiring moral interpretation, none of the other commandments allow creative interpretation.
Let's leave the specific question of "Thou shalt not kill" for now, though, and return to this idea that conscience is the arbiter of right and wrong, and that conscience relies on context. A classic example was the part of the post above, where the idea was posited that I had sidetracked the discussion onto another topic by discussing the rights and wrongs of a soldier killing. SSquared suggested that, whilst interesting in its own right, we should return to considering a plain Murder or a plain old Theft rather than these moralistically difficult questions of a starving man stealing to feed his family or a soldier killing on the battlefield. But this itself makes my point - theft is either right or it is wrong, it cannot be right under some circumstances and wrong under others. If Right or Wrong are universal concepts, then they have to be GLOBALLY universal - and that means that there is no room for contextual interpretation. Contextual interpretation is an earthly device, and is only useful for determining whether earthly punishment is deserved, not for whether an Evil Act has been comitted.
If you're a Christian, then you believe that there is an external arbiter, one who can interpret context globally and universally. The only problem is that this interpreter DOESN'T CARE whether evil acts are comitted or not. Let's take your starving beggar versus embezzling CEO example. Earthly judgement would say that the CEO is worse than the beggar because the CEO stole out of greed whilst the beggar stole out of need. Of course Divine justice DOESN'T CARE whether need or greed was the impulse. Both have stolen, have comitted an immoral act and are stained by it. Grovelling that you had to feed your family won't ameliorate your punishment one iota - it's eternal damnation for you.
HOWEVER if either or both of the wrongdoers admitted their guilt, admitted their personal worthlessness, but remembered that Jesus had died for their sins and thus acquitted them, both would be suitable candidates for heaven. Bizarely, from our point of view, if the CEO admitted he stole from greed and was unworthy, save for Christs intervention, but the beggar replied that there was nothing else he could do, and that God was at fault for creating a world where people could starve to death through no fault of their own, the CEO would be elevated and the Beggar damned for eternity.
Given the truth of those statements, you should conclude that the idea of a globally universal code of ethics is incorrect. The only arbiter that you are willing to accept doesn't even CARE about contextual interpretation, or even about the concepts of right and wrong, it all comes down to how you answer a single question when you get to the "judgement". In which case it is clear that Right and Wrong are as much an internal definition for Christians as they are for anyone else. You guys might derive your code of ethics from what you consider to be a deific source, but your imposition of them on yourselves and ultimately on other people stems from an earthly desire to do so, and not from a divine mandate.
Eon
MeanMrMustard
New Member
Issues are not black and white. Morals are not black and white. The bible, and indeed many religious laws, try to make everything appear black and white. A simple question as to whether something is right or wrong, probably shouldn't be a simple yes or no answer. The world just isn't that way.[b said:
In answer to your question, there is no answer. Who decides what is permissable and who isn't? Whatever human being (or beings) are in power in your specific locality. I know this is impossible to accept for Christians, indeed probably any religious people, but at this point in the argument I wont be winning anyone over anyway. Maybe in the big, overall picture there is no such thing as right and wrong. If I say X is totally wrong, and you say X is totally right, does one of us have to be incorrect? Morality isn't math, there isn't one answer that can be proven for any given question.
Thats tough to think about. It's unpopular and unfulfilling to think about. Everything would be much easier if there was some super all powerful all knowing creator in the sky wouldn't it? He has all the answers, we don't need to bother thinking about this complex and unanswerable question, he would already have all the answers. He can tell us whats right so we dont have to figure it out, he can tell us we're right so that we dont have to doubt ourselves.... I could go on like this until I run out of room to post.
I think your question Ssquared goes to the very existance of religion, I believe it to be human nature to take the easy way out. I think that is a primary explanation for not only the popularity, but also very existance of religion.
Hey! Thanks Eon and Mustard! Those were extremely helpful in allowing me to [bold]understand[/bold] your points of view.
I was a little confused with this. I thought you were stating morality is relative. But now that you said this, where did the idea of it being right come from? I guess you accept it as a truth outside of the context of God.
Mustard, are you trying to say that since morality can be a difficult topic, people created religion to describe how morality came to be?
[b said:
I was a little confused with this. I thought you were stating morality is relative. But now that you said this, where did the idea of it being right come from? I guess you accept it as a truth outside of the context of God.
Mustard, are you trying to say that since morality can be a difficult topic, people created religion to describe how morality came to be?
