posted
Hmmmm...if I'm going to use current politicians as arbiters of moral policy, then I can emulate Clinton and screw 'em one at a time, or George W. Bush, and screw everyone at once!
posted
But seriously, I know that homosexuality is bad because the Bible tells me so. But according to both the Old and New Testaments, slavery is good.
And, Human, yes--you are very free to choose which version of right and wrong you want to believe. Luckily, though, you are not all that free to act on that belief. (And by "you," I don't mean only you; I mean "one is free..." etc.)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Bible teaches slavery is good. Slavery practiced in Bibical times were not like the Southern variety. People were sold into slavery when they couldn't pay off debts. And it wasn't life long and their childern were not put in slavery either. When they had been a slave long enough to pay the debt, they were free. In other words, it was very similar to our jails.
And there are many Bible passages that refer to forgiving debts. In fact, it was Jewish law to forgive debts either every 7 years or every year. Can't remember.
You want a real whopper? In Bibical times, girls got married typically at age 12 to 14.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comrade human, you speak nonsense. In the first place, the main source of slaves (by the time of the New Testament) was wars. In the second place, the children of slaves were indeed slaves.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Pharaoh read the scriptures... or liked them anyway. Not too sure the whole law of Moses thing was around then either... However, Moses did kill a man... Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Comrade human, you speak nonsense. In the first place, the main source of slaves (by the time of the New Testament) was wars. In the second place, the children of slaves were indeed slaves.
Ok. I was taught nonsense then. I'm only going by what I've been told about slavery practiced by the Jews.
Edit to add: I'm no historian. Just heard too much and cant remember where I heard it or if my memory is even accurate.
Edit again: I have to add: my memory is like Linux source code. It came from somewhere, but I have no idea where... (hehehe)
posted
Oh, the Jews. Well, I don't know about that. I was talking about the Romans. But there again, Paul would also be talking about the Romans.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't really had time to read this thread through, so I'm sorry if anything in this has already been brought up.
To theists, espcially Christians - Why exactly do you believe what you do? What sort of proof leads you to the conclusion that your faith is correct? I'm not sure if any of you have read the Passion of the Christ boards on imdb. Yes, I realize that many of these posts are immature and hateful, but there are some posters who give some pretty good points, and I think it's safe to say that most of the Christians who post aren't very well prepaired to defend their own views (no offense).
Posts: 106 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If memory serves, women are not supposed to have contact with their husbands or prepare meals for the week during and after their periods. Also, they have to participate in a cleansing ritual.
I might be wrong on the details. But I had a religion professor who was really big on religious attitudes towards women, so we talked a lot about those kinds of things, as well as the way in which many religious rules regarding women could really be intended as property laws.
posted
Actually, I find that one rather interesting. I seem to recall that the usual defense for Christians not observing the full range of prohibitions in Leviticus is that Paul says that the sexual-purity ones are sufficient. But menstruation seems to pretty obviously fall under this. So what is the deal with this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH - I remember hearing about those rules...
They couldn't even eat pigs because they were dirty. And Peter had a dream where there was a meal set in front of him full of forbidden food and he was told to eat it... signifying the gospel should go to non-Jews as at that time only Jews were Christians.
The Christians eventually quit living the old laws because Christ said he fullfilled the old law and brought a new one.
One interesting thing I heard... from someone (Jack Marshall LDS teacher--I'm surprised I remember)... is that the Bible accounts of Jesus' interactions with women was actually very liberal (in the modern sense) for his day and that was one reason why he wasn't liked by the leaders.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah so; that does not explain why most Christians are so down on homosexuality; the prohibition against men lying with men appears in Leviticus. Jesus says nothing about it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah so; that does not explain why most Christians are so down on homosexuality; the prohibition against men lying with men appears in Leviticus. Jesus says nothing about it.
As I am certain even you are aware, KoM, Christians are not governed exclusively by what Christ said or did not say. There's an awful lot of Bible in which Christ is not speaking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, a discussion of the specific morals of one group or another and the provenance thereof with the aim to prove hypocrisy or other egregious sins is beyond absurd.
In the first place, from what basis may a moral code be judged, if not solely in comparison to another moral code? And if such is the case then how can one ridicule another moral code, save when the audience happens to share the same views as the author.
To cite a specific example, ssywak clearly believes it ridiculous to condemn homosexuality based on biblical condemnation. All the while failing to recognize that his acceptance of homosexuality rests on...what exactly? A nebulous moral code which hasn't even the basic decency to be written down so others can mock its inconsistencies.
Further, the criticisms seen thus far seem to completely miss the idea of a hierarchical moral code in which some strictures are more important than others. In order for a code to be anything other than nonsensical, there must be a hierarchy. Therefore assigning all Biblical or other requirements equal value and then condemning the hypocrisy of empasizing one and not another is a ridiculous strawman which, while apparently entertaining for the creators thereof to attack, flies in the face of the very rationality those who set up this strawman pretend to treasure.
Finally, any moral code must have a cultural context, for there never was a morality which sprang into existence from the aether. Thus, for a reformer to articulate a new code requires that the old code is both referenced and taken into account. Again, this means that those who hold the ancient Hebrew customs to be barbaric or ridiculous may amuse themselves in abusing those practices, but any human with an inkling of historical understanding would be more circumspect, especially when comparing the Hebrew code to the practices of contemporary civilizations.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a moral code must have cultural context, then it isn't absolute. That's sort of my point.
And as to the discussion of specific moral codes, well, if you're going to claim "We are absolutely right, and everyone else is wrong," then you should be prepared to defend yourself.
quote: And as to the discussion of specific moral codes, well, if you're going to claim "We are absolutely right, and everyone else is wrong," then you should be prepared to defend yourself.
I'm curious as to what such a defense would consist of.
The only way to debate moral codes is by an appeal to shared values. This may be easily seen. If I say that my moral code is better than yours because it allows more personal freedom, the argument will only carry weight if both you and I value personal freedom.
What I see quite a bit of on this thread is attacking moral codes in the places where they do not overlap. Such an argument can get nowhere. Such subtext as "Your moral code is dumb because it depends on the Bible while my moral code is great because it does not" is ridiculous.
Even the modern day belief that different moral codes work best for different people requires a few important underlying beliefs. Things such as the idea that being able to choose your morals is more important than the specific morals you choose (Choice is the cardinal virtue) with the corollary that coercion of any sort is inherently bad. If the person being debated does not agree with these basic assumptions to some degree then the discussion can only be a bash fest.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different specific rules for different cultures does not necessarily mean that the different cultures in question have different moral codes. Almost any moral code recognizes the importance of circumstance in specific rules. For example, "it's not wrong to have sex; it's wrong to have sex with someone other than your spouse."
Culture can be a circumstance. For example, some people believe standards of dress are more related to charity than chastity. It's not necessarily immoral for a woman to walk around topless in some cultures, whereas in some cultures it is. These are different specific rules. But, if the actual moral rule is that dress which shocks the generally prevalent sensibilities of the expected viewer should be avoided, then neither culture is following a different rule.
This cannot explain all differences in specific rules, of course, and it requires a formulation of the actual principle, not the specific rule manifested because of the principle. But there are many cases where this is true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only point was that there are absolutely no "absolute" moral codes. Period. It's all relative (or, as others have said, "arbitrary")
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that hurting other people intentionally for personal gratification, like theft, is wrong, no matter what culture you come from. If doing this is part of the culture norm, then that culture has very bad morals.
I agree when cultures clash that there are other things that determine what is right and wrong, and perhaps right and wrong don't even apply anymore, it is politics.
For example, if a visiting dignitary whose culture norm is to go topless visits a place where going topless is immodest, the behavior of the dignitary is more likely to be political based rather than moral based, as the dignitary can choose which culture to yield to and likely neither would be wrong.
However, vise versa is interesting though. AFAIK, cultures that really do go topless haven't minded Westerners who wear tops. But that Westerner will never belong as the Westerner's wearing of tops is a reminder to the culture that the Westerner thinks that the culture is doing something wrong, or at least can't accept their version of right and wrong.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssywak's not asserting there are no absolutes, merely that no moral code is absolute. His statement is not moral, it is at best meta-moral.
As for your example of hurting people intentionally, perhaps you have not watched Football lately? Even if the game is played without fouls, people most definitely get hurt. Of course, they view that hurt as acceptable, but presumably so would those people receiving it in a moral system where some other form of hurt was considered morally ok .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for your example of hurting people intentionally, perhaps you have not watched Football lately?
Ok. Um. I guess I would change it to "intentionally hurt where the hurt isn't wanted"... ?
Let me explain why I'm sticking with this definition. First, our culture has "wrongs" that even I consider stupid. But in none of those would I consder them to actually hurt someone intentionally. In fact, racism and sexism are examples of not just stupid accepted morals, but bad morals because they do hurt people.
Second, I never want to see a moral code that allows people to intentionally hurt other people or makes it easier for people to get away with hurting others.
Redefining morals feels like moving towards that end. I haven't thought much about why (don't have time now). Maybe irrational fear.
I know getting rid of racism and sexism are good examples of why we should redefine morals. But there are signs that things are being pushed too far. like making it a cultural norm that belief in God is actually damaging, which is the push of many people (author of article) who want to redefine morals.
Well, the idea just occured to me that the people who will get hurt are religious people. It isn't like religion hasn't been the target of many people. Usually it comes from other religions, and as such the Constitution has been set up to protect those types of attacks.
But I don't think the Constitution has words in it to protect religions from the types of attacks that non-religious people (who were not very numberous when the Constitution was written AFAIK) can perform. I suppose I could say the opposite is true too. It doesn't protect atheists from religious people..
Anyway, that is what is ticking my thoughts. I'm not a Constitutional expert, so don't take my comments as something based in actual knowledge, just speculation.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me: ...in deciding whether your moral standard is correct, what measure of validity will you use?
Rico: The values I have acquired over time and what I was raised with.
So you are using your values to judge your values. You will find that they match perfectly -- of course! So improvement is not logically possible. You can't get any closer to a set of values than that set of values itself!
The reason I can imagine an improvement in my set of values is that I believe there is an external set, which I know only imperfectly, which is valid. Mine isn't it, but it's as close as I know how to make it, for now.
That is, absolutism allows for the possibility of improvement; relativism makes "improvement" meaningless.
[ December 20, 2005, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious as to what such a defense would consist of.
The only way to debate moral codes is by an appeal to shared values.
This is untrue if you believe that morals have some deeper foundation -- such as either God's commands or (as I've been trying to argue) morality's role as the correct solution to the problem of how to weigh the interests of others in deciding how to act. If morality arises from something else, then I can argue from that something else to the moral rules I believe in.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
An absolute moral code is one that comes from an (allegedly) external source. Typically, that external source is presented as being, to some degree or interpretation, "perfect." Fundamentalists present "God" as the source of their absolute moral values. An absolute moral code, then allows for NO improvement. It starts and finishes as being perfect. Any "imperfections" are thought of as misinterpretations, or attributed to the (supposed) limits on human knowledge. Review the previous posts re. the Old and New Testament's take on slavery. You'll find apologies, denials ("Never did like the Old Testament, anyway"), and changing the subject.
On the other hand, a relative moral stance acknowledges that morality is developed by humans, for humans, and as such may (and will) change as societies change. It is subject to debate and interpretation. It may be corrected where it is found lacking, and people aren't (hopefully) offended by the mid-course corrections. Think of all the different permutations that Affirmative Action has gone through over the years. Self-correction in action.
But as far as "meaningful" or "meaningless," what do you mean by that?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Will is referring to a valid criticism of moral and cultural relativism that since all moral systems or cultures have equal validity, "improvement" is pointless and meaningless.
On the other hand, since there are various absolute moral codes, improvement towards one absolute code can be seen as negative or degenerate from another POV.
Only if your absolute code is really the gold standard could you be confident in your moral judgements of other codes, and their change over time. But how can you be sure of that, without faith somewhere in the process?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: An absolute moral code is one that comes from an (allegedly) external source. Typically, that external source is presented as being, to some degree or interpretation, "perfect." Fundamentalists present "God" as the source of their absolute moral values. An absolute moral code, then allows for NO improvement. It starts and finishes as being perfect. Any "imperfections" are thought of as misinterpretations, or attributed to the (supposed) limits on human knowledge.
Another way of looking at it is that the perfect external source wants us to figure as much out on our own as we can and gives us enough information to make morals enough that we wont kill each other in a few days, but leaves things vague enough that we are really flexible with the morals, showing exactly what type of people we choose to be.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds to me like the belief in God is far less damaging than the belief that certain books and/or churches give the infallible Word of God and must be followed absolutely to govern all our behavior. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any "imperfections" are thought of as misinterpretations, or attributed to the (supposed) limits on human knowledge. Review the previous posts re. the Old and New Testament's take on slavery. You'll find apologies, denials ("Never did like the Old Testament, anyway"), and changing the subject.
Perhaps the lack of dialogue has more to do with your sneering disdain than the supposed dimwittedness of the people who disagree with you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
But seriously, did you go back and look? Was I wrong or was I right? If I was right, then there was definitely no "sneering disdain." And even if I was wrong, I tell you honestly that that particular post was written with a minimum of sneering disdain. Probably only about a 3 or 4 on the SSMS (Sywak Snark-o-Meter Scale; and I've been known to hit 9-10 when I'm really on a roll)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: "various absolute moral codes"
something odd about that phrase...
Yes, it does seem a bit clumsy. But it's true: there are many moral codes that believers claim to be "absolute" ... which leads to the valid criticism of moral absolutism, that absolute morals are inherently unknowable.
quote: A primary criticism of moral absolutism regards how we come to know what the "absolute" morals are. The authorities that are quoted as sources of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretation, and multiple views abound on them. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Therefore, so critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals, and none can be called "absolute". So even if there are absolute morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are, making them by definition unknowable.
quote:Second, I never want to see a moral code that allows people to intentionally hurt other people or makes it easier for people to get away with hurting others.
See any recent legal documents written by Alberto Gonzalez, or listen to any recent complaints by Dick Cheney.
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: And what good are morals that are inherently unknowable? (And unquestionable, too?)
Beats me. I don't believe in absolute morals.
I'm trying to thread the needle between moral relativism and moral absolutism, avoiding the pitfalls of both...Maybe pluralism works? I'll have to dig into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-pluralismPosts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, I never want to see a moral code that allows people to intentionally hurt other people or makes it easier for people to get away with hurting others.
See any recent legal documents written by Alberto Gonzalez, or listen to any recent complaints by Dick Cheney.
--Steve (SSMS: 8.2)
Nope. Politics are so gloomy lately... What are you thinking of?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at the President's request (or, perhaps, at Carl Rove's behest), Alberto Gonzalez wrote that now-infamous letter that basically said it's OK for the US to torture people, but only if we really, really want to. And Cheney was hoping that the Congress would give him and the CIA/NSA a nice loophole to allow those agencies to continue to torture people whenever they wanted to. Luckily, the McCain bill passed without any such loopholes, and now the US is really, truly, not supposed to be torturing anybody any more. Really.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I wondered if it was about that. I've just been sticking my head in a ostrich hole lately...
Did you know that there are ostriches in Salt Lake City?? I was riding my bike this summer on a riverside path and I rode by someones backyard and there were ostriches in there! I couldn't believe it!
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:An absolute moral code, then allows for NO improvement.
Clarification: I wasn't saying that an absolute moral code can be improved. I'm saying that if there is an absolute moral code, then *my* moral code can improve.
quote:On the other hand, a relative moral stance acknowledges that morality is developed by humans, for humans, and as such may (and will) change as societies change.
Yes, there's no question that relative moral codes can change...
quote: It may be corrected where it is found lacking
No: this is the part that is contradictory. Something that is neither right nor wrong can't be corrected. It can't be lacking. Lacking, according to what standard? When you suggest it can be improved, you are appealing to another, superior moral code by which the lesser moral code can be judged.
Relatavism is unstable: one can't even complete a paragraph in support of it without resorting to absolutism.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm saying that if there is an absolute moral code, then *my* moral code can improve.
.....
Something that is neither right nor wrong can't be corrected. It can't be lacking.
You're confusing "right" and "wrong" with "effective" and "ineffective." Where people who do not believe in moral absolutes speak of improvements to moral codes, they speak of fairer, more predictive, more beneficial codes, not ones that are closer to a hypothetical ideal. It is certainly possible, even in a universe lacking absolute morality, for some moral codes to be better in some situations than others.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me ask you something, ssywak: by healing someone (which you don't believe happened anyway, so the conversation is really only about criticizing Christianity-that's where the sneering disdain comes from), Jesus must have approved of all that was going on in their lives, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where people who do not believe in moral absolutes speak of improvements to moral codes, they speak of fairer, more predictive, more beneficial codes, not ones that are closer to a hypothetical ideal. It is certainly possible, even in a universe lacking absolute morality, for some moral codes to be better in some situations than others.
It's "certainly possible"? How?? That seems to be a contradiction.
How can one moral code be "better" than any other if there is no absolute moral truth with which to determine what is "better"? Why is fairer better? Why is "effective" better? How do we even know what "effect" we want without a morality to tell us what is good and what is bad? "Effective" only means generating whatever our moral code tells us is the effect or end result that we should be pursuing. If there is no absolute moral code then every moral code is the most effective according to itself.
This is precisely why the failure to believe in an absolute morality leads to self-righteousnesss and an unwillingness to refine one's moral beliefs... because if there is no absolute morality against which to judge your morality then your morality is infallible, no matter what it says.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
