Moral Relativism

Asal_The_Unforgiving · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>you do realise that its impossible for God to be evil right? If you accept the existance of an all powerful God who created the Universe - then he sets the rules. If he decides that its okay to rape women - then it IS okay. It is impossible for God to be "evil", as he defines what is good and evil. Everything he does is good and right because he makes the rules.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's not true. Right and good are what -you- set them to be, and only you can decide this. Laws and other things are designed in such a way that no member of the body governed by those laws (at least no body cared about by the makers of the laws) is not bothed so much as to make a fuss. Our -current- laws say that rape is bad, but that was not always so. Go through history a bit, and figure out what lords were allowed to do to peasant women, and you will find that rape was not always outlawed. Same God? Yep. Same one. Has he changed his mind? Nope. He's the same guy, knows the same stuff, which is everything. WE changed our minds, as a race and as a people.

Edit: You're saying that might makes right....and I disagree. Just a summary, I guess.

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Few can claim to have met? Given that vast millions of people claim to have a deep and personal relationship with God, I find that a little strange....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ok, bad wording. So far, none of them have had anything to back up their words. When someone claims to have met me, I can back them up by my presense, and few would be able to deny my presense if I was really there. But I haven't really seen anyone do something where I could not deny the presense of god.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You attack them because they are part of the opposing force.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What if Hitler considered the jews part of an opposing force? What's the difference between being born German and being born a jew? Why is killing the Germans right and killing the Jews wrong?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Simply killing thousands doesnt make you evil or wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh, so killing is wrong (thou shalt not kill), but killing thousands is just fine. I personally think that's a horribly inconsistent conclusion to reach with a moral system.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you did it to enhance your own personal power, and your victims actually didnt do anything, then I judge you morally wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The allies killed the German soldiers to increase their own power over Germany (don't tell me they did it to save the Jews. If they did, they wouldn't have waited for Hitler to become a threat, and they would have stopped Mao), and I don't believe the German soldiers did anything wrong, ever. Sorry, but I don't believe a moral system works when you can say "you shall not kill, but killing a thousand because they happen to have been at the wrong beach at the wrong time is just fine". I think the allies storming Omaha beach was allright, so do you. Difference is that my moral system says it's allright, while your moral system is screaming WRONG and you still argue it's right. If your morals say it was wrong, why are you saying it was right?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I find it easy to differentiate the actions of the Allies from those of the Nazi's.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Still, the only difference I can see is that the allies lived to write the history books, underlining their own virtues and focusing on the German vices. When you read the history books, remember that it's written by allies, remember that it's just as reliable as anyone else with an interest in lying.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Christian beliefs that they took and used at the time were fundamentally wrong, and at serious odds with other parts of the Bible.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Uhm, I'd say "Though shall not kill" is a part of the bible, the allies killed thousands, yet the allies are not at odds with the bible. That's self-contradictory.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>you do realise that its impossible for God to be evil right? If you accept the existance of an all powerful God who created the Universe - then he sets the rules.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But obviously, since he's the guy burning people in hell for being born with a disease they can't control (and which God must have created in the first place), and he's the one being right, revenge and killing people for being born with the wrong skin color must be a good thing?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Dammit, Uni calls. I'll edit this post to answer the rest of your statements.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'd prefer it if you quote the rest of my post in a new post, makes it easier for me to overview.

moultano · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 17 2004, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Unless I have 100% confidence in something, I cant justify putting it on another person.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It is provably impossible to logically have 100% confidence in any general fact about the world. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction' target='_blank'>problem of induction</a>

We seemed to have regressed a bit from page 7 when I left for spring break.

In your example, what difference does it make whether you are punishing the man based on a religious moral code or a secular moral code? In either case, your judgement is morally crippled if your premises are wrong.

The discussion of consequences seems a bit off topic to me, seeing that I still contend that law has little to do with morality except that it coincidentally overlaps on a lot of basic issues.

P.S.: i'm BAAAAaaaaaack <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Mar 18 2004, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The discussion of consequences seems a bit off topic to me, seeing that I still contend that law has little to do with morality except that it coincidentally overlaps on a lot of basic issues.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I find it quite relevant, since one of the main flaws I see in the christian morals is that it advocates abscense of feelings such as hatred and wish for revenge, promising that God will take revenge on anyone breaking the laws. That and the fact that almost all of the basic "rules" of christian morals have exceptions.

Bogglesteinsky · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 18 2004, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I find it quite relevant, since one of the main flaws I see in the christian morals is that it advocates abscense of feelings such as hatred and wish for revenge, promising that God will take revenge on anyone breaking the laws. That and the fact that almost all of the basic "rules" of christian morals have exceptions.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
And what is right about hatred and revenge? How do you justify hatred, and what gives you the right to have your vengance on someone?

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Mar 18 2004, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And what is right about hatred and revenge? How do you justify hatred, and what gives you the right to have your vengance on someone? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Uhm, it would seem you misunderstood me. I'm pointing out that one of the main arguments of the christian morals is "if you don't do as we say, we will burn you in hell". Which seems kind of odd for a religion that is based on mercy and forgiveness.

I don't believe in hatred and revenge, and that's why I don't believe in sending people to hell for all eternity because they were born with a disease couldn't control either.

Bogglesteinsky · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 18 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Uhm, it would seem you misunderstood me.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It would appear I did.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm pointing out that one of the main arguments of the christian morals is "if you don't do as we say, we will burn you in hell". Which seems kind of odd for a religion that is based on mercy and forgiveness.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is a very simplified view, and, in its way, it is correct. However, it is not "Do as we say", it is the ultimately powerful creator saying "Do as I say". By placing the power in the hands of a being who has the right to enforce justice, there is nothing wrong with it. For me, it is the people who say "Do as we say, or we will torture you for the next 10 years" are doing wrong, not because they are going to torture you, but becasue they are enforcing thier moral code on you when they have no right to.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I don't believe in hatred and revenge, and that's why I don't believe in sending people to hell for all eternity because they were born with a disease couldn't control either.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There are very few (like 1 or 2) people in the whole world who have ever lived who know how God will judge the mentally disturbed, likewise the people who died before they heard about Jesus. This is going to sound like an awful attempt to wriggle out of answering the question, but as God is perfect, we know that his judgement will be equally perfect, and there will be no-one on judgement day who can say "Hang on, that's not fair."

In general, talking about people with mental difficulties is not a good way for a discussion about morals to go, because the normal moral issues do nmot apply to these people, the way they see the world, the way thier brain works is different. Much more relevant to stick to a normal (if there is such a thing) person who can think for himself, not a deranged murderer who's only thought is death.

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is a very simplified view, and, in its way, it is correct. However, it is not "Do as we say", it is the ultimately powerful creator saying "Do as I say". By placing the power in the hands of a being who has the right to enforce justice, there is nothing wrong with it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
In my moral belief, I do not think about rights as much as I think about respect. I believe that everyone should be respected (and I do mean everyone), not because someone said so, but because it's the basic element in the survival of our species.

Following that philosophy, I do respect God. But no matter his ideals, the respect I have for him is no different than the respect I have for any other being in this universe able to have a moral. Thus, I don't believe that just because God happens to be God, he has the right to burn people in hell for not doing as he says. I believe that's a horrible thing to base a moral system on, at least if that moral system is based on mercy and forgiveness.

In short, I cannot respect a being who dictates that revenge is a death sin, while the being itself burns people in hell for revenge. Be it God, man or woman, I think it's distastefull.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are very few (like 1 or 2) people in the whole world who have ever lived who know how God will judge the mentally disturbed, likewise the people who died before they heard about Jesus.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I agree, but the God I'm discussing in here is the one described by marine01. I do believe that God, as I view him, would not judge the mentally ill just because they failed to control it. But my problem is that the God I'd respect would also not spend his time burning people AFTER their lives, he would spend his time improving life for people whose life could still be helped.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is going to sound like an awful attempt to wriggle out of answering the question, but as God is perfect, we know that his judgement will be equally perfect.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But if he's burning people in hell for mistakes that are none of their fault, but merely mistakes caused by ignorance, then what is it that makes our racism less perfect than his?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>and there will be no-one on judgement day who can say "Hang on, that's not fair.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If I'm able to speak, and I see him judge a poor psycho for failing to stop himself from killing me, then I sure will. I sure will.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In general, talking about people with mental difficulties is not a good way for a discussion about morals to go, because the normal moral issues do nmot apply to these people, the way they see the world, the way thier brain works is different.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I find them a perfect basis for discussion. Especially a psycho who kills because he can't control it.

But let's return to the normal man then. Let's take this man. He's horribly evil. He has destroyed the lives of thousands of humans. He has burned them, tortured them, caused them suffering, discriminated them, gassed them and done just about anything he could to hurt them. I believe that if we should punish him, we should do it not to punish him, but to benefit the thousands that have yet to be tortured. Now, on judgement day, he's standing before god, who's about to pass the final up/down judgement on him

<b><u>Now tell me, if he will never kill again, why should he be send to hell, if not for revenge?</b></u>

(of cause, this is assuming that he won't be able to do evil in heaven, because heaven is, by my definition, eternal happiness.)

Bogglesteinsky · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 19 2004, 12:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> In my moral belief, I do not think about rights as much as I think about respect. I believe that everyone should be respected (and I do mean everyone), not because someone said so, but because it's the basic element in the survival of our species.

Following that philosophy, I do respect God. But no matter his ideals, the respect I have for him is no different than the respect I have for any other being in this universe able to have a moral. Thus, I don't believe that just because God happens to be God, he has the right to burn people in hell for not doing as he says. I believe that's a horrible thing to base a moral system on, at least if that moral system is based on mercy and forgiveness.

In short, I cannot respect a being who dictates that revenge is a death sin, while the being itself burns people in hell for revenge. Be it God, man or woman, I think it's distastefull.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Hell is not a punishment, more a consequence. You don't get sent to hell for doing bad, you don't go to heaven for doing good. Hel is not God's revenge on men. It is not him saying "You killed Bill, go burn for eternity". I will come back to that later.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I agree, but the God I'm discussing in here is the one described by marine01. I do believe that God, as I view him, would not judge the mentally ill just because they failed to control it. But my problem is that the God I'd respect would also not spend his time burning people AFTER their lives, he would spend his time improving life for people whose life could still be helped.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is going to sound like an awful attempt to wriggle out of answering the question, but as God is perfect, we know that his judgement will be equally perfect.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But if he's burning people in hell for mistakes that are none of their fault, but merely mistakes caused by ignorance, then what is it that makes our racism less perfect than his?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>and there will be no-one on judgement day who can say "Hang on, that's not fair.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If I'm able to speak, and I see him judge a poor psycho for failing to stop himself from killing me, then I sure will. I sure will.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

When I said the God's judgement is perfect, I didn't say that the psyco who kills you will go to hell. I don't know where he will go. If he did go to hell, it wouldn't be because he killed you either.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I find them a perfect basis for discussion. Especially a psycho who kills because he can't control it.

But let's return to the normal man then. Let's take this man. He's horribly evil. He has destroyed the lives of thousands of humans. He has burned them, tortured them, caused them suffering, discriminated them, gassed them and done just about anything he could to hurt them. I believe that if we should punish him, we should do it not to punish him, but to benefit the thousands that have yet to be tortured. Now, on judgement day, he's standing before god, who's about to pass the final up/down judgement on him

<b><u>Now tell me, if he will never kill again, why should he be send to hell, if not for revenge?</b></u></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because he refused the offering of salvation offered to him.

Simple as. Revenge has nothing to do with it.

If he accepted the salvation, he would to to heaven. No matter what he had done.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ok, bad wording. So far, none of them have had anything to back up their words. When someone claims to have met me, I can back them up by my presense, and few would be able to deny my presense if I was really there. But I haven't really seen anyone do something where I could not deny the presense of god.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In other words, you dont accept their standard of proof.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What if Hitler considered the jews part of an opposing force? What's the difference between being born German and being born a jew? Why is killing the Germans right and killing the Jews wrong?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I can see this turning into a tangent very quickly. Now we are on to the definition of an opposing force. What constitutes an opposing force? I would claim that an opposing force is an armed group of people with goals and aims that interfere directly with yours. That excludes a non-armed Jewish populace as an opposing force.

Difference of birth = none. Killing of Jews was wrong because they took unarmed civilians and executed them for no discernable reason other than a mans/nations personal dislike of them. Killing of Germans was "good", and I use good very loosely there, because I dont really think killing anyone is ever "good", merely the best of a bad situation, because it was necessary in order to prevent greater wrong doings.

Now you might claim that "it all depends on who wrote the history books", but I dont agree. I base that off what I know. If what I know is wrong, then so are my claims. If what I know is correct, then so are my claims. Could be right, could be wrong, but for all events and purposes I'm going to assume right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh, so killing is wrong (thou shalt not kill), but killing thousands is just fine. I personally think that's a horribly inconsistent conclusion to reach with a moral system.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You must remember I believe in a God who claims the authority to decide who lives and who dies. This God has killed before, and not always with a lightning bolt from above. The Old Testament is littered with stories of God telling his people (the people to whom he gave the ten commandments) to "go and crush these guys, rip open the pregnant women, leave none alive etc etc etc". I consider "thou shalt not kill" to be connected to "thou shalt not steal". To unlawfully kill a man is to steal from him his life which was rightfully his. To lawfully kill a man is to remove his life from him in accordance to the wishes of God, a God that has every right to order such an action.

The tricky part is deciding when God actual wants the killing. Personally, I dont think I'll ever be able to know for sure, so I personally tend to follow a hard and fast killing is wrong policy PERSONALLY, and you wont find me doing it. Couple that with "turn the other cheek" commandments etc, and its a definate no no.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The allies killed the German soldiers to increase their own power over Germany (don't tell me they did it to save the Jews. If they did, they wouldn't have waited for Hitler to become a threat, and they would have stopped Mao), and I don't believe the German soldiers did anything wrong, ever. Sorry, but I don't believe a moral system works when you can say "you shall not kill, but killing a thousand because they happen to have been at the wrong beach at the wrong time is just fine". I think the allies storming Omaha beach was allright, so do you. Difference is that my moral system says it's allright, while your moral system is screaming WRONG and you still argue it's right. If your morals say it was wrong, why are you saying it was right?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

They didnt kill the German soldiers because they did the wrong thing. They killed the German soldiers because these men where an integral part of a country whose goals were domination and genocide. They didnt die because of wrong place wrong time, they died because they supported the wrong side, or the side of evil. Now here is where history and my personal religious beliefs become intertwined. The Nazi's were exterminating God's chosen people (the Jews), who God had promised to protect. I find it no coincidence that despite the incredible successes of Germany between 1939-42 they still lost. I believe the killing of German soldiers to prevent further attrition to the Jews was actually God's will.

My moral system says that if God wills a killing, its morally right. If you kill and God didnt will it, then its morally wrong. In the specific case we are dealing with here, it was completely justified. I believe the commandment thou shalt not kill deals with unlawful killing, not killing in general.

Am I being picky? Re-interpreting things to ease my logic? The Bible was written as a document in which no part exists in isolation. It is meant to be read as a whole, and related to other sections. To claim that I have to accept "thou shalt not kill" completely literally and universally is like claiming that a textbook isnt allowed to refer students to different sections for a more elaborate explanation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Still, the only difference I can see is that the allies lived to write the history books, underlining their own virtues and focusing on the German vices. When you read the history books, remember that it's written by allies, remember that it's just as reliable as anyone else with an interest in lying.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As I said earlier, if my facts are wrong then my conclusions are wrong, I cant help that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But obviously, since he's the guy burning people in hell for being born with a disease they can't control (and which God must have created in the first place), and he's the one being right, revenge and killing people for being born with the wrong skin color must be a good thing?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Material for a different thread, to argue this one here is going to take us further off topic. I see Boggle has already started to answer it, but if you two gentleman would like to argue further, the search function will yield a few topics about hell and eternal punishment.

B33F · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Oh, so killing is wrong (thou shalt not kill), but killing thousands is just fine. I personally think that's a horribly inconsistent conclusion to reach with a moral system.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You must remember I believe in a God who claims the authority to decide who lives and who dies. This God has killed before, and not always with a lightning bolt from above. The Old Testament is littered with stories of God telling his people (the people to whom he gave the ten commandments) to "go and crush these guys, rip open the pregnant women, leave none alive etc etc etc". I consider "thou shalt not kill" to be connected to "thou shalt not steal". To unlawfully kill a man is to steal from him his life which was rightfully his. To lawfully kill a man is to remove his life from him in accordance to the wishes of God, a God that has every right to order such an action.

The tricky part is deciding when God actual wants the killing. Personally, I dont think I'll ever be able to know for sure, so I personally tend to follow a hard and fast killing is wrong policy PERSONALLY, and you wont find me doing it. Couple that with "turn the other cheek" commandments etc, and its a definate no no.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So if your god can tell you at times that killing is okay, then how is it wrong when fundamentalists in the Middle East or various other countries stone people, treat women like slaves, etc., because their god(which some say is the same as your god) told them to? I think the only answer to this question is "Well, my god actually exists and his word is truth, and those other people are just confused infidels."

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 17 2004, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its based around the Ten Commandments - a set of laws God gave to the Jews to show them just how buggered they really where and how they had no chance of ever following them perfectly. It applies directly and vividly with the real world. You shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not lie - all gold.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Those ten commandmends have flaws within the boundaries of our society. In truth, they won't work for a moral system. Instead of their original sound, they are in fact more like:

- You shall not kill, except if they have WMDs (and I'm not talking "you think they have", I'm talking "they have them and will fire in 10...9...)

- You shall not steal, except if you work for the police and has solved a robbery case, in which case you may steal in order to give the money back.

- You shall not lie, except when the psycho is asking you where that white-haired guy went, because he wants to kill him.

These commandments seem especially hollow when presented by a guy who claims he will send anyone who does not follow them to hell, where they are to burn forever.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I fail to see how the Christian moral system presents a utopia. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
They do because the world we live in too often presents cases where we have to ignore the ten commandments or suffer for following them. A society that follows the ten commandments most likely won't exist for long.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some people do little bits of good and masses of evil.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And you're the one to judge that. You believe that you, in all your wisdom, have the right to judge people? You believe that you are able to tell that Hitler was evil but the allies were good? I don't think that's a good standpoint, because it can lead to nothing but revenge and hatred, things that I believe even your moral system does not advocate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont see your point Xect. I go to my friend and say "Hey guess what, I helped an old lady across the street." He says "Great, well done". I say "Oh yeah, but I raped your sister and strangled your mother to death".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And he will ask you why. Assuming he was able to look past his own instinctual hatred, he would want to know WHY you had done it. Because there's no action without reason, and that reason is, in all but a few cases, something good, and thus deserves respect. Of cause, that doesn't mean that we should allow everything, or forgive everything, but we should at least judge people based on the reasons they had and punish them only if doing so is neccesary to further our own morals.

Back to the psycho in your ally. You keep saying that he must be punished, but you also say that there's no saving yourself. Why then, if you're going to heaven anyway, punish him? What reason is there to punish him. No matter how I look upon the question, I can only interpret it in one way: "How can your moral system provide a way for me to get my <u>revenge</u>?".  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Those ten commandmends have flaws within the boundaries of our society. In truth, they won't work for a moral system. Instead of their original sound, they are in fact more like:

- You shall not kill, except if they have WMDs (and I'm not talking "you think they have", I'm talking "they have them and will fire in 10...9...)

- You shall not steal, except if you work for the police and has solved a robbery case, in which case you may steal in order to give the money back.

- You shall not lie, except when the psycho is asking you where that white-haired guy went, because he wants to kill him.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As I said above, the Ten Commandments taken on their own and purely, 100% concrete literal fail as a moral system also. I dont claim my beliefs are based off the Ten Commandments alone. Just something to keep in mind <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

"You shall not kill" - unless God wills it.

"You shall not steal" - You cant steal from a man what wasnt rightfully his in the first place. The cop did not steal.

"You shall not lie" - Again I would consider that "You shall not lie for personal/group profit/benefit". I consider it that based around other stories/passages from the Bible.

Even the Bible on its own provides no hard and fast moral system. Sections are constantly argued over, and as Nem and myself worked out in a different thread, every man believes in his interpretation on what the Bible has to say. I consider the Bible the framework from which a moral system can be derived, not a legal document.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And you're the one to judge that. You believe that you, in all your wisdom, have the right to judge people? You believe that you are able to tell that Hitler was evil but the allies were good? I don't think that's a good standpoint, because it can lead to nothing but revenge and hatred, things that I believe even your moral system does not advocate.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm not the one to judge that no. I merely attempt to see what my God would think of said situation. If I believe my God would condemn it, then I do. Based on the facts I have been given on WW2, I believe Hitler was evil and the allies where good yes.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And he will ask you why. Assuming he was able to look past his own instinctual hatred, he would want to know WHY you had done it. Because there's no action without reason, and that reason is, in all but a few cases, something good, and thus deserves respect. Of cause, that doesn't mean that we should allow everything, or forgive everything, but we should at least judge people based on the reasons they had and punish them only if doing so is neccesary to further our own morals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And what if the reason is that I get sexual pleasure from strangling and raping women and thats why I do it? I did it for my own desires?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Back to the psycho in your ally. You keep saying that he must be punished, but you also say that there's no saving yourself. Why then, if you're going to heaven anyway, punish him? What reason is there to punish him. No matter how I look upon the question, I can only interpret it in one way: "How can your moral system provide a way for me to get my <u>revenge</u>?".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not true. "'vengance is mine' says the Lord" is a quite well known Bible passage. He wont be punished as revenge, he will be punished for doing the wrong thing. He will not be punished for me or on my behalf.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ Mar 19 2004, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So if your god can tell you at times that killing is okay, then how is it wrong when fundamentalists in the Middle East or various other countries stone people, treat women like slaves, etc., because their god(which some say is the same as your god) told them to? I think the only answer to this question is "Well, my god actually exists and his word is truth, and those other people are just confused infidels." </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
As I said previously, when it comes to comparing two different religious moral systems, it invariably becomes "either my God exists and I'm right, or your God exists and you're right" - pretty much what you said.

That question is only answered by the existance/non existance of respective deities.

How is it wrong when Muslim fundamentalists stone people? My God judges their actions wrong and immoral. Its not your belief in God/moral system that makes it right, its the existance/correctness that makes it so.

EDIT

Asal, I do believe might makes right. More specifically, I believe the most powerful being in existance gets to make the rules, provided he backs them up.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Mar 19 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 17 2004, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Unless I have 100% confidence in something, I cant justify putting it on another person. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It is provably impossible to logically have 100% confidence in any general fact about the world. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction' target='_blank'>problem of induction</a>

We seemed to have regressed a bit from page 7 when I left for spring break.

In your example, what difference does it make whether you are punishing the man based on a religious moral code or a secular moral code? In either case, your judgement is morally crippled if your premises are wrong.

The discussion of consequences seems a bit off topic to me, seeing that I still contend that law has little to do with morality except that it coincidentally overlaps on a lot of basic issues.

P.S.: i'm BAAAAaaaaaack <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Welcome back <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />, plz answer my concerns back on yea olde page 7, we seemed to be getting somewhere!

In my example, it makes zip difference. I agree completely, it depends on the correctness of the premise.

As I said on page seven, I consider law and morality linked. Laws are a collection of the rights society as a whole decides it has. Where does it derive these "rights" from? Its morals.

Nemesis_Zero · March 2004

You know, we might not reach any conclusions, but this thread is starting to be ressurrected so often that Jesus would blush...

Anyway, once more, I share my opinion with moultano. Let me adress the points raised at the bottom of page 8, but before I begin, please keep in mind that the initial question of the topic was whether secular and religious morals could be equally valid. Consider the wording.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My impression of the system is that it runs along two lines. One is the "If everyone in society did this, would it enhance or degrade our society." The other is "If the positions were reversed, would I enjoy taking what I am currently dishing out". You have to fulfill both criteria for it to pass into "acceptable moral law". Thats the assumption I'm starting out from, so what follows may be garbage if the above is.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Sorry to cut you short here, but you are already making two assumptions I can offer examples against.

The first is that the needs of society are to be considered before the needs of individuals. Our western legislative tradition, a highly secular morallic system in itself, implies the exact opposite. The German constitution, for example, defines an individuals freedoms as sacrosanct unless they limit another individuals freedoms.
In our terms, this means that the individual has to be considered first, and only if s/he is not being limited by a law (or more abstract: a morallic principle), one will begin considering the implications on society.

The second is that an individuals integrity (for lack of a better word) is based around its 'enjoyment' of a given situation, when in fact, I'd argue that the question whether this situation is <i>acceptable</i> - a by far more ambivalent term - is more appropriate.
Again, the example of the western legislative tradition, specifically, the Grundgesetz: Its first article claims that a persons dignity must not be touched. One won't be hard pressed to find scenarios in which a persons dignity goes untouched while they aren't all that enjoyable, as well as highly comfortable scenarios devoid of any dignity.

So, yes, your subsequent example crumbles in the foundation, but furthermore, you fail to present what I requested:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But this man feels he did the right thing, and regardless you throw him in jail.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<i>Why</i> does he feel that it's right? Why can't you give me a course of reasoning that proves forgery to be right, if only in one scenario, in which society won't go unharmed by the forgery?

In any case, on to your next points, and here, it'll become apparent why moultano and I are in agreement:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe logic is the best that is currently available to me. We can use logic as a basis to communicate, understand and criticise each others points. But logic that seems solid to me may be flawed, its just no-one has pointed it out to me yet. I cant throw my 100% support behind something like logic if its not guaranteed correct. So while I use it, I hold no belief that logic holds all the answers.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And who gets to decide what is logically correct? And what happens if in the future this more refined logic shows up? "Well damn, turns out we we're wrong, sorry about the whole chopping your head off for crime x" A moral system that comes back in 20 years and says sorry is a bad moral system. Flexible yes, feasible no, at least in my mind.

Unless I have 100% confidence in something, I cant justify putting it on another person.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If you truly believe in this, you can't ever follow any moral code, neither secular or religious.
No matter what origin we may assume our morals to have, in the end, they are applied by humans on humans. Nobody we'd consider an acceptable morallic authority will claim that god directs his or her every step (cue topic of freedom of choice). If this is not the case, a person basing his/her moral code on religion will have to base this code on a number of more or less clear cut abstract guidelines supposedly passed down by god, which have then to be applied to our world employing - you guessed it - good old fashioned fallible human logic. The history is full of examples of wrong interpretations of religious directives, and don't kid yourself into believing that our todays religious / agnostic morals will seem any different in retrospect.
Thus, if you truly decide to be so apodictic as to reject any but a perfect morallic system, you won't be able to accept any, thus rendering secular and religious morals equal in their invalidity again - Q.E.D. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

You touched by the way the origin of my mild moral relativism in the second quote. I acknowledge that there is a number of morallic systems on this planet that are so refined that each can govern everyday life sufficiently well; thus, I choose to respect them despite me being of differing opinion on a number of detail questions.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You know, we might not reach any conclusions, but this thread is starting to be ressurrected so often that Jesus would blush...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I know - sorry but seeing as I'm without net at home now and get to check uni net like once or twice a week......

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Anyway, once more, I share my opinion with moultano. Let me adress the points raised at the bottom of page 8, but before I begin, please keep in mind that the initial question of the topic was whether secular and religious morals could be equally valid. Consider the wording.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

We seemed to be making headway in this regard. Moultano made the claim that they could be equally as valid - given that the premise was correct and true. I agree with this, so maybe its resolved after all.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry to cut you short here, but you are already making two assumptions I can offer examples against.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As I suspected, twas a little more complicated then my assumptions....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The first is that the needs of society are to be considered before the needs of individuals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm sure that this is going to lead to the railroading of certain individual rights somewhere along the line.... I just cant think where precisely. I'll have a think about it and get back to you. I also dont understand (even with your following support) the idea that the needs of society be "considered first". Does that mean that if it supports society but not the individual, then the individual loses out? Be prepared to whip out the laymens terminology.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The second is that an individuals integrity (for lack of a better word) is based around its 'enjoyment' of a given situation, when in fact, I'd argue that the question whether this situation is <i>acceptable</i> - a by far more ambivalent term - is more appropriate.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again I'm a little bemused. Do you mean to say that it shouldnt be how the person feels/experiences the current situation, but around what is "acceptable"?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><i>Why</i> does he feel that it's right? Why can't you give me a course of reasoning that proves forgery to be right, if only in one scenario, in which society won't go unharmed by the forgery?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What I'm trying to say is it is entirely irrelevant WHY he feels like that. Its irrelevant how he arrived at that conclusion. Humans are not entirely rational beings. If he explains his methodology to you, and you reject it based on your reasoning, it doesnt change how he views it. He could arrive at that stage by simply believing the divine asked him to commit his crime. But despite his 100% conviction that he did the right thing, you punish him. Would you like to be punished for doing that which you believed was right, and had evaluated in your own mind to be %100 right? Thats a tenant of your system - at least I thought it was, but given what you typed in your last post I'm not sure I understand your system at all.

Do you think you could type it out in a series of steps, or a process used to arrive at the final answer? Maybe that would help me.

You make it sound as though challenging his reasoning behind his action will somehow give you the right to condemn it. Reasoning is not like maths. You cant sit down, point out the flaws in someone elses working and be 100% confident you're correct.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you truly believe in this, you can't ever follow any moral code, neither secular or religious.
No matter what origin we may assume our morals to have, in the end, they are applied by humans on humans. Nobody we'd consider an acceptable morallic authority will claim that god directs his or her every step (cue topic of freedom of choice). If this is not the case, a person basing his/her moral code on religion will have to base this code on a number of more or less clear cut abstract guidelines supposedly passed down by god, which have then to be applied to our world employing - you guessed it - good old fashioned fallible human logic. The history is full of examples of wrong interpretations of religious directives, and don't kid yourself into believing that our todays religious / agnostic morals will seem any different in retrospect.
Thus, if you truly decide to be so apodictic as to reject any but a perfect morallic system, you won't be able to accept any, thus rendering secular and religious morals equal in their invalidity again - Q.E.D.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Logic is a pointer. I loved that line "clear cut abstract guidelines" <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />. I dont agree that if I reject all but a perfect morallic system that I cant accept any. <b>The application of the moral system may be flawed, but that doesnt detract from the correctness of the moral system.</b> I find very few "wrong" interpretations of religious morals - more complete rejection of certain bits because they detract from another aspect that they are attempting to emphasise. Ignorance often is a key player, as is deception, at least that is my view assuming we are talking Biblical directives only.

Summing up of this post: I dont understand, please explain......

Nemesis_Zero · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I know - sorry but seeing as I'm without net at home now and get to check uni net like once or twice a week......</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh, the blame goes both ways. This little side-project called 'NS Communitiy Management' kinda keeps me away from here, I fear <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm sure that this is going to lead to the railroading of certain individual rights somewhere along the line.... I just cant think where precisely. I'll have a think about it and get back to you. I also dont understand (even with your following support) the idea that the needs of society be "considered first". Does that mean that if it supports society but not the individual, then the individual loses out? Be prepared to whip out the laymens terminology.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I fear you read this out of context - I was stating that <i>you</i> made the wrong assumption that society is usually considered first in secular morals. As counter-example, I cited a moral code that does in fact not even cite the society as authority at all: In the terms of western legislation, every individual is free for as long as its freedoms don't curtail other individuals.
This doubtlessly secular moral does thus place the by far higher value on the individual - 'society' is just what's formed out of the interaction between such individuals.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again I'm a little bemused. Do you mean to say that it shouldnt be how the person feels/experiences the current situation, but around what is "acceptable"?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, although I fear my vocabulary isn't up to the task of pinpointing the difference. Let me give you an example:
If I follow a moral code closely related to the basis of western legislation, which I outlined above, and I accidentaly bump into somebody elses car, I will pay him for the repairs. I won't enjoy that, but I'll do it because my actions - voluntary or not - curtailed him.
The morally correct action isn't enjoyable, but acceptable for both sides.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What I'm trying to say is it is entirely irrelevant WHY he feels like that. Its irrelevant how he arrived at that conclusion. Humans are not entirely rational beings. If he explains his methodology to you, and you reject it based on your reasoning, it doesnt change how he views it. He could arrive at that stage by simply believing the divine asked him to commit his crime. But despite his 100% conviction that he did the right thing, you punish him. Would you like to be punished for doing that which you believed was right, and had evaluated in your own mind to be %100 right? Thats a tenant of your system - at least I thought it was, but given what you typed in your last post I'm not sure I understand your system at all.

Do you think you could type it out in a series of steps, or a process used to arrive at the final answer? Maybe that would help me.

You make it sound as though challenging his reasoning behind his action will somehow give you the right to condemn it. Reasoning is not like maths. You cant sit down, point out the flaws in someone elses working and be 100% confident you're correct.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, I can't really give you a 'step by step to secular morals', because I'm dealing with a wide vareity of often contradicting different morallic systems, a problem your side of the table has so far dodged by concentrating not on 'religious', but 'christian' morals. I'll thus have to stay abstract to a certain degree; please bear with me:

The scenarios you presented look like this:<ul><li>An individual does something that's clearly 'wrong' in so far that it is harmful to another individual, this individual being an abstract 'me'.
</li><li>The 'offender' is absolutely convinced of the validity of his/her actions.
</li><li>Your conclusion is that I have no right of imposing my moral code upon the offender as there is no way of discerning which is truly less valid without of the existence of an absolute morallic authority of some kind.
</li></ul>Leaving Kant and other secular morallists assuming an absolute moral out of the picture, it appears impossible for me, the victim, to prove any fault to the offender. At this point, I'll have to break with my neutral, abstract reasoning trying to represent the whole of secular morallism, as it's broken by the very assumption behind your scenario. Allow me to 'descend' to the presentation of my personal answer.

My claim is this: Any moral has a natural end: The humans it is applied to, or, in other words, the society the morallist lives in.
Again, this does not mean that I assume the societies wellbeing to be the primary purpose of a valid moral code, I merely state that society is the natural frame of morallic reasoning; morals are in place to define our interaction, after all.
If we assume this true, then your scenario doesn't take place in an 'empty space' anymore; suddenly, both the offenders and my assumptions, no matter how well funded or arbitrary they may be, have to be tested against a very real background.
This is, for example, what a jury's for: It's there to emulate a part of society and to decide which sides reasoning this society can accept.
I'll admit that this is no flawless basis for a moral code since it assumes humanity to be its very scale, but seeing that humanity is, as I pointed out in my previous post, in any case the means of any moral code, it is sufficient.

In terms of your forgery example, which is as flawed as that of the 'ethical thief' because it assumes the offender to conciously do something clearly 'wrong' for undisclosed reasons, there could be multiple outcomes:
Maybe his reasoning for this one isolated action convinces me on the spot - and such things have happened, there is for example a case of an Eastern German trying to hijack a plane to escape into the West to his family and who was helped by the staff of the plane even when they had discovered he wasn't armed - maybe I don't, but then, maybe the whole thing will be taken up in court and it's revealed that <i>I</i> faulted him before, which could relativate his actions; depending on the reasoning behind his offense, any number of outcomes is possible.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Logic is a pointer. I loved that line "clear cut abstract guidelines" . I dont agree that if I reject all but a perfect morallic system that I cant accept any. The application of the moral system may be flawed, but that doesnt detract from the correctness of the moral system.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Now you're splitting hairs. In practical application, such as the example you introduced, there's no difference between a faulty or not complete interpretation of a flawless moral code and the application of an inherently flawed moral code.
How can you impose your morals on the offender unless you can be 100% sure that you got Gods law right to the last detail, which would be as arrogant an assumption as the believe of the perfect validity of ones personal secular morals?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I find very few "wrong" interpretations of religious morals - more complete rejection of certain bits because they detract from another aspect that they are attempting to emphasise. Ignorance often is a key player, as is deception, at least that is my view assuming we are talking Biblical directives only.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, one could take the command to 'Be fruitful and multiply' as a prime example: Depending on the contemporary interpretation you follow, it either condemns safer sex <i>and</i> abortions, safer sex <i>or</i> abortions, or none of them. Whether such misinterpretations come to pass out of elusions or plain misinterpretation appears to be an academic question to me.

Moral Relativism

Comments