Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
The problem, PI, is that you mistakenly assume that because people don't think God is the ultimate source of morals, that they must therefore think that either a) morals don't exist or b) morals are whatever the majority says they are.
But there's a third possibility: that we think morals can be reasoned out, without reference to either majority opinion or supernatural beings. And that those reason-based morals can, in fact, be considered absolute and immutable, precisely because they rest on a foundation of reason, not on arbitrary rule makers.
|
Ahh the vaunted "Third Way." Now where have we heard THAT before Ray? Nice straw man Ray… But here’s the thing; I’ve never advanced any such reasoning. If you’ve some evidence which you feel is illustrative of my having done so, I’d be happy to discuss it, but for the moment let’s let it rest that my belief is that God has already established what it moral and anything else is just a rationalization to accommodate some specific ‘heretofore determined to be unacceptable’ behavior.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ray
Me, I think that society is the start-point for morals: the morals that have developed over time are those that tend to support social harmony. Murder is considered wrong in nearly every society because it is disruptive to the social fabric, not because some supreme being stated the obvious.
|
Hmm... Gee Ray, I was under the impression that the taking of human life without valid moral justification was wrong because it takes life without a valid moral justification... which in and of itself would necessarily be disruptive of to the social fabric; this assumes the fabric of your given society is woven from the thread of inalienable human rights, where the exercise and maintenance of those rights provides for inherent social justice…
Oddly enough Ray that's Christian reasoning... Does it make you feel better falsely believing that you came up with it and that you’ve thought it through to a conclusion which provides for a more judicious, balanced end? ‘Cause Ray, we’ve discussed this at length and you’ve HUGE gaps in your reasoning.
Quote:
But society is only the start point. Society can often be wrong about what is good for it, and quite often what it considers good for itself is not so good for the individual. So we take that starting point and extend it through reason.
That reason is informed by values, of course. If you place a premium on individual freedom, you will arrive at a different set of morals than someone who values social stability at all costs.
|
But that distinction Ray, is founded in the certainty that the advocate of social stability through whatever means necessary is a person who is incapable of reason... Leftists do not possess the means to reason Ray; this is why the history of every single leftist policy ends with the noting of the
UNITENDED CONSEQUENCES... Unless the history is written by a person of reason who notes the policy ended in PREDICTABLE CATASTROPHE< CALAMITY OR some specific foreseeable CHAOS.
Quote:
But if one can agree on the underlying values, then one can reason out a set of morals that supports those values.
As a practical matter, few societies are ever unanimous on the underlying values. So the best, most durable moral systems are one that impose only the minimal restrictions necessary -- IOW, granting as much individual freedom as possible (while still protecting bedrock values) means the system will be supported by as wide a swath of the populace as possible.
One does not need either God or society to reach those conclusions. One needs only logic.
|
Well Ray, whether you feel you need God is not at issue here. What IS at issue here is that God has already provided the bedrock moral principles and you simply refuse to accept it; choosing instead to reinvent the moral wheel through any number of spurious rationalizations which can ONLY LEAD TO DISASTER and my pointing out that immutable fact ... (which to be perfectly honest is my favorite part...
)