Who here believes in an objective and/or metaphysical morality?

Do you apply this across the board on all such actions by soldiers and police officers?

 

No. Because it is wrong to use another's body against their will for your own sexual gratification. I'm sure you are very bright guy, but this stuff doesn't take Einstein to figure out.

 

Of course.

Impossible.

Do you believe knowledge of moral right and wrong is imparted by rules and regs, yes or no?

Actually, Christ lived by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", but He sure as Hell didn't get His morality from rules & regs.

The admonition was against murder, not killing.

There is no evidence Moses murdered anyone in those passages.

No, I haven't; and I suspect your definition of the word is about as applicable to morality as it is to wave-particle duality.

 

Why is it wrong?

 

Irrelevant. The point is that people universally accept that murder is not permitted, wanton murder disrupts society to the point it is nonfunctional.

 

If you can't figure that out, you have some serious problems that I doubt I can help you with. Further, your question is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), you know full well that it is wrong.

 

If it's so easy to figure out, why don't you just lay out the argument? It should take a few seconds right?

I'm sure you have no such argument. "It's wrong" because of your feels, and nothing more.

Your logic is on par with flat-earthers, literally.

 

Because it's against their will.

 

IMO you are letting yourself off way too easily in this conversation. You have made a stance and criticized me for not agreeing with you...so clearly explain your stance.

I'll tell you what mine is--it is based on pragmatic reality. Until a person is self aware enough to be able to discern right from wrong, it is preferable that they follow a previously developed and widely accepted set of rules, the Ten Commandments being a particularly succinct and workable one in our culture.

 

So? We imprison murderers against their will, but we don't call that wrong. And even if we did, it's just begging the question still...

 

Why should a person care about that?

 

In a morality system that values autonomy, it would be a necessary corollary.

- - - Updated - - -

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

You're right. But that doesn't justify it being wrong in some objective, absolute, meta-physical sense.

 

If you check, I believe you will find that the basic building blocks of existence are autonomous. Where autonomy is destroyed, destruction occurs.

The Hindus assigned gods to each process--Creation, Preservation, and Destruction. We are in Preservation mode right now. In either of the other two modes, your argument might be more applicable.

 

I don't think that's something which can be checked. It's more akin to a worldview.

But I haven't really made an argument, I'm asking for one. To condemn such acts as wrong in a subjective sense isn't so hard to understand. To condemn them as being wrong, absolutely, as somehow violating some principle of existence, is something I haven't seen anyone here do yet.

 

IMO what you want can't be done. It depends on how the Universe is operating at the time--and, even considering that, some believe that other universes may possibly exist that follow completely different rules.

The Ten Commandments claimed to be handed to Moses are probably the most efficient distillation of morality you will find that is suited to our culture.

Morality is a social construct. It is a consensual reality.

 

Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.

 

Not in my Universe.

 

Glad to see someone able to admit that.

 

We disagree that temptations can only be enticements for ill. They generally are, but not always.

I believe ethics, which I would hope encompasses this 'knowledge of moral right and wrong' you spoke of, are in fact imparted through rules and regulations, as well as sympathy and empathy and experience.

Christ supposedly hearing voices, does not leave an impression on me. Not a favorable one if I have to consider it.

The difference between murder and killing, especially when ordered by a God, or ordered by a general saying they were acting on that god's authority, is a debate unto itself.

 

Taking that more literally than you presumably meant it, I'd say anyone who tries to "figure out" what should be intuitively obvious has serious problems.

No, I haven't.

No sense wasting effort on explanations when receptivity is nil.

This is not what you've been contending for with me; and neither, since it's about an "ought" rather than what morality is, does it interest me just now.

Yes, they are. Always. You think otherwise because you don't understand what temptation is, which in turn is most likely because you've been suckered into believing the spiritual realm has no independent reality.

So how do you know they're correct?

That's because you vainly imagine there is no qualitative differences between the "voices" He heard and the voices you've heard in your own head.

Not really; but even if it were debatable, your poisoning of the well suggests you're not up to it.

 

In this post you have reconfirmed every impression I have had about you. I will not waste further time in discussion with you (as opposed to flat out contradicting you), as you fail to explicate your positions but instead focus on undoubtedly unwarranted questioning and criticism of others. If you indeed had something worth saying you would have said it after repeated requests (at least three) to do so.

Relying on sheer "intuition" is a risky business, subjective reality being what it is, and should be backed up by a reliable system of morals developed as a part of our consensual reality. Not having one is what, for example, allows males to impregnate and then abandon the mothers of their children.

It has been my observation that those most eager to tear down the attempts toward morality by others are those who have indeed violated consensual morality themselves, but rationalize this by claiming they are above it.

 

I understand temptation perfectly. It's being led toward something which you either know is wrong or not good for you OR being led toward something you didn't previously know you wanted by appealing to your senses. Since I have it so wrong though, please, enlighten me as to what you insist it is.

As for my being 'suckered into believing the spiritual realm' is or does anything, perhaps, so long as you acknowledge that believing in a spiritual realm at all might mean you were the one suckered into something.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

How do I know my ethics are 'correct'? Odd way to word your question. I don't do harm to others. My actions are socially acceptable. I'm not in jail or prison. No-one has a reason to desire revenge or payback for things I might have done to them.

What more would I need?

Some authority figure's approval? I thought you didn't adhere to a set of rules and regs for your morals. I did get that right, yes?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

Oh no, I recognize the differences. First, that Jesus story was almost 100% certainly a piece of fiction. Second, when/if I hear 'voices', I don't pretend they're god.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk