-->
@PGA2.0
My moral good is whatever makes people happy while not harming others.
What is your morality?
Is morality objective or subjective?
Posts
Total:
753
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My moral good is whatever makes people happy while not harming others.
First, there is a difference between moral good and preference and you confuse the difference. Preference is what you like. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too? Does that mean if you do not like ice-cream you should be put in jail or executed?
Moral preference or subjective relativism describes what is good and what is done as opposed to what should not be done. It is a description and personal like.
Morality, on the other hand, is a prescription and what everyone should do.
Three bachelors have a different idea of what makes them happy. They stay home every night making themselves happy not knowingly hurting anyone.
Joe is happy to drink every night into oblivion. He is addicted to alcohol.
It makes Fred happy to inject heron. He is addicted to drugs.
John is happy to watch porn. He is addicted to porn.
All three of these "goods" harm the person and may indirectly harm others too. Yet, if they did not, would you say these are "good" since the person doing them thinks they are good.
What is your morality?
Jesus summed my morality up in two commandments, love God and love others. Those two commandments sum up the Tem Commandments.
If you love someone you will not murder them, steal from them, covet something they have, lie to them, commit adultery on them, dishonour them.
Not only this, He said to love others as you love yourself, even to put others above yourself and serve them.
Now, the problem I see with your system of morality is why should I follow it? It may be "good" for you but what if I think differently? Why do I have to think the same way you do? What if someone else thinks their pleasure is the greatest good and they don't think that hurting people is off-limits as long as they achieve their goals.
Not only this but our opposing ideas of good may conflict. Logically that means at least one of us is wrong about our idea of good if good actually has an identity (I.e., A = A; Good = Good rather than Good =/= Good)
But how do you get to the identity of "Good" if morality is subjective? Good must have an objective, absolute, unchanging measure for a thing or else it is all relative. If that is the way you feel (relative) then how can you criticize someone who believes the opposite that you do? All you can do is say, "Each to his/her own."
All you can do is push your kumbaya on others and hope they agree. But what makes that good unless there is an unchanging value for good?
Now to the measurement or reference point for good. Unless there is a best how do you determine when you have arrived at better? Again, it is all subjective. What makes your subjective opinion the measure or fixed reference point? If there is no best good is always changing. How can that be? It loses its identity.
So, without an actual good, you live inconsistently with your belief because you do actually think (or at least I think you do) some things are wrong yet in your worldview everyone has their own idea. When someone steals your place in line you actually think that is bad. When someone steals your wallet, you are morally outraged. But why should that be so to them in a relative world of values? You think that eating people is wrong, yet a tribe in Papua New Guinea may think otherwise. You are on the menu. Now you definitely think this is wrong. There is no relativism about it. So, there a some things that have a definite wrongness to them, are there not?
-->
@PGA2.0
Question: What is your stance on abortion?
-->
@PressF4Respect
Pro-life.Question: What is your stance on abortion?
The unborn is a human being and when you start treating one human being as not as valuable as another you open the door to injustice. Either all human beings have equal rights or any kook like Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or Xi, or Kim Jong-un, or apartheid, or the caste system, or slavery in the South, or Rwandan genocide, can devalue and destroy human life and not be accountable since human life is not consistently seen as equal. These murderers and dictators, or oligarchs, or corrupt governments, do not believe life is equally valuable (except when it is their own). Thus, you have the biggest genocide in human history to date. Over 1.5 billion human beings slaughtered since 1980 and even more since Roe v. Wade.
-->
@PGA2.0
I take it then that you hold this issue as a moral one. Your moral stance is that killing unborn fetuses is immoral, and that abortion shouldn't happen at all. Correct?
There has to be some method of population control.Over 1.5 billion human beings slaughtered.
Seriously.
Medical advancements over the past 100 years or so, have severely restricted the process of what was formerly regarded as natural wastage.
Though I would suggest that we should also regard the 1.5 billion listed above as natural wastage. After all what isn't natural?
Shit happens.
We are just lucky to have survived thus far.
-->
@PressF4Respect
I take it then that you hold this issue as a moral one. Your moral stance is that killing unborn fetuses is immoral, and that abortion shouldn't happen at all. Correct?
Most definitely. If all human beings do not have intrinsic value (equal worth) anything can be justified.
Abortion should only happen, IMO, when the woman's life is threatened and without aborting the unborn it will kill her, and it too because of its early stage of development. So would argue that there are other times such as when the unborn will not survive because of a medical defect. Those two issues are only a small, minute number of all the abortions that take place throughout the world every day as some data reveals.
-->
@PGA2.0
First, there is a difference between moral good and preference and you confuse the difference.
I don't see a difference.
I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?
If you like it as well sure.
Does that mean if you do not like ice-cream you should be put in jail or executed?
If you harming people's ability to eat ice cream then sure. I think would be harassment or violence depending on what occurs.
Morality, on the other hand, is a prescription and what everyone should do.
They should do whatever makes them happy while not harming others.
All three of these "goods" harm the person and may indirectly harm others too. Yet, if they did not, would you say these are "good" since the person doing them thinks they are good.
Yes if they are not harming others. If I do accept the drugs to be against my morality then I open up way more than I lose.
If you love someone you will not murder them, steal from them, covet something they have, lie to them, commit adultery on them, dishonour them.
How do you have the ability of love?
Why do I have to think the same way you do?
My system is not me saying you should be playing video games. It is do whatever it is that makes you happy without harming others.
What if someone else thinks their pleasure is the greatest good and they don't think that hurting people is off-limits as long as they achieve their goals.
It would be a different system. A person is doing what makes them happy while harming others. I don't know what you are getting at here. Are you saying morality is some kind of Juggernaut able to apply force to people who disagree with it? I thought morality was a set of ideas that cover what is good or bad for people to do.
But how do you get to the identity of "Good" if morality is subjective?
Just make with what you like. I like video games so I think it is good for me to carry on playing them.
If that is the way you feel (relative) then how can you criticize someone who believes the opposite that you do?
I can criticize. I will just say your moral system isn't mine. If you harm others you will be jailed.
How are your morals objective? It kind of implies here you think yours is and I want to know how you got to that conclusion.
But what makes that good unless there is an unchanging value for good?
Doing what makes you happy is pretty unchanging and I doubt too many people have objections to it.
-->
@PGA2.0
But can you put your hand on your heart and swear that you stick rigidly to that moral principle at all times?All human beings.....equal worth.
-->
@zedvictor4
What is your objection to this:
If all human beings do not have intrinsic value (equal worth) anything can be justified.
justified part mainly.
-->
@PGA2.0
Either all human beings have equal rights or any kook like Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or Xi, or Kim Jong-un, or apartheid, or the caste system, or slavery in the South, or Rwandan genocide, can devalue and destroy human life and not be accountable since human life is not consistently seen as equal.
Are you opposed to any human killing another human??
-->
@ebuc
Please keep your Biblical nonsense in the Biblical religious forum as that is the only place it belongs.Biblical non-sense is not philosophical. It is religious, mythological non-sense, with a few good morals thrown in as well as some historical info that is sometimes corroborated with other such recordings.
Religion and Politics are both FUNDAMENTALLY PHILOSOPHICAL.
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) your primary moral AXIOMS are "love god and love others" (THEN) how do you apply these to practical-real-world laws?Jesus summed my morality up in two commandments, love God and love others. Those two commandments sum up the Tem Commandments.
How does "love god and love others" inform copyright law and or property disputes?
Do you have any other "immutable-objective-moral" AXIOMS that might help us better understand your idea of perfect "immutable-objective-moral" laws?
-->
@PGA2.0
God is concerned with His people and with their relationship to Him. He does not want foreign peoples to influence the way Israel worshiped or the way God was instructing them to live.
Do you believe this still applies today? Should god's followers drive out and or slaughter non-believers?
-->
@PGA2.0
Isreal was going into the Promised Land, before the exile, before the Romans. God had already brought judgment on Egypt for their harsh treatment of Israel.
Yeah, but the point here is that god didn't kill every single Roman and or Egyptian. Why not? If evil must be destroyed, like Sodom & Gomorrah, then why did your god allow any Romans and Egyptians to live?
Why would it be "good" to slaughter Jericho, but not Rome?
-->
@PGA2.0
And everything was just peachy for them before AD 70??OT Israel was dispersed during the victory and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in AD 70. After that Israel could no longer live up to the covenant in the prescribed way they had agreed to. The curses of Deuteronomy 28 was poured out on them for their disobedience.
-->
@PGA2.0
Not to go searching for crimes but to investigate them.
Do you even know how criminal investigations work?
If you are accused of a serious crime - you are dragged off to jail - before you are convicted.
Then a judge tells you if they will allow you to post bail, so you can await trial in relative freedom.
Then there is a trial.
You are presumed guilty when you are accused. Otherwise, why would you be thrown in jail and forced to post bail?
Investigating crimes = searching for crimes.
Even then shifty Shiff is not allowing a due process or any fairness.
The US Constitution grants the House of Representatives BROAD DISCRETION ON IMPEACHMENT.
Comparing this to a standard criminal investigation is ridiculous.
The law states innocent until proven guilty.
What law is that? And why are people forced to spend time in jail BEFORE they are convicted?
The Dems have already convicted Him of guilt without showing any crimes but they continue to look.
Trump has already ADMITTED to soliciting foreign interference in an American Election. THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME.
AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE A CRIME WITHOUT PROOF, WHAT CRIME IS HUNTER BIDEN ACCUSED OF??
-->
@PGA2.0
We have a standard to measure injustice against.
What is the standard?
"Love god and love others" is a purely subjective standard that doesn't appear to inform your view of policy.
-->
@zedvictor4
All human beings.....equal worth.But can you put your hand on your heart and swear that you stick rigidly to that moral principle at all times?
I see you no different than anyone else. I realize all human beings are given life by God and made in His image and likeness (although marred by the Fall), and deserve dignity and respect. Does that mean I do that at all times, or not get angry with myself/others, or am not selfish at times, or treat others always as I would like to be treated? No. I'm flawed, just like you.
-->
@3RU7AL
Either all human beings have equal rights or any kook like Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or Xi, or Kim Jong-un, or apartheid, or the caste system, or slavery in the South, or Rwandan genocide, can devalue and destroy human life and not be accountable since human life is not consistently seen as equal.Are you opposed to any human killing another human??
No, not in self-defence, or law enforcement trying to stop a killer, or defend another innocent person against someone about to kill them, or in times of just war.
-->
@PGA2.0
All human beings.....equal worth.But can you put your hand on your heart and swear that you stick rigidly to that moral principle at all times?I see you no different than anyone else. I realize all human beings are given life by God and made in His image and likeness (although marred by the Fall), and deserve dignity and respect. Does that mean I do that at all times, or not get angry with myself/others, or am not selfish at times, or treat others always as I would like to be treated? No. I'm flawed, just like you.
Does this mean you believe immigrants and asylum seekers should be protected from injustice and or violence in the same way that you (and or your close friends and family members) would want to be protected injustice and or violence?
-->
@PGA2.0
No, not in self-defence, or law enforcement trying to stop a killer, or defend another innocent person against someone about to kill them, or in times of just war.
What about the death-penalty?
I'm just asking because it doesn't seem to qualify for any of your currently listed exceptions.
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you say that you are taking the moral high ground on the issue of abortion? Would you say that pro-choicers are immoral?
Follow-up question: Would you say that you would always take the moral high ground on every other moral issue? Why or why not?
-->
@PressF4Respect
Would you say that you would always take the moral high ground on every other moral issue? Why or why not?
Yes.
My old book says illegal immigrants should be separated from their children and deported.
My old book says women should be subservient to their husbands and adulterers should be stoned to death in the street.
-->
@PGA2.0
Although you (we) have a will, a volition, I believe it is only free in that you (we) exercise it, you (we) choose.
So, are you suggesting that humans can violate god's perfect plan that was formulated before the Earth was even made?
I believe that all kinds of things influence our will and cause us to think or act in a particular way. We act in accordance with what we want and desire to a large extent.
Did our creator build us with particular desires? Aren't desires de facto PRIMARY AXIOMS, from which all of our behavior streams forth, according to and in accordance with pure logic?
In other words, if we don't choose our desires, and our desires dictate our actions, then whomever or whatever implanted our desires, also programmed our actions.
-->
@3RU7AL
Jesus summed my morality up in two commandments, love God and love others. Those two commandments sum up the Tem Commandments.(IFF) your primary moral AXIOMS are "love god and love others" (THEN) how do you apply these to practical-real-world laws?
By following as best I can 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, or Romans 13:8-10, or Matthew 6:14, and knowing there is One who has followed the way of God perfectly on my behalf.
How does "love god and love others" inform copyright law and or property disputes?
Do not take property that does not belong to you. If a person wants to sell and you have the means, then buy.
Do you have any other "immutable-objective-moral" AXIOMS that might help us better understand your idea of perfect "immutable-objective-moral" laws?
I have principles that I try to follow but I get in the way at times. One such principle is, do not repay evil with evil but repay evil with good. Hopefully, we have governing bodies to keep our societies just and fair. If they do not act justly then pray to God and/or oppose those who go against the will of God by them calling evil good, or pointing out the injustices. The light shines in the darkness so others can see the injustice. Season your words with salt. Sometimes I apply Proverbs 25:4-5.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Would you say that you are taking the moral high ground on the issue of abortion? Would you say that pro-choicers are immoral?
Defending the defenceless is definitely moral high ground.
Pro-choices are acting immorally, yes.
Follow-up question: Would you say that you would always take the moral high ground on every other moral issue? Why or why not?
No, I don't always take the moral high ground. Why not? I am flawed, just like you.
-->
@PGA2.0
No, I don't always take the moral high ground. Why not? I am flawed, just like you.
If you don’t take the moral high ground for moral issues, then what else is guiding your decisions?
-->
@PGA2.0
I will get back to the issue of abortion in a second.
-->
@3RU7AL
God is concerned with His people and with their relationship to Him. He does not want foreign peoples to influence the way Israel worshiped or the way God was instructing them to live.Do you believe this still applies today?
We live under a new covenant, not like the old. It is a covenant of God's grace administered in Jesus Christ. We are spiritual Israel, not OT physical Israel. Thus we fight a spiritual battle.
Should god's followers drive out and or slaughter non-believers?
Christians fight a different battle. We fight against ideas and pretenses that set themselves up against the kingdom of God, not flesh and blood people (just what governs them).