›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

"Without Religion, There Is No Morality"

2»

Comments

  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Bobby: See Zurvanism. If you apply ethical dualism, a Supreme Good and Supreme Evil, to idealism (where such must be beings), they must be derived from the Ground of Being (God), who combines and transcends both at their highest possible degree.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    Rottweiler

    So it cannot give command that would be wrong. Which means that any god's command is right and if it does not seem that way for us,it is because of our own lack of understanding.

    (sigh) I'm afraid it answers my question
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    So it cannot give command that would be wrong.

    Exactly. God is not necessarily omnipotent in the sense of power to change his nature - deciding "Today, pedophilia is ethical" just isn't going to happen. Christianity teaches that God's will can be known by studying the natural law. The idea that morals are totally dependent on listening to the revelation the right person hears just isn't so, traditionally.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    That does not change anything in the question. If such command was given, can it be safely assumed that god had really good reasons for it and so it should be carried out?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    The person hearing the command would first need to prove it was God.
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    "Christianity teaches that God's will can be known by studying the natural law."

    Animals kill and eat their blood relatives, so can you elaborate on how this statement is the case?
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    Christianity teaches a lot of things. Surprisingly few of them are true. 
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    edited 2011-05-13 14:29:50
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    'this is how the universe works' sense.

    And who defines that?

    ^Unnecessary post is unnecessary.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    edited 2011-05-13 14:33:38
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Anonym: "Natural" doesn't mean "live like an animal." Each species has its own nature. Our nature includes the power to reason. Natural law refers to the use of reason to deduce universal moral laws from empirical evidence of what works for human nature always and everywhere.

    Of course natural law isn't necessarily nice, so I'm more sympathetic to Maistre's claim that this is a tragic law in need of the Christian revelation that God is love and Death is the last enemy.
  • KhwarizmiKhwarizmi
    Because you never know what you might see.
    >If you apply ethical dualism, a Supreme Good and Supreme Evil, to idealism (where such must be beings), they must be derived from the Ground of Being (God), who combines and transcends both at their highest possible degree.

    Interesting... if I'm following correctly, that line of reasoning is contingent upon God being the Absolute from whence all else is derived, correct?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    ^ You are correct.
  • GLORIOUSLeaderGLORIOUSLeader
    When in Turkey, ROCK THE FUCK OUT
    Then wouldn't that render God as neither good nor evil? 
  • KhwarizmiKhwarizmi
    Because you never know what you might see.
    No, it would render him the epitome of both, but that's only if you assume ethical dualism.
  • GLORIOUSLeaderGLORIOUSLeader
    When in Turkey, ROCK THE FUCK OUT
    I suppose that, then, the best option would be to both believe in God and do right, because then you would be able to yield to His good side.

    Calvin ain't got nuthin' on Rottweiler. 
  • KhwarizmiKhwarizmi
    Because you never know what you might see.
    Under those circumstances, yes, but unless I've misunderstood Rottweiler's argument, that was the reason why one can't assume ethical dualism, meaning that God is not the epitome of evil, and that evil is merely the absence of good.
  • GLORIOUSLeaderGLORIOUSLeader
    When in Turkey, ROCK THE FUCK OUT
    Yeah, I just kinda skimmed. Not a good idea to skim deep philosophy tangents. 

    Honestly? Do good, because if ethical dualism is the means by which we are judged, then so be it; if you don't believe in ethical dualism, so good to get on God's side; and if you don't believe in God, do good because altruism provokes a good response, you will gain respect and higher status, and you can get rewards and a greater sense of fulfillment in life for doing so. 
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    "@Anonym:
    "Natural" doesn't mean "live like an animal." Each species has its own
    nature. Our nature includes the power to reason. Natural law refers to
    the use of reason to deduce universal moral laws from empirical evidence
    of what works for human nature always and everywhere.

    Of course
    natural law isn't necessarily nice, so I'm more sympathetic to Maistre's
    claim that this is a tragic law in need of the Christian revelation
    that God is love and Death is the last enemy."

    Ahhhhh. 'K then. I'll have to read up on Maistre.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    The person hearing the command would first need to prove it was God.

    Do not dodge the question, please. Whatever proof there was, it was enough to convince that particular person. So - yes or no?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    edited 2011-05-13 22:50:17
    Inside, too dark to read
    ^ And that particular person would be wrong. Since nature is a work of God's mind, what works for humans always and everywhere is an infinitely better guide than a voice that would be difficult for a third party to distinguish from schizophrenia.

    Indeed, what schizophrenia is a good example of is the fact that individual human minds can be weak and error-prone. You can't trust an individual who tells you he or she received a strange command from God.

    A particular revelation from God would either just be a local reaffirmation of what can be learned by all, or require the speaker to perform a miracle ("And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." -- 1 Corinthians 15:14)
  • HatterHatter
    Glaives are better.
    There are certain things a schizophrenic person would hear that God wouldn't say. Sort of like when I proved that DLC's fantasies didn't qualify as a religion, because they provided no blueprint for metaphysical fulfillment. God would say "help your friends and neighbors," or "give your allowance to that poor guy on the street; he just needs a little help to get back on his feet." He wouldn't say "Kill that guy over there; his dog is an alien spy from the CIA." Or, "People who make fun of you are ignorant savages and OOH LOOK HERE'S LIGHTNING FROM FFXIII WHICH IS COINCIDENTALLY NOT A STEAMING PILE OF CUNT-SHITTERY."
  • VorpyVorpy
    edited 2011-05-14 03:22:19
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    OOH LOOK HERE'S LIGHTNING FROM FFXIII WHICH IS COINCIDENTALLY NOT A STEAMING PILE OF CUNT-SHITTERY


    I enjoyed FFXIII. It was a good game. Not the greatest FF game ever (holy shit did it have some expectations to live up to when FFXII was out) but still.

    And lightning's hair is awesome.
  • KhwarizmiKhwarizmi
    Because you never know what you might see.
    >"Kill that guy over there; his dog is an alien spy from the CIA."

    DLC never claimed to have been told to do anything remotely along these lines.  The closest was Samus inspiring her to be a bounty hunter, but she changed her mind about that, IIRC.

    On topic: I suspect that morality, to some extent, is a form of rationalising.  I mean, there are two basic ideas in there, the one being "how do we stop people from killing/raping/robbing/maiming one another and causing society to collapse?" and the other being "doing good feels good".  The latter can't be the sole reason for morality because you have people who would be happier behaving immorally than morally.

    Since none of that really screams "moral behaviour", we have to rationalise it, and saying "it's right because God says it's right" is an easy way of doing that.  The concept of natural law kind of bridges the gap between "God did it" and "what would keep society from collapsing + feel good?" by arguing that those are one and the same.  Whether or not this is true, it's certainly a more satisfying answer than believing that morality exists for the sake of convenience, which would invite a more pragmatic approach where morality might be situationally dependent, or more worryingly, might be eschewed in order to further one's own ends.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    or more worryingly, might be eschewed in order to further one's own ends.

    That's the crux of the matter right there.
Sign In or Register to comment.