Homosexuality will destroy this and any country and needs to be recriminalized

[glassjester]

Yes, a moral zeitgeist.

Agreed. And this shift, itself, could make a group "better" or "worse," morally, right?

For example - the moral shift that took place in Germany following WWI was undoubtedly a change for the worse.
The moral shift that took place during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was undoubtedly a change for the better.

If we base our morality on the current moral zeitgeist of society, how can a society determine if that current shift is a good change or a bad one?

 

[alwight]

Agreed. And this shift, itself, could make a group "better" or "worse," morally, right?

For example - the moral shift that took place in Germany following WWI was undoubtedly a change for the worse.
The moral shift that took place during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was undoubtedly a change for the better.

If we base our morality on the current moral zeitgeist of society, how can a society determine if that current shift is a good change or a bad one?

I don't think that society sets out to determine what actually is good or bad, it decides for itself whatever it decides by a general consensus and whatever works for them.
Others can then conclude for themselves, perhaps with hindsight from a different society or time, just how good or bad they think it was. We can however learn from mistakes in the past, I doubt that slavery will ever be seen as acceptable again just as I suspect that homophobic bigotry will never again get the state support it once had, at least in modern societies that have accepted change.
Perhaps you don't agree and that there are absolute rights and wrongs?

 

[glassjester]

I don't think that society sets out to determine what actually is good or bad, it decides for itself whatever it decides by a general consensus and whatever works for them.
Others can then conclude for themselves, perhaps with hindsight from a different society or time, just how good or bad they think it was.

Yes - the fact that we are able to do this means that we do, at an individual level, appeal to a standard external to society itself. I'm very interested in what that standard is for each person; and why they accept that particular standard.

We can however learn from mistakes in the past, I doubt that slavery will ever be seen as acceptable again just as I suspect that homophobic bigotry will never again get the state support it once had, at least in modern societies that have accepted change. Perhaps you don't agree and that there are absolute rights and wrongs?

I do think a "greatest good" exists. And I believe every thought, word, and action moves us closer or further from it. I would argue that you probably believe the same, that all of us do. This is what makes us capable of evaluating the goodness or badness of any society (or person) at all.

When you say, for example, that slavery is unacceptable, you are saying that its abolition was a move in the right direction - that it brought us closer (not further) to some ideal.

My question is, then, what is that standard? What is that ideal?
Whatever it is, it is an absolute. It must be a principle external to society, if it can be used to evaluate society.

 

[alwight]

Yes - the fact that we are able to do this means that we do, at an individual level, appeal to a standard external to society itself. I'm very interested in what that standard is for each person; and why they accept that particular standard.

Only we are all individuals and may well modify our standards over time.

I do think a "greatest good" exists. And I believe every thought, word, and action moves us closer or further from it. I would argue that you probably believe the same, that all of us do. This is what makes us capable of evaluating the goodness or badness of any society (or person) at all.

An absolute good?
I think you must be referring to an aspiration rather than an actual extant fixed standard or absolute benchmark. I'd suggest that such an aspiration is actually a mirage which doesn't really exist and you may as well go looking for the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow.
Otoh although I don't believe in any gods I will agree that a perfect divine entity/god could perhaps, possibly set or represent such standards. But even then that would amount to nothing if any human go-betweens were part of the process.

When you say, for example, that slavery is unacceptable, you are saying that its abolition was a move in the right direction - that it brought us closer (not further) to some ideal.

Slavery only had to be deemed sufficiently wrong enough to get it stopped, I don't see any need to worry if there is an absolute objective standard involved.

My question is, then, what is that standard? What is that ideal?
Whatever it is, it is an absolute. It must be a principle external to society, if it can be used to evaluate society.

As a presumably fallible human how would you even recognise an absolute moral standard anyway?
Do you want something to point to if someone else has a slightly different version from yours, perhaps if they were written in tablets of stone?
Then we would perhaps all know if our moral values were slipping.

 

[glassjester]

An absolute good?
I think you must be referring to an aspiration rather than an actual extant fixed standard or absolute benchmark. I'd suggest that such an aspiration is actually a mirage which doesn't really exist and you may as well go looking for the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow.

This is it. That's the difference between our philosophies. Do ideals exist? Do ideas exist? Does anything immaterial exist?

I don't hope to get too off-topic (it may be too late), but have you read a lot of what Plato has written on this subject?

Otoh although I don't believe in any gods I will agree that a perfect divine entity/god could perhaps, possibly set or represent such standards. But even then that would amount to nothing if any human go-betweens were part of the process.

I am in agreement.

How might a perfect, divine entity account for this situation?

...Perhaps by assigning Himself the role of mediator.

Slavery only had to be deemed sufficiently wrong enough to get it stopped, I don't see any need to worry if there is an absolute objective standard involved.

"Wrong," here, means falling short of some ideal, does it not?

Try this: The end of slavery in the United States was good because it made the country more ________.

I'd say any descriptor you can fit into that blank space is an absolute (not relative) moral ideal. And one that you (and I, and everyone) actually use to evaluate how "good" or "bad" something is, morally.

I think people are unaware of how much they actually do appeal to moral absolutes.

As a presumably fallible human how would you even recognise an absolute moral standard anyway?

I might not. This problem necessitates certain philosophical solutions. Few theologies address this issue. Incidentally, it's one of the reasons I eventually came to reject Protestantism.

Do you want something to point to if someone else has a slightly different version from yours, perhaps if they were written in tablets of stone? Then we would perhaps all know if our moral values were slipping.

Again, forcing my moral beliefs on someone else does no good for anyone. I simply won't do it. People must make moral decisions freely (this, too, is affirmed by Catholic teaching).

But I do think people ought to consider which moral standards they appeal to - it's worth knowing what your "greatest good" is.

 

[alwight]

This is it. That's the difference between our philosophies. Do ideals exist? Do ideas exist? Does anything immaterial exist?

I don't hope to get too off-topic (it may be too late), but have you read a lot of what Plato has written on this subject?

I think we can certainly have our own standards and ideals, but no such independent absolutes need exist imo.
Apart from the Plato that I may have accidentally come across from time to time, as you do, probably none. :idunno:
How am I doing?
Am I trying to teach grandma to suck eggs here?

I am in agreement.

How might a perfect, divine entity account for this situation?

...Perhaps by assigning Himself the role of mediator.

Well I at least am not going to accept any absolute morality from anyone human claiming to be His spokesperson on Earth.

"Wrong," here, means falling short of some ideal, does it not?

I'm no Plato but I recognise that physical and mathematical absolutes that are provable exist, but here I am maintaining that moral values and standards are relative abstract human constructs only.

Try this: The end of slavery in the United States was good because it made the country more ________.

My first thought was "egalitarian" btw.

I'd say any descriptor you can fit into that blank space is an absolute (not relative) moral ideal. And one that you (and I, and everyone) actually use to evaluate how "good" or "bad" something is, morally.

I think people are unaware of how much they actually do appeal to moral absolutes.

Again how would you even know if such absolutes existed, if you can't measure or prove them mathematically?
Religions may make their bald assertions but I've never seen any substance.
I think as genetically similar beings we tend to have rather closely matched ideals innately that often do point in the same general direction.

I might not. This problem necessitates certain philosophical solutions. Few theologies address this issue. Incidentally, it's one of the reasons I eventually came to reject Protestantism.

In practice we only have a human relative morality to go by, I really don't think that navel gazing about it is of any value unless philosophy for its own sake is your hobby, or unless the Almighty puts in an appearance perhaps? :think:

Again, forcing my moral beliefs on someone else does no good for anyone. I simply won't do it. People must make moral decisions freely (this, too, is affirmed by Catholic teaching).

But I do think people ought to consider which moral standards they appeal to - it's worth knowing what your "greatest good" is.

I'm rather suspicious of any institutions that claim to know of absolute moral or godly standards since they appear to want to take away human relative values and replace them with their own. There may not be anything particularly wrong with them but they don't actually know they are godly absolutes any more than I know they aren't.

 

[glassjester]

I think we can certainly have our own standards and ideals, but no such independent absolutes need exist imo.


Apart from the Plato that I may have accidentally come across from time to time, as you do, probably none. :idunno:
How am I doing?
Am I trying to teach grandma to suck eggs here?

He's worth talking about, and worth reading.
(I do think this thread has become a bit derailed. :cheers: )

Well I at least am not going to accept any absolute morality from anyone human claiming to be His spokesperson on Earth.

I agree. Nothing should be believed without reason.

I'm no Plato but I recognise that physical and mathematical absolutes that are provable exist, but here I am maintaining that moral values and standards are relative abstract human constructs only.

Interestingly, that's where Plato starts, too. He gives the example of a circle. A circle is a real thing, but it's not material. And, in fact, does not exist anywhere in the material world.

My first thought was "egalitarian" btw.

And why is it good to be egalitarian?

Again how would you even know if such absolutes existed, if you can't measure or prove them mathematically?

There are some things we know must exist through reason alone, without need for measurement or mathematical proof.

Example: I exist. (St. Augustine came up with that before Descartes, BTW)

Another Example: Truth exists. (If it didn't, then the statement, "No truth exists" would in fact be an existing truth. )

In practice we only have a human relative morality to go by, I really don't think that navel gazing about it is of any value unless philosophy for its own sake is your hobby, or unless the Almighty puts in an appearance perhaps? :think:

Right on! :thumb:

I'm rather suspicious of any institutions that claim to know of absolute moral or godly standards since they appear to want to take away human relative values and replace them with their own. There may not be anything particularly wrong with them but they don't actually know they are godly absolutes any more than I know they aren't.

If I told you I am of the same mentality, I suspect you might not believe me!

 

[serpentdove]

[Don't Answer Loaded Questions by Ray Comfort] "How do you answer this question (asked by homosexuals who believe that they were born with same sex preference): "Did you choose to be a heterosexual?" It's important not to answer this question with a yes or a no. This is because it's loaded, similar to "Do you still beat up your mother? Yes or no." Their question equates heterosexuality with homosexuality, when the Bible does no such thing. Instead of a yes or no, point to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterous nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God." Explain that each of these practices are sins in God's eyes, and they are sins that we choose. We choose to be a fornicator, or to be an adulterer, and we choose to be a homosexual. Then take the person through the Ten Commandments to show him that he's in big trouble on Judgment Day, despite his sexual preference. That's what you see happening in "Audacity." (Learn more about the movie at www.AudacityMovie.com.)" Ray Comfort on Facebook

 

[aikido7]

I see the Kingdom of God on earth coming. And probably the best thing to do is for both sides to be unyielding in the argument. I have faith that sooner or later the global culture will open up more liberty and justice for all, as well as a life with dignity.

The losers will eventually marginalize and condemn themselves.



"HIGHER GROUND"

Stevie Wonder


People keep on learnin'
Soldiers keep on warrin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

Powers keep on lyin'
While your people keep on dyin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

I'm so darn glad he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach my highest ground

Teachers keep on teachin'
Preachers keep on preachin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long
Oh no

Lovers keep on lovin'
Believers keep on believin'
Sleepers just stop sleepin'
Cause it won't be too long
Oh no

I'm so glad that he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach my highest ground...Whew!

Till I reach my highest ground
No one's gonna bring me down
Oh no
Till I reach my highest ground
Don't let nobody bring you down (they'll sho 'nuff try)
God is gonna show you higher ground
He's the only friend you have around

 

[alwight]

I'll just answer this in case we start going in circles.

And why is it good to be egalitarian?

Actually it depends on what "good" actually means, which is a relative opinion.
It could perhaps be "better" if someone really clever and selfless was empowered to control us in such a way that we all became better off and more prosperous and did an equal share of the work.
But I think that most people will want to feel that they are mainly in control of their own lives.
Given that is true then it is simply not justifiable to do so by controlling the lives of others, in this case slaves, no matter how much "good" it did for slave owners' bank balances. Egalitarian only in the sense of tending toward equality since in practice it may never actually happen, and perhaps being too dogmatic about it may even force equality where it isn't wanted or asked for.
It's good to be an egalitarian imo, not having to justify oppressing others which in this thread's case, gay people. (to be on topic for a moment )

 

[serpentdove]

[Story written as if he :freak: is a woman :dizzy:] Caitlyn Jenner Could Face Manslaughter Charge

Deut 22:5, Mt 19:4 :vomit:

 

[kiwimacahau]

What a lot of rubbish this thread is.

 

[TrakeM]

Agreed. And this shift, itself, could make a group "better" or "worse," morally, right?

For example - the moral shift that took place in Germany following WWI was undoubtedly a change for the worse.
The moral shift that took place during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was undoubtedly a change for the better.

If we base our morality on the current moral zeitgeist of society, how can a society determine if that current shift is a good change or a bad one?

We could look at whether it is a change which reflects that we are all human beings and whether or not the shift is focused on making life better for the majority of people by expanding, to as much an extent as possible, liberty and prosperity with as little exploitation of others as possible.

It's not perfect, but it's MUCH better than looking to some random book that claims to be from some random deity, be it vishnu, thor, ra, yahweh or allah based on social conditioning and culture. Especially if that book justifies murdering someone for being gay or murdering someone for espousing a different religious belief.

Before you try to create a theocracy, keep in mind that every theocracy on earth is a horrible place to live or visit.

 

[Quetzal]

We could look at whether it is a change which reflects that we are all human beings and whether or not the shift is focused on making life better for the majority of people by expanding, to as much an extent as possible, liberty and prosperity with as little exploitation of others as possible.

It's not perfect, but it's MUCH better than looking to some random book that claims to be from some random deity, be it vishnu, thor, ra, yahweh or allah based on social conditioning and culture. Especially if that book justifies murdering someone for being gay or murdering someone for espousing a different religious belief.

Before you try to create a theocracy, keep in mind that every theocracy on earth is a horrible place to live or visit.

That is not true! Saudi Arabia has wonderful beaches!

 

[bybee]

That is not true! Saudi Arabia has wonderful beaches!

Indeed! All of those BURKAs flowing in the breeze and condemned females half buried in the sand being stoned to death ....

 

[Quetzal]

Indeed! All of those BURKAs flowing in the breeze and condemned females half buried in the sand being stoned to death ....

They do have a good selection of rocks. Certainly you, as a woman, wouldn't want to visit. After all, there is some sort of preconceived notion that you are inferior. That isn't fair, is it? I would certainly hate to be a part of another, similar system being supported in this thread about another certain group of individuals that are perceived as being inferior. No sir, we wouldn't do that now, would we?

 

[serpentdove]

What a lot of rubbish this thread is.

Are you a Sodomite ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13])?

 

[TrakeM]

Yes - the fact that we are able to do this means that we do, at an individual level, appeal to a standard external to society itself. I'm very interested in what that standard is for each person; and why they accept that particular standard.




I do think a "greatest good" exists. And I believe every thought, word, and action moves us closer or further from it. I would argue that you probably believe the same, that all of us do. This is what makes us capable of evaluating the goodness or badness of any society (or person) at all.

When you say, for example, that slavery is unacceptable, you are saying that its abolition was a move in the right direction - that it brought us closer (not further) to some ideal.

My question is, then, what is that standard? What is that ideal?
Whatever it is, it is an absolute. It must be a principle external to society, if it can be used to evaluate society.

Morality is a human invention. A great invention. An important invention. A great invention. Still though, we made it up. We may like to imagine it to be absolute, like the ancient Egyptians performing ritualistic human sacrifice or ancient people following the old testament murdering everyone in a town for believing in a different god. The simple fact that our morals differ so greatly from those of ancient times shows the simple fact that we made it all up.

Many people have written down their concept of morality, sometimes attributing it to some deity, sometimes not. Often times these books when read many years later are deemed shockingly immoral based on a concept of morality that arose under different circumstances and had more time to evolve.

Take the bible for an example. The old testament came from a time when life was more harsh than it is today and the morality is very harsh to the point of commanding the murder of everyone (including the infants) in a town because they worship a different god! We live in a world that isn't so harsh. We, as a people, will not tolerate such behavior. It is barbaric by the standard of almost everyone.

We use our technology as a standard to judge other countries technology and the new technology we are inventing. Thus, our standard of technology is ever changing. We use the sense of morality imparted to us by parents, literature, society and culture (usually in a more piecemeal fashion than we'd like to admit) to evaluate our own parents, literature, society and culture. Our sense of morality is ever changing.

If there is a god and he/she/it is moral then one of two things must be true. Either there is some set of morals separate from god by which to judge god or morality is defined as being whatever god says/does. If it's the latter, the statement that god is moral is meaningless.

 

[TrakeM]

That is not true! Saudi Arabia has wonderful beaches!

I think Trip Expert rated it a top place to be beheaded! Oh, and Uganda was voted best place to starve death while beating gay people to death while calling them immoral barbarians. Trip Expert raves, "the irony is thick enough you could cut it with a knife".

 

[Quetzal]

I think Trip Expert rated it a top place to be beheaded! Oh, and Uganda was voted best place to starve death while beating gay people to death while calling them immoral barbarians. Trip Expert raves, "the irony is thick enough you could cut it with a knife".

-Looks over the options- Ah, but you have to pay extra for the bludgeoning weapon to beat them with. That is where they get ya.