The Religion of Blinding Bluster

[Arthur Brain]

Various cultures have done those things in the past, mostly in the service of their gods. So it's not unreasonable to think humans may come to do them again at sometime in the future. So all these proclamation of absolute morality just don't seem to apply to the real world. If we can choose to ignore or deny an "absolute moral imperative" then it seems pretty silly to be calling it an absolute moral imperative. As it is clearly a subjectively chosen moral imperative.

The past isn't the present. We're not living thousands of years ago where primitive tribes lived in primitive times. We're in the modern age so I'll ask you in regards to the present. Is there any valid reason for the rape, torture and killing of a child? Straight answer please.

 

[PureX]

The past isn't the present. We're not living thousands of years ago where primitive tribes lived in primitive times. We're in the modern age so I'll ask you in regards to the present. Is there any valid reason for the rape, torture and killing of a child? Straight answer please.

I'm done with this silliness. I've made my point a half dozen times by now. If you can't understand it then I can't help you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't think you've understood this conversation from the start.

I have nothing at all against people choosing to call rape, torture, and murder inexcusably wrong. I agree with them. My obection is to this weird insistence that once you have chosen this porition, it has then somehow become "absolute". And it very clearly has not become absolute. It was a choice you made about a specific set of moral imperatives that you've chosen to hold to. That's it. Your choices do not define what is and is not a morally absolute in the world. No one's choices do.

How can you agree with such people if they declare such to be wrong and in absolutist terms? Do you even understand your own thread? Nice word salad though...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm done with this silliness. I've made my point a half dozen times by now. If you can't understand it then I can't help you.

What "silliness"? I'm not being silly, I'm asking you pertinent questions unless you absolutely decree that they're silly but surely that should be open to question unless your opinion is absolute?

See now how your own position goes against you?

 

[Skeeter]

Objective morality exists but there are two central practical problems with it. There is one subjective presupposition needed to base the objectivity on AND we do not have unambiguous access to what is the most moral.

The value of human well-being over suffering is a central. If we refuse to acknowledge this value as true, multiple bases for morality spring multitudinous vicissitudes. If we can acknowledge this value, actions can be judged on a continuum of how moral the action is.

We are trying to achieve absolute moral certitude but we are in the dark because we have only partial understandings. We can feel our way around a bit and listen. We can get moral traction and compare various courses of action to determine which one is more moral. Another course of action we did not foresee might be better.

To kill a human is always wrong. It is mitigated under circumstances involving self-defense - personally and on the national level. Millions have died hopefully in the service of safety and advancement of civilization. Every behavior that is generally wrong has its limits when it may be the most moral course of action. In a rapidly declining human population where a mere thousand woman remain -- after attempts at persuasion and the offer of incentives have not encouraged reproduction, the possibility of commandeering reproductive capacities could become the most moral choice. All alternatives must first be exhausted, and the most clinical methods used. Petrie dishes and turkey basters would be involved and NOT the sexual gratification of men. The point of even considering such a scenario is for us to recognize that absolute morality in all practicality does not exist for human beings. Every human right has limits. We have objective strivings in developing our own systems of morality but there is a thick subjective layer that we must acknowledge.

 

[annabenedetti]

Various cultures have done those things in the past, mostly in the service of their gods. So it's not unreasonable to think humans may come to do them again at sometime in the future.

Do you think there are fundamental underlying moral principles that don't change even if the the practices of various cultures do?

So all these proclamation of absolute morality just don't seem to apply to the real world. If we can choose to ignore or deny an "absolute moral imperative" then it seems pretty silly to be calling it an absolute moral imperative. As it is clearly a subjectively chosen moral imperative.

Do you make a distinction between relativism and subjectivism?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Objective morality exists but there are two central practical problems with it. There is one subjective presupposition needed to base the objectivity on AND we do not have unambiguous access to what is the most moral.

The value of human well-being over suffering is a central. If we refuse to acknowledge this value as true, multiple bases for morality spring multitudinous vicissitudes. If we can acknowledge this value, actions can be judged on a continuum of how moral the action is.

We are trying to achieve absolute moral certitude but we are in the dark because we have only partial understandings. We can feel our way around a bit and listen. We can get moral traction and compare various courses of action to determine which one is more moral. Another course of action we did not foresee might be better.

To kill a human is always wrong. It is mitigated under circumstances involving self-defense - personally and on the national level. Millions have died hopefully in the service of safety and advancement of civilization. Every behavior that is generally wrong has its limits when it may be the most moral course of action. In a rapidly declining human population where a mere thousand woman remain -- after attempts at persuasion and the offer of incentives have not encouraged reproduction, the possibility of commandeering reproductive capacities could become the most moral choice. All alternatives must first be exhausted, and the most clinical methods used. Petrie dishes and turkey basters would be involved and NOT the sexual gratification of men. The point of even considering such a scenario is for us to recognize that absolute morality in all practicality does not exist for human beings. Every human right has limits. We have objective strivings in developing our own systems of morality but there is a thick subjective layer that we must acknowledge.

Do you have the right to walk out of your house and go about your business without the likely fear of being hit in the head with a baseball bat? If you are and you survive the assault then are you within your rights to file charges for said assault? You've got even more word salad going on than Pure X...

 

[annabenedetti]

In a rapidly declining human population where a mere thousand woman remain -- after attempts at persuasion and the offer of incentives have not encouraged reproduction, the possibility of commandeering reproductive capacities could become the most moral choice. All alternatives must first be exhausted, and the most clinical methods used. Petrie dishes and turkey basters would be involved and NOT the sexual gratification of men. The point of even considering such a scenario is for us to recognize that absolute morality in all practicality does not exist for human beings. Every human right has limits.

Hard pass on that dystopia.

 

[Skeeter]

Do you have the right to walk out of your house and go about your business without the likely fear of being hit in the head with a baseball bat?

I have no absolute right - that's for sure. Being in public carries inherent risks.

I live a block from a bar. If a bloke who looked somewhat like me just attacked someone's wife and I had walked out in the middle of events and the husband saw me walking toward his wife and hit me in an attempt to prevent harm from coming to her, he could claim mistaken defense of other, and would quite possibly avoid criminal charges.

If you are and you survive the assault then are you within your rights to file charges for said assault?

Civil damages would likely apply but not necessarily. What good is my right when I must still suffer unprovoked consequences?

You've got even more word salad going on than Pure X...

I may not be as eloquent as you, but it is not anything resembling word salad. I just read it again and it isn't my best work - a very clunky way to try to address what was said in the last four pages.

None-the-less, I think you are reacting emotionally rather than thinking through what PureX has said. You can do better.

 

[Skeeter]

Hard pass on that dystopia.

I hope one day males can have the ability to procreate to relieve women of any burden they have in that respect.

Continuation of humanity is critical. The women in this scenario have a large part in creating an unnecessary dystopian phase, wouldn't you say.? I would love to think the scenario is near impossible because woman would rise to the occasion and go above and beyond to ensure the continuation of our species.

 

[annabenedetti]

I hope one day males can have the ability to procreate to relieve women of any burden they have in that respect.

Continuation of humanity is critical. The women in this scenario have a large part in creating an unnecessary dystopian phase would you say. I would love to think the scenario is near impossible because woman would rise to the occasion and go above and beyond to ensure the continuation of our species.

If I'm not mistaken, you're pro-choice.

How do you justify state-enforced pregnancy?

 

[Skeeter]

If I'm not mistaken, you're pro-choice.

I am.

How do you justify state-enforced pregnancy?

End of all humanity otherwise. Every right we hold sacred can be abridged by the government and rightfully so. Not on a whim, but for a compelling collective interest after due process and demonstration of air tight rationale and showing a less restrictive solution is not available.

 

[annabenedetti]

I am.

End of all humanity otherwise. Every right we hold sacred can be abridged by the government and rightfully so. Not on a whim, but for a compelling collective interest after due process and demonstration of air tight rationale and showing a less restrictive solution is not available.

Then humanity ends, because we would've lost the good part of our humanity.

It's hard to see a comparison between say, martial law, conscription, rationing, etc. during wartime, and forcibly impregnating a woman against her will. You don't believe she has to carry that baby to term now, what about under your scenario? And what becomes of the child born into that Brave New World?

 

[Skeeter]

Then humanity ends, because we would've lost the good part of our humanity.

Humanity's strengths are its resilience, the ability to see the big picture, withstand dark times temporarily and to let emotion motivate us but empiricism guide us.

It's hard to see a comparison between say, martial law, conscription, rationing, etc. during wartime, and forcibly impregnating a woman against her will. You don't believe she has to carry that baby to term now, what about under your scenario? And what becomes of the child born into that Brave New World?

It's an ugly scenario-- so unseemly and unlikely that I do not know what benefit there is in pontificating about it further.

JR believes mosaic law should be applied under current circumstances which is actually even uglier. That would be an ongoing society where government employees must routinely kill and maim people for relatively minor offences. A vulgar perpetual dystopia unmatched by a couple generations of harsh repopulating.

At least you can enjoy getting kudos from your usual opponents.

 

[ok doser]

Hard pass on that dystopia.

You might enjoy Children of Men one of my favorite performances by Clive Owen

 

[annabenedetti]

Humanity's strengths are its resilience, the ability to see the big picture, withstand dark times temporarily and to let emotion motivate us but empiricism guide us.

It's an ugly scenario-- so unseemly and unlikely that I do not know what benefit there is in pontificating about it further.

Why not? Moral relativism and moral absolutism have been debated for thousands of years. For what it's worth, I think it's possible to find a secular approach to objective morality, although not a secular absolute morality.

JR believes mosaic law should be applied under current circumstances which is actually even uglier. That would be an ongoing society where government employees must routinely kill and maim people for relatively minor offences. A vulgar perpetual dystopia unmatched by a couple generations of harsh repopulating.

JR knows what I think about his version of biblical law, but I'm not in this thread to talk about that. PureX and I (whether he remembers it or not) had quite a debate about objective truth many years ago, it's a subject that interests me. So does right-wing authoritarianism, for that matter. I didn't expect the conversation to end up being about abortion or forced pregnancy, but here we are.

At least you can enjoy getting kudos from your usual opponents.

That wasn't in good faith Skeeter. They know what I think of them and I know what they think of me. It's a very narrow overlapping Venn diagram but I certainly don't enjoy or am motivated to seek kudos from any of them. As you said to Arthur, you can do better. It's disappointing you thought that dig was something that would move the conversation forward.

 

[Skeeter]

Why not? Moral relativism and moral absolutism have been debated for thousands of years. For what it's worth, I think it's possible to find a secular approach to objective morality, although not a secular absolute morality.

We agree about that then. Though, I believe it is also impossible for a theist to have any greater access to an idea of what constitutes absolute morality than anyone else.

It hurts to think about the scenario. It is easy to justify rationally but it gives me a bad feeling to do so. Even something close to rape could conceivably be seen as necessary under extreme circumstances. That debunks categorical thinking when it comes to morality, but there is a cost to looking at that kind of trade off. I do not love harsh criticism from people I respect.

JR knows what I think about his version of biblical law, but I'm not in this thread to talk about that. PureX and I (whether he remembers it or not) had quite a debate about objective truth many years ago, it's a subject that interests me. So does right-wing authoritarianism, for that matter. I didn't expect the conversation to end up being about abortion or forced pregnancy, but here we are.

No need to belabor a sore spot, though.

That wasn't in good faith Skeeter.

Actually, it was. I did not mean that you are taking this stance just for the extra kudos or anything like that. You have too much integrity for that kind of thing. I was just acknowledging how surreal it is too see how the positive reps are bucking the usual pattern. Just wanted to share a laugh.

They know what I think of them and I know what they think of me. It's a very narrow overlapping Venn diagram but I certainly don't enjoy or am motivated to seek kudos from any of them. As you said to Arthur, you can do better. It's disappointing you thought that dig was something that would move the conversation forward.

It was not meant as a dig, just an observation.

I think PureX is a good guy and has tried simply to express himself. It is disheartening to see his exchange with Arthur who I greatly respect. I do not want usual allies to tear each other up over an unlikely hypothetical.

 

[annabenedetti]

We agree about that then. Though, I believe it is also impossible for a theist to have any greater access to an idea of what constitutes absolute morality than anyone else.

It hurts to think about the scenario. It is easy to justify rationally but it gives me a bad feeling to do so. Even something close to rape could conceivably be seen as necessary under extreme circumstances. That debunks categorical thinking when it comes to morality, but there is a cost to looking at that kind of trade off. I do not love harsh criticism from people I respect.

No need to belabor a sore spot, though.

Well, I would've continued with you, but maybe it's best to let it go then.

Actually, it was. I did not mean that you are taking this stance just for the extra kudos or anything like that. You have too much integrity for that kind of thing. I was just acknowledging how surreal it is too see how the positive reps are bucking the usual pattern. Just wanted to share a laugh.

It was not meant as a dig, just an observation.

Okay, if you meant it in good humor, thanks for the clarification but I guess I didn't see it that way. Too many years of sparring, maybe. Just in case you don't know the background, I was once a right-winger. It's pretty funny to think about, but TOL was a significant factor in my leavin the right, it had kind of a boomerang effect. Some of my beliefs are still in the moderately conservative camp: regarding abortion and (sensibly regulated) gun ownership, and a few other less important ways of looking at things. At the world. I rarely talk about them here for the very reason you noted: it's cognitive dissonance to have the very people who ban me - or actively work or find satisfaction in having me banned - liking a post because I said something that meets with their approval when I never seek their approval. I'm speaking to my beliefs, such as they are, without apology. Politically and culturally, it's not easy to put me in a particular box anymore.

I think PureX is a good guy and has tried simply to express himself. It is disheartening to see his exchange with Arthur who I greatly respect. I do not want usual allies to tear each other up over an unlikely hypothetical.

I think PureX is a good guy too, and Arthur of course, and Arthur and I've been friends for so many years. What's great about both of them is they both have what it takes to meet up again in another thread, find themselves in agreement on an issue, and carry on without holding a grudge. You wait and see, it will happen.

 

[Hoping]

Again, because you still don't get it yet

I don't know why you keep bringing Rom 1 into the discussion.
The MADs shun anything to do with the Law, but you make me think the OT Laws' punishments are still to be enforced.

Romans 1 is not "OT."
Paul, in the New Testament, says that criminals such as murderers and the sexually immoral "are deserving of death."
Paul is advocating the death penalty!

OK, I see your perspective now...an insertion of your own POV regarding what Paul would have us do.
But Paul isn't calling for any death penalty.
Just that the sinner/criminal is worthy of death.
Christians are to love and forgive, but if the civil law enforcers want to kill, that death is on their heads.
Those of us who have been baptized into Christ won't usurp a power only God is entitled to.

 

[JudgeRightly]

JR believes mosaic law should be applied under current circumstances

Wrong.

The Mosaic Law was for Israel, and no other nation.

What I want is for our nations laws to reflect God's laws, as Israel's Mosaic Law did. I am a theonomist.

which is actually even uglier.

Only for criminals, and only in a good way.

That would be an ongoing society where government employees must routinely kill and maim people for relatively minor offences.

Again, wrong.

The government only puts people to death for capital crimes, which are not minor offenses to begin with, and a punishment of maiming is to match what happened to the victim, for example, as described earlier to PureX, if during the commission of a theft, you cut someone's hand off, then your hand should be cut off as a punishment. In addition to paying restitution for the theft.

Or, as the Bible puts it:

"Life shall be for life, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This isn't Islam, where you cut off the hand of a thief. That's unjust, not to mention cruel.

A vulgar perpetual dystopia unmatched by a couple generations of harsh repopulating.

False.

Also, God said to be fruitful and multiply, so there's nothing wrong with repopulating, or populating, for that matter. No idea what you mean by "harsh repopulating" though...