I said: "Morality is not based on labeling that which is wrong. It's about clarifying what is right..."
You said: "Actually that's just flipping the coin. Honestly consider your statement, how can you clarify what is right without clarifying what is wrong in the process?"
Absolutely incorrect. You need to clarify what values are before you can state what is wrong. Unless you can say that there's some value to human life, then it would be meaningless to say that murder is wrong. If you say that murder is wrong because if violates a human value, then you've go something. Without reason, you have an unsupportable assertion. You need to start without a foundation before you go building the structure.
Without reason, you have something that is amoral. Acts which are deemed right regardless of value.
In the words of Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
You said: "You are talking about the act of lying... lying is wrong. So, yes I can say it is wrong... To clarify, you are trying to put actions into context of circumstances."
Yes, because circumstances dictate the morality of an act. You can't have absolute morality, because such a system would be incapable of improvement. It's a dispicable and unreasonable expectation.
You said: "I'm pointing out the baseline, the understanding that all humans have of what is right and what is wrong. Taking the favored example of the battered wife sheltering in your home from an abusive husband at your door. The number of temptations to lie to that man are numerous, firstly the fear of further harm to the wife and also among them self-preservation from the apparent fury of a crazy man. This doesn't change the status of the lie."
Yes it does, actually. It becomes a good act, and if you were moral, that's what you would do. I'm flabbergasted that you would consider the act wrong.
You said: "If it did, it would not be an issue to bring up now would it? Of course not... so by your example, the very USE of it in this example shows that you unsderstand that the act of LYING is WRONG."
No, I said that lying has a consequence, and there are reasons that we shouldn't do it, because it affects how people trust us.
You said: "1st Corinthians 10:13 (NIV) '13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it'
This is the scripture which is the basis for the more commonly heard: 'God doesn't shut a door without opening another.' What COULD you do? How about stating: 'I don't have to answer your questions, this is my home, please leave.' There are many other ways to avoid conflict and yet not sin (do wrong...evil).
In fact this leads to some deep spiritual discussion so lets stop there... for now."
You would smartmouth to a sociopath and get him angry. I would lie to the man and do what it took to protect the woman and make him go away. You would be so stuck in your ways of absolute morality that you would take the chance of causing more harm just so you could avoid breaking a commandment. That's very amoral, if you ask me. It matches the point I made with the Weinberg quote I made above.
I'm making a point about circumstances, and given the circumstances, the best thing to do to avoid harm would be to lie. I'm entertained that you brought up the word "spiritual". That word has no positive definition. Usually the word "spirit" is used in a connotation that means otherworldly or non-material. This is not a definition.
Interestingly enough, when people use the word "spiritual", they usually use it in place of other more coherent words such as emotional or philosophical. If there's some other context in which you're using the word, then please explain. Otherwise, there's no need to use the word. We're already having a philosophical discussion, and there's no reason to bring emotion into it, because emotion has no attachment to reality.
You said: "If you are inferring that I am trying to force my opinion then you haven't read what I've said. I am stating the word of God, not the word of man."
I did read that, but I don't agree that it's the word of God. I think it's the word of man which is STATING that it's the word of God. It would be circular to assume that God wrote the Bible just because the Bible says so.
"Consider the following example:
You are driving down the highway at 90 mph in a 65 mph speed zone. As you crest a hill you see a police car.
Do you take your foot off the gas pedal?
Why?
I submit that most of us would certainly slow down and that it would be because we know we are doing something wrong."
That example has nothing to do with morality at all, and I'll tell you why. The reason for taking the foot off of the gas pedal is because of the consequence of getting the ticket. The person was already doing something wrong, and it continuing to do something wrong by trying to cover up for it. If that person was moral, they wouldn't have been speeding in the first place. They wouldn't slow down when they saw the cop. They'd slow down when they saw other motorists, because it's the other motorists that the driver is putting in danger.
It is a moral act to preserve the lives of people who have the will to live. It is not moral to slow down for a cop to avoid a ticket.
Poor example.
"Who says it's wrong? Well the Law does of course... and the law has consequences, again something we All Know."
This is a rather naive way of looking at this. The laws themselves are put in place with the same principles that I was talking about. Consider why the law exists in the first place. To protect human life.
Just look at the side of the squad car. Does it say, "To fine and persecute"? No, it says, "To serve and protect". That's the humanist philosophy that is transcendant in human culture. We all have that value, and that's what laws are in place for. This goes back to my first statement. You can't just say something is wrong unless you start with a foundation of what is right.
"The thing is, we cannot attain perfection Because we hold ourselves to the standards of man. The standard which is written upon our heart is written by God... how can I say this? Well, for one thing the heart Does Want Perfection! Not the flawed standard of man, but the shame that calls for perfection Every Time we do something We Know Is Wrong."
That's not the reason. We cannot attain perfection, because circumstances are always going to vary. It's the very reason why we can't have absolute morality, because as my example shows, "Thou shalt not lie" is not applicable in all circumstances. Heck, there were people in the Bible who were honored for lying. In the book of Joshua, Rahab lied to hide God's people.
Morality is situational. A single act cannot always be wrong in all circumstances, because then we would lack the capacity to reason.
"We still have the choice to slow down. Or better yet, try to stay within the law. Why? Well in the example of speeding it is because the safety of ourself and those around us is in the balance. Speed kills, any state trooper can run you the numbers... the faster people are going at the time of an accident, the higher the percentage of fatalities. Nothing difficult to fathom there."
Congratulations. You just stated something that is humanistic. Speeding kills. We need to protect human lives. That is the foundation for morality. Thank you for proving my point.
Skipping the preaching...
"What do you have to lose? If I'm cracked and full of hooey then you my friend have nothing to lose....
Or... What do you have to gain... now that is the real question."
The problem with that statement is that it's an argument based on idealism, which is not a very good argument. What we want to be true and what is actually true are two different things. Our quest for the perfect morality system will not cause an omnipotent being to pop into existence and provide us with one.
As rational human beings, we have to work with what we've got. We have our values, and we have the will to survive. That more than enough to produce a principle of human morality and construct a system of justice around it.
Comic ·
Community ·
DeviantArt