Who teaches better morals, St. Paul or Mark Twain? (difference, different, history)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens when a society has different values? Do you believe you can judge them? If so...why? They are not part of your society.
Sure! You can judge anyone for anything, they're your thoughts. For example, I am pretty critical of the morality of Saudi Arabia's approach to religion and government. At the same time, Saudi's may be equally critical of our morality. Everyone judges based on their own belief. If the US and Saudi Arabia were totally isolated from each other, they could continue to have independent moral outlooks in perpetuity. Because they are not isolated, each must deal with the other, and must adapt to, compromise with, supplant or conquer the other. this is how morality evolves...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So do you believe that Kant's approach is correct? How would you decide?
It has some things going for it, but I am not entirely convinced. As far as how do you decide, you evaluate it using logic, reason, your experiences, and even the cultural indoctrination you were given as a child. You find something that makes sense to you, and then try to figure out how it fits into the larger societal framework. Again, it is like the question, "what height is "tall"?" For me nothing less than, say, 6'5'' is "tall" because I am 6'2". My little sister might think 5' 5" is "tall" based on her personal experience of being 5' 2". If we were to jointly need to define "tall", we would have to come to a consensus definition... What you are asking is the equivalent to, "What is the true, objective definition of tall?", and the answer is there is not one, it is a social construct...
That is where you are wrong. sincerely searching under the guidance of the Spirit can NOT result in different conclusions.
This is the absolute truth. There is only one Comforter and only one truth. The one that agrees with Christ as HE revealed Himself to be full of unconditional agape love for us ALL. If it violates agape love it is false because God IS agape love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How do you measure something you can't define?
But how do you define "good(er)"?
By defining it which you REFUSE to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
WHAT IS this objective morality you are talking about, Vizio? Put up or stop your asinine questions about it.
You can't question something you won't define either, Vizio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
What happens when a society has different values? Do you believe you can judge them? If so...why? They are not part of your society.
They have different values, period. We are not in the judging business for other people . . . just ourselves. I know that would ruin your day . . . but it is true. God judges . . . not us.
Quote:
So do you believe that Kant's approach is correct? How would you decide?
By thinking and analysis . . . I know that is probably a foreign concept to you.
Sure! You can judge anyone for anything, they're your thoughts. For example, I am pretty critical of the morality of Saudi Arabia's approach to religion and government. At the same time, Saudi's may be equally critical of our morality. Everyone judges based on their own belief. If the US and Saudi Arabia were totally isolated from each other, they could continue to have independent moral outlooks in perpetuity. Because they are not isolated, each must deal with the other, and must adapt to, compromise with, supplant or conquer the other. this is how morality evolves...
But ultimately, all you have is your opinion in such a case.
Quote:
It has some things going for it, but I am not entirely convinced. As far as how do you decide, you evaluate it using logic, reason, your experiences, and even the cultural indoctrination you were given as a child. You find something that makes sense to you, and then try to figure out how it fits into the larger societal framework. Again, it is like the question, "what height is "tall"?" For me nothing less than, say, 6'5'' is "tall" because I am 6'2". My little sister might think 5' 5" is "tall" based on her personal experience of being 5' 2". If we were to jointly need to define "tall", we would have to come to a consensus definition... What you are asking is the equivalent to, "What is the true, objective definition of tall?", and the answer is there is not one, it is a social construct...
But ultimately, all you have is your opinion in such a case.
But ultimately that is all anyone has... You may derive your opinion from an "inner light" or from your interpretation of a book, or from your interpretation of other people's interpretations of a book, or from your own experiences, but no one has so far been able to present morality as some external, objective "thing" that can be dispassionately examined. Even your own definition is subjective. It defines good as whatever God says it is, as determined by your interpretation of God, and what He says...
But ultimately that is all anyone has... You may derive your opinion from an "inner light" or from your interpretation of a book, or from your interpretation of other people's interpretations of a book, or from your own experiences, but no one has so far been able to present morality as some external, objective "thing" that can be dispassionately examined. Even your own definition is subjective. It defines good as whatever God says it is, as determined by your interpretation of God, and what He says...
Well, one of us is, that much is certain...
-NoCapo
I disagree. Hitler was evil. I can say that. That is an absolute--he was wrong for what he did.
I disagree. Hitler was evil. I can say that. That is an absolute--he was wrong for what he did.
I agree with you. I base that on my view of what is good and evil, right and wrong, which tends to be utilitarian, with a healthy dose of the importance of reciprocity, and the concept of the inherent dignity and equality of mankind. You base your opinion on your interpretation of the Bible. We both believe strongly that Hitler's behavior was evil. This is not a place where out opinions on morality are in conflict.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
