Who teaches better morals, St. Paul or Mark Twain? (belief, behavior, miracle)
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.
Let's consider the two cases of where Paul returns the slave verses Huck Finn tearing up the letter to the slave owner of Jim.
Paul returns the runaway slave, Onesimus, to his "rightful owner," Philemon. He preaches that this is the right thing to do.
Huck, on the other hand, fully aware of the lessons he learned in Sunday school and Paul's admonition that slaves belong to owners and runaways need to be returned, does the right thing morally stating "All right, then, I'll go to hell!"
Who is giving better moral guidance here? Paul or Huck Finn?
Why?
Neither. Einstein has them beat:
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and human consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security”
Nonsense. It would only be a problem for those who THINK they know what God would want them to think because of their misunderstanding of ancient scribblings interpreted by ignorant savages and barbarians. As long as their sense of morality is divorced from their heart and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and tied to the ancient scribblings . . . they will not understand agape love and true morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Without an objective morality, how can you possibly decide whether Paul or Mark Twain were more moral? I've demonstrated you're completely unable to do that.
WHAT IS this objective morality you are talking about, Vizio? Put up or stop your asinine questions about it.
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]please explain[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE]
The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times. [edit] Origins
Most of the objective morals promoted today in the West are grounded in Christianity. Among Christians, it follows from the ideas of inherent human sinfulness and original sin that one's subjective moral instincts must be categorically classed as evil. Thus, say the Christians, one needs an external, objective source for morality. And — speak of the devil — there is such an external, objective source to be found at a nonspecific location in the sky, sitting on a throne.
The Catholic Church originally admitted several sources for such morality, including human reason; but at the Protestant Reformation, when the principle of "total depravity" was promulgated, human reason became very dodgy and the Bible became the only source that was not suspect. Hence, we see creationists arguing that there are no meaningful morals if Genesis 1 is not true to the letter.
So, then....you have no basis for criticizing slavery, or the holocaust. If morality evolves and is just a product of society. You were not a part of those societies, and you cannot condemn them.
That is one of your most desperate arguments yet. Clearly, the Holocaust was not a result of social evolution, rather it was the result of mental illness. Like Paul, Hitler was mentally ill. Look up anti social personality disorder in the DSM (301.7)
Clearly, the fact that the rest of the world evolved away from slavery and Nazism illustrates that social evolution indicates that humanity will evolve higher morals. There will always be rogues like North Korea and Pat Robertson, who resist human rights, but the movement towards a humanistic utopia continues.
The OP seems to think we can decide if Paul or Mark Twain was more moral. If you can't define morality, how do you know if someone has more of it?
For some one that complains about dodging the question, you sure are good at it...
No one is saying they there is no such thing as morality. But why are you so insistent that it be an objective morality? My point was that it appears that subjective morality is actually what we have, it is what we have had for the entire history of our species, and we have only theology and philosophy to suggest that there might be anything else...
To illustrate the point, what is the objective definition of "tall"? Clearly "tall" is entirely subjective. It depends of the height of the evaluator, the height of the prevailing culture, the expectations of the evaluator, etc... And yet, we can still have meaningful conversations using the word "tall" We all understand more or less what is meant, even though if we want to examine something very specifically, we may have to switch terminology. We all know enough to take the subjectivity into account when dealing with the concept of "tall", recognizing that it is rooted in the perspective of the speaker.
Why are we so good at dealing with subjective concepts like "tall", "small", "fast", "heavy", but we cannot seem to wrap our head around "good" and "bad" being the same sort of social constructs?
For some one that complains about dodging the question, you sure are good at it...
No one is saying they there is no such thing as morality. But why are you so insistent that it be an objective morality? My point was that it appears that subjective morality is actually what we have, it is what we have had for the entire history of our species, and we have only theology and philosophy to suggest that there might be anything else...
How do you measure something you can't define?
Quote:
To illustrate the point, what is the objective definition of "tall"? Clearly "tall" is entirely subjective. It depends of the height of the evaluator, the height of the prevailing culture, the expectations of the evaluator, etc... And yet, we can still have meaningful conversations using the word "tall" We all understand more or less what is meant, even though if we want to examine something very specifically, we may have to switch terminology. We all know enough to take the subjectivity into account when dealing with the concept of "tall", recognizing that it is rooted in the perspective of the speaker.
Why are we so good at dealing with subjective concepts like "tall", "small", "fast", "heavy", but we cannot seem to wrap our head around "good" and "bad" being the same sort of social constructs?
-NoCapo
I can certainly tell you that I am "taller" than my 10 year old daughter. She is "smaller" than me. My friend's Corvette is "faster" than my Toyota Corolla. I am "heavier" than my wife.
Subjectivity is not the same as being undefined. I have a subjective definition of what is good and what is bad, based on the culture that surrounds me, my life experiences, what I was taught as a child, and how I evaluate the world around me. You also have a subjective definition. We are both part of a society that has taken countless personal subjective moralities over a long period of time and hammered them into a collective morality which in turn informs the next generation of moral thought. Other societies and cultures have come to a different consensus...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I can certainly tell you that I am "taller" than my 10 year old daughter. She is "smaller" than me. My friend's Corvette is "faster" than my Toyota Corolla. I am "heavier" than my wife.
But how do you define "good(er)"?
It depends of how you choose to define good, clearly... For example if I decide that good is the aggregate maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain, then I wind up at a utilitarian formulation of morality. Or I can take Kant's approach, which is more of a weak rule based form of utilitarianism. Or I can rely on a subjective, culturally influenced interpretation of a specific holy book, and then I get religious morality...
Subjectivity is not the same as being undefined. I have a subjective definition of what is good and what is bad, based on the culture that surrounds me, my life experiences, what I was taught as a child, and how I evaluate the world around me. You also have a subjective definition. We are both part of a society that has taken countless personal subjective moralities over a long period of time and hammered them into a collective morality which in turn informs the next generation of moral thought. Other societies and cultures have come to a different consensus...
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.
Quote:
It depends of how you choose to define good, clearly... For example if I decide that good is the aggregate maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain, then I wind up at a utilitarian formulation of morality. Or I can take Kant's approach, which is more of a weak rule based form of utilitarianism. Or I can rely on a subjective, culturally influenced interpretation of a specific holy book, and then I get religious morality...
-NoCapo
So do you believe that Kant's approach is correct? How would you decide?
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.
