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.
No offense, but I'm definitely not going to stop calling out parents for what really amounts to child abuse, or at least neglect, by allowing their children to wallow in the filth of popular culture. By saying that some parents have unexamined beliefs I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming their good will, and acknowledging that most parents love their children and want the best for them. The alternative is that these parents know exactly what they are doing and are fully culpable for it. I prefer to believe they are clueless rather than malicious.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ~Jesus Christ via John 8:7
Am I to assume that you are now sinless as well? You certainly are doing a lot of "stone casting".
I have been giving a lot of thought to the idea of objective morality and moral relativism with respect to the OP topic. As I already mentioned, I am not a moral relativist. Neither do I believe that the minutae of daily life can be accurately claimed to be morally positive or negative by appealing to the existence of a deity. Every organized religion, every moral and ethical code, every code of law shares certain tenets: not killing, not lying, not stealing, treating others as you would want to be treated, etc. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
I agree with everything you said, but wanted to respond to the bolded.
You are correct virtually every religion, moral code and legal code shares those tenets. However, are those things themselves morality or simply basic common "rules" that govern societal interaction in more complex societies? Are they morality, or are they laws? It is widely believed that religious "moral codes" were basically canonization of basic legal concepts to help more complex societies function. Where I can prove the relativity is thus...
Can you not think of a case for each of those "tenets", killing, stealing, lying, doing unto others where the "right" or more "moral" choice is to violate those rules? I can.
A man is raping and strangling your child and you have a gun in your hand. Is it right to kill him?
Your child is starving and no one will help you. Is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed them?
A man is holding you at gunpoint and demands to know where your children are. Is it right to lie to protect your children?
A person constantly bullies you with mocking, shoving and occasionally worse. You continue to turn the other cheek, but the abuse only grows worse. Is it right to stand up for yourself and forcibly respond?
See, it's all relative. Every "wrong" can be situationally justified to be a "right".
I agree with everything you said, but wanted to respond to the bolded.
You are correct virtually every religion, moral code and legal code shares those tenets. However, are those things themselves morality or simply basic common "rules" that govern societal interaction in more complex societies? Are they morality, or are they laws? It is widely believed that religious "moral codes" were basically canonization of basic legal concepts to help more complex societies function. Where I can prove the relativity is thus...
Can you not think of a case for each of those "tenets", killing, stealing, lying, doing unto others where the "right" or more "moral" choice is to violate those rules? I can.
A man is raping and strangling your child and you have a gun in your hand. Is it right to kill him?
Your child is starving and no one will help you. Is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed them?
A man is holding you at gunpoint and demands to know where your children are. Is it right to lie to protect your children?
A person constantly bullies you with mocking, shoving and occasionally worse. You continue to turn the other cheek, but the abuse only grows worse. Is it right to stand up for yourself and forcibly respond?
See, it's all relative. Every "wrong" can be situationally justified to be a "right".
I agree with your post, as well. I think at a certain point we will be splitting hairs between the definition of morality and the definition of codified laws for the well-being of society, but I take your point. Part of the reason there are details tacked on to the end of the sentiment of not killing another in law is exactly because there are going to be exceptions where it is justified, as you noted. I suppose one could argue that is relativist as opposed to absolutist, although not relativist in the way that moral relativism is being portrayed by some of the posters on this thread (I.e., a self-serving, self-determined moral and behavioral free-for-all).
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 10-19-2012 at 08:56 AM..
No offense, but I'm definitely not going to stop calling out parents for what really amounts to child abuse, or at least neglect, by allowing their children to wallow in the filth of popular culture. By saying that some parents have unexamined beliefs I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming their good will, and acknowledging that most parents love their children and want the best for them. The alternative is that these parents know exactly what they are doing and are fully culpable for it. I prefer to believe they are clueless rather than malicious.
Wow, you were prolific last night! Alas, I do not have the time to respond to each point right now, but I do feel compelled to address some of the highlights.
1. I was not taking a moral high-ground. Perhaps a factual high-ground, if there is such an entity, but not a moral high-ground.
2. I'm reasonably certain I have not discussed my faith or "faith" or lack thereof. IMO, it would be an error to think that those who disagree with the minute elements/applications of your personal faith as holding true for all are somehow lacking in faith, in morality, or in good judgment.
3. Re: the external source of morality shared by all codes of law, morals, religions, philosophy, etc. - yes, I have done quite a lot of reading on ethics, morals, and comparative religion. There are scholars, historians and theologians who have made examining the commonalities across these their lives' work. The common principles all derive not from self-serving individuals but from the common good of a society.
4. I see the point you were making about reason, through the lens that you see it. It does not negate any of the points that I made about faith and reason.
5. I see no point in discussing this further, as it has become clear to me that you are very entrenched in your way of seeing the world (regardless of whether that view is shared by your denomination or just part of your denomination) and all who disagree with some of the rather creative mental gymnastics (e.g., logical leaps between gangsta rap and committing murder, pornography and the act of adultery) are amoral, immoral or clueless (or Charlie Sheen). Not particularly conducive to having a conversation. You are welcome to your way of viewing the world. It doesn't make it fact. You are welcome to believe that you are right. It doesn't mean you actually are right.
6. You are certainly free to keep chastising other parents and proselytizing. Please be aware you are doing so based on your subjective beliefs, not on the basis of fact or moral superiority.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 10-19-2012 at 08:25 AM..
I think Jesus would roll his eyes right about now if he could. I don't think he would care for sanctimony and judgment that the OP displays towards others. I don't know why the OP thinks he is the moral arbiter for all mankind, but sorry, it just ain't so.
No offense, but I'm definitely not going to stop calling out parents for what really amounts to child abuse, or at least neglect, by allowing their children to wallow in the filth of popular culture.
Question: Do you do this in your community? Face to face where people know who you are? The woman ahead of you in line at Walmart, say. She has her kids with her and a CD and DVD in her cart that you don't approve of and consider part of the entertainment industry's plot to destroy young minds. Do you tap her on the shoulder and give her the lecture you've delivered here?
How about the people you work with? If you are all in the lunch room and your co-workers start discussing a movie they took their kids to see over the weekend. It's one of the ones you think is a piece of trash and filth. Do you call them out and tell them they are guilty of neglect?
Question: Do you do this in your community? Face to face where people know who you are? The woman ahead of you in line at Walmart, say. She has her kids with her and a CD and DVD in her cart that you don't approve of and consider part of the entertainment industry's plot to destroy young minds. Do you tap her on the shoulder and give her the lecture you've delivered here?
How about the people you work with? If you are all in the lunch room and your co-workers start discussing a movie they took their kids to see over the weekend. It's one of the ones you think is a piece of trash and filth. Do you call them out and tell them they are guilty of neglect?
I actually have two more questions: Does he call people out when his own children are with him? And does he call other adults out when their children are with them?
And one more thing. He compared posters who say they are "just fine" with Charlie Sheen. What's up with that? Because Charlie Sheen is, unfortunately, a man who has a major drug problem. I'm wondering why he chose to make that particular comparison. Posters here.... Charlie Sheen.
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.
Alas, I do not have the time to respond to each point right now, but I do feel compelled to address some of the highlights.