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.
Location: As of 2022….back to SoCal. OC this time!
9,297 posts, read 4,584,857 times
Reputation: 7613
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
Haha - I think it’s safe to say you’d be alright morally with either. Now if you want a calendar with nudity - different story.
I really don't think God cares what type of calendar it is! Lol...I thought God allowed for free will? If there is free will, there has to be moral ambiguity.....BUT if there isnt a God, there is still moral ambiguity.
Last edited by TashaPosh; 02-05-2019 at 08:45 PM..
A person has the right to accept medical advice or refuse it. Even if it means losing their own life.
I work in healthcare. People decline medical treatment if they so choose. They decline surgery. They decline chemo. They have that choice.
It is moral to allow people the right to accept medical advice or refuse it. Why do they have that right? They have it for their beliefs or because they are informed about the advice and its benefits. There are many reasons we have the right. One has God for guiding and the other does not, but it is very possible to make the same decision without a God.
"Be true to your authentic self" sounds a lot like "do whatever you feel like" "act on every base urge you have" "anything goes"
That sounds like an absence of morality. And a preference for self indulgence. Are you able to articulate why self indulgence is NOT a good thing? And why a set of moral guidelines in place of self indulgence is beneficial?
I agree with you. You said, "act on every base urge you have." You used the word every which I believe gives us humans wiggle room to self indulge a few times. So when somebody mentions moral ambiguity, I am thinking about those base urges that don't involve cheating on a spouse.
So what prevents a person from acting on every base urge? And if somebody does act on a base urge, what brings them back to making the best choices? Discipline. Support. Education.
"Be true to your authentic self" sounds a lot like "do whatever you feel like" "act on every base urge you have" "anything goes"
The same can apply to "asking God for guidance." If you truly believe that God wants you to do X, how can anyone prove to you that God did not encourage you to do X? Abraham fully believed that God wanted him to sacrifice his son. Samson was rewarded for slaying 1000 people with a jawbone. Innumerable people thought God wanted them to stone adulterers to death, burn witches to death, etc. - which all seems to me like an incredibly convenient excuse to commit murder.
The core of the problem is subjectivity - specifically, the seemingly private nature of subjective experience and the ease with which people can rationalize almost anything by appealing to some sort of private insight from God or whatever. So, yes, the potential is there: efforts to seek guidance via Existential authenticity can lead some people to justify virtually anything, but so can prayer and reading holy books. Which is why I say that our best hope - not perfect, but better than nothing - is an effort to develop something like a "science of morality" - which is to say, make a concerted effort to supplement privately experienced intuitions and insights with whatever one can gather along the lines of logical argumentation and empirical evidence - aka develop systems of "reality checks" to whatever extent that we can. No guarantees, of course, but seemingly the best we can do. (BTW: On a related note, this is also a major reason to respect individual liberties like freedom of speech, and to encourage - or at least gracefully tolerate - social diversity in virtually all forms. The possibility for reality checks depends, to a great extent, upon a willingness to hear and contemplate alternative views.)
Quote:
That sounds like an absence of morality. And a preference for self indulgence. Are you able to articulate why self indulgence is NOT a good thing? And why a set of moral guidelines in place of self indulgence is beneficial?
Self indulgence, in itself, is not the core of the problem unless one simplistically defines "indulgence" as necessarily bad (which I don't). When self-indulgence is a problem, the problem stems from taking irrational risks of harm to self and others. There is, seemingly, an epistemological grey zone between healthy/rational forms of "self-care" on one hand, and destructive/unhealthy forms of "self-indulgence" on the other. Which, of course, points to a potential grey zone of moral ambiguity - regions where humans - and perhaps even God - cannot, even in principle, draw a sharp line. But just because a sharp line cannot be drawn, we cannot logically conclude that "anything goes." On either side of any given grey zone are significant landscapes of behavior that are (by overwhelming consensus) clearly good or bad.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-06-2019 at 07:22 AM..
A nudie calendar with Bible verses might be kinda fun.
Something from the Song of Songs
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.
