|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 20:31:26 GMT -8
All those examples you gave are "accepted" killings, not cart-blanche to murder anyone you want. Not even the Nazis allowed Nazis to just up and murder other Nazis. exactly. accepted killings ie there is no consensus on morality. Morality states: "Murder is wrong." Immorality states: "Except for those people". Accepting the murder of "certain" people is the slippery slope to Aztec human sacrifice, the Holocaust, pre-emptive wars, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Ted Bundy, etc. Name the culture or civilization that allowed anyone to kill anyone else for any reason. It doesn't exist. There are many (most or all) that do carve out "exceptions" that are convenient to the person holding the gun, but those are exceptions to the universal Laws of Nature, i.e. those are immoral exceptions. There are those who will betray universal Natural Law (morality) for their own convenience, but that does not disprove the existence of the universal Natural Law (morality) - it just betrays it. It's like the statement "There are rapists" doesn't mean that rape is acceptable. Rape is another form of Natural Law (morality) that can be betrayed and rejected often, but just because rapists exist doesn't mean that morality about rape does not exist. Otherwise we'd not even call it "rape". |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:34:08 GMT -8
exactly. accepted killings ie there is no consensus on morality. Morality states: "Murder is wrong." Immorality states: "Except for those people". Accepting the murder of "certain" people is the slippery slope to Aztec human sacrifice, the Holocaust, pre-emptive wars, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Ted Bundy, etc. Name the culture or civilization that allowed anyone to kill anyone else for any reason. It doesn't exist. There are many (most or all) that do carve out "exceptions" that are convenient to the person holding the gun, but those are exceptions to the universal Laws of Nature, i.e. those are immoral exceptions. That there are those who will betray universal Natural Law (morality) for their own convenience, but that does not disprove the existence of the universal Natural Law (morality) - it just betrays it. It's like the statement "There are rapists" doesn't mean that rape is acceptable. Rape is another form of Natural Law (morality) that can be betrayed and rejected often, but just because rapists exist doesn't mean that morality about rape does not exist. Otherwise we'd not even call it "rape". If youre saying the sum total of God's imbued morality is everyone cant kill anyone thats a pretty weak mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 20:38:54 GMT -8
The nazis thought it was ok to kill Jews. The Americans and others didnt. There are millions of examples like this. I honestly cannot see how you can make an argument for a consensus of morality, imbued by God. Plus there's the free will angle. But the Nazis didn't think it was okay to kill Hitler or a superior officer. They believed "murder is wrong", but conveniently corrupted it to suit their wants and desires. The corruption of morality allows for immorality. There is no "wrong" or "evil" act unless there is a "good" standard by which to judge all acts - and that standard is called "morality", the Laws of Human Nature. That Nazis thought it was okay for a Nazi to kill a Jewish rabbi but not to kill another Nazi officer is not evidence that morality doesn't exist or that it is subjective. It only demonstrates their corruption of the universal morality that "murder is wrong". |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 20:40:49 GMT -8
Morality states: "Murder is wrong." Immorality states: "Except for those people". Accepting the murder of "certain" people is the slippery slope to Aztec human sacrifice, the Holocaust, pre-emptive wars, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Ted Bundy, etc. Name the culture or civilization that allowed anyone to kill anyone else for any reason. It doesn't exist. There are many (most or all) that do carve out "exceptions" that are convenient to the person holding the gun, but those are exceptions to the universal Laws of Nature, i.e. those are immoral exceptions. That there are those who will betray universal Natural Law (morality) for their own convenience, but that does not disprove the existence of the universal Natural Law (morality) - it just betrays it. It's like the statement "There are rapists" doesn't mean that rape is acceptable. Rape is another form of Natural Law (morality) that can be betrayed and rejected often, but just because rapists exist doesn't mean that morality about rape does not exist. Otherwise we'd not even call it "rape". If youre saying the sum total of God's imbued morality is everyone cant kill anyone thats a pretty weak mandate. Never even hinted that. Name the culture or civilization that allowed anyone to kill anyone else for any reason. Just one. That's the beginning of understanding universal Laws of Human Nature. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:41:49 GMT -8
The nazis thought it was ok to kill Jews. The Americans and others didnt. There are millions of examples like this. I honestly cannot see how you can make an argument for a consensus of morality, imbued by God. Plus there's the free will angle. But the Nazis didn't think it was okay to kill Hitler or a superior officer. They believed "murder is wrong", but conveniently corrupted it to suit their wants and desires. The corruption of morality allows for immorality. There is no "wrong" or "evil" act unless there is a "good" standard by which to judge all acts - and that standard is called "morality", the Laws of Human Nature. That Nazis thought it was okay for a Nazi to kill a Jewish rabbi but not to kill another Nazi officer is not evidence that morality doesn't exist or that it is subjective. It only demonstrates their corruption of the universal morality that "murder is wrong". If God's imbued morality can be corrupted it aint worth much and the argument becomes circular. "God imbues morality but people can defy it and we call them sinners". |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:42:31 GMT -8
If youre saying the sum total of God's imbued morality is everyone cant kill anyone thats a pretty weak mandate. Name the culture or civilization that allowed anyone to kill anyone else for any reason. Just one. Reread what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:43:07 GMT -8
If youre saying the sum total of God's imbued morality is everyone cant kill anyone thats a pretty weak mandate. That's the beginning of understanding universal Laws of Human Nature. Universal except for the fact its not universal- |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 20:47:02 GMT -8
That's the beginning of understanding universal Laws of Human Nature. Universal except for the fact its not universal- It's universal because one cannot name a single culture or civilization that fully, completely and totally rejects the notion that "murder is wrong". Or "rape is wrong". Or "lying is wrong". etc.... |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:50:05 GMT -8
Universal except for the fact its not universal- It's universal because one cannot name a single culture or civilization that fully, completely and totally rejects the notion that "murder is wrong". Or "rape is wrong". Or "lying is wrong". etc.... Sure you can-as long as they can justify it its A Ok. Hutus and Tutsies for example. So if you are saying universal morality imbued by God is "Murder is wrong-unless its justified" thats not much of a universal morality mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 20:52:06 GMT -8
But the Nazis didn't think it was okay to kill Hitler or a superior officer. They believed "murder is wrong", but conveniently corrupted it to suit their wants and desires. The corruption of morality allows for immorality. There is no "wrong" or "evil" act unless there is a "good" standard by which to judge all acts - and that standard is called "morality", the Laws of Human Nature. That Nazis thought it was okay for a Nazi to kill a Jewish rabbi but not to kill another Nazi officer is not evidence that morality doesn't exist or that it is subjective. It only demonstrates their corruption of the universal morality that "murder is wrong". If God's imbued morality can be corrupted it aint worth much and the argument becomes circular. "God imbues morality but people can defy it and we call them sinners". Creating a human with free will (oh geez, I stepped in it now!) is a greater good than creating a human with no free will (which we would call cadavers). This goes back to one of my original posts, contrasting "animal instinct" and "morality". The fact that it's easier to betray the Laws of Human Nature than our animal instincts does *not* demonstrate that the Laws of Human Nature don't exist. ETA: Left out a *key* word. Doh! |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 21, 2023 20:55:53 GMT -8
If God's imbued morality can be corrupted it aint worth much and the argument becomes circular. "God imbues morality but people can defy it and we call them sinners". Creating a human with free will (oh geez, I stepped in it now!) is a greater good than creating a human with no free will (which we would call cadavers). This goes back to one of my original posts, contrasting "animal instinct" and "morality". The fact that it's easier to betray the Laws of Human Nature than our animal instincts does demonstrate that the Laws of Human Nature don't exist. I'm pretty sure we agree on this topic there's just the human interpretation barrier. Exception would be sociopaths-1 out of every 100 (80 million in the world)-who have no moral compass whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 21:10:39 GMT -8
It's universal because one cannot name a single culture or civilization that fully, completely and totally rejects the notion that "murder is wrong". Or "rape is wrong". Or "lying is wrong". etc.... Sure you can-as long as they can justify it its A Ok. Hutus and Tutsies for example. So if you are saying universal morality imbued by God is "Murder is wrong-unless its justified" thats not much of a universal morality mandate. Hutus never accepted the wanton murder of Hutus. Murder is wrong, and we as fallen humans devise all sorts of betrayals of that universal truth. Try to imagine a world where no human ever chose to betray the "murder is wrong" moral truth. That would be good, yes? Better than what we have now, yes? Improvement, yes? Closer to God's will, yes? ETA: "chose to" |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 21, 2023 21:12:40 GMT -8
Creating a human with free will (oh geez, I stepped in it now!) is a greater good than creating a human with no free will (which we would call cadavers). This goes back to one of my original posts, contrasting "animal instinct" and "morality". The fact that it's easier to betray the Laws of Human Nature than our animal instincts does demonstrate that the Laws of Human Nature don't exist. I'm pretty sure we agree on this topic there's just the human interpretation barrier. Exception would be sociopaths-1 out of every 100 (80 million in the world)-who have no moral compass whatsoever. Agreed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2023 22:14:36 GMT -8
... government control of the economy and morality...What government policy or law of any sort does not seek to control some aspect of the economy and/or impose some sort of morality? All laws are based on a certain form of morality, are they not? And seeks to punish those who act in opposition to that morality. e.g: fraud, slander/libel, endangerment, DUI, robbery, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Clearly not all immorality is illegal (adultery for example), but it's hard to find any law that is not, at it's core, based on a specific morality, which may be referred to as "Natural Law" or "Laws of Human Nature". One may say that such "Natural Law" or "Laws of Human Nature" are those which are universal - and indeed they may very well be universal - but that doesn't take away from the fact that our civil laws are founded in these moral laws of human nature. You're not responding to the question posed in the OP. Do you support book bans and restrictions on academic freedom, and the rampant conservative attacks on free speech in general? Or do they trouble you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2023 22:15:58 GMT -8
Also, these universal "Laws of Human Nature" (morality) are not created by us - if they were, then each culture and era would create for themselves different versions of "universal" morality - akin to each culture and era creating for themselves rules of which side of the road to drive on, or how much taxes should be paid, or who gets to be considered "fully human" and who doesn't. Thus they wouldn't be "universal" at all then. And therefore these universal "Natural Laws" of morality cannot be created by us, but must be created in us. Which means there must be something outside of ourselves, outside of our culture, outside of our era, even outside of our humanity from which these universal "Laws of Human Nature" are derived and indwelt into our own human nature. And these laws of morality are not merely instincts like animals have (and we do also), because very rarely do animals betray or disobey their animal instincts as often as humans betray and disobey the "Laws of Human Nature" or morality. Rarely if ever does a sparrow choose to not build a nest, or choose to not breed (or attempt to breed) or choose to not fear cats and fly away. It is posited that the reason animals rarely if ever act against their instinct is that there is no "higher" law which may over-ride their instincts, like there is in humans with our reason and morality. Humans, however, can much more easily choose to obey or disobey this morality, "Laws of Human Nature", than we can choose to go against the laws of "animal instinct" (sex-drive, hunger, fear of a charging bear, etc.). Yet it is precisely this morality that defines our humanity! Humans are beings embodied not just with animal instincts, but also with a morality separate from, and superior to, our animal-nature. Non-responsive; see my earlier reply. |
|
