Protestantism

» _Boanerges_ - Yinging and Yanging

In response to Yinging and Yanging posted by pink101:

Morality is relative and THAT is an absolute.

If morality were relative - then what Hitler did would have been morally acceptable. And certainly what MLK did would have been intolerant and immoral...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Far Too Complex For Us

In response to Yinging and Yanging posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Hitler's morality, apparently, was absolute to him and relative to those of us who disagree.
.
His morality emanated from out of society's rules, laws, and morals. It's the subject of great study by some. Does that mean that it was a correct interpretation? I don't think so; but, then, I wasn't an adult German during Germany's great depression after World War One. I wasn't even alive until 1931 and it took decades for me to mature to the place where I could give it some serious thought. The problems are far too complex for us to come to intelligent conclusions. But, we can moralize from where we are--relative to where they were.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Far Too Complex For Us

In response to Far Too Complex For Us posted by pink101:

Hitler's morality, apparently, was absolute to him and relative to those of us who disagree.

well then, Phil.. since it is too complex, for you, and you feel that morality is relative, then you must accept what Hitler did as being moral, and that what we did to him was unjustified.....

That would include all genocide....

In fact, you could not argue against anything as being immoral.... based on your own philosophy...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Migisi - Yinging and Yanging

In response to Yinging and Yanging posted by _Boanerges_:
.
If morality were relative...
.
IMO, morality is indeed relative to the culture, time, and place. Your Bible is a good example. What was morally acceptable to the ancient Israelites would be entirely unacceptable by our moral standards today - i.e. we don't stone children for cursing their parents; we don't kill adulterers or homosexuals; we don't permit slavery; have outlawed gender and racial discrimination; have created international laws against genocide, etc..
.
then what Hitler did would have been morally acceptable. And certainly what MLK did would have been intolerant and immoral...
.
Morality is relative to the individual too. There were (and still are) people who agreed with Hitler's 'final solution', and people (especially in the south) who believed MLK was morally wrong.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - Moral Relativism Debate Guide

Moral Relativism Debate Guide
From PhiloWiki
http://philowiki.com/wiki/index.php/Mora...

In the 'culture wars' in the United States, religious groups argue that the growth of moral relativism is harming our country. And the Pope calls moral relativism in Europe a 'tyranny' and a 'dictatorship'. Is this a fair characterization? Is it true? Is moral relativism the sign of a healthy civilization or of one in decline (or neither)?
[edit]
Moral relativism

Some basic questions are well-known:

* How do we know who is truly right and who is truly wrong?
* Is there absolute good and evil? Can religion be a foundation?
* What is the source of morality?

But where do we go from here?

* Without absolute good and evil, are we left with moral relativism? Or is there something else?
* Is it possible to build a successful political system based upon moral relativism? Or is such a nation-state doomed to failure?
* As Pope Benedict states, is there a dictatorship of moral relativism?
* If Europe continues on its secular path, will this accelerate a transition to an Islamic Eurabia?
* Even if moral relativism is true, why should we care ?

Can moral systems evolve without religion?

* Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?
* What are the implications of the Golden Rule?
* What are the implications of Kant's categorical imperative?
* If the world were secular, would there be nothing more than the law of the jungle - might makes right?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Moral Relativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relat...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Morality is relative to the individual

In response to Yinging and Yanging posted by Migisi:

Morality is relative to the individual too. There were (and still are) people who agreed with Hitler's 'final solution', and people (especially in the south) who believed MLK was morally wrong.

I will answer your OT views in another post.. But according to your thoughts, if morality is truly relative, then, you could not object to anyone's morality.... no matter what.. if you truly feel that it is relative.. You must accept their morality as - truth... according to you philosophy..

It is - that simple....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Migisi - Morality is relative to the individual

In response to Morality is relative to the individual posted by _Boanerges_:
.
But according to your thoughts, if morality is truly relative, then, you could not object to anyone's morality.... no matter what.. if you truly feel that it is relative.. You must accept their morality as - truth... according to you philosophy..
It is - that simple....
.
NOTHING is 'that simple'. Morality IS relative. And I most certainly CAN and DO object to someone else's morality if/when I disagree with it. Whether my objection has any impact on another person's morality is another story. As I see it, morality and absolute truth are not married to each other. They are singular concepts. If they ~were~ married, and the Bible is the absolute truth and moral standard for all, we'd still be stoning children, homosexuals, and adulterers to death.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - Morality is relative to the individual

In response to Morality is relative to the individual posted by Migisi:

NOTHING is 'that simple'. Morality IS relative. And I most certainly CAN and DO object to someone else's morality if/when I disagree with it

But.. how can you object? If you truly believe that each man has his own morality, then you most certainly cannot object, not according to my authority.. but according to yours...

you said: Morality IS relative.

but then change to: I most certainly CAN and DO object to someone else's morality if/when I disagree with it.

If that is true, then morality cannot be relative.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - PERMISSION OF EVIL

http://www.ldolphin.org/studynotes/permi...

...a quote....

"In some countries, whole populations are starving to death because of false religions. They are literally starving to death with food all around them, because their religion will not allow them to eat certain things.
We loath the evil. We should also loath the sin that produced it. By allowing evil, God's plan is that we would learn to hate it. "

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Far Too Complex For Us

In response to Far Too Complex For Us posted by _Boanerges_:

.
You're full of it.
.
No sense in trying to discuss this with you.
.

-- posted by pink101