Protestantism

» _Boanerges_ - Morality is relative to the individual

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

I believe you simply do not grasp this subject.

You're combining absolute truth and morality together. I'm not.

Unfortunately, for you, you cannot overcome the 3 examples provided already. How is one to believe or trust your continual denial of that which is self-evident, and take you as serious.....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - You Are A Gem, Wendell!

In response to Morality is relative to the individual posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Wendell sez to Migisi, "I believe you simply do not grasp this subject."
.
heh heh heh
.
oh ho ho ho
.
ROFLMAO
.
Whoopee!~
.
You are a gem, Wendell.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Morality is relative to the individual

In response to Morality is relative to the individual posted by _Boanerges_:
.
How is one to believe or trust your continual denial of that which is self-evident, and take you as serious.....
.
Well, Wendell, you don't have to believe, trust, or take anything I say seriously. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just expressing my views. And it appears that you're having some trouble understanding them.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Two aspects to this debate

There are two aspects to this discussion that I think are getting mixed and merged.

1. The need that SOCIETY has for a moral compass or a moral code

2. The existence (or not) of objective, external moral truths

Even if the latter cannot be established, utilitarians will admit that the first is non-negotiable. (Not that the moral code is non-negotiable, but the need for one is).

The U.S. Founding Fathers established monotheism and the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the definitive moral code and compass for the United States of America:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

These are the principles the United States was founded upon, and - whether we agree with them or not - that's what the USA was founded on. Period. So, we should stick to them, and our government should operate according to these principles. And our laws should flow from them. And our kids should be taught them in our schools. And so on.

But that's public morality - the need for a societal moral compass.

THere's still the matter of God's existence - and what the implications of that are for moral truths in reality.

» _Boanerges_ - 3 moral absolutes exist

In response to so? will anyone stand up? posted by _Boanerges_:

I mentioned 3 moral absolutes already. They are:

rape, theft and murder.

These are proven - absolute morals. To deny this, you will need to provide an answer as to why the denial is true.

Therefore, having discovered 3 moral absolutes this indicates the fact that moral absolutes exist, and therefore, would be reasonable to assume that more exist.

Shall we name 3 more moral absolutes?

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - 3 moral absolutes exist

In response to 3 moral absolutes exist posted by _Boanerges_:

.
Aside from the fact that you are standing outside the discussion with your input, those "2 moral absolutes" at which you're pointing are not absolutes. Instead, they are ideas that are shared by different cultures. I think that the idea of "moral absolutes" relates more to the idea that any culture's entire morality can be transferred to another culture without any changes.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Two aspects to this debate

In response to Two aspects to this debate posted by BrianTubbs:
.
It looks as though you are correct in your claims here.
.
But, I'm going to have to differ with you.
.
I think the dividing point comes with some thinking that came out of the French Revolution. (Here comes the professor. ROFLMAO )
.
Quoting:
"... a fundamental point of difference between the Enlightenment philosophes and thei8r conservative critics. Whereas the philosophes saw the individual as endowed with natural and inalienable rights and society as a contract entered into by individuals, the counter-Enlightenment conservatives viewed society as primary and the individual as shaped by social institutions to meet the needs of the larger social order. The ideology of individualism was a distortion of the truly social nature of human life. Family, community, church, town, and guild are functionally interrelated and provide for the material and spiritual needs of ordinary people. Tradition, custom, and institutions that have stood the test of time should inform us about the social nature of humankind, they claimed. The Church was to be seen as a necessary binding and integrative force, and the family, not the individual, was viewed as the basic unity of society." --Readings in Social Theory, Fourth Edition, the Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism; James Farganis, Editor; Vassar College, New School University, McGraw Hill, copyright 2004 - Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Social-Th...
.
---------------
.
Much of today's conservatism comes from that thinking of the counter-Enlightenment. Check out Louis de Bonald and Joseph de Maistre.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - not concerned with - what *you* think

In response to 3 moral absolutes exist posted by pink101:

I think that the idea of "moral absolutes"

Rational people are not concerned with what you think, Phil...

What is important is - what is true.....

And beyond a reasonable doubt, you cannot explain to anyone here why these three moral absolutes are not true, in any culture, in any time frame, and in any circumstance...

Because you are irrational, I have no intention to debate with you regarding - what you think - because it is obvious that to argue with an irrational person bears no fruit...

I will add another, absolute moral truth - individual Rights

Now - we have 4 moral absolutes.... !!!...

related:
===============================================================

Tuesday, April 26, 2005
UNIVERSAL GOOD AND BAD ACTIONS: BLACK AND WHITE MORAL ABSOLUTES
Neo-Tech Advantage #5
http://www.uncsense.com/root/2005/04/uni...

Rational or good actions increase prosperity, happiness, and psychuous pleasures. Irrational or bad actions undermine those values. While each individual's life and values are unique, certain basic actions never change in terms of good or bad actions. The rightness or wrongness of those basic actions do not vary according to opinion, or from person to person, or from generation to generation, or from culture to culture, or from solar system to solar system. Universally good or bad actions are objectively based on the biological nature of human beings and are definable in absolute terms. But other actions are amoral and cannot be judged in terms of good or bad because they are a matter of personal preference determined by individual differences.

Universal morals are objective. They are not based on opinions of the author or anyone else. Universal morals are not created or determined by anyone. No one can deem what is moral and what is not moral. The same moral standards exist for each and every human being throughout all locations, cultures, and ages. Those standards are independent of anyone's opinions or proclamations. Moreover, two and only two black-and-white moral standards exist. Those two moral standards are:

Any chosen action that purposely benefits the human organism or society is morally good and right.

Any chosen action that purposely harms the human organism or society is morally bad and wrong.

Feelings and emotions, on the other hand, cannot be considered as standards, absolutes, or morals. A person's life-style, desires, needs, and preferences can vary greatly without altering that person's character or without making that person morally right or wrong. Still, moral absolutes do exist. And following or violating moral absolutes determines a person's character and self-esteem. The two moral absolutes essential for prosperity and happiness are:

1. Integrated honesty for knowing reality
2. Integrated efforts for increasing productivity

Habitually violating either of those two moral absolutes precludes genuine prosperity and happiness. Related to those absolutes are the following moral issues:

Honesty
Self-esteem
Individual rights
* * *
Sacrifice
Use of force
Ends justifying the means

The list below shows how each moral issue separates into either a moral, pro-life, pro-individual category or an immoral, anti-life, anti-individual category.

Objective morals are based on reality, reason, logic. Subjective "morals", on the other hand, are based on unreal, arbitrary feelings or wishes. All such unreal "morals" require force, deception, or coercion to impose them on others. Subjectivism, mysticism, existentialism, and "do your own thing" are all attempts to deny objective morals by implying that no standards exist and everything is of equal value (thus denying objective morals and values).

UNIVERSAL MORAL ISSUES

Moral Issue: Honesty.

Prosperity and Happiness Approach

Conscious striving for self-honesty. Unyielding loyalty to honesty. Productive effort. (Moral)

Failure and Unhappiness Approach

Pragmatic compromise and evasion of honesty. Habitual dishonesty. Parasitical laziness. (Immoral)

Moral Issue: Productivity.

Prosperity and Happiness Approach

Productive actions that increase values to others and society while increasing effectiveness in dealing with reality. (Moral)

Failure and Unhappiness Approach

Destructive actions that decrease values to others and society while decreasing effectiveness in dealing with reality. (Immoral)

Moral Issue: Individual Rights.

Prosperity and Happiness Approach

Recognition of the inalienable right everyone has to his or her own life and property. (Moral)

Failure and Unhappiness Approach

Denial of individual or property rights in order to plunder the life and property of others. (Immoral)

Moral Issue: Sacrifice*.

Prosperity and Happiness Approach

Refusal to sacrifice is by nature life enhancing and thus is morally right. (Moral)

Failure and Unhappiness Approach

Sacrifice is "noble", especially when done for a "higher" cause or, better yet, no cause. (Immoral)

Moral Issue: Use of Force.

Prosperity and Happiness Approach

Rejecting the initiation of force, threat of force, coercion, or fraud against any individual for any reason is the foundation of morality. (Moral)

Failure and Unhappiness Approach

Use of force (especially government force) is acceptable against individuals, especially if the result serves the social "good" or a "higher" cause. (Immoral)

Moral Issue: Ends Justifying the Means.

Prosperity and Happiness Approach

In regards to force, the ends never justify the means. All moral actions are based on principles that prohibit initiatory force, threat of force, coercion, and fraud as a means to accomplish ends, no matter how "noble". (Moral)

Failure and Unhappiness Approach

Ends can justify the means. Force and coercion can be pragmatically used for the "good" of society. Individual rights can be violated or sacrificed for "noble" ends. (Immoral)

* Sacrifice occurs when a value is diminished or destroyed for a lesser value or a nonvalue.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - not concerned with - what *you* think

In response to not concerned with - what *you* think posted by _Boanerges_:

.
You better hope you don't pull my chain too tightly, Wendell. I could cast a spell on you and then, you'll be sorry.
.
lol
.
I saw a Harry Potter movie once and I memorized the wizard's spiel.
.
Proceed with caution.
.
ABRACADBRA and all that stuff, too.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Proceed with caution.

In response to not concerned with - what *you* think posted by pink101:
in fact, that is all I've done, is to proceed with rational and reasonable conclusions. To deny this, you must show us why your 'opinion' is true.

Otherwise, there is nothing to contribute...
continuing............

Are you ready to answer the 4 moral absolutes that are discovered as - self-evident, fundamental truths - to all cultures, all societies, all time frames - and every human that has ever lived. ..?..

-- posted by _Boanerges_