If morality is relative how can Christian morals be criticised? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14976999
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So you do think that child molestors should be punished, morally speaking, even if they hold to a different morality than you do?

Yes or No?


They should be punished in accordance to the law not due to morality. If the practice was legal, my morality would not prevent him from practicing his morality. But if you need help to visualising this realism consider this. You are against abortion are you not? How do you plan on punishing those who practice this act as their morality is different to yours?
#14977001
B0ycey wrote:They should be punished in accordance to the law not due to morality.


but laws exist because of ethical systems, and are derived from such. For instance, much of the civil law in the middle-east is derived from Islamic ethics and morality.

So if your morality contradicts the law (which it does apparently), I am asking you if you believe the law punishing child molesters is wrong?

B0ycey wrote: If the practice was legal, my morality would not prevent him from practicing his morality.


So you think he should be allowed to molest children then? OR are you saying that your morality is always the same as the law?

Which is it? What is your moral view of the current laws?

I am trying to understand what your actual moral views are.

B0ycey wrote:How do you plan on punishing those who practice this act as their morality is different to yours?


On my own property it would be a capital crime because it would be treated as murder.
#14977003
Victoribus Spolia wrote:but laws exist because of ethical systems, and are derived from such. For instance, much of the civil law in the middle-east is derived from Islamic ethics and morality.

So you if your morality contradicts the law (which it does apparently), I am asking you if you believe the law punishing child molesters is wrong?


The law is objective and is part of the social contract. Laws might have been created by ethical systems or moral beliefs but so what? If you feel like the law should change you can always campaign for that change within the current legislation.

So you think he should be allowed to molest children then? OR are you saying that your morality is always the same as the law?


Ideally my morality would be the same as the law. But that is not my prerogative. I can only adhere to it. And the pedophile can only practice his morality in accordance to the law as well.

What is your moral view of the current laws?


Depends on the law. For example pedophiles should be neutered on release by my morality. Others might disagree. The law is on their side.

On my own property it would be a capital crime, and it would be treated as murder.


Sure, but to someone else it is a virtue and is someones right. Only the law will decide punishment. All you can do is make judgement.
#14977005
B0ycey wrote:The law is objective and is part of the social contract. Laws might have been created by ethical systems or moral beliefs but so what? If you feel like the law should changel you can always campaign for that change.


So you do think that child molestors should be punished, morally speaking?

B0ycey wrote:Ideally my morality would be the same as the law. But that is not my prerogative. I can only adhere to it. And the pedophile can practice his morality in accordance to the law as well.


Sure, but you still think he should be punished. That does seem to be what you are saying your morality is; that its okay for child molestors to be punished. Is this correct?

If so, I suppose you don't think his morality should be allowed equal rights, since you think it should be punished.

How am I incorrect in saying this?

B0ycey wrote:Sure, but to someone else it is a virtue and is someones right. Only the law will decide punishment. All you can do is make judgement.


Obviously they believe that, so what does that prove? Basically all that your point seems to be indicating is that if we want our own moral views to take legal precedent we need to get the laws changed.

Do you regard this as a profound insight? :lol:

How is this not just a statement of the obvious?


Also, why didn't you answer my question to you about free speech?
#14977006
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So you do think that child molestors should be punished, morally speaking?


In accordance to my morality, yes. I think I have made that bleeding obvious and have said as such in many of my replies. But that is a judgement in my personal belief. Whether they get punished is still in regards to the law.

Sure, but you still think he should be punished. That does seem to be what you are saying your morality is; that its okay for child molestors to be punished. Is this correct?


Yes. But, and I can't repeat this enough, he still only gets punished by the law. Never my morality.

If so, I suppose you don't think his morality should be allowed equal rights, since you think it should be punished.


Sure. But that doesn't stop him having a different morality to mine.

Obviously they believe that, so what does that prove? Basically all that your point seems to be indicating is that if we want our own moral views to take legal precedent we need to get the laws changed.

Do you regard this as a profound insight? :lol:

How is this not just a statement of the obvious?


It was just a statement. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone wants to change the law they should campaign for it. Until the law changes, your morality might not be legal.

Also, why didn't you answer my question to you about free speech?


Perhaps because I missed it. What was it?
#14977007
You have answered my questions satisfactorily. Thanks.

B0ycey wrote:Perhaps because I missed it. What was it?


It was in response to your statement that stating your belief that child molestation is bad and that they should be neutered upon release was something protected by free speech, this was my response/question:

What if the pedophile argues that criticizing his sexual attraction is hate speech based on a impulse he was born with?

Should you still be free to say such things? Didn't you say to me in another thread that Christians should NOT be able to criticize homosexuality as being morally wrong for similar reasons? Why should it be different with you? Just curious.
#14977009
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
It was in response to your statement that stating your belief that child molestation is bad and that they should be neutered upon release was something protected by free speech, this was my response/question:


Well again, free speech is accordance to the law. Although I don't really have a problem with anyone criticising homosexuality depending they don't execute their beliefs in a derogatory or prejudice way. In other words, they treat them equally. But again, even this lines of thinking should be in accordance to the law not my moral beliefs.
#14977011
B0ycey wrote:Well again, free speech is accordance to the law. Although I don't really have a problem with anyone criticising homosexuality depending they don't execute their beliefs in a derogatory or prejudice way. In other words, they treat them equally. But again, even this lines of thinking should be in accordance to the law not my moral beliefs.


You are being unnecessarily obtuse, when I asked you about a law, I am asking about your moral opinion on that law; I don't really care that laws and morals are not identical; no one denies this and no one is arguing that.

But you did answer the question sufficiently, so thanks.
#14977025
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Meta-ethical normative relativism yes, but you now seem to be saying that is not your position.

Neither of these are true. I provided public definitions with links both for meta-ethical and normative relativism and of critique.

Please refer to those.


Again, are you claiming that meta-ethical and normative relativism arguments cannot be based on anything objective?

The definition of meta-ethical and normative relativism provide this:

per you link, which was the same as the one I cited.

Lets look at an exact quote from the link.


Since you seem to be ignoring my repeated requests for verification if your claim, I am going to assume that meta-ethical and normative relativism make arguments and criticisms that are based on logic, evidence, and objective facts.

And you also defined objective moral systems as any moral system that is even partly based on anything objective. Which means all moral systems are objective, even moral relativism.

If this is the case, on what basis can you make a critique? If you believe there is nothing objectively right or wrong about (meta-ethical relativism); then it would be contradictory to your own position to say that there was something wrong about the position based on objective evidence. :eh:


No. That does not follow. Why would it be contradictory?

Likewise, if you held to normative relativism; you would have to tolerate this contrary practice even if you didn't like it; namely stoning rebellious sons, but you obviously don't hold to either of those views; so you cannot be a meta-ethical or normative moral relativist.


Why would I have to tolerate it?

If this is the case, and you are only a descriptive moral relativist, you are free to make critiques based on an objective criteria; however, basing those critiques on descriptive moral relativism itself would be a fallacy (is-ought fallacy).


Why would it be a fallacy?

Would it be fallacious to point out that Christianity has failed to convince everyone else that their moral code is objective, and base this claim on the fact that morality seems to be relative to the individual and community?

Irrelevant. This is a red-herring fallacy and an evasion.

I asked you a question.

do you reject meta-ethical moral relativism and normative moral relativism then?


We were never discussing my beliefs.

Please provide evidence for the claim that the bible permits or promotes sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent children (pedophilia). Thanks.

I think you might have the Bible confused with the qu'ran.


God rewards Lot's goodness and moral standing after he offers his daughters to a rapacious mob.
#14977032
Pants-of-dog wrote:God rewards Lot's goodness and moral standing after he offers his daughters to a rapacious mob.


God spared Lot in spite of his obvious moral failings, but that is irrelevant as this is not a case pedophilic child molestation endorsed by God; the daughters of Lot were betrothed virgins (pubescent adults) and therefore not pre-pubescent children. Hence, not child molestation.

So I take it you have no evidence for your claim then? Not surprised.

You often do this thing where you make wild and bigoted claims about Christian beliefs and are then unable to support those claims with evidence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:are you claiming that meta-ethical and normative relativism arguments cannot be based on anything objective?


I explained my claims several times, I see no reason to repeat myself further. A moral argument that is based on an objective criteria is not the same as an argument based on moral relativism, and I discussed this distinction in previous posts. You must be having trouble with reading, which is not my problem.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you seem to be ignoring my repeated requests for verification if your claim, I am going to assume that meta-ethical and normative relativism make arguments and criticisms that are based on logic, evidence, and objective facts.


I just quoted the evidence. Your choice to ignore the arguments I give are not refutations of them.

Further, you may assume what you please, but if you wish to assume that moral relativism is compatible with objective moral argumentation, then feel free to represent your position in debate against me so that I can expose it one way or the other. It will be quite easy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That does not follow. Why would it be contradictory?


Did you not read the quote from your own article?

Let me put in bold the point from the source.

meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.


If you claim the above in bold, you are claiming that there is no such thing as a right or wrong moral position; so then if you go and critique a position as being morally wrong, you have then engaged in a contradiction, because in doing so you are contradicting the claim of your system made in bold above.

What more fucking proof do you need? This is more obvious than the sky being blue.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would it be a fallacy?


Because you cannot infer obligation from observation (the naturalistic fallacy); that is, there is no necessity in the observation of human behavior to imply how people ought to behave.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would I have to tolerate it?


Once again, the actual quoted position from your own article (which was the same one I posted even before you did) states the following; note in bold:

meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.


By definition, normative moral relativism requires such tolerance. This is from your own source.

:lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Would it be fallacious to point out that Christianity has failed to convince everyone else that their moral code is objective.


No, that would be a descriptive claim of something observed and would not be fallacious by itself. It becomes fallacious only when you affix to it an obligatory or imperative statement (go from is to ought). When critiquing a moral system this become necessary, as you are arguing that a system's "ought" is an "ought-not" or the vice-versa.

Pants-of-dog wrote:and base this claim on the fact that morality seems to be relative to the individual and community?


If your statement is that Christianity has not convinced everyone of its moral system, and that different communities have different moral systems; that is not a fallacious remark, that is simply an observation that even I would make.

This of course is only descriptive moral relativism if you claim that people have different moral systems because moral belief appears to be subjective, it which case your modern opponents would more likely be evolutionary anthropologist rather than Christians; as that claim has more to do with the roots of human behavior, not with actual more questions (what is right and wrong).

Pants-of-dog wrote:We were never discussing my beliefs.


Actually, that is how this conversation started and was the basis of our original contention. So yes, we are discussing your beliefs and they are relevant.
#14977053
Victoribus Spolia wrote:God spared Lot in spite of his obvious moral failings,


That is simply your interpretation.

but that is irrelevant as this is not a case pedophilic child molestation endorsed by God; the daughters of Lot were betrothed virgins (pubescent adults) and therefore not pre-pubescent children. Hence, not child molestation.


We do not know their ages. It is an assumption to think that they were adults as we consider them.

So I take it you have no evidence for your claim then? Not surprised.

You often do this thing where you make wild and bigoted claims about Christian beliefs and are then unable to support those claims with evidence.


It is a fact that this Bible tale is about how Lot was moral enough to pass God's test, and one aspect of his morality was that he offered his virgin daughters to be raped by a mob.

Also, there is no Bible verse that explicitly bans sex with children.

Since children were considered property, especially female children, it would make sense that people could do whatever they want with their property.

I explained my claims several times, I see no reason to repeat myself further. A moral argument that is based on an objective criteria is not the same as an argument based on moral relativism, and I discussed this distinction in previous posts. You must be having trouble with reading, which is not my problem.

I just quoted the evidence. Your choice to ignore the arguments I give are not refutations of them.

Further, you may assume what you please, but if you wish to assume that moral relativism is compatible with objective moral argumentation, then feel free to represent your position in debate against me so that I can expose it one way or the other. It will be quite easy.


Again, since you have not supported your claim, I will move on.

Did you not read the quote from your own article?

Let me put in bold the point from the source.



If you claim the above in bold, you are claiming that there is no such thing as a right or wrong moral position; so then if you go and critique a position as being morally wrong, you have then engaged in a contradiction, because in doing so you are contradicting the claim of your system made in bold above.


No. You are incorrectly assuming that something is morally wrong only if it is morally wrong on an objective level.

What more fucking proof do you need? This is more obvious than the sky being blue.


You are swearing again.

Because you cannot infer obligation from observation (the naturalistic fallacy); that is, there is no necessity in the observation of human behavior to imply how people ought to behave.


You seem to be confusing moral claims with critiques.

We were discussing making critiques based on descriptive moral relativism, not moral claims.

Once again, the actual quoted position from your own article (which was the same one I posted even before you did) states the following; note in bold:

By definition, normative moral relativism requires such tolerance. This is from your own source.


Oh I see. You are discussing only normative ethical relativism and you accidentally also referred to meta-ethical moral relativism.

No, that would be a descriptive claim of something observed and would not be fallacious by itself. It becomes fallacious only when you affix to it an obligatory or imperative statement (go from is to ought). When critiquing a moral system this become necessary, as you are arguing that a system's "ought" is an "ought-not" or the vice-versa.

If your statement is that Christianity has not convinced everyone of its moral system, and that different communities have different moral systems; that is not a fallacious remark, that is simply an observation that even I would make.

This of course is only descriptive moral relativism if you claim that people have different moral systems because moral belief appears to be subjective, it which case your modern opponents would more likely be evolutionary anthropologist rather than Christians; as that claim has more to do with the roots of human behavior, not with actual more questions (what is right and wrong).


Okay, so the criticism I made about Christianity (based on descriptive moral relativism) is true.

Actually, that is how this conversation started and was the basis of our original contention. So yes, we are discussing your beliefs and they are relevant.


No.
#14977073
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is simply your interpretation.


No, that's obviously what happened in the narrative.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is an assumption to think that they were adults as we consider them.


They got pregnant shortly after fleeing the city. :eh:

That makes it pretty clear they were not pre-pubescent children. :lol:

You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself further.

You have failed to support your claim that God is okay with pedophilic child molestation, which was your claim.


Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a fact that this Bible tale is about how Lot was moral enough to pass God's test


Please provide evidence for this claim from the text for this test.

Thanks.

Also, not relevant to your unproven claim that God endorses or is accepting of pedophilic child molestation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, since you have not supported your claim, I will move on.


As long as we agree that by moving on you are ignoring the evidence and arguments I have already made.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You are incorrectly assuming that something is morally wrong only if it is morally wrong on an objective level.


No, I am quoting your source, its not my problem if your own source does not support your claims. Likewise, If its not objectively wrong, then what point is an objective criteria?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are swearing again.


Did my naughty words scare you again?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be confusing moral claims with critiques.


A moral critique is a moral claim.

Unless you are not making a critique of a moral system's obligation-claims, in which case, what the fuck are you even saying (oops I said the f-word again. shame on me)?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, so the criticism I made about Christianity (based on descriptive moral relativism) is true.


I don't recall any criticism on your part, I only remember this whole conversation starting when I responded to @Sivad bitch-slapping your position here:

Sivad wrote:Pants-of-dog wrote:For example, you could look at impact and judge morality according to said impact.

Sivad wrote: That would still be an objective measure. Relativists can't meaningfully criticize the morals of others. They can subjectively approve or disapprove but they can't say anything is objectively right or wrong.


Everything he said is true.

If you have a critique of Christian ethics based on descriptive moral relativism, I would love to see it, and I would also like to see you prove to me that descriptive moral relativism is even true in the first place.

No.


Yes.
#14977125
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, that's obviously what happened in the narrative.


No. Since we never get an explanation from God as to what exactly He thinks of Lot, assuming that you know God’s mind in this is simply your interpretation.

They got pregnant shortly after fleeing the city. :eh:

That makes it pretty clear they were not pre-pubescent children. :lol:

You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself further.

You have failed to support your claim that God is okay with pedophilic child molestation, which was your claim.


You really need to read my argumnets more carefully. I never made a specific claim about pedophilic child molestatikn as opposed to Ephebophilic child molestation. If you want to argue that God is fine with molesting children from the ages of 13 to 18, go ahead.

Please provide evidence for this claim from the text for this test.

Thanks.

Also, not relevant to your unproven claim that God endorses or is accepting of pedophilic child molestation.


It seems pretty clear that He is fine with a guy offering hs daughters to be raped.

As long as we agree that by moving on you are ignoring the evidence and arguments I have already made.


No. I was pretty clear that the reason we are moving on is becuase you have failed to supoort your claim that moral relativism is incompatible with objective moral arguments.

Until you do this, I am going to ignore any claims of yours that are based on this false assumption.

No, I am quoting your source, its not my problem if your own source does not support your claims. Likewise, If its not objectively wrong, then what point is an objective criteria?


Yes, you are making that incorrect assumption.

The point of an objective criteria is to provide a rational basis for a moral judgement.

Did my naughty words scare you again?


If you are getting worked up about this discussion, maybe you should take a break and spend time with your loved ones.

A moral critique is a moral claim.

Unless you are not making a critique of a moral system's obligation-claims, in which case, what the fuck are you even saying (oops I said the f-word again. shame on me)?


When you calm down, I can explain where your confusion is coming from.

I don't recall any criticism on your part, I only remember this whole conversation starting when I responded to @Sivad bitch-slapping your position here:


It does not matter. I mentioned it, and you agreed it was fine.

So, I guess we can criticise Christian morals even if morals are relative.

Also, I can explain why @Sivad is wrong or irrelevant, if you ask nicely.

Everything he said is true.

If you have a critique of Christian ethics based on descriptive moral relativism, I would love to see it, and I would also like to see you prove to me that descriptive moral relativism is even true in the first place.


Descriptive moral relativisim simply states that different people and communities follow different moral codes at different times. Do you disagree with this?
#14977171
B0ycey wrote:They both can only be right and wrong because of morality actually. Depending on their personal principles of what is right and wrong is, this will determine whether child molestation is right or wrong to the individual.


The question is, what motivated those "personal principles"? I'll quote from Schopenhauer's The Basis of Morality:

It is, what we see every day,—the phaenomenon of Compassion; in other words, the direct participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, in the sufferings of another, leading to sympathetic assistance in the effort to prevent or remove them; whereon in the last resort all satisfaction and all well-being and happiness depend. It is this Compassion alone which is the real basis of all voluntary justice and all genuine loving-kindness. Only so far as an action springs therefrom, has it moral value; and all conduct that proceeds from any other motive whatever has none.

...

From the foregoing considerations we see that in the single acts of the just man Compassion works only indirectly through his formulated principles, and not so much actu as potentiâ; much in the same way as in statics the greater length of one of the scale-beams, owing to its greater power of motion, balances the smaller weight attached to it with the larger on the other side, and works, while at rest, only potentiâ, not actu; yet with the same efficiency.

Nevertheless, Compassion is always ready to pass into active operation. Therefore, whenever, in special cases, the established rule shows signs of breaking down, the one incentive (for we exclude of course those based on Egoism), which is capable of infusing fresh life into it, is that drawn from the fountain-head itself—Compassion.


Kind of trivial but worth pointing out.
#14977181
If I was a Spartan warrior or a pre Marrionite Roman legionary, whether the citizen to my right was sexually abusing children would have been pretty low on my list of concerns, but in modern Britain it should be dealt with severely. In 1941 it was right to ally with Communists against the Nazis. In the Cold War it was right to ally with Neo fascists, Muslims and even Maoist Communists against the Soviets. It is now right to ally with Neo Nazis against the Muslims and their Cultural Marxist enablers. It is also right to ally with Syrian Baathists, Kurdish nationalists and Shia Islamists against the Sunni Islamists.

Is that moral relativism?
#14977212
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Since we never get an explanation from God as to what exactly He thinks of Lot, assuming that you know God’s mind in this is simply your interpretation.



Under that argument your claim would likewise just be your interpretation and therefore dismissed on the same basis.


However, since incest, exposing your daughter's nakedness, sodomy, and rape are condemned under the Law of God (the explicit expression of God's moral will for mankind); we can safely assumes that God did not approve of Lot's behavior.

Likewise, in spite of being saved from the destruction of Sodom, Lot's incentuous descendants were cursed as enemies of God, his son-in-laws were killed in Sodom, and his wife was turned by God into a pillar of salt.


Its not like he got away free and clear, he was punished along with his family, even if he was nominally a believer as is taught in the New Testament.


Pants-of-dog wrote:You really need to read my argumnets more carefully. I never made a specific claim about pedophilic child molestatikn as opposed to Ephebophilic child molestation. If you want to argue that God is fine with molesting children from the ages of 13 to 18, go ahead.



1. Your original post was in response to my claim against what I explicity called pedophilic child molestation; thus you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation if you are changing terms when you said that God approved of such.

2. The daughers of Lot were betrothed to be married and we do not know their ages, but pubscent people betrothed to be married in almost every ancient society were adults. The concept of "Teenager" did not exist until the 20th century, and Jews still celbrate manhood as 13 (bar mitzvah). Likewise, age of consent in Japan (a developed country) is 13.

3. You failed to provide evidence for your claim, and are thus soundly refuted. Thanks for making yourself look intellectually dishonest and foolish, its better than a cup of coffee for starting my day.

4. Yes, I beleive the legal age of consent should be 13 like Japan, and I beleive the Biblical view of consenting adulthoood is that age. None of which is relevant to the point that you either failed to support your argument or are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It seems pretty clear that He is fine with a guy offering hs daughters to be raped.


So no evidence then?

Thats what I thought.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I was pretty clear that the reason we are moving on is becuase you have failed to supoort your claim that moral relativism is incompatible with objective moral arguments.Until you do this, I am going to ignore any claims of yours that are based on this false assumption.


Not an argument.

No false assumptions have been made.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you are making that incorrect assumption. The point of an objective criteria is to provide a rational basis for a moral judgement.



That is incorrect, I am making no assumptions, I am only quoting the text of your source and how it does not support your claim.


Pants-of-dog wrote:maybe you should take a break and spend time with your loved ones.


Not all of us are stay-at-home dads.


If you can't handle big-boy words on an internet forum, perhaps you should convert your closet into a safe-space.


Pants-of-dog wrote:I can explain where your confusion is coming from.



Please do.


Pants-of-dog wrote:It does not matter. I mentioned it, and you agreed it was fine.So, I guess we can criticise Christian morals even if morals are relative.Also, I can explain why @Sivad is wrong or irrelevant, if you ask nicely.


Please give an example as proof for this claim. Otherwise, it will be dismissed as unsupported.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Descriptive moral relativisim simply states that different people and communities follow different moral codes at different times. Do you disagree with this?



As a general observation I agree with this statement; though I would qualify that there are certain behaviors that are nigh universal among human societies.


So I guess i'm a descriptive moral relativist too and an advocate of an objective moral philosophy.


If that is not a contradiction, then that shows itself why descriptive moral relativism cannot be the basis of an actual moral critique. It makes only descriptive, not prescriptive, claims.
#14977219
One Degree wrote:I think empathy would work better than compassion. Compassion lacks the egoism that empathy includes. Our morality is based upon self preservation (self interests) imo.


I think the argument is that an action out of self-interest has by itself no moral value (is neither good nor bad).

However if an action out of self-interest harms another person it would be bad, I guess, unless it is done to uphold a moral principle derived from compassion. So if physical assault is a violation of your moral principles derived from compassion, you could defend yourself violently against somebody attacking you and still do good. I'm not sure that's the correct interpretation, have to do some more reading.
#14977225
Rugoz wrote:I think the argument is that an action out of self-interest has by itself no moral value (is neither good nor bad).

However if an action out of self-interest harms another person it would be bad, I guess, unless it is done to uphold a moral principle derived from compassion. So if physical assault is a violation of your moral principles derived from compassion, you could defend yourself violently against somebody attacking you and still do good. I'm not sure that's the correct interpretation, have to do some more reading.


I am trying to think of how compassion is possible in the absence of empathy. I come up empty. You can come up with some logical rules of behavior perhaps, but that requires the absence of emotion such as compassion.
This seems to be using language to create a reality that doesn’t exist. How do you define compassion without empathy?
#14977271
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Under that argument your claim would likewise just be your interpretation and therefore dismissed on the same basis.


I think my interpretation (that god tested the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and only Lot was found to be righteous) is consistent with orthodox teachings.

Your interpretation that God was fine with Lot, except when he offered his virgin daughters to be raped, is not.

However, since incest, exposing your daughter's nakedness, sodomy, and rape are condemned under the Law of God (the explicit expression of God's moral will for mankind); we can safely assumes that God did not approve of Lot's behavior.

Likewise, in spite of being saved from the destruction of Sodom, Lot's incentuous descendants were cursed as enemies of God, his son-in-laws were killed in Sodom, and his wife was turned by God into a pillar of salt.


God does not care about rape, if the owner of the woman is fine with it. The feelings of the woman are immaterial.

Its not like he got away free and clear, he was punished along with his family, even if he was nominally a believer as is taught in the New Testament.


I doubt this was because of his offer to rape his daughters. More likely, God was punishing his daughters for daring to interfere with Lot’s property, i.e, their vaginas and wombs.

1. Your original post was in response to my claim against what I explicity called pedophilic child molestation; thus you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation if you are changing terms when you said that God approved of such.

2. The daughers of Lot were betrothed to be married and we do not know their ages, but pubscent people betrothed to be married in almost every ancient society were adults. The concept of "Teenager" did not exist until the 20th century, and Jews still celbrate manhood as 13 (bar mitzvah). Likewise, age of consent in Japan (a developed country) is 13.

3. You failed to provide evidence for your claim, and are thus soundly refuted. Thanks for making yourself look intellectually dishonest and foolish, its better than a cup of coffee for starting my day.

4. Yes, I beleive the legal age of consent should be 13 like Japan, and I beleive the Biblical view of consenting adulthoood is that age. None of which is relevant to the point that you either failed to support your argument or are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.


As long as we are clear that God says it is all right to offer your daughters to be raped, even if they are below the age of eighteen.

So no evidence then?

Thats what I thought.


Unless you consider the Bible evidence, which it is, insofar as it is a collection of myths showcasing the morality of Bronze age sheepherders.

Not an argument.

No false assumptions have been made.

That is incorrect, I am making no assumptions, I am only quoting the text of your source and how it does not support your claim.


So you refusing to support your incorrect assumptions, and you laso even refuse to discuss the possibility that you made these assumptions.

So, I will simply continue to assume the assumpion is incorrect.

Not all of us are stay-at-home dads.

If you can't handle big-boy words on an internet forum, perhaps you should convert your closet into a safe-space.


No, it is fine, as I have alredy determined how to stop you from doing this kind of stuff.

Please do.


Sure. Not all criticisms of moral systems are necessarily moral claims themselves.

Please give an example as proof for this claim. Otherwise, it will be dismissed as unsupported.


No. Just go back and reread the last few interactions we had.

As a general observation I agree with this statement; though I would qualify that there are certain behaviors that are nigh universal among human societies.

So I guess i'm a descriptive moral relativist too and an advocate of an objective moral philosophy.

If that is not a contradiction, then that shows itself why descriptive moral relativism cannot be the basis of an actual moral critique. It makes only descriptive, not prescriptive, claims.


Since it is called descriptive moral relativism, that would make sense.

The way I see it, the fact that no one can say that something is objectively right or wrong on an objective level does not matter. We can still make moral judgements other than that.

People who mistakenly believe that their moral code is the right and objective one are still capable of making moral judgements of others, despite the fact that their moral code is not actually objective.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@wat0n Your obsession with sexual violence is […]

Since you keep insisting on pretending that the I[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]