LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
1. Wrong. Reason and logic are themselves forms of faith. Also, what the hell does "basis" mean; a moral code is itself something, and damn well better incorporate elements of both logic and faith to work; which is the basis if both are sine qua nons?

2. Dissent. There are moral codes that periodically converge and separate. Within the US, I believe we have a less unified moral code that 50 years ago, even if worldwide there can be a more intelligent conversation among Catholics and Buddhists today than 50 years ago.

3. Completely and totally wrong. Seeing morality as bound to time and circumstances does not mean that all is moral; while it is always fun to win arguments by setting up straw men, oversimplifying the position of those who believe morality must be motivated from the inside rather than imposed will only win you points among simpletons (Hi, Hank!). Please re-read the debate between Ivan and Father Zosima.

4. OK, you get one. Or is it just that you've chosen to prove a tautology?

5. Do not underestimate the creativity of the human species.

(Yea! The reinforcements have arrived! We can keep this debate going through the weekend!)

When you are working till midnight so you and the wife (right) aren't fucking, does she ever call bullshit by checking to see if you are wasting time here? I'm mean what is wrong in your life that you go home late because of "work load" but spend time here? When answering, remember, no one here likes you.

Spanky

05-26-2005 09:36 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This is what I still don't get: The dilemma posed is a) divine morality b) self-interest "morality"

there's something in between the two, which spanky seems not to have acknowledged the existence of, which is a morality based on a recognition that pure self-interest is mutually destructive, and that placing a collective interest above that self-interest can be in the interest of all.

So far as I can tell, Spanky would say that the only way the prisoner's dilemma could be solved is if God said "thou shalt not rat out your coconspirator".

The Divine morality is not the same as the collective morality (the ultimate collective morality was communist which was Atheist).

I think the collective theory of morality is basically the same as the self interest. The collective theory is that it is better for the individuals if they form a collective. And for the collective the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. So you are better off if you are in a collective, but sometimes in a collective the individual gets sacrificed so you should just hope you are not the individual that needs to be sacrificed. You are better of in the collective and the odds are you won't be the one that is sacrificed.

Secret_Agent_Man

05-26-2005 10:01 PM

please stop- honestly

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"Do not return evil to your adversary;

Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you,

Maintain justice for your enemy,

Be friendly to your enemy."

So says a 3rd millennium BCE text, "Counsels of Wisdom," (1) a sort of Ann Landers column from the Mesopotamian (Iraqi) land of Akkad. If it sounds familiar, read Matt. 5:38-41 ( "... if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also ..."), Matt. 5:44 ("Love your enemies,"), Luke 6:27-30, and in a similar vein Lev. 19:18. Any similarities between the pagan and later Biblical passages are probably no coincidence.

One of the most pervasive claims of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that morality comes from the Biblical god and belongs only to Jews and/or Christians. It's like a mantra for some religious fundamentalists.

The very phrase "Judeo-Christian morality" explicitly takes credit for modern moral concepts, implying that non-believers are essentially incapable of moral virtue. (2) Jewish scripture has Moses introducing morality into a pagan, immoral world when he purportedly brought the 10 commandments and a long list of other laws down off Mt. Sinai. (3) Christians add Jesus as the final arbiter of moral issues.

I hope this sampling of parallels between Biblical and Bronze Age, pre-Biblical literature - by no means comprehensive - will show that claim is a myth. The Bible's moral ideas, both those that modern society still accepts and those it has rejected, are the products of pre-Biblical societies, which stressed virtue in an abstract sense and offered practical advice on everyday ethics.

Nice work, Hank. I'm embarassed to say that it took me about this long to realize that you'd lifted the post via Google skills. Still, a worthy contribution which should put and end to the nattering.

S_A_M

Spanky

05-26-2005 10:59 PM

The meaning of moral and immoral

What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

sebastian_dangerfield

05-27-2005 09:59 AM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The Divine morality is not the same as the collective morality (the ultimate collective morality was communist which was Atheist).

I think the collective theory of morality is basically the same as the self interest. The collective theory is that it is better for the individuals if they form a collective. And for the collective the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. So you are better off if you are in a collective, but sometimes in a collective the individual gets sacrificed so you should just hope you are not the individual that needs to be sacrificed. You are better of in the collective and the odds are you won't be the one that is sacrificed.

What is your point? That morality is divine, given to us by "God?" If it is, I'm willing to believe you. All you have to do is prove it to me.

We're past opening argument. No public policy arguments. Proof, my boy. Lay your proof that morality is divine on the table. If not, I move for directed verdict, and sanctions. You haven't come close to proving your case.

The thing is, in any court, anywhere, the notion that there is a higher "divine" law handed down wouldn't even pass summary judgment.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-27-2005 10:19 AM

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

Generally, not much. Here are my nits on the statement -- I think here needs only be agreement on the relevant elements of a common moral code. If we're talking about "thou shalt not kill" evaluations of moral conduct, the way our respective moral codes view polygamy probably isn't relevant.

I also don't know if the introductory clause is necessary. If someone has a moral code based entirely on self-interest (assuming such a code rises to the level of a moral code), I'm not sure why the rest of the statement wouldn't apply.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-27-2005 10:20 AM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
When you are working till midnight so you and the wife (right) aren't fucking, does she ever call bullshit by checking to see if you are wasting time here? I'm mean what is wrong in your life that you go home late because of "work load" but spend time here? When answering, remember, no one here likes you.

Projecting, again?

Bad_Rich_Chic

05-27-2005 10:59 AM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So you don't care that there is Slavery in Sudan? And you think my naivete leads me to care?

Not at all. I think your naivete leads you to think that the fact that you and I care means there must be some universal external power or intelligence requiring us (and everyone else) to care.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-27-2005 11:05 AM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
...some universal external power or intelligence requiring ...

So now are we going to debate free will and grace?

Bad_Rich_Chic

05-27-2005 11:21 AM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So now are we going to debate free will and grace?

I'm a Pelagian, so that could get ugly.

BR(anyone wanting to get into it over the epistemological implications of the fallen nature of man in this context should probably do it over PM)C

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-27-2005 11:46 AM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm a Pelagian, so that could get ugly.

BR(anyone wanting to get into it over the epistemological implications of the fallen nature of man in this context should probably do it over PM)C

I view myself as an Augustinian-Pelagian, believing that people are both good by nature and inherantly fallen. Grace is as intrinsic as original sin.

Indeed, I think the post-Vatican II Catholic church has embraced at least as much Pelagianism as did Pelagius.

sgtclub

05-27-2005 01:22 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I view myself as an Augustinian-Pelagian, believing that people are both good by nature and inherantly fallen. Grace is as intrinsic as original sin.

Indeed, I think the post-Vatican II Catholic church has embraced at least as much Pelagianism as did Pelagius.

I don't know what all these big words mean, but why do you think people are good by nature?

Bad_Rich_Chic

05-27-2005 01:25 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Nah, they're generally considered semi-Pelagian; Pelagius denied original sin entirely, believing that, if man has free will, and must choose to act in accordance with God's wishes to be saved, then man must inherently have the capacity to do so (i.e.: man can through exercise of his will, effectively, save himself - I've heard this best summarized as "responsibility necessarily implies ability"). Semi-Pelagianism (which also was formally denounced, but is, you are correct, pretty much the unofficial view of the RC these days) holds that man is fallen and grace is still necessary to enable man to discern God's wishes, but grace alone is not sufficient to secure salvation.

Straight-up Augustinianism (grace alone, and that in the sole discretion of God) is still official doctrine. Evangelical proddies are pretty much the last proponents of that.

On a more fun (and, given the lack of anything useful happening today, appropriate) note, this dude made me think of y'all:

http://abum.com/?show_media=1439#nohead

(work-safe; must have sound)

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-27-2005 01:50 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know what all these big words mean, but why do you think people are good by nature?

I have children.

ltl/fb

05-27-2005 02:11 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I have children.

I tried the "kids are nice" thing on club and it didn't work at all. apparently the kids in his family and his friends' kids are all satan spawn.