| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2006 04:51:56 PM · #1 |
Big Bang ? how about Big Band or Big Ben ? j/k ...
trying to be funny :-) |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 04:41:07 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Are you done arguing with me, too? I was only two-thirds the way through my argument and you seemed to stop responding directly to me. |
Ya, Shannon was all dominating the conversation and stuff. Let me look back at your posts (particularly the last one). We'll talk tomorrow. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 02:27:34 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Debating is fun up to a point. When it becomes frustrating and unproductive to all parties, then you might as well end. We knew, as we have said before, that nobody was going to change their mind about things. Unsurprisingly, we were right.
It's been enjoyable. You are a worthy opponent... ;) |
Are you done arguing with me, too? I was only two-thirds the way through my argument and you seemed to stop responding directly to me. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 02:13:00 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The one thing I think we CAN agree on is that the debate is going nowhere and at this point a total waste of time an energy. :-/ |
Debating is fun up to a point. When it becomes frustrating and unproductive to all parties, then you might as well end. We knew, as we have said before, that nobody was going to change their mind about things. Unsurprisingly, we were right.
It's been enjoyable. You are a worthy opponent... ;)
Sorry for confusing you with yanko melethia, I think he posted just below you and my little brain read it wrong. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:50:29 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The standard we use today is the same one we used 200 years ago. The only difference is we have since added more verbiage "clarifying" some issues that have come up during the 200 years of it's application. ...our founding fathers set forth a standard that at it's inception wasn't attainable but is becoming more and more today. |
Good to know that we're getting closer the ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Like... freedom. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 11:10:58 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I've been trying to read along, but for the life of me can't quite figure out what exactly is being debated.
Your query, Doc, if I read this right, is are all moralities equal or some more equal than others? I would wager that every man believes his morality is the right one - maybe not better or worse, but right.
Do I think that my society and its attending morals, which frown upon killing people, are better than a society's where killing people is an honorable "task"? Yes but that's based on me being raised in my society. Who knows what I'd think if that weren't the case.
And I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-) |
You are pretty close yanko. We're debating the following points (which form an argument):
1) A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality.
2) An atheist's worldview cannot logically support that idea.
3) Nobody acts like they believe an absolute standard for morality doesn't exist.
4) Therefore, atheists act one way and believe another. |
I'm not actually yanko, though we do hail from the same state at the moment. And his first name has D, R, A and H in it; mine (formal version) does, too.
But beyond that...
From above:
A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality.
I would assert that this can be true if and only if the theists all hold the same deity as "god". And this is where all the "smite the peoples" part comes into play, yes? My god says I can kill all of people "A" in his name; your god says you can kill all of people "B" in his name.
That's the part I've never quite understood about organized religion - Christianity in particular. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 09:48:38 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality. |
… an absolute standard for morality which changes at the will of a jealous and vengeful God.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) An atheist's worldview cannot logically support that idea. |
…which is not that same as having no moral standards.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) Nobody acts like they believe an absolute standard for morality doesn't exist. |
Members of societies benefit from having some form of moral standard. I benefit from having a moral standard within my community. You benefit from having a moral standard in your community. Some moral standards benefit more people than other moral standards. There are differences in standards of morality between different societies. There are even differences in moral standards between different Christian communities who claim access to an absolute standard.
Because people in society get a benefit from having a moral standard does not lead to the conclusions that there is necessarily an absolute moral standard. This is the point you’re ignoring.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
4) Therefore, atheists act one way and believe another. |
Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
Shall we get back to the poor Amorite kiddies?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:45:22 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
While you can "pursue happiness" with a bottle of bourbon, doing it by smoking a joint can land you in Federal prison. That doesn't sound like much of an absolute right to me.
Also, the word "privacy" does not appear in the US Constitution, and one of the major arguments by anti-abortion advocates is that the Justices "invented" that right with the Roe v. Wade decision. (Note: this is not true of various state constitutions -- e.g. California's includes an explicit right to privacy.) |
I've never claimed the powers at be adhered to the standard absolutely. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:36:13 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
While you can "pursue happiness" with a bottle of bourbon, doing it by smoking a joint can land you in Federal prison. That doesn't sound like much of an absolute right to me.
Also, the word "privacy" does not appear in the US Constitution, and one of the major arguments by anti-abortion advocates is that the Justices "invented" that right with the Roe v. Wade decision. (Note: this is not true of various state constitutions -- e.g. California's includes an explicit right to privacy.)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Interestingly, the same issues Scalvert is dealing with are also faced in worldviews with more than one deity. Many of these come down to two major gods which represent good and evil, yin and yang, etc. Because you now have two equal entities you one again run into the problem of finding the moral standard. |
The pantheons with which I'm familiar operate on a strict hierarchy, with disagreements usually ending with the stronger god disposing of the lesser in some shockingly unpleasant manner. For example, the supreme god Saturn was so afraid of being overthrown that he ate his children, until his wife fooled him by sneaking a stone into his meal instead ... so when Jupiter killed his dad and took over the family business it may have been a shock but perhaps not completely unexpected. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 02:08:05 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
"All men are created equal" didn't work out so well for blacks during most of that time. :-/ |
Please see my post above this one. :)
Actually, let me summarize:
The standard we use today is the same one we used 200 years ago. The only difference is we have since added more verbiage "clarifying" some issues that have come up during the 200 years of it's application.
Humans are fallible. We're not gods. However, our founding fathers set forth a standard that at it's inception wasn't attainable but is becoming more and more today. The standard has never changed only our abilities and willingness to practice it.
Message edited by author 2006-08-13 02:14:14.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:29:14 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
"All men are created equal" didn't work out so well for blacks during most of that time. :-/ |
No it didn't but that statement hasn't changed since it was first written now has it?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:25:42 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
"All men are created equal" didn't work out so well for blacks during most of that time. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:24:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by yanko:
...last I checked the majority of Americans didn't support overturning Roe vs Wade. |
50 years ago, you could say the same thing about blacks voting. 100 years ago, you could say the same thing about women voting. Times change, people change, laws change, standards change. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:23:38 AM · #14 |
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one.
Message edited by author 2006-08-13 01:24:14.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:20:17 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations. |
What you call changes I call interpretations of an existing standard. |
That's what I called them too. ;-)
If a new group of justices rule abortion unconstitutional 2 years from now, then so much for your "already protected" statement. If that sounds farfetched, then why does that exact scenario make headlines when Bush appoints justices? |
IF an argument can be made that abortion is indeed unconstitional i.e. not protected under the constitution then it should be overturned however that argument may very well not exist. Maybe someone could argue that the unborn has rights protected by the constitution and therefore supercedes that of the mother but they would have to show how that is reflected in the constitution.
Of course it could get overturn for any reason due to a "stacked" SCOTUS but again that would be the results of abuse rather than a changing standard, IMO. In fact last I checked the majority of Americans didn't support overturning Roe vs Wade.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 01:19:31 AM · #16 |
I'm reading Achoo's positions as:
1) God is the absolute standard of morality- despite the fact that He gives apparently conflicting instructions, and the only guidelines for that standard are ancient texts that people have at some time interpreted to fit opposing sides of just about any issue you can think of.
2) Atheists have NO standard of morality (an absurd notion).
3) The fact that everybody has personal standards of conduct is somehow evidence that everyone believes an ABSOLUTE standard exists ouside of those personal beliefs. Nevermind that you'd be hard pressed to find even two people with exactly the same standards across the board.
4) All athiests don't have a single ideal of perfection, yet they have personal ideals, so this is somehow hypocrisy.
The one thing I think we CAN agree on is that the debate is going nowhere and at this point a total waste of time an energy. :-/
Message edited by author 2006-08-13 01:27:09. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:58:10 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations. |
What you call changes I call interpretations of an existing standard. |
That's what I called them too. ;-)
If a new group of justices rule abortion unconstitutional 2 years from now, then so much for your "already protected" statement. If that sounds farfetched, then why does that exact scenario make headlines when Bush appoints justices? |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:55:58 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I've been trying to read along, but for the life of me can't quite figure out what exactly is being debated.
Your query, Doc, if I read this right, is are all moralities equal or some more equal than others? I would wager that every man believes his morality is the right one - maybe not better or worse, but right.
Do I think that my society and its attending morals, which frown upon killing people, are better than a society's where killing people is an honorable "task"? Yes but that's based on me being raised in my society. Who knows what I'd think if that weren't the case.
And I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-) |
You are pretty close yanko. We're debating the following points (which form an argument):
1) A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality.
2) An atheist's worldview cannot logically support that idea.
3) Nobody acts like they believe an absolute standard for morality doesn't exist.
4) Therefore, atheists act one way and believe another. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:52:52 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-) |
It pretty much nails exactly what I've been trying to explain to Achoo. What's right to me isn't necessarily right to you.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody acts like you say we should. |
Hogwash. People act like I say they do (not should), and I gave you historical examples of each. Lewis' error is that most people meeting face to face are from similar cultures and thus share similar ideas of right and wrong. Around here, we get offended if someone takes our seat or breaks in line, but in other cultures breaking in line is the norm (and totally expected). Try preaching your sense of morality in Iran and see how long you live.
The idea that one morality is better than another is relative no matter how much you may fantasize otherwise. History proves it repeatedly. A forum of skinheads would indeed find the morals of Hitler or Stalin "better," but the vast majority in this country at this time wouldn't. Ask your average 1942 German (or a 2006 member of Hezbollah) if killing a Jew is "right," and you probably won't like the answer. Think you could talk them out of it? |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:51:55 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, and Yanko... the constitution is a standard, but hardly absolute. If it were, then nobody would care who was appointed to the Supreme Court. Instead, the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations. Tough moral choices like abortion, the death penalty, gambling and segregation may be constitutional one decade and not in the next. Alchohol was delared "bad" by the 18th amendment. The 21st amendment said "nevermind." Absolute standards don't do that. |
What you call changes I call interpretations of an existing standard.
In the case of abortion the justices ruled that it was ALREADY protected by the constitution. If you read Roe vs. Wade the justices ruled that abortion falls under the "right to privacy", which is already protected by the constitution. So the standard didn't change only clarification of the issue brought to the court. That's how the system is suppose to work. Not saying it does all the time as people are fallible and prohibition is an example of that.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:44:53 AM · #21 |
I've been trying to read along, but for the life of me can't quite figure out what exactly is being debated.
Your query, Doc, if I read this right, is are all moralities equal or some more equal than others? I would wager that every man believes his morality is the right one - maybe not better or worse, but right.
Do I think that my society and its attending morals, which frown upon killing people, are better than a society's where killing people is an honorable "task"? Yes but that's based on me being raised in my society. Who knows what I'd think if that weren't the case.
And I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-) |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:11:41 AM · #22 |
At the end of the day Shannon, your argument just doesn't hold water in reality. Nobody acts like you say we should.
Let me quote the first two paragraphs of Lewis' Mere Christianity. He much more eloquently states what I have been trying to say:
Let's see if I can just cut and paste it from somewhere...hmmm...ok, here we go:
Originally posted by C.S. Lewis, the wise:
Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' - 'That's my seat, I was there first' - 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' - 'Why should you shove in first?' - 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' - 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. |
Like it or not, we see evidence of this every day, and the ideas of right and wrong don't come merely from society as you claim. The same arguments occur between people of different nationalities, ethnicities, etc. As long as they speak the same language (and even if they don't) a Swede and a Mongol can argue about sharing a meal. We may all have a differing take on exactly what those rules are (and are splintered into the billions and billions of societies of one) but in the end there is a standard which you can line everybody up in descending order of "most like" to "least like". We act like this is so because we know it our hearts it is so.
Let's see, I think there are a number of people reading along in this thread. Show of hands from those who agree with Scalvert that no morality is superior to another. That the morals of 2006 US of A and the 1943 Third Reich and Stalinist Russia and Old Testament Judaism are only different, but to talk of better or worse is to talk nonsense.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2006 11:14:58 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Had the Nazi's won and taken over Europe it still wouldn't have made their genocide Right. They would have been Wrong. No matter how many people in the world are convinced 2+2=5, it isn't so. |
It would have been right to them and wrong to us (just as it was then). Fortunately, they lost. We look at the Taliban and view their extreme moral standards as "wrong," so you might expect the removal of such oppression to be greeted with open arms. Surprise! Years later there are still Afghans blowing up schools and stuggling to return to the old ways of no music, no schools, no sports, no freedom, no fun. Suppose you gathered 50,000 Afghans who prefer that lifestyle and put them on an island all by themselves. Do you have the right or obligation to do ANYTHING other than say, "my society says it isn't ok. We all got together over here, and well, we just think it's wrong"...?
2+2 is math and can be proven to the point of no rebuttal. Not so with morals or religion, which DEPEND on the fact that they can't be proven. There must be enough ambiguity to allow revised interpretations when new discoveries or shifts in popular opinion conflict with accepted doctrine or the religion would fail. Three different popes declared that the idea of the earth orbiting the sun was absurd and false. Oops. The church has yet to officially overturn that position (yikes). Pope John Paul II revised the church's position on Darwinian evolution in 1996 to be in favor of the theory. So much for past interpretations.
Oh, and Yanko... the constitution is a standard, but hardly absolute. If it were, then nobody would care who was appointed to the Supreme Court. Instead, the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations. Tough moral choices like abortion, the death penalty, gambling and segregation may be constitutional one decade and not in the next. Alchohol was delared "bad" by the 18th amendment. The 21st amendment said "nevermind." Absolute standards don't do that. |
|
|
|
08/12/2006 11:06:40 PM · #24 |
You're right. In theory it should be the absolute standard but in actuality it isn't. However, I would categorize that as a failing of the justices more than anything else. It's no different than priests who fail to adhere to the bible's teachings. As history has shown time and time again, people are fallible and that may be the only true absolute in all of this.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2006 10:37:26 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The constitution in this country IS an absolute standard. SCOTUS rules on cases based on it's constitutionality and nothing else. If it finds something to be "constitutional" then it means it is permissible according to the constitution, a.k.a. the absolute standard. |
Would that what you say were so - but it is, unfortunately, not so...
In 2005, in remarks to the members of the American Society of International Law, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that as a justice she considers foreign laws – not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.
In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor openly stated that the court should look abroad for judicial guidance. She indicated that she and the High Court had been influenced in recent rulings:
She cited foreign laws as having helped the Court rule that executing mentally retarded individuals was illegal.
She also said that the Court relied on European Court decisions when it struck down Texas' law outlawing sodomy or sex between adults of the same gender.
So, unfortunately, it would appear that SCOTUS does NOT view the Constitution as absolute, and does NOT rule on cases based on their constitutionality and nothing else. |
|
