| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2013 05:02:28 PM · #226 |
| I'm making it possible for everyone to "speak" the same language ... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 05:04:23 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the hierarchy the culture is subservient to the morality (where in artwork morality it is the other way around). And while we can possibly arrive at polar opposite views on something, we can then have the conversation that one answer is "more correct" than the other (comparing it to some standard). When we arrive at polar opposite views in artwork morality we are then at an impasse. There is, metaphysically speaking, no way to proceed. |
So then you can tell me, who is correct? The Calvanist view of the rich being blessed by God's design, or Liberation theology's view of God commanding us to take care of the poor? Since it is divorced from culture and geography, one is right, and one is wrong. Those without biblical guidance have to wander back and forth between ideals and strike a balance, but surely you have the math to get the right answer. If you can do the math. |
..
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Their action was either in-line or out-of-line and what they considered about their own situation does not play in the answer. |
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
Inquiring minds want to know. :D
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 17:05:18. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 06:10:19 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to think even more Paul, ask yourself this: What is a culture? Are there cultures within cultures within cultures until we wind up with a culture of one individual? If someone disagrees with the culture around them, does that make them "wrong"? This is the problem with grounding morality in culture. |
... and just how does this differ from the morality imposed on society by the church. It too is grounded on the mores, values and morals viewed and propagated as being acceptable by the church elders.
Surely you recognize the fact that morality within the church has changed over the years and adapted customs and beliefs that originated from other groups not initially associated with the church.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 07:03:48 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
The most important takehome is that there would be a higher authority to appeal to at all (and it ain't me). This is an objective moral system. A subjective system would have no such mechanism.
Look at it this way: A group of peasants are living and there are no laws or means of arbitrating what is right and what is wrong. When two peasants disagree they can only yell at each other and, maybe, come to some consensus, but no peasant has any leverage over the other when it comes to authority or "being right". Is this system "meaningful and helpful"? Along comes a king. It is declared that the king will ajudicate all disputes. What the king says is what is right and what is wrong.
Before the king, the peasants were living under a subjective system (everybody had a say, nobody was more correct than another). After the king, they have an objective system (only the king has a say and people can be more inline or less in line with his decree). The king's word is "objective" (independent of the peasants points of view). Can you see how an argument would differ if it occurred under the first system and under the second? The first is going to be back and forth banter with no real leverage while the second is going to be an appeal to "what the King said". This is an important difference.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 08:08:12 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
The most important takehome is that there would be a higher authority to appeal to at all (and it ain't me). This is an objective moral system. A subjective system would have no such mechanism.
Look at it this way: A group of peasants are living and there are no laws or means of arbitrating what is right and what is wrong. When two peasants disagree they can only yell at each other and, maybe, come to some consensus, but no peasant has any leverage over the other when it comes to authority or "being right". Is this system "meaningful and helpful"? Along comes a king. It is declared that the king will ajudicate all disputes. What the king says is what is right and what is wrong.
Before the king, the peasants were living under a subjective system (everybody had a say, nobody was more correct than another). After the king, they have an objective system (only the king has a say and people can be more inline or less in line with his decree). The king's word is "objective" (independent of the peasants points of view). Can you see how an argument would differ if it occurred under the first system and under the second? The first is going to be back and forth banter with no real leverage while the second is going to be an appeal to "what the King said". This is an important difference. |
But it is still subjective - it's just subjective at a slightly higher level. No different than religion.
Just because it is now the king that is being subjective, rather than the peasants, that doesn't really change the fact that it's a subjective system.
What would make it objective, IMO, is if the king was basing his decisions on that which can be verified or demonstrated.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 20:09:44. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 08:18:19 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
The most important takehome is that there would be a higher authority to appeal to at all (and it ain't me). This is an objective moral system. A subjective system would have no such mechanism. |
No the take home is neither has such a mechanism.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 20:18:54. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 08:30:59 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
The most important takehome is that there would be a higher authority to appeal to at all (and it ain't me). This is an objective moral system. A subjective system would have no such mechanism.
Look at it this way: A group of peasants are living and there are no laws or means of arbitrating what is right and what is wrong. When two peasants disagree they can only yell at each other and, maybe, come to some consensus, but no peasant has any leverage over the other when it comes to authority or "being right". Is this system "meaningful and helpful"? Along comes a king. It is declared that the king will ajudicate all disputes. What the king says is what is right and what is wrong.
Before the king, the peasants were living under a subjective system (everybody had a say, nobody was more correct than another). After the king, they have an objective system (only the king has a say and people can be more inline or less in line with his decree). The king's word is "objective" (independent of the peasants points of view). Can you see how an argument would differ if it occurred under the first system and under the second? The first is going to be back and forth banter with no real leverage while the second is going to be an appeal to "what the King said". This is an important difference. |
But it is still subjective - it's just subjective at a slightly higher level. No different than religion.
Just because it is now the king that is being subjective, rather than the peasants, that doesn't really change the fact that it's a subjective system.
What would make it objective, IMO, is if the king was basing his decisions on that which can be verified or demonstrated. |
In a way you are right Cory, and that's a flaw of the analogy only. However, IF the king were, I don't know, the Creator of the Universe and the Supreme Being would his decrees then be objective? There is no standard above him. He is beholden to nothing. The buck ends there. Can you see how this system is fundamentally different than any other subjective system? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:26:18 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
The most important takehome is that there would be a higher authority to appeal to at all (and it ain't me). This is an objective moral system. A subjective system would have no such mechanism.
Look at it this way: A group of peasants are living and there are no laws or means of arbitrating what is right and what is wrong. When two peasants disagree they can only yell at each other and, maybe, come to some consensus, but no peasant has any leverage over the other when it comes to authority or "being right". Is this system "meaningful and helpful"? Along comes a king. It is declared that the king will ajudicate all disputes. What the king says is what is right and what is wrong.
Before the king, the peasants were living under a subjective system (everybody had a say, nobody was more correct than another). After the king, they have an objective system (only the king has a say and people can be more inline or less in line with his decree). The king's word is "objective" (independent of the peasants points of view). Can you see how an argument would differ if it occurred under the first system and under the second? The first is going to be back and forth banter with no real leverage while the second is going to be an appeal to "what the King said". This is an important difference. |
But it is still subjective - it's just subjective at a slightly higher level. No different than religion.
Just because it is now the king that is being subjective, rather than the peasants, that doesn't really change the fact that it's a subjective system.
What would make it objective, IMO, is if the king was basing his decisions on that which can be verified or demonstrated. |
In a way you are right Cory, and that's a flaw of the analogy only. However, IF the king were, I don't know, the Creator of the Universe and the Supreme Being would his decrees then be objective? There is no standard above him. He is beholden to nothing. The buck ends there. Can you see how this system is fundamentally different than any other subjective system? |
No way to verify or demonstrate - it's still subjective.
The issue is the whole "beholden to nothing" - effectively, that's exactly the problem, stated better than I could have put it myself - if you are beholden to nothing, then there is no point of reference, therefore the entire system is subjective, Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:48:48 PM · #234 |
| No, there is another option. He IS the system. He IS the point of reference. Of course there has to be a grounding; an axiomatic self-referencing truth. It is Him. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:52:54 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, there is another option. He IS the system. He IS the point of reference. Of course there has to be a grounding; an axiomatic self-referencing truth. It is Him. |
And this would be fine, if all of the different religions could even come close to agreeing on the details.
The problem is that each group has their own truth, and so from that standpoint, without qualification, nearly all of these groups must be wrong at at least some level.
That's a major issue. Unless, of course, it is agreed that they are all indeed subjective systems, at which point they are no longer wrong, but merely being influenced by the subjective nature of their particular truth.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 23:55:28. |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 12:01:02 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
The most important takehome is that there would be a higher authority to appeal to at all (and it ain't me). This is an objective moral system. A subjective system would have no such mechanism. |
There is a mechanism for directly ascertaining God's opinion? Wait'll Dan Brown hears about this!
And that was my question, not Brennan's, and it was indeed directed at you since you seem to speak with such authority and certainty on such matters.
If it's an objective truth, why can't you just answer my question, yes or no? |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 12:04:08 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, there is another option. He IS the system. He IS the point of reference. Of course there has to be a grounding; an axiomatic self-referencing truth. It is Him. |
And this would be fine, if all of the different religions could even come close to agreeing on the details.
The problem is that each group has their own truth, and so from that standpoint, without qualification, nearly all of these groups must be wrong at at least some level.
That's a major issue. Unless, of course, it is agreed that they are all indeed subjective systems, at which point they are no longer wrong, but merely being influenced by the subjective nature of their particular truth. |
I don't disagree at all Cory. In praxis this is a big problem. BUT, it doesn't mean an objective system isn't sound (or that it doesn't exist). At the very least the objectivists are fighting to learn the Truth. The subjectivists have given up that fight before it even started. |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 12:06:51 AM · #238 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If it's an objective truth, why can't you just answer my question, yes or no? |
Because a) I never claim to know all truth and b) perhaps in some situations it WAS right to burn heretics while other situations it was wrong (and if you think that the answer in each situation can't still be objective you aren't paying attention). |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 12:16:54 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
Actually that was Paul's question not mine.
Mine had to do with the shifting perspective of theists with a supposedly fixed moral compass. Calvanism versus Liberation theology, or if you prefer the Albigensian Crusade where the Pope ordered the elimination of the Cathars and all of their works. This slaughter was the first use of the rational "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."
My point is that those who act in the name of their lord, have as variable notion of morality as those who act on the basis of any other rationality. |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 12:54:52 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
Actually that was Paul's question not mine.
Mine had to do with the shifting perspective of theists with a supposedly fixed moral compass. Calvanism versus Liberation theology, or if you prefer the Albigensian Crusade where the Pope ordered the elimination of the Cathars and all of their works. This slaughter was the first use of the rational "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."
My point is that those who act in the name of their lord, have as variable notion of morality as those who act on the basis of any other rationality. |
Being one who comes from a family with multiple religions in it I find that the difference that are being spoken of are of two natures. One being religion. The other being Faith. To me religion is man made where as Faith is believing in. Now we can go in the aspect where does faith come from. I suspect most believe it is taught or learned, but to me as a Christian it is when the Lord comes into your heart. I believe many things have been done in the name of religions that have nothing more to do with the actual Faith than using it as an excuse. Hence some men are perverse and greedy at heart and twist anything to get their way. |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 02:59:22 PM · #241 |
I turned off Rant in my feed a week or so ago. I wondered where everyone has been the past couple of days. Now I know. An obvious troll heaves a flaming pile of nonsense into a Rant thread, and everyone runs off to argue....
Please, come back. The photography forums are lonely. |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 03:14:49 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I turned off Rant in my feed a week or so ago. I wondered where everyone has been the past couple of days. Now I know. An obvious troll heaves a flaming pile of nonsense into a Rant thread, and everyone runs off to argue....
Please, come back. The photography forums are lonely. |
We are having loads of fun in the Flip/Blend abstracts thread.
Find some "throwaway snapshot" and make beautiful art by experimenting with blending modes, and join us! |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 12:09:33 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I turned off Rant in my feed a week or so ago. I wondered where everyone has been the past couple of days. Now I know. An obvious troll heaves a flaming pile of nonsense into a Rant thread, and everyone runs off to argue....
Please, come back. The photography forums are lonely. |
LOL |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 06:26:52 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mike:
wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
Perhaps I am missing something here Doc, but I doubt that Mike was addressing this issue relative to his personal morals. Rather, I think he is saying that the frames of reference are those of the person perpetrating the act.
There is no doubt in my mind that we as a collective view such undertakings as horrendous behaviour and that we cannot fathom why anyone in their right mind would even contemplate and acting in such a manner.
However, we cannot overlook the fact that some view this as a justifiable action in response to a perceived wrong.
It may not be right in our view, but to them it is perfectly justifiable.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 06:44:40 PM · #245 |
Of course, Ray. That's obvious. Do you go the next sentence further and say, "AND, their self-perceived perfectly justifiable point of view, because it is as subjective as our own, is neither superior nor inferior to what we think"?
If you don't agree with that you aren't being true to your view of how morality works.
If another view is perfectly justifiable to another person, why would you ever ask someone to change it?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2013 05:41:06 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If another view is perfectly justifiable to another person, why would you ever ask someone to change it? |
...Makes me wonder why the church exerted so much effort in converting people, or could it be that the other views were not considered justifiable :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-04-19 05:42:27. |
|
|
|
04/19/2013 11:08:36 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If another view is perfectly justifiable to another person, why would you ever ask someone to change it? |
...Makes me wonder why the church exerted so much effort in converting people, or could it be that the other views were not considered justifiable :O)
Ray |
You realize the church believes in an objective morality where it makes perfect sense, right? I'm asking YOU why YOU would ever do such a thing... |
|
|
|
04/19/2013 11:39:01 AM · #248 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If another view is perfectly justifiable to another person, why would you ever ask someone to change it? |
...Makes me wonder why the church exerted so much effort in converting people, or could it be that the other views were not considered justifiable :O)
Ray |
You realize the church believes in an objective morality where it makes perfect sense, right? I'm asking YOU why YOU would ever do such a thing... |
For me? It's simple - I think religious beliefs are dangerous. Not only because they can lead to horrible acts of violence like this week's bombing, but more because of the more insidious dangers, many religious are far too able to rely upon scripture rather than evidence - that is terrifying because I have to share a planet with you.
If we as a species are going to make it for the next millennium, we need to start relying heavily upon our ability to reason, think and our skill in practicing the scientific method. The best example is the belief of many religions that it is their duty to God to have many children - clearly, 7+ billion people on the planet, resources straining already, land is becoming scarce, tons of species have quite literally been ran out from their homes and are now going extinct, tons of pollution problems, etc. Yeah, pretty sure what we don't need is more humans. That's only one example of many - but suffice it to say that I think it's SUPER important to us as a species that religion takes a back seat to reason.
THAT is why I feel compelled to attempt to change, not your beliefs, but rather the priority you assign to your beliefs. In other words, you're more than welcome to keep your beliefs, but I do think that many groups really do put religion ahead of reason, and that is what I would love to see change in my lifetime.
And this, by the way, is why I think my views are more objective, and less subjective.
My justification here is based on primary evidence (too many people for the planet to support = fewer people are a good idea)
Your justification is at least secondary evidence in the case of the bible (The Bible says that it's good to do ....) or tertiary in the case of pastors, preachers, cardinals, etc - (I understand the bible to say that it's good to .....)..
Surely you can see why it's hard to argue for the secondary and tertiary evidence to be more objective than the utilization of primary evidence?
Message edited by author 2013-04-19 12:05:41. |
|
|
|
04/19/2013 12:09:06 PM · #249 |
You realize you totally contradicted yourself? If "fewer people are a good idea" then wouldn't our scientific, rational thinking lead us to believe that violent acts that kill people are a furthering of that goal?
You also need to explain how you get out of the circular argument Scientism finds itself in. How have you determined that the Scientific Method is a reliable methodology? With the Scientific Method?
Finally, I'll just point out we're using the term "objective" differently again. Your objective is not what I mean with my objective.
Message edited by author 2013-04-19 12:12:14. |
|
|
|
04/19/2013 12:30:35 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You realize you totally contradicted yourself? If "fewer people are a good idea" then wouldn't our scientific, rational thinking lead us to believe that violent acts that kill people are a furthering of that goal?
You also need to explain how you get out of the circular argument Scientism finds itself in. How have you determined that the Scientific Method is a reliable methodology? With the Scientific Method?
Finally, I'll just point out we're using the term "objective" differently again. Your objective is not what I mean with my objective. |
Killing people isn't a good plan, that's cruel, and only justified through flawed reasoning.
Preventing the births of more people? Great idea, although the implementation has been messy, ranging from birth control fights, to condoms, to the more tragic like China's enforcement of the one child policy. Of course, I think it's going to be a fight until people actually realize how important this is.
If you have to question if the scientific method actually works, then I honestly think you being a doctor is a little scary.
The evidence is completely overwhelming, measurable, and this is a living system that improves every single day.
The scientific method works for one simple reason, it has a feedback mechanism that religion does not, every moment science is carefully checking it's path, ensuring that no false steps are made (or if they are made, that they are quickly fixed), a theory only has to be shown to be incorrect once before it is effectively trash, with a new theory taking over, based upon the old and new evidence. Of course, you should already know all of this, so I suspect that you've either gotten your PhD out of a crackerjack box, or that you're just trolling for amusement purposes, since I really don't think you're so terribly blinded by your faith as to not be able to see the value of the scientific method.
Now, to be fair, I realize that you feel that science can't address the spiritual world, and you're darn right - that's for you to address through religion, or whatever you choose to do there. The point is, don't take your beliefs about the spiritual world and try to apply them through rules in the physical world, because this world can be best approached through the scientific method, we have the luxury of being able to measure and refute, and the satisfaction of observable results.
As for your moving the goalposts in terms of the meaning of "objective", I frankly don't care what you mean by it, you're simply trying to use that as a distraction from the real argument, which is effectively "how do we know which system has more validity". I've just given you my answer to that question, and I think it was very clear on the reasons.
I do think it sucks that you've failed to respond to any of the real content of my post, but have instead simply skirted my entire point. Not that I'm surprised, just disappointed that this is the level of mature conversation I can expect out of you.
Message edited by author 2013-04-19 12:33:10. |
|
