This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Morality

Post by MyTie

Would you wash your hands if you were preparing food for a loved one, with the knowledge that not washing your hands would increase the chance of transmitting a virus?

If I were a Biblical literalist, I'd be forced to follow Matthew 15:20.

You can't get into heaven by washing your hands, that is true. Read the two verses before that about what comes out of the heart. The defiling that is being described here is a defiling such as " evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander". What is in your heart defiles you, but that doesn't mean you don't get germs from not washing your hands.

I see what you are getting at, but you are taking it out of context.

2(2+2) doesn't equal 4, even though 2+2 equals 4. Context.

By the way, I saw this trap coming from around the corner. Can't you do better?

Post by gamerunknown

Post by MyTie

Can't you do better?

I thought you would have paid attention to the fact that Jesus himself did not wash his hands (Luke 11:38) before his meals. If we're "making it a way of life" then presumably the life of Jesus and his apostles is the one we're meant to emulate as is written down. Saying that their actions had symbolic consequences and we don't literally need to follow the actions of Jesus and his apostles to the tittle (we don't need to go into our rooms in order to repeat specific phrases, we don't need to gouge out our eyes if we experience lust) is precisely what moderates propound.

Edit:

Not to mention the chronistic use of "heart". We now accept that thoughts do not originate in the heart. Personality remains intact even after successful heart transfers.

Eeek... Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You just linked a passage about how washing of hands and eating of certain foods isn't what is important, but what is inside your heart (that's metaphorical heart, dude, because you don't have "murder" in your literal blood valves), but insist that it is saying the opposite, that is, washing of hands is important to NOT do. When I point out that it is not saying anything about washing hands, but instead stressing the point of what is in your heart, you say we need to make "not washing hands a way of life"?

Read this, which you linked, and explain to me how it says that not washing your hands is a way of life: “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”While it mentions washing of hands, that's obviously not what this is about, but instead about the state of your mind, or heart, if you will.

I know you're.... not being serious here... you can't be. At least indicate to me that your playing devil's advocate, or something.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by gamerunknown

Jesus was saying that eating with unclean hands is not what makes you immoral, not that not washing your hands before eating is okay.

But an omniscient deity decided not to wash his hands before meals (as was the religious custom) and when asked about it, responded with "tu quoque". The metaphorical thing breaks down because we only use the metaphorical form of heart thanks to advances in medicine: in Jesus' time, they believed thoughts originated in the heart. Its persistence as a metaphor is likely due to scripture.

Post by MyTie

But an omniscient deity decided not to wash his hands before meals (as was the religious custom) and when asked about it, responded with "tu quoque".Do you think you need to wash your hands before doing math in order to properly complete a math problem? If not, why are you so against washing your hands. Jesus was talking about getting into heaven, made evident by the fact that this issue was put forward by Pharasees in criticism of Jesus' disciples, as a religious violation, not a health regulation. In modern times we know that washing your hands before eating is beneficial. Remarkable that a religious text would instruct its adherents to do so, as the old testament did, well before the discovery of germs. Remarkable, no? I'd say that is compelling evidence for some higher intelligence, beyond humans of the time. However, this STILL has nothing to do with remission of sin, as Jesus made clear.The metaphorical thing breaks down because we only use the metaphorical form of heart thanks to advances in medicine: in Jesus' time, they believed thoughts originated in the heart. Its persistence as a metaphor is likely due to scripture.

After some extensive "googling" I have yet to find anything that substantiates this. I know that ancient Egyptians believed this, but I don't know about the ancient Hebrews, nor the Roman era Hebrews. Could you provide a source for this assertion?

Post by fenomas

Whether 2+2 equals 4 or 5 is a matter of axiom. And sorry, but there are no pre-agreed axioms in morality - you can mock the Greeks' morals and they'd have mocked yours, but there's nothing you can point to that objectively makes your version or theirs superior. Yours is newer, sure, but that's the most you can say.

Religion.

Objectively.

Who gives a crap if someone, at some point, disagreed? Common sense and modern knowledge tell any sane person it's wrong. By this logic, I could say that I don't agree that 2+2=4, I think it equals 5. So now, by this logic, math is subjective, because someone disagrees on the mathematical equation of 2+2.

Whether 2+2 equals 4 or 5 is a matter of axiom. And sorry, but there are no pre-agreed axioms in morality - you can mock the Greeks' morals and they'd have mocked yours, but there's nothing you can point to that objectively makes your version or theirs superior. Yours is newer, sure, but that's the most you can say.

Ya and we know that an adult having sex with an 8 year old will mentally scar the child, which makes it immoral, so saying pedophilia's morality is subjective is as stupid as saying 2+2=5.

You and I may "know" that, and yet there could be some undiscovered tribe in the Amazon where they "know" paederastia is good for whatever reason. And as abhorrent as you and I would find that, there is still nothing written in the stars to say we're right and they're wrong. We can say our version is more civilized (a tautology), and we can say our version is more healthy for the child (not that morality ever aspired to avoid harm in all cases). But "morally right" is a different animal.

In short: things are moral because as we define them to be, not because we observe them to be. If this wasn't true we moderns would have to write off everyone in biblical times as inherently evil (for engaging in slavery and suchlike).

Post by Orranis

Is this thread turning into Soldrethar's ignorance crusade against moral relativism 2.0?

Post by fenomas

In modern times we know that washing your hands before eating is beneficial. Remarkable that a religious text would instruct its adherents to do so, as the old testament did, well before the discovery of germs. Remarkable, no? I'd say that is compelling evidence for some higher intelligence, beyond humans of the time.
Incidentally one cannot help but impudently wonder what, then, the old testament's many hundreds of non-beneficial commands are evidence of? Bathing after touching a menstruating woman's bed and so forth. Not some higher ignorance, one hopes.. ;)

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by asakawa

Post by Orranis

In modern times we know that washing your hands before eating is beneficial. Remarkable that a religious text would instruct its adherents to do so, as the old testament did, well before the discovery of germs. Remarkable, no? I'd say that is compelling evidence for some higher intelligence, beyond humans of the time.

No more so than the fact that we cooked our food for quite possibly almost 2 million years before we discovered germs. Humans have very intuitive senses of correlation and it wouldn't take us long to realize that people who don't wash their hands before they eat are more likely to get sick than those who don't.

Post by MyTie

Common sense would also tell you that it's wrong, but I forgot moral relativists have none, which is the only reason why they even ask these silly questions to begin with. I don't give a dam if some civilization that I don't know about long ago thought it was okay, we now know that it isn't, SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T TOLERATE IT ANYMORE, NOT BECAUSE OUR VIEWPOINT ON RIGHT AND WRONG HAS CHANGED. We now know it's not okay, so we don't allow it anymore, it's pretty dam simple.

We know? Interesting. How do we know? We place 2 apples along side 2 other apples, and we can thus see that there are 4 apples. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, we know that 2+2=4. Please provide similar empirical evidence for morality (what we know), or desist with the insistence.

Post by fenomas

Common sense would also tell you that it's wrong, but I forgot moral relativists have none, which is the only reason why they even ask these silly questions to begin with.
Let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, mayhaps. If "you would understand this if you had some common sense" is the best argument you have to make, it's time to re-examine your views.

I don't give a dam if some civilization that I don't know about long ago thought it was okay...
Rejecting new evidence because it doesn't fit your model is not seemly. The ancient Greeks were not gibbering barbarians with no common sense. They invented logic, mathematics, democracy - and they practiced pederasty. If that doesn't fit with your views on morality, change your views. :P

...we now know that it isn't, SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T TOLERATE IT ANYMORE, NOT BECAUSE OUR VIEWPOINT ON RIGHT AND WRONG HAS CHANGED. We now know it's not okay, so we don't allow it anymore, it's pretty dam simple.
There's no "knowing" here - people used to believe it was right, and now we believe it is wrong. How can that happen, except because our viewpoints on right and wrong have changed?

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by MyTie

Just say it mytie and fenomas, we can't prove that harming a child is objectively wrong, because, when boils down to it, that's what you're saying.

If there is no God, then morals are subjective. You could argue morals are still valuable, even though subjective, but you can't say that something is fact just because it is fact and we should all know it is fact. Objectivity doesn't work that way.

Post by asakawa

The point that's being put to you is that it's more complex than that (almost everything, almost always is). Is it morally wrong for an 18 year old and a 17 year old to have sex? I was having sex when I was 17, was that objectively wrong? The woman I was with was older than me (by a few months but still there was a point where she was 18 while I was still 17) was she bad/evil and was I taken advantage of?

Paedophilia was proposed as an objectively immoral thing. While we can, I'm sure, all agree that a 50 year old and a 7 year old is all kinds of wrong, there is a grey area and so no, it cannot be automatically accepted as a universal and objective immoral thing. It isn't a good example of that for which it was proposed and it has led to this blind alley.

This is a discussion of morality so it's not out of place to discuss it but I need you, Soldrethar, to maintain proper respect for the other people posting here and to try and keep your own views about moral relativism (which bear very little relation to this discussion) in the thread you made to discuss that topic.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Post by ElhonnaDS

Soldrethar, Please try harder to understand the point that's being put to you. Your own obsession with moral relativism is disrupting this conversation so please try to put that behind you and take part in the discussion at hand.

What point is being put out tho? That morality is subjective just because someone, at some point in time, disagreed with the currently agreed upon right and wrongs? The whole argument for moral relativism is that we can't say that something is objectively right or wrong if anyone thinks otherwise. They're trying to tell me pedophilia isn't objectively wrong because someone disagreed, while I'm telling them it is because 1. an adult shouldn't be attracted to a child, one that is has something mentally wrong with them, 2. it's immoral because it harms the child physically short term and mentally long term. They may as well be arguing that harming a child is not objectively wrong.

Just say it mytie and fenomas, we can't prove that harming a child is objectively wrong, because, when boils down to it, that's what you're saying.

In short, he's asking you to actually remember the page before, and the points you lost and the information you learned, instead of hammering away with us with the same questions we've answered 12 times, and arguing points you have already conceded are wrong 5 times.

In this case, I agree that there is objective evidence that sexualizing young children is universally damaging and wrong. However, you refuse to actually discuss the topic at hand, and instead make generalized sweeping insulting comments about "moral relativists" even though we have, weeks ago, shown you that you did not know what the words meant, and when we finally got through to you what most of us were talking about, you agreed that there were conditions on many decisions that affected the morality of them- which means that you have already agreed that many morality decisions are relative to other factors.

If you want to debate what we're actually talking about, fine. If you want to cut and paste the same nonsense from your vocabulary as though you have no capacity to learn anything or remember any prior debates, then you're just wasting time and blowing smoke.

So what you're saying is that you agree with everyone on every point, except on whether or not you agree with us?

If that is what you were saying, yes.

BTW- this is on page 12 of THIS thread, where YOU said that YOU finally understood what we were saying and agreed with it, but were using different words as labels. How can you have forgotten already?

Post by fenomas

What point is being put out tho? That morality is subjective just because someone, at some point in time, disagreed with the currently agreed upon right and wrongs?
No, that morality is subjective because there's no objective way of saying which morality is correct. If it's not objective then it's subjective, yes?

They're trying to tell me pedophilia isn't objectively wrong because someone disagreed, while I'm telling them it is because 1. an adult shouldn't be attracted to a child, one that is has something mentally wrong with them, 2. it's immoral because it harms the child physically short term and mentally long term. They may as well be arguing that harming a child is not objectively wrong.
This is getting tiresome. When someone says "pedophilia is abnormal and mentally harmful to children" that is a testable claim, which the disciplines of psychiatry and medicine can prove to be true. When someone says "pedophilia is morally wrong", that is not a testable claim - it's an opinion. It's an opinion everyone here agrees with, but an opinion nonetheless.

Post by fenomas

Incidentally, this claim that it's objectively wrong to harm a child reminds me of an episode from history. After the first smallpox vaccines were created, they were transported around the world via orphans. That is, a ship in Europe would locate 10 or 20 orphans and inject two of them with the vaccine, then set sail and after 9 or 10 days they'd use blood from the first two to vaccinate the next two, and so on throughout the journey. Of course every month or two they'd need to drop off all the orphans wherever they happened to be, and pick up some new ones. Thus was smallpox vaccine spread through the world.

Now suppose for the sake of argument that most such orphans, randomly transplanted to a strange new city, unsurprisingly met some untimely end. Was that harm outweighed by the untold lives saved by the spread of the vaccines? Personally I'm not sure, but perhaps Sol knows the one objectively true answer.

Morality

Post Reply