Right, Wrong, and Moral.................

[Sabertooth]

What is right? In the dictionary it's defined as morally good, justified, or acceptable. Defining it is easy, but determining the who and the how behind what is considered good, justifiable, and acceptable is where we have issues.

It seems like you're asking,

1. Is there a universal plumb line?
2. If so, how would one recognize it??

The problem is that we are all born with little or no sense of it. We have to be "plugged in" before we can see (and abide by) it. Otherwise, we are doomed for not abiding by a standard that we refuse to even look for.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...

1. Is there a universal plumb line?
2. If so, how would one recognize it??

The problem is that we are all born with little or no sense of it. ....

HHHmmmm , good point. I see where you are going with this : If it's all "evolution", that's "hard-wired into our DNA", then ... presto, why is there any need to TRAIN our toddlers not-to-be-selfish ? We have to TRAIN them to "share" and be nice and not to throw tantrums, etc..... But if it's strictly evolutionary , then presto, why would there be any need to have to "train" our children these moral objectives ? Hmmmm

Thanx ! Great food-for-thought !

 

[Truth OT]

Ok, now it gets very interesting. Look closely at your above quote. In each case of your-cited-moral-violations : One side of the two-people-involved "didn't like it". Right ? Eg. : One of the two parties involved "didn't like being enslaved", etc... Right ? Ok, sure. But guess what ? : The OTHER SIDE *did* like enslaving the other other person .

There confusion comes in when 2 "sides" are considered with one being the abused and the other the abuser. That muddies the water unnecessarily. There need not be 2 sides considered else a double standard could occur. The only side that is to be analysed to determine whether humans consider something as good is that of the affected as I attempted to clarify in previous posts. It wouldn't matter if I liked kicking people in the groin, instead it would matter if I liked being kicked in the groin. That is what would be helpful in determining whether groin kicks to humans are good or bad. Even those that would enslave would be against being enslaved themselves and that fact provided the backing for enslaving humans being wrong.

Do you think you have an objective scoring card?

Fairly so. Human nature is a pretty solid and consistent foundation to analyze and draw conclusions from.

 

[Truth OT]

What is right? In the dictionary it's defined as morally good, justified, or acceptable. Defining it is easy, but determining the who and the how behind what is considered good, justifiable, and acceptable is where we have issues.

After an analysis I'd assert that that which is morally good, justified, or acceptable is determined by both the objective (our human nature) as well the the subjective (individual, cultural, & religious perspectives) with the objective part being the primary driver with the subjective able to make the occasional veto based on circumstances people decide upon.

So the who behind our human morals is us, HUMANS.
And the how is by an analysis of human nature as it relates to what humans do and do not appreciate/want happening to them.

 

[Episkopos]

The way of morality is not the Christian way. Remember the tree of good and evil. Morality is when we decide what is right and good...without any interference from God in the situation.

To be led by the Spirit means we wait on the Lord for His voice that comes from LIFE...the tree of life....at least some or most of the time (depending on our level of faithfulness). Only the crucified man eats exclusively from the tree of life. That man is IN the Spirit.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There confusion comes in when 2 "sides" are considered with one being the abused and the other the abuser. ....

Well on the one hand, I can tell you are really reading what I write. Thank you. On the other hand, you still aren't grasping the glaring contradiction in-your-words. Because notice in the above quote from you, that you are STILL "smuggling in objective moral absolutes" through the back door. When you say "abuse" vs "abuser", then gee, what's wrong with abusing another person ? The person who is doing the abusing is getting his jollies. He happens to subjectively prefer it. So why are you choosing one person's preference over the other ? It's simple: Because you are subscribing to an objective moral scoring card. So when are you going to shout from the mountain tops that you have been coverted ??

. There need not be 2 sides considered else a double standard could occur. .....

Huh ? I lost ya here bro. In the case of the enslaved vs the enslaver, and abused vs the abuser, there IS INDEED "2 sides" to those happen-stances/situations. So I am not sure what you are driving at here.

.... The only side that is to be analyzed to determine whether humans consider something as good is that of the affected .....

Remember, the affectOR considered his actions "good" in the above scenario. Why are you only considering the wishes of the affectED ? Why not consider the wishes of the affectOR ? I know the answer to that !! : It's because T.O.T. has introduced (smuggled in through the back door) an objective moral absolute ! When is he going to admit it ? And shout from the mountain tops that he's been converted ? :/

...... It wouldn't matter if I liked kicking people in the groin, instead it would matter if I liked being kicked in the groin. That is what would be helpful in determining whether groin kicks to humans are good or bad. .....

Is this standard (in your quote above of evaluating/deciding ) a "subjective/relative " standard ? Or an objective standard ? If it's an objective standard, then : YAHOO ! Shout it from the mountain tops that you have been converted ! [And don't worry : I have no desire to kick you in the groin ! ]

..... Even those that would enslave would be against being enslaved themselves ....

Notice the words put in bold : "... would be against...". Well gee, the other person "... would be FOR..." enslaving people. So why does one side's preference win out over the other ? Spoiler alert : BECAUSE THERE'S AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD that is OUTSIDE of EITHER of them. Presto, you've been converted . Shout it from the mountain tops !

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Human nature is a pretty solid and consistent foundation to analyze and draw conclusions from.

Whose human nature ? What country ? What continent ? What state ? What people group ? What era ? Why one and not the other ? Remember : Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot had "human nature" too. Why your notions and not theirs ?

And the answer to that can NOT be "because of human nature". Because that, again would be circular. You have NOT told me what adjudicates BETWEEN human natures that contradict/conflict. Yet you perpetually "moralize" with what appears to be moral absolutes, to adjudicate between them. Gee, I wonder what that could be ? Spoiler alert : It's because T.O.T . DOES believe in objective moral absolutes. But he can not bring himself to admit it, lest it endanger his agnostic position . Tsk tsk.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....I'd assert that that which is morally good, justified, or acceptable is determined by both the objective (our human nature) .....

Trying to dissect your words slowly and carefully. Forgive me if I've mis-understood, but .... seems to me that you're *trying* to concede to objective moral absolutes , in the above quote. You actually cede to the word "objective", if I've understood this quote correctly.

HOWEVER, your definition of "objective" is lacking logical construction. You are defining objective as something decided on by "our human nature". Well gee, if it's "decided on by our human nature", then logically speaking , it is SUBJECTIVE (to ourselves), and not OBJECTIVE ( to a standard outside of ourselves).

.... So the who behind our human morals is us, HUMANS.
And the how is by an analysis of human nature as it relates to what humans do and do not appreciate/want happening to them.

Correct. Yes. This is your T.O.T. position. So stop calling it objective. It is very much subjective/relative.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The way of morality is not the Christian way. Remember the tree of good and evil. Morality is when we decide what is right and good...without any interference from God in the situation..

Trying to understand what you are saying here. You say "Morality is when we decide what is right and good". So is that to say that morals are relative and subjective ? Are you taking T.O.T.'s position then ? And if so, then you are citing the "tree of good and evil " story as an evidence of this.

But that "tree of good and evil" story doesn't show that morals are subjective/relative. All that shows is that objective morality can-be-broken.

So I'm not understanding what you're driving at.

 

[Episkopos]

Trying to understand what you are saying here. You say "Morality is when we decide what is right and good". So is that to say that morals are relative and subjective ? Are you taking T.O.T.'s position then ? And if so, then you are citing the "tree of good and evil " story as an evidence of this.

But that "tree of good and evil" story doesn't show that morals are subjective/relative. All that shows is that objective morality can-be-broken.

So I'm not understanding what you're driving at.

What is highly esteemed by men is abomination with God.

There is no way to make moral rules about kingdom life. The standard of life in holiness is higher than any law. Love fulfills the law.

 

[Truth OT]

Remember, the affectOR considered his actions "good" in the above scenario.

That's totally irrelevant. It's not about the abuser, it's ONLY about the perspective of the receiver.

what's wrong with abusing another person ?

That's not the question. The question is instead, "What's wrong with BEING ABUSED"? That is the perspective from which understanding of good and bad arises.

T.O.T. has introduced (smuggled in through the back door) an objective moral absolute ! When is he going to admit it ?

I have repeated a few times now that there is a standard. What you are missing about the standard, OUR HUMANITY, is that it is the same for all humans whether you, Hitler, me, Gus in Wyoming, etc. We don't get to vote on it or choose it, it is just the way humans are.

 

[Truth OT]

You have NOT told me what adjudicates BETWEEN human natures that contradict/conflict.

There is nothing plural about human nature as there aren't multiple ones to even have a contradiction. Human nature is human nature and is NOT the same as an individual's likes, preferences, or personality.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That's totally irrelevant. It's not about the abuser, it's ONLY about the perspective of the receiver.....

Really ? Do you mean that standard of scoring/deciding as : Objective ? Or subjective ? Go ahead and shout it from the mountain tops : That (drumroll) you meant that objectively !! Go ahead and say it T.O.T. You are converted ! Yay !

....
That's not the question. The question is instead, "What's wrong with BEING ABUSED"? That is the perspective from which understanding of good and bad arises....

Sure, but the trouble for your side is that you can only mean the above sentences from a subjective standpoint. Since you don't believe in objective moral absolutes. Yet you turn right around and cite "good and bad" AS IF THEY ARE OBJECTIVE absolutes. What's up with that T.O.T. ? When are you going to see the contradiction you live in ??

..... I have repeated a few times now that there is a standard. .....

Sure. There's a "standard". And according to T.O.T. that standard is subjective , not objective , Right ? Therefore, to someone else elsewhere and at different times, their collective "we" could be different. You have nothing to adjudicate since, on your view, it's subjective to whatever the "we" arrives at. Right ?

..... What you are missing about the standard, OUR HUMANITY, is that it is the same for all humans whether you, Hitler, me, Gus in Wyoming, etc. We don't get to vote on it or choose it, it is just the way humans are.

But wait, since you brought Hitler into it, then you have a glaring contradiction in the space of a single breath on your end. You included "Hitler" in that "our" and "we". Right ? (your own words). Then presto : If Hitler thought that gassing Jews was "good", then how do you adjudicate between HIS definition of "good" vs your definition of "Good". Let me give you a spoiler alert hint for the answer : Because (drum-roll) THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE of what anyone thinks. Why can't you just break down and admit it once for all. I promise I'll go light on you.

And .... so that you know .... the moment you admit that objective moral absolutes exist, it's going to open up the pandora's box of implications to your agnosticism. Thus me thinks you will happily live in your glaring contradiction. Lest you have to "face the music". And you don't appear to be on a truth-quest here. As shown by your willingness to perpetually live inside of this glaring contradiction.

Or perhaps you can surprise me and admit now that objective moral absolutes exist ?

 

[Truth OT]

HOWEVER, your definition of "objective" is lacking logical construction. You are defining objective as something decided on by "our human nature". Well gee, if it's "decided on by our human nature", then logically speaking , it is SUBJECTIVE (to ourselves), and not OBJECTIVE ( to a standard outside of ourselves).

It is subjective to the human perspective. However, if what we are speaking about is human morality, that is how to deal with human beings, then the human point of view is all that's needed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There is nothing plural about human nature as there aren't multiple ones to even have a contradiction. Human nature is human nature and is NOT the same as an individual's likes, preferences, or personality.

Then why have varying cultures, societies, continents, and eras disagreed on things that you would say are right and wrong ? Ie.: if what you are saying is true (that "we all agree"), then why is history filled with endless examples of disagreements on what is morally good and morally bad ? Human nature around the world and eons PERPETUALLY disagrees on what is right and wrong.

For example, there are countries, right now, where gay-bashing is perfectly acceptable. Yet I'll bet you'd wag your finger at them and call that "wrong", eh ? But .... guess what ? They're "human" and have "human nature" just like you and I. Thus, yes there are "multiple ones". How are you calling yours right and theirs wrong ?

I know I know ! Because T.O.T. is implicitly calling on an objective moral scoring card. Yet T.O.T. won't admit it. Lest his agnosticism be in peril.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It is subjective to the human perspective. However, if what we are speaking about is human morality, that is how to deal with human beings, then the human point of view is all that's needed.

Yup. As expected. T.O.T. will viciously hold on to subjective relative morals. Because he doesn't want to endanger his agnosticism. As for what's in bold above : Which "human" point of view ? Yours ? Mine ? Hitlers ? Mother Teresa ? Pol Pot ? Stalin ?