- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you believe your rights come from God then you are a Christian Nationalist
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:34 pm to Flats
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:34 pm to Flats
quote:
Put another way, is a law telling you that you cannot consider race or sex when hiring for your private business (or renting the room above grandma's garage) any better than one that tells you that you can't open a strip club on your property because it's 500 feet from an elementary school? We're just used to many of them so they never get considered when we're talking about "enforcing morality."
I don't think either of your examples have anything to do with morality.
1
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:37 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Therefore, if morality is subjective, you can never say someone else acting immorally, because morality is based on each individual.
Correct. Every society, every generation, made up of individuals, determines the moral conclusions and those change. So its relatively moral or immoral.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:38 pm to Flats
quote:Do you consider yourself a naturalist? Every argument I've heard for naturalism is that everything that exists can be explained through logic and science. How do you reconcile morality not needing logic when your world view is that everything can be explained thru logic and science?
I don't. Never have.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:42 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:How can you punish someone for being moral? What gives you the authority to say your morality supersedes someone else's morality?
Correct. Every society, every generation, made up of individuals, determines the moral conclusions and those change. So its relatively moral or immoral.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:42 pm to Hooligan's Ghost
Ok
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:46 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Do you consider yourself a naturalist?
No, I'm a Christian, albeit a poor one sometimes.
quote:
Every argument I've heard for naturalism is that everything that exists can be explained through logic and science.
Otherwise known as scientism; Ian Hutchinson is a good one if you want a breakdown. They probably like to claim that, but they're wrong and 99.99% of them don't live or even talk as if they believe what they say.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:48 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
How can you punish someone for being moral? What gives you the authority to say your morality supersedes someone else's morality?
Hey why dont we quit pussyfooting around and just dive head long into whether we actually have free will or not. What do you say?
But to answer your question it doesnt. We decide collectively our laws, social mores etc..
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 2/23/24 at 2:49 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:00 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:Then it doesn't matter what basis we rely on for our collective morality.
But to answer your question it doesnt. We decide collectively our laws, social mores etc..
Therefore, when we "religious nuts" want to say that morality should be based on our desire to honor God, we shouldn't be castigated for bringing religion into it.
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:03 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
I don't think either of your examples have anything to do with morality.
Then you should be able to defend them using nothing but logic.
Good luck.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:03 pm to Flats
quote:Gotcha. And agree most of those arguments, I don't find satisfying. I guess they'd say the same about mine.
Otherwise known as scientism; Ian Hutchinson is a good one if you want a breakdown. They probably like to claim that, but they're wrong and 99.99% of them don't live or even talk as if they believe what they say.
What I still don't understand is you're making the case for moral relativism. Morality is based on induvial perception of good and bad, devoid of logic? Is that correct?
Why then would say, human sacrifice, be morally wrong if someone else decides it is moral?
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:04 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
Does this mean the FBI will start infiltrating Roman Catholic TLM masses again?
Makes me want to attend one, but there only a couple of Parishes in the Lexington Diocese that offer TLM. Or there was.
Makes me want to attend one, but there only a couple of Parishes in the Lexington Diocese that offer TLM. Or there was.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:05 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
What I still don't understand is you're making the case for moral relativism.
Not at all. I'm saying that absent something (call it whatever you want) that transcends man, moral relativism is all you've got. You either make an appeal to the supernatural or you admit that all morality is nothing more than personal preference. There isn't any wiggle room there.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:09 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:Totally different conversation, but sure. Free will is pretty self evident.
Hey why dont we quit pussyfooting around and just dive head long into whether we actually have free will or not. What do you say?
quote:A law can be amoral. And Foo Man Choo is correct. You're arguing both for and against moral relativism. If you have an authority to say what is moral, you are arguing something isn't moral. If morality is relative/subjective, you shouldn't care what anybody else finds moral or immoral. We'd all be correct.
But to answer your question it doesn't. We decide collectively our laws, social mores etc..
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:14 pm to Flats
quote:My contention is that the people appealing to personal experience are still operating in the confines of a world in which there is an objective morality. There's nothing telling them that human rights exist, but they are still operating as if there are human rights. They don't have a good argument for why humans have inherent rights.
Not at all. I'm saying that absent something (call it whatever you want) that transcends man, moral relativism is all you've got. You either make an appeal to the supernatural or you admit that all morality is nothing more than personal preference. There isn't any wiggle room there.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 3:19 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
There's nothing telling them that human rights exist, but they are still operating as if there are human rights. They don't have a good argument for why humans have inherent rights.
We're on the same page. And in their defense, if they've been raised in America they've been steeped in Judeo-Christian norms so much they don't realize it and they've never been challenged to defend them.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 4:04 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
f you have an authority to say what is moral, you are arguing something isn't moral. If morality is relative/subjective, you shouldn't care what anybody else finds moral or immoral. We'd all be correct.
It seems like you are asking the same question and I'm just offering variations on the same answer. I'm a product of my environment that informs much of my morality..... that is constantly changing throughout time. I cant argue against it and be consistent.
Now if you believe god bestows inherent rights making morality objective....do you believe the existence of god is provable? Would that be necessary to prove morality is objective?
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 2/23/24 at 4:06 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Totally different conversation, but sure. Free will is pretty self evident.
Ive been thinking lately that free will exists but its highly over rated
Posted on 2/23/24 at 4:10 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Ive been thinking lately that free will exists
Not in a purely materialistic world.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 4:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Therefore, when we "religious nuts" want to say that morality should be based on our desire to honor God, we shouldn't be castigated for bringing religion into it.
We can collectively decide to ignore your reasoning and your values..but castigated no.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News