- 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
0
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:25 pm to Flats
quote:
Again, this isn’t a logical basis for objective morality.
I have not once replied about "objective morality" ITT
I have responded about "objective truth" establishing "morality"
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:29 pm to Freauxzen
quote:Dude, I can remove it. I meant literally nothing by it and was just trying to affirm that I’m with you as you mentioned humans want to persist.
No. And you attached the loaded "human condition" phrase.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 7:32 pm to VooDude
What makes you feel as though you are an atheist (other than believing there is no God)? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:13 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
this is a very Utilitarian framework.
Not necessarily.
Utilitarianism just places moral weight solely on outcomes instead of the action that led to it.
I'm just describing how morality arises naturally with no supernatural hand. That morality could be Utilitarianism or it could be Deontology (moral weight placed on the action, not the outcome).
As far as my views on Utilitarianism and Deontology goes, I find both very compelling AND deficient at the same time. I think adhering to one or the other completely paints you into a corner.
Utilitarianism says that it's fine to pull the leaver in the trolly dilemma because sacrificing one is better than sacrificing five. But change that dilemma to a hospital wanting to harvest organs from a single healthy individual to save 5 sick individuals and the same math equation looks a whole lot different.
Deontology doesn't get off easy as it requires you to tell the truth to a Nazi soldier about who you're hiding in your addict because lying is always wrong. The Jewish family that was exterminated? Not on you, you didn't kill them, you only did what was right (told the truth). Their blood is on the soldiers who killed them's hands. While true, I'd tell a lie to save a life (place the moral weight on the outcome). But where is the line?
*shrug*
I actually wrote a book/working on a series that explores the grey divide between these two moral/ethical frameworks where the protagonist goes through interesting/difficult/unique situations to highlight the difficulty of navigating these sorts of situations. It was quasi inspired by Salt with Angelina Jolie (among other pieces of media where they play with this grey divide) where she watches her American husband get killed by the Russians who trained her as a test of loyalty (tough but amazing scene).
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:28 pm to Freauxzen
quote:No I’m not an a-hole who makes y’all own everything in the Bible in order to justify your stance.
You want to talk slavery vs. religious values vs. moral, and how can a Christian believe the bible and be moral
That passage does raise some questions, though. As it seems to be something modern folks can easily relate to. I’d like to give you the floor on explaining what it means and why it’s in the Bible.
My biggest gripe isn’t “some things in the Bible don’t jive with what a modern person would think is moral, therefor none of what’s in the Bible can be leaned on to judge what’s moral or not.”
It’s with the way y’all decide when and when not to use the Bible.
I’m told regularly here, even if I come to the same conclusion you would, that it doesn’t count because I didn’t use the bibles version or morality to reach said conclusion. And further, I can’t even conceptualize what morality is because I’m not a believer in the Christian God.
Y’all will lean on that SO hard, and then at the first sign of the Bible not insta-winning you a debate, you start saying shite I can’t even understand like some cracked out cat lady philosopher.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:31 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Deontology doesn't get off easy as it requires you to tell the truth to a Nazi soldier about who you're hiding in your addict because lying is always wrong.
I don’t interpret deontology to mean this. Kantian deontology… sure. But deontology encompasses more than just Kant.
Killing an innocent person is wrong. Lying is ordinarily wrong. But I don’t think a duty to tell the truth entails a duty to provide information to someone who intends to use it to murder an innocent person. The most logical approach is to keep the inherent dignity of the human person at the center of a deontological framework.
Is your book fiction or nonfiction?
I know you will probably edit to erase any potentially helpful information after I tell you this, but your post actually really helped me with a philosophical argument I’ve been struggling with.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:35 pm to VooDude
Being a Christian and follower of the radical Jesus Christ, I have no idea what you are talking about. Christ didn’t teach conservative values, I think you are talking about the Old Testament bro, that’s the Torah that’s the Jewish religion.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:39 pm to VooDude
quote:Ideally, we would - but we tried that and it didn't work.
Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are asking for a version of special pleading, like reversed special pleading. Perhaps I should do the same thing and ask you to provide a basis for morality without appealing to history.
An explanation...using the Bible.
quote:So if I arbitrarily say that it’s my opinion that there is an objective source for morality based on a belief in a creator (God) that imbues people with rights that can’t be infringed upon, that’s OK as long as it doesn’t come from the Bible?
Your argument is completely circular.
That's the entire point of discussing this outside of that circular logic. We concede what the impacts of the circularity are. There is no more need to discuss that particular line of thought.
Or can I look at 2,000 years of Christian influence in the West and judge that whatever they believed is better for the world compared to other moral paradigms based on outcomes and not the specific source of their morality?
You are asserting that humanity learns morality as if there is an objective moral guide that we can discover through trial and error. That’s also circular. If you appeal to the majority, then you have to justify it by majority opinion. If you appeal to progress, you have to assume modern moral standards today are best in order to say that moral modern standards are better.
When you boil it down, all appeals are circular when you reach the ultimate or highest point of appeal, whether that be God, societal consensus, or something else.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:54 pm to VooDude
Atheist are funny to me.
In the name of open mindedness they are very closed minded.
In the name of open mindedness they are very closed minded.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 10:02 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:Then you agree there is no “right” moral standard? You agree that societal consensus is arbitrary?
I’m not saying that at all.
I think it evolving that way is the obvious way we got here.
But in no way am I saying it ought to be this way.
quote:When you say “chiseled away at”, you assume morality is like a sculpture that you remove the unnecessary parts until you get to the intended outcome. The outcome is what is under debate, though. Even here you speak as if there is an objective standard that you can use to look to in order to know when to stop “chipping away”, rather than each society simply doing what they believe is best for themselves at that moment in time. You can’t speak of progress without a goal already in mind. If moral subjects it is correct, there is no real, singular goal.
Is it not just a system we chiseled away at until it reasonably worked for decently strong participants in society?
quote:I disagree. As a devout Christian, I couldn’t disagree more with your assessment.
And y’all’s version of that simply has a heavy religious blanket thrown over it. Done mostly to take advantage of people, to cheat them, to kill them and overall use as justification to get your way. With each religion or spinoff having unique traits.
However, what’s most critical in this discussion is the point of moral objectivity vs moral subjectivity. I contend that in an atheistic worldview, moral subjectivity is the only possible option, and therefore the logical conclusion is that there is no single “right” way to act at all. Therefore, if it were true that my beliefs supported taking advantage of people, cheating people, and killing them (they don’t), then by your own standard, that would be morally good.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 10:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Perhaps I should do the same thing and ask you to provide a basis for morality without appealing to history.
You want to remove the actual evidence from the discussion. Why?
quote:
So if I arbitrarily say that it’s my opinion that there is an objective source for morality based on a belief in a creator (God) that imbues people with rights that can’t be infringed upon, that’s OK as long as it doesn’t come from the Bible?
No. The Bible itself isn't noteworthy. The same applies to basically any religious text. You're just doing the martyr thing here.
The Bible was only specifically referenced because I know who you are.
quote:
Or can I look at 2,000 years of Christian influence in the West and judge that whatever they believed is better for the world compared to other moral paradigms based on outcomes and not the specific source of their morality?
Only if you ignore the more important aspects of the development. You're free to do this, but you'd be engaging in bad analysis and would be wrong there, too.
quote:
You are asserting that humanity learns morality as if there is an objective moral guide
You're now engaging in a straw man.
quote:
That’s also circular.
Your straw man is circular, yes.
My argument is not that straw man, though.
quote:
If you appeal to the majority, then you have to justify it by majority opinion.
Is there like a handbook where y'all are given these bad arguments? This is the 3rd time this irrelevant argument has been attempted ITT
quote:
If you appeal to progress, you have to assume modern moral standards today are best in order to say that moral modern standards are better.
You're assuming it's not in the "error" part of trial and error.
And this method has done better than the Bible on things like slavery, as shown earlier.
quote:
When you boil it down, all appeals are circular when you reach the ultimate or highest point of appeal, whether that be God, societal consensus, or something else.
Again, you're back to your straw man
Posted on 8/31/26 at 10:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Straw men everywhere!
Posted on 8/31/26 at 10:14 pm to Jbird
quote:
Straw men everywhere!
On this forum? Yes.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 10:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Old news!
Straw men!
Straw men!
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:06 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
No I’m not an a-hole who makes y’all own everything in the Bible in order to justify your stance.
:thumbs:
quote:
That passage does raise some questions, though. As it seems to be something modern folks can easily relate to. I’d like to give you the floor on explaining what it means and why it’s in the Bible.
You can't look at a single passage and ask for an explanation that's going to satisfy you though. And the answer is unfortunately
quote:
It’s with the way y’all decide when and when not to use the Bible.
Leviticus is a good representation of moral law that was needed for a highly imperfect people. It DOES have some interesting guidance around moral principals, but it also contains more judicial/clerical rulings that are no longer relevant. Which is, of course, why you'd bring this passage up.
THis:
quote:
I’m not an a-hole who makes y’all own everything in the Bible in order to justify your stance.
ands this
quote:
It’s with the way y’all decide when and when not to use the Bible.
Conflict.
quote:
I’m told regularly here, even if I come to the same conclusion you would, that it doesn’t count because I didn’t use the bibles version or morality to reach said conclusion.
Not by me, but I know your point.
quote:
. And further, I can’t even conceptualize what morality is because I’m not a believer in the Christian God.
I'd disagree saying you can't conceptualize it. You can. But we probably disagree on whether or not that conception, sans God, is valid.
quote:
Y’all will lean on that SO hard, and then at the first sign of the Bible not insta-winning you a debate, you start saying shite I can’t even understand like some cracked out cat lady philosopher.
Well, I was trying to not talk about religion, or at least talk about moral princples, talking around religion. That is tough. And if we are talking about conceptions of morality, disconnected from any sort of real truth, that is going to be hard.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:40 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:Standards are needed to make any comparison meaningful. It's why we use the phrase "apples-to-apples".
I have never understood why we need a standard in order to compare.
If you don't have a standard, any judgement is meaningless. How can you say something is "right" or "wrong" if you don't have a standard to compare an action to in order to make such a judgement?
How can you say any action is "better" or "worse" than another if you don't have something to compare it to: better than what? worse than what? The "what" is the standard.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:04 am to Azkiger
quote:Yep, a form of permanent slavery was allowed in ancient Israel, but it wasn't like the slavery practiced in America that we think of when we think of typical chattel slavery, where the owners could do just about anything they wanted to their slaves, who were considered not just property, but property with no human rights.
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness."
Leviticus 25:44-46
First, the transatlantic slave trade was predicated on man-stealing. It was illegal in Israel to enslave or buy a slave that was kidnapped (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7), so it wasn't the same sort of slavery that was practiced. The "no kidnapping" principle was foundational to Christians in America and Europe seeking to abolish the practice.
And second, slaves in Israel had rights. A master who killed a servant was put to death (Exod. 21:20). A master who permanently injured a servant (even something as minor as knocking out a tooth) had to set them free (Exod. 21:26-27). Servants rested on the Sabbath along with everyone else (Exod. 20:10). An escaped servant was not to be returned to a cruel master but given refuge (Deut. 23:15-16).
Lastly, all slavery was understood within the context of humans being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), so that they had rights as human beings that put limits on the way they could be treated, as mentioned in point two, above. While those guilty of death-deserving crimes and members of enemy tribes nations could be killed, slaves were treated as servants or employees (in today's context), except they had to be cared for and treated properly.
Now that I've explained it, perhaps you'd care to explain why chattel slavery of any kind--even the kind that saw humans as animals or objects to be abused and killed as the master saw fit--is objectively immoral.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:"Might makes right" is the controlling principle in what you're talking about, whether it be by means of a democratic vote, or one person setting the rules for the tribe.
Majority:miniority has nothing to do with this. That's only existed in large part for 100 or so years. Human society goes back 8-12k years.
Either way, the question stands: you need to explain why the way morality has been approached creates a moral obligation beyond one or more human beings just saying so.
quote:I just responded to that. It wasn't the same sort of slavery as we think of from recent history, where the slaves were treated as animals or worse with no human dignity or rights.
Same as the Bible.
quote:The Bible provides an objective standard to judge actions by. "Society" (which society, and at what time in history?) does not. All "society" can do is say what is moral or immoral in their own context in that time. They cannot say what is objectively and universally right or wrong.
Society has done this
The Bible failed to do this
Page 19 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News