»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 fatpie42: Once again you presume that Nietzsche makes moral judgments. He does, even in the text you just quoted. Nietzsche: They never forgive us Nietzsche: they become people who instinctively slander and damage us Right there he called upon two traditional morals: forgiveness and tolerance. If these are as subject to change as the ones he is attempting to subvert, then I have no reason to hate these intolerant, unforgiving people he mentions. fatpie42: On what grounds is one moral better than another is the whole point of moral reasoning. If your moral guidelines have no aspect of this then they are lacking. Moral reasoning is impossible without the standard of Traditional Morality. We cannot stand outside of the morals of humanity, to judge them by any separate standard. If we do, that separate standard is merely our own creation, and has no rational basis. Traditional Morality is our basis for moral reasoning; it is the only grounds for judging if one moral is better than another. fatpie42: One philosopher of meta-ethics I read recently called Boyd suggests that morality seems to be connected to what he calls the homeostatic phenomenon. That's wonderful. Hitler also connected morality with a scientific phenomenon: Darwinism. fatpie42: I think that as people with reason who can think about how our moral values affect people, we should be trying to find ways in which we can make them more tolerant and loving. This sentence shows how complete your misunderstanding is. "Tolerance" and "love" are the two morals that you have in the back of your mind, which are immune to the "debunking" process that you have applied to all other morals. Yes, we should use reason to find ways to be more tolerant and loving. Why? Because tolerance and love are two unchanging moral absolutes which ought to be strived for. Where do they derive their validity? From Traditional Morality. Can you prove to me, by some other means, that I "ought" to love and "ought" to be tolerant? No. If morality is based on what makes me happy, I will be tolerant when I feel like it. If morality is based on the "homeostatic effect," I will love whenever I'm at "equilibrium." posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 stinkz: Right there he called upon two traditional morals: forgiveness and tolerance. Where in the Old Testament is tolerance preached? stinkz: Can you prove to me, by some other means, that I "ought" to love and "ought" to be tolerant? No. If morality is based on what makes me happy, I will be tolerant when I feel like it. This betrays your feelings, though, that without religion there could be no morality. As I said earlier, the whole point of that ethics class I took was to determine a code of morals regardless as to whether or not there is a god. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"A merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh." -Proverbs 11:17 Tiefling: the whole point of that ethics class I took was to determine a code of morals regardless as to whether or not there is a god. What you mean to say is: they blanketly reject any moral or source of morals which mentions divinity. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, it's good to see one reference to tolerance in the Old Testament. Of course, that stands out in sharp contrast to all of the intolerance... God rejected a sincere offering:
God killed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah: God killed Onan because he avoided his duty to impregnate his sister-in-law: God killed Lot's wife: God attempted to kill Moses: God killed untold numbers of Egyptians: Religious civil war among the Israelites: God ordered Israelites to destroy Pagan temples: Rejection of women, and disabled or imperfect men as priests: God killed Jews at Taberah: God killed Jews at Kibroth-hatta'avah: God killed 250 Jewish leaders and their families: God sent a plague which killed 14,700 Jews: God orders genocides: God sends plague which killed 24,000 Israelites: God orders genocide of the Midianites: God orders extermination of residents of Canaan: God hardened the hearts of the Canaanites so that they would resist the invasion of the Israelites.All of the people in Jericho: men, women and children, were killed or murdered. Joshua 6:21 "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." The king of Ai was kidnapped and later murdered. All of the rest of the inhabitants, young and old, were killed or murdered. Five armies from southern Canaan joined together to fight the Israeli army, and were wiped out. The five kings were captured and murdered in cold blood. The Israelites then attacked each of the cities in the area: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. Every person was killed. An alliance of many kings joined to fight Joshua. They were defeated. The Israelites "did not leave any that breathed." Two kings on the east side of the Jordon river, and 31 kings on the west side were killed and their cities destroyed. God threatens to kill men who allow their children to marry outside their group: Destroy the temples of other religions: God permits a human sacrifice: stinkz: What you mean to say is: they blanketly reject any moral or source of morals which mentions divinity. Both true and false. True, because as I've said a few times now, the class started by rejecting all morality, then evaluated what should be included in a moral code and why. False, because inclusions were not rejected just because they agreed with a religion. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Well, it's good to see one reference to tolerance in the Old Testament. Of course, that stands out in sharp contrast to all of the intolerance... Figures. You weren't really looking for an answer, but merely for an excuse to jab at the Bible again. Tiefling: True, because as I've said a few times now, the class started by rejecting all morality, then evaluated what should be included in a moral code and why And, as I've said countless times now, no real morality can be derived in this way. As C. S. Lewis pointed out... "The [moral] Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible." posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Figures. You weren't really looking for an answer, but merely for an excuse to jab at the Bible again.  , well that was a nice non-response. I'm not making this stuff up stinkz. It's in the Bible. You can feel free to be offended by me mentioning the intolerance in the Old Testament, but that doesn't make it any less true.stinkz: And, as I've said countless times now, no real morality can be derived in this way. So it's impossible, in your opinion, for atheists and agnostics to understand morality? Well that certainly makes this discussion pointless, given that I'm an agnostic. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: You can feel free to be offended by me mentioning the intolerance in the Old Testament, but that doesn't make it any less true. Words... that's all I get from you. You asked a question which was offtopic in the first place, and I (stupidly) dignified the question with a response. I'm not offended by your misunderstanding and blind faith in websites any more than I am offended by a 4 year old sticking his tounge out at me. But I would like it if you'd stay on topic and attempt to address actual issues. Tiefling: So it's impossible, in your opinion, for atheists and agnostics to understand morality? They can understand the morality of humanity in the same way everyone should. An atheistic science professor at my university actually explained to the class that, whether we like it or not, we are forced to trust Traditional Morality. He even mentioned that this fact is often seen as evidence of the supernatural origin of the Moral Law, though he didn't hold that opinion himself. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: They can understand the morality of humanity in the same way everyone should. And in what way is that --- the blind faith way? I don't see any other justification for your "traditional morality." posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Words... that's all I get from you. My bad. Next time I'll attach a photo too. It was on-topic. You claimed traditional Christian morality embraced tolerance. I claim there's nothing in the Old Testament to support that claim. With the exception of the verse you found, it would seem the bulk of the Old Testament is not very tolerant. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: And in what way is that --- the blind faith way? I don't see any other justification for your "traditional morality. Hitler didn't see any justification for it either, so he formed his own morality. Traditional Morality needs no justification in the way you mean it. You cannot simply continue to ask "why" when morality says that it is obligatory to act a certain way. And I don't think you do. You only continue to ask "why?" until a moral falls back on "because it won't hurt anyone." At this point the moral needs to produce no further supporting evidence. Why? Because we have finally reached the point of faith in your morality. You BELIEVE that harming others is wrong, though you can produce no "evidence" in support of this claim. Now, your partial morality is admittedly better than Hitler's, but it isn't any less arbitrary. As for me, I'm going to trust in the morality of humanity. Tiefling: My bad. Next time I'll attach a photo too. Not necessary. Try attaching content instead. Tiefling: You claimed traditional Christian morality embraced tolerance. I did no such thing. In actuality, I would venture to say that there is no such thing as "Christian morality." But this is still off-topic. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Traditional Morality needs no justification in the way you mean it. Blind faith. You feel that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your moral code can't understand morality, and you feel your moral code needs no justification. And thus, you demonstrate yet again that discussions with you are pointless. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You ignored my post which shows you that you rely on the same blind faith you accuse me of having. Your moral axiom, which states "we shouldn't harm others," needs no justification; it's just true. You "believe blindly" or "have faith" in that particular moral. Your position requires as much or more blind belief as mine. The difference is, I acknowledge that my position requires faith. And, it is a faith in humanity. It is not a groundless faith in oneself or in a particular society, as yours is. If you were brought up under the morality of the Nazi regime, so that the morals of that society were as engrained in your mind as "secular" morals currently are, what could prevent you from participating in terribly immoral events? Conscience? I suppose. But as you said before, consciences are corrupted. What then? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: And, it is a faith in humanity. Faith in humanity? I thought that according to Christians, the nature of man is wicked and sinful...how can you have faith in something that is so horrible? If you had said that you had faith in something absolute and eternal (God), than it would have made much more sense. 
posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: You ignored my post which shows you that you rely on the same blind faith you accuse me of having. Your moral axiom, which states "we shouldn't harm others," needs no justification; it's just true. You "believe blindly" or "have faith" in that particular moral. Your position requires as much or more blind belief as mine. The moral axiom, "We shouldn't harm others," is rooted in not wanting to be harmed oneself. Where is the blind faith in that? stinkz: The difference is, I acknowledge that my position requires faith. And, it is a faith in humanity. That is about the most untrue statement I've seen you post here. Like nocturnal said, Christianity has faith in god and has *no* faith in humanity. Do you even read the Bible? stinkz: It is not a groundless faith in oneself or in a particular society, as yours is. By this statement, you make it clear that morality arising from one particular society is groundless. Christianity is a moral code that arises from a particular society. Looks like I'm not needed here; you're doing a great job at disproving your own thesis! posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
nocturnal_anonymous: Faith in humanity? I thought that according to Christians, the nature of man is wicked and sinful...how can you have faith in something that is so horrible? Just because humans are wretched sinners does not mean that we do not have the knowledge of good and evil. We know the Moral Law. If we didn't, how would we know we have broken it, and are fallen? My point was not to have faith that humans will act morally. We know they will not. Our faith in humanity's discovery and knowledge of the Moral Law, which gives us the ability to know sin. Whereever Paul went, the people he witnessed to, despite their religion or culture, understood the existance of an unkept Moral Law. They knew that they were fallen, and were thus more willing to accept the gospel. In today's society, people refuse to recognize their fallen nature, and pridefully believe in their own innate goodness. Thus, we have taken a step backwards from even those primitive Pagan religions. We create our own "law" to coincide with our actions, and then are proud of ourselves for following it. We need no savior! We have defined "good," and we are it! Remember, according to Hitler's definition of Justice, the Nazi's were acting righteously. We cannot simply make up our own Moral Law. The Moral Law that governs humanity already exists, and is unchangable. It is in this that we must have faith. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 13 October 2008, 06:41 php B.B. |