The Moral Law. Ratonality of Faith (1 Viewer)

[Fred]

Yes, you are saying you can condemn terrorism because it conflicts with your moral standar. But my question is, why should it even matter? If everyone has his own moral standard, then we don't really have the right to label anything wrong. In fact, it may be considered presumptous and arrogant to condemn anything at all, since you would be relating everything to your own moral standard which you arrogantly assume to be correct.

There is no such thing as wrong by Sevens logic anyway. What you consider to be wrong, i may consider to be right. And both of us are acting morally.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

I know, and that makes a lot of sense too.

 

[Hambon]

help yourselves...

 

[Hist]

There is a clear logical contrdiction in this way of thinking. What you are talking about here is the potmodernism theory, however, if there is no absolute truth, can postmodernism be itself true?Indeed, if there is no right and wrong, there is no need to argue for the discipline of ethics in the first place.

If we were to go with your theory just for a second, and say that morality is debatable in every sense. Notice than in any ethical argument, one part or the other is clearly applying to a higher standard, or an absolute truth. In other words, an objective morality.

Also, when you do argue about a certain topic concerning morality, there is never a clear winner in this case. Meaning that if country A argued that child abuse was an obscene and disgusting act while country B argued that child abuse is perfectly normal. Under your theory ofcourse, country A does not have the right or the authority to be able to condemn country B. If the people in country B think child abuse is moral, then it is, and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

To take this further, all of these suicide bombers killing themselves to destroy other people's lives would then not be considered immoral. These terrorists truly believe that they are bringing good to their country, that they are defending their people, and protecting their families. Thus, why is terrorism at all immoral? If, again, you believe morality is merely relative, the world has no right at all to even mildly suggest that terrorism is an immoral act.

as i said, its all about what rules to take and what to discard in order for a large group of humans to live together in the best way possible...
we keep modifying the way we think we ought to be throughout time.
Women driving in saudi arabia is immoral to the saudi who put the law. They seriously thought women should not have access to that kind of transportation without being guided by a man.
Now that they are exposed to how other countries are dealing with it, some people are becoming shifty while others maintain their traditional view..
The European and american ideologies of democracy are still seen as a joke by most people here..They think of the americans and europeans as the people without morals for the sole reason of them being different to traditions.
Its all a question of whether you are looking on it from the inside or the outside.

 

[rounder]

as i said, its all about what rules to take and what to discard in order for a large group of humans to live together in the best way possible...
we keep modifying the way we think we ought to be throughout time.
Women driving in saudi arabia is immoral to the saudi who put the law. They seriously thought women should not have access to that kind of transportation without being guided by a man.
Now that they are exposed to how other countries are dealing with it, some people are becoming shifty while others maintain their traditional view..
The European and american ideologies of democracy are still seen as a joke by most people here..They think of the americans and europeans as the people without morals for the sole reason of them being different to traditions.
Its all a question of whether you are looking on it from the inside or the outside.

Right, so if Saudi's were to say conjure up laws that permitted raping women centuries ago, and some Saudi's still accept them today because they are 'traditional', are they still moral? No, you see, it doesn't matter if they think it is moral or not. It doesn't matter if I think what they're doing is moral or not, it is not a matter of personal preference or opinion, it is a fixed unstated standard, an objective moral law. Otherwise, no one would ever be morally 'right' or 'wrong'.

Everything is then permitted, and everything is then accepted. I can go about raping every single woman I see, and when anyone tries to get in my way, I will just say, " Sorry buddy, but in my country, raping women is perfectly moral, so fuck off".

 

[Seven]

The fact that this sort of thinking is new to you all is pretty scary to say the least. It does explain why you're so touchy when it comes to blasphemy.

 

[Raz]

Right, so if Saudi's were to say conjure up laws that permitted raping women centuries ago, and some Saudi's still accept them today because they are 'traditional', are they still moral? No, you see, it doesn't matter if they think it is moral or not. It doesn't matter if I think what they're doing is moral or not, it is not a matter of personal preference or opinion, it is a fixed unstated standard, an objective moral law. Otherwise, no one would ever be morally 'right' or 'wrong'.

Everything is then permitted, and everything is then accepted. I can go about raping every single woman I see, and when anyone tries to get in my way, I will just say, " Sorry buddy, but in my country, raping women is perfectly moral, so fuck off".

I think you missunderstood what they were saying, they said that it was fine back then when most of the people would feel its fine, but now, when whole society thinks its immoral and one guy thinks it is moral, because it was fine back then, it isnt, because morality evolves through time and now it is immoral.

I look at it more simple, do not do anything to other that you wouldnt want done to yourself, and this doesnt need any higher powers, its just common sense and this would apply to any times. Its not higher power that put rape in a bad pile, Its that i dont want to be raped, and cant think of any sane person who would, so i consider raping immoral or wrong too.

 

[Fred]

The fact that this sort of thinking is new to you all is pretty scary to say the least. It does explain why you're so touchy when it comes to blasphemy.

Because we don't agree with it, does not mean its new to us.

I think you missunderstood what they were saying, they said that it was fine back then when most of the people would feel its fine, but now, when whole society thinks its immoral and one guy thinks it is moral, because it was fine back then, it isnt, because morality evolves through time and now it is immoral.

So basically if we were living 700 years ago. Raping women would have been moral, because morality didnt evolve to what it is now at that time?

I look at it more simple, do not do anything to other that you wouldnt want done to yourself, and this doesnt need any higher powers, its just common sense and this would apply to any times. Its not higher power that put rape in a bad pile, Its that i dont want to be raped, and cant think of any sane person who would, so i consider raping immoral or wrong too.

Kant's categorical imperative?

 

[rounder]

The fact that this sort of thinking is new to you all is pretty scary to say the least. It does explain why you're so touchy when it comes to blasphemy.

It's not new to me, I just find it very flawed, and I'm surprised some people so willingly accept it. Fred and many others feel the same way, so I don't think I'm delusional.

I think you missunderstood what they were saying, they said that it was fine back then when most of the people would feel its fine, but now, when whole society thinks its immoral and one guy thinks it is moral, because it was fine back then, it isnt, because morality evolves through time and now it is immoral.

I look at it more simple, do not do anything to other that you wouldnt want done to yourself, and this doesnt need any higher powers, its just common sense and this would apply to any times. Its not higher power that put rape in a bad pile, Its that i dont want to be raped, and cant think of any sane person who would, so i consider raping immoral or wrong too.

You are saying something is only moral when we begin to think it is moral. I am stating this is not the case clearly, it does not matter what we think, some actions will always remain immoral.

 

[Seven]

Because we don't agree with it, does not mean its new to us.




So basically if we were living 700 years ago. Raping women would have been moral, because morality didnt evolve to what it is now at that time?

The question you just asked makes it clear that it is new to you. You don't seem to understand the concept. It's not even about time and evolving, it's about choices. But you, being a muslim, don't have choices. You have chosen to accept a certain moral standard and you live by it. The problem is that you think it's the only standard. You even see it as objective. Which in the context of history and space is utterly ridiculous.

It's not new to me, I just find it very flawed, and I'm surprised some people so willingly accept it. Fred and many others feel the same way, so I don't think I'm delusional.

You are saying something is only moral when we begin to think it is moral. I am stating this is not the case clearly, it does not matter what we think, some actions will always remain immoral.

But it isn't flawed. You can't even show me one error in the entire theory. Some actions in fact will always be immoral, but not because they are, but because almost everyone thinks they are. Slaying your own brother for example is something that in almost any culture is deemed immoral and you could go as far as saying that it's a universal ethical value not to kill your own brother.

 

[Salvo]

muslims do not have moral choices andries?

 

[Seven]

muslims do not have moral choices andries?

Of course not. They had one moral choice. But as soon as you say your moral standard is in a book, all you can do is follow the book. Which means you don't have to make moral choices day in day out. In fact, if you do, you're not even being a good muslim.

 

[Salvo]

i still think they make moral choices day in day out, i personally think morals are not always related to religion but can be based on what your parents or other influential figures instilled in you as you were growing up. and these "morals" are not always taught because of religion.

 

[Fred]

The question you just asked makes it clear that it is new to you. You don't seem to understand the concept. It's not even about time and evolving, it's about choices. But you, being a muslim, don't have choices. You have chosen to accept a certain moral standard and you live by it. The problem is that you think it's the only standard. You even see it as objective. Which in the context of history and space is utterly ridiculous.



But it isn't flawed. You can't even show me one error in the entire theory. Some actions in fact will always be immoral, but not because they are, but because almost everyone thinks they are. Slaying your own brother for example is something that in almost any culture is deemed immoral and you could go as far as saying that it's a universal ethical value not to kill your own brother.

The questions i am asking are for the purpose of proving the flawed logic in your arguments, they aren't real inquiry questions. Was that not obvious? Do i really have to spell everything out for you?


Forget for one second that i am a Muslim Seven, and lets just talk logic here. Do you not think we are in need of objective moral standards.

Because like i said, your logic has several dangerous implications. I find it bemusing that you can't see that. The terrorists example that Juve Rev brought up earlier is spot on. These people really believe that what they're doing is perfectly moral, by your logic we cannot condemn them. Because there is no objective moral standard, it is all relative and subjective, therefore their acts are indeed perfectly moral.


PS: Still waiting for your thoughts on Hitler.

 

[Seven]

Like I said before, it is not because of the fact that there is no objective moral standard that we can't condemn them. We are arrogant enough to believe that our moral standard is better than theirs and we condemn them because of that. You believe that your moral standard is better than mine as well. It's what people do, day in day out. It's why blasphemy is illegal in your country, but perfectly alright in mine.

 

[rounder]

But it isn't flawed. You can't even show me one error in the entire theory. Some actions in fact will always be immoral, but not because they are, but because almost everyone thinks they are. Slaying your own brother for example is something that in almost any culture is deemed immoral and you could go as far as saying that it's a universal ethical value not to kill your own brother.

Actually, that's exactly what I've been doing. If morality is relative, then who are we to say terrorists, Nazis, or fascists are immoral. Terrorists don't lack in number, and virtually all of them believe that they are acts serve their country and people. They believe that their actions are morally right. This is the flaw of your type of morality. If you believe that morallity is entirely dependant on individual opinion, we do not have any basis of telling these terrorists, " What you are doing is wrong". Because technically, by your definition of morality, they are merely applying to their standard of morality. They are not violating any moral law as far as they are concerned.

I can give you many more examples if you wish.

 

[Seven]

Actually, that's exactly what I've been doing. If morality is relative, then who are we to say terrorists, Nazis, or fascists are immoral. Terrorists don't lack in number, and virtually all of them believe that they are acts serve their country and people. They believe that their actions are morally right. This is the flaw of your type of morality. If you believe that morallity is entirely dependant on individual opinion, we do not have any basis of telling these terrorists, " What you are doing is wrong". Because technically, by your definition of morality, they are merely applying to their standard of morality. They are not violating any moral law as far as they are concerned.

I can give you many more examples if you wish.

They are violating my moral law. They are violating the moral law of the majority.

Hence the punishment.

Seriously, Juve Revolution, this stuff is pretty easy, why can't you get it?

 

[rounder]

Like I said before, it is not because of the fact that there is no objective moral standard that we can't condemn them. We are arrogant enough to believe that our moral standard is better than theirs and we condemn them because of that. You believe that your moral standard is better than mine as well. It's what people do, day in day out. It's why blasphemy is illegal in your country, but perfectly alright in mine.

I don't condemn terrorists because I arrogantly believe I am more righteous than they are, I do so because they are killing innocent people, and I truly believe that any sane person brought up in a natural enviroment free from brainwashing and manipulation, they would think the same thing.

 

[Seven]

I don't condemn terrorists because I arrogantly believe I am more righteous than they are, I do so because they are killing innocent people, and I truly believe that any sane person brought up in a natural enviroment free from brainwashing and manipulation, they would think the same thing.

Which is where the arrogance lies. It's incredible how easy it is for you guys to determine right and wrong. That's what years of manipulative behaviour do to you I suppose.

 

[rounder]

They are violating my moral law. They are violating the moral law of the majority.

Hence the punishment.

Seriously, Juve Revolution, this stuff is pretty easy, why can't you get it?

So what?

No, they aren't violating the law of the majority and that's exactly my point. The government of Palestine is run by a terrorist organization. The general public truly believe in the morality of terrorism. What laws are these terrorists violating then? Their country's people want them to do what they are doing, and since they run by the 'majority's' standard, then they are doing absolutely nothing wrong.


I am not getting it because there are consistent logical flaws. I hope you are understanding them by now.