(January 27, 2016 at 3:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's called "reality," and it's what I hold every potential moral claim up to in deciding whether it is or is not true.using the filter of pop morality your culture programmed you with. My question asks what if Nazi germany programmed you from birth? What in your bag-o-trix (if anything) would have kept you from marching the jews into death camps, like the vast majority of the generation/soceity did?
Quote:Let's use your example of homosexuality for this: the claim that homosexuality is immoral simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, if one keeps in mind the real world.again the real world looking which societal/generational set of glasses?
Again, Homosexuality 'morality' is completely based on what or how popular culture defines it. 50 years ago not only was it immoral it was even criminal in certain states. So no doubt their, at that place and at that time pop morality defined being gay as immoral. However now opposing homosexuality is the immoral behavior.
That said Homosexual behavior will always be an unrighteous sexual act. Which again 'morality' is simply man's version of god's righteousness. It our personal sense of righteousness or as He described it Self righteousness.
Quote: It causes no actual harm (that couldn't also be inflicted by straight couples, meaning to focus on gays there would be special pleading) nor any deleterious social consequences such that it should stand. In fact the sole reason at the core of why it was considered immoral for so long is that god doesn't like it... and examining that claim up against reality casts serious doubt on whether such a being even exists, and even if he did, his pronouncements aren't simply automatically moral truisms. Thus, unchanging, objective reality disproves the moral claim that homosexuality is bad.if you want to put that logic and reason to the test I ask you to answer the 'hypothetical' I asked crossless1 a few posts back.
Quote:You say that a changing view on this issue is a sign of ineffective "pop morality," but I'd suggest it's a little thing called "learning," and that as we gained the ability to collect demographic data such that the wild claims people made about the gay community could be measured and tested, we learned that actually, those claims were largely factually wrong. The moral view regarding that issue didn't change for no reason, Drich, and it'd be a huge oversimplification to say otherwise; what actually happened, both via a gay community refusing to stay closeted and increased research that this afforded, was that the lies told by religious ideologues and conservative fraudsters were no longer able to stand unchallenged, and those of us who value truth over fantasy changed our views to fit the evidence once we were all afforded the ability to see it. It wasn't some arbitrary shuffle of morals: the lies your side told got shouted down by the truth.Pop morality is not 'ineffective morality.' Is what ever popular culture deems moral. morality effectivness is not what i am questioning here.
I am asking you and people like you, that without God's righteousness to anchor your ideas of right and wrong/your morality, and your morality simply hangs on what society tells you is right and wrong how will you know when and if society makes a hard left turn into evil Like Nazi Germany did? I pointed out that the Germans did not see themselves as evil, but being moral up right citizens, just like the Americans responsible for the whole sale slaughter of Indians and or the Aussie slaughter of its indigenous people.