Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Ignorant]

It's pretty simple to me. Your welter of questions puzzles me. You don't seem to have given morality much thought, as shown by this post of yours; you seem to be unaware of some common concepts.

I have actually been giving morality a great deal of thought. So much so that I have been studying the subject for the past 3 years. What I have found is that what most people consider to be "common concepts" and "simple" definitions are quite frequently understood in largely differing ways. What I have also found is that, having accepted these moral concepts and principles as "simply" true or "commonly" held, most people don't know how to articulate exactly what they mean by those terms. Your evolving description and even the utilization of an online dictionary demonstrates what I mean (which moral philosopher have you read who resorts to the dictionary in order to describe goodness and morality based on rights language?). Most people who have given morality "much thought" know fully well that the dictionary can tell them what the term "right" is meant to signify. It is another thing all together to provide an adequate account of "what" exactly it is and why people have them. Your brushing attempt at it (6 sentences) and your fumble over legal vs. natural/inherent rights shows either a lack of knowledge regarding its fundamental principles, or else a lack of desire to go into those depths. But to pretend that moral "rights" are self-evident principles is naive. I know this because I found myself in the same position 4-5 years ago, and I wanted to change that. That is ok. All I ask is that you be patient with me. Usually people talk about things to understand each other better. That is all I am trying to do.

My curiosity as to your motive is no less valid than your curiosity as to my meaning -- particularly because my meaning is much plainer than your motive.

I have no problem understanding the meaning of your formulated ethical imperative. What I had trouble understanding are the implications which that imperative has for real human action. My questions explore those implications in an attempt to understand you more.

I had assumed you knew what mental illness is. You can google it.

Yes, I know what a mental illness is. Many people would take great offense to your equating mental disorder with an inability to agree about "what other people should do to them". Mental illness does not amount to lack of correct moral judgment. For example, a person with Bipolar Disorder or Bulimia Nervosa (These are both defined by the DSM-IV and the ICD as mental disorders. I googled it for you: HERE) can't be said to be without the moral judgment necessary to agree with society about what they would like other to do to them.

Are there specific types of mental disorders that severely distort the reality by which a human being judges what is good? Certainly. Does "sound mind" adequately account for that distinction? Definitely not.

"Ever" is a long time. Can you be more specific?

Sure. Can you think of a particular set of circumstances and agents in which one of those agents, by applying the imperative to those circumstances, would actually act in a way which is bad?

In summary, I am familiar with the genre of ethics to which your descriptions seem to subscribe. Do not mistake my questions as coming from ignorance of ethics in general. My questions come from a desire to know how you understand your own ethical framework and the way by which you describe it. You may be surprised to know that not everyone who begins with a reflexive moral imperative explain the rest the same way that you do.