Deflection and refusal to answer.

You know what god will and won't do?

If it can't happen, why can't it happen?

(August 7, 2015 at 10:08 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 10:00 am)robvalue Wrote: You keep saying "must be". Why? Because you demand it? Again, it seems you're simply uncomfortable with there not being one; that is not an argument.

And I explained at length why an arbitrary "standard" is meaningless, would you care to address any of my points?

No because logic dictates it

When you are judging something what are you doing?  You are assessing it based on the accepted standard.  When a judge determines if someone is guilty of breaking a law, he compares the act to the law itself (the standard).

This just strikes me as servile.  If the standard was arrived at by human beings and you are a human being, might you not then be able to perform the assessment in a more immediate and autonomous way?  Conscience is immediate, and if there is any link to an objective standard that hasn't been demonstrated.

Right... do you really need the opinion of some abstract being to know that killing your own kids is immoral? Of course you don't. You know it's immoral, regardless of what any abstract being might have to say about it.

There seems to be a line here that some people are taking that morals are set and immovable.
This position is demonstrably wrong.
You only have to read the bible to see that what was considered the moral thing to do is now considered immoral itself because societies have changed and adjusted.
Our society now is the most moral ever and that is precisely because we have moved away from religious thinking.
The most immoral societies are the most religiously fundamental, ISIS for example.

Of course. What is considered moral changes with the times, that's why people spend so long arguing against their own objective moral standard in the bible, ironically.

(August 7, 2015 at 10:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: There seems to be a line here that some people are taking that morals are set and immovable.
This position is demonstrably wrong.
You only have to read the bible to see that what was considered the moral thing to do is now considered immoral itself because societies have changed and adjusted.
Our society now is the most moral ever and that is precisely because we have moved away from religious thinking.
The most immoral societies are the most religiously fundamental, ISIS for example.

And what exactly were the fundamental views of the Third Reich, Stalin regime and the RedGuard rebellion?  I find your statement demonstrably fallacious

(August 7, 2015 at 10:10 am)robvalue Wrote: No, we all have our own standards of morality individually. That much is clear.

You keep implying Kingpin that it is logically possible to condemn someone with absolute certainty. Again, this is just the way you want things to be. Morality is a matter of discussion, and you can't even begin to decide what is moral and what is not until you decide what outcomes are important, and what is valuable. Otherwise it's one person giving out an arbitrary list.

I agree with you, Rob, that it is in our nature to deliberate on what is optimal or befitting.  We can't help doing so and it is important that we do it.  But I don't think deliberation is sufficient.  There is something which provokes the deliberation which to some degree we treat as brute facts.  Kingy and Chad, I think, would have that be an objective moral standard.  I think it is more a matter of the 'moral feel'.  There just is something yucky feeling about some prospective acts and satisfying about others.  Whether you try to pin that down with the bible or with a few carefully chosen principles, your success will be in the pudding.

Thank you

People don't get their morals from the bible. They project their morals onto the bible and ignore any bits that don't match up.

(August 7, 2015 at 11:04 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 10:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: There seems to be a line here that some people are taking that morals are set and immovable.
This position is demonstrably wrong.
You only have to read the bible to see that what was considered the moral thing to do is now considered immoral itself because societies have changed and adjusted.
Our society now is the most moral ever and that is precisely because we have moved away from religious thinking.
The most immoral societies are the most religiously fundamental, ISIS for example.

And what exactly were the fundamental views of the Third Reich, Stalin regime and the RedGuard rebellion?  I find your statement demonstrably fallacious

Third Reich, catholic with a dash of mysticism, Stalins regime was a personality cult. BTW did you know he was trained for priesthood, Red guard another personality cult.

(August 7, 2015 at 11:09 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 10:10 am)robvalue Wrote: No, we all have our own standards of morality individually. That much is clear.

You keep implying Kingpin that it is logically possible to condemn someone with absolute certainty. Again, this is just the way you want things to be. Morality is a matter of discussion, and you can't even begin to decide what is moral and what is not until you decide what outcomes are important, and what is valuable. Otherwise it's one person giving out an arbitrary list.

I agree with you, Rob, that it is in our nature to deliberate on what is optimal or befitting.  We can't help doing so and it is important that we do it.  But I don't think deliberation is sufficient.  However there is something which provokes the deliberation which to some degree we treat as brute facts.  Kingy and Chad, I think, would have that be an objective moral standard.  I think it is more a matter of the 'moral feel'.  There just is something yucky feeling about some prospective acts and satisfying about others.  Whether you try to pin that down with the bible or with a few carefully chosen principles, your success will be in the pudding.

Whateverist and Rob I agree with you on humans deliberating on moral acts, but as you correctly stated there is indeed something that provokes and that we "appeal" to.  I will not speak for Chad or anyone else, but yes I prescribe that to us being made in the image of God and our character reflecting God's character.  Others may not agree and that is perfectly fine, but the point is there is something in us all that we detect, but simply disagree on the source.