So Drich what is "moral" according to you. At this point I don't know what behaviour you are arguing for/against.

(January 27, 2016 at 12:53 pm)robvalue Wrote: Is pop morality the kind where you don't have slaves and don't kill people based on voices in your head?

I always wondered what it was. How disgraceful.

I think they get a pass on handling deadly serpents these days too.  Terrible so much liberal backsliding has slithered into the faith.

(January 27, 2016 at 1:37 pm)loganonekenobi Wrote: I hold to the view that most of this topic is all man made.  

Religion is man made, morality is man made, laws are man made.

That being the idea then all of these are subject to change.

The question is why do they change?  My guess (since i'm not a scholar on this subject) is that some one some where looked at a current "moral" and asked themselves (thinking for themselves) "Is this particular action the right thing to do? IE slavery.  Would I be okay with this if I where on the other end of it?"

my guess is that a moral or law started out with what appeared to be a need.  IE slavery to do the work.  then as time goes on the suffering of others is experienced by those present.  As humans are by nature at least cooperative creatures, it is easy for most of us to feel the suffering of others and see the current moral as needing change.

Also i believe that our understanding of reality changes what we view as moral.  for instance homosexuality would be considered bad by some due to
A) not reproducing for the tribe
B) another route for spreading disease
C) fear of what is not understood (the real reason why it is shunned)
D) at the time of Judasim it helped sepperate the actions of their tribe from others.

Now that we have moved out of our tribal existence and have much greater tech to work with most of those are no longer valid.
A) we already have plenty of people on the planet.
B) that's what protection and medical tech is for
C) we understand way more about the phenomena of homosexuality and have come to realize it's just part of nature
D)  we are all humans

I for one choose not to live in the bronze age by following a book of morals written for those type of people.  It is no longer valid for me.

As for what guides me i simply look at the situation and judge for myself.  If i deem that situation is not one that i would consider fair and appropriate if I where on that business end of it then I do not support it.

the universe is always changing.  I see no reason why i shouldn't

all of that is Very nice... now answer the questions I ask.
If you were born In 1920's Germany and grew up under those conditions, would have been a good little German and fell into what the rest of society was doing?

If you don't think so, what is it about your currently value system that would transcend time and space and keep you from marching jews into death camps?

(January 27, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: My guiding sense of morality is the so-called (by Christians no less) 'Silver Rule', as opposed to the so-called Golden Rule because I find the negative wording of the sentiment underlying both to be more flexible a tool than the positively worded formulation found in the NT. Now in what possible respect is that "pop morality" since it is millennia old?

I know this Pop Morality trope of yours is one of your favorite hobby horses, and you seem to believe it applies to anyone who doesn't, for example, accept the Bible as normative. However, it misses the mark. You once sent me a PM in which you suggested that my embracing gay rights was an example of Pop Morality. I knew then that a response was pointless since you had already made up your mind that it couldn't be otherwise. But I'll respond here and now. I graduated from High School in 1985. In my senior-year civics class, we were assigned to present a speech to the class arguing in favor of a "controversial" position. I chose for my topic "Marriage Should be Legal for Homosexuals" which proved by a wide margin to be the most controversial subject presented. Now, not that it should matter in the least, but I -- a heterosexual male -- had no personal, self-serving interest in the outcome of the question. I chose my stance based on (1) the law should be applied equally -- i.e., a government license (as such, a secular license) should not be denied to one group of people based on others' disgust or religious bigotry, and (2) such discrimination violates the basic moral insight that one should avoid doing to others that which one finds painful or ethically objectionable. 1985, if you recall, was a time when gay marriage wasn't even on anyone's radar as a live issue. Was my advocacy of this position an example of 'Pop Morality' or was it prescience on my part? The gasps of disbelief among my classmates (not to mention my teacher's reaction: "Well, that certainly was controversial; I wouldn't hold my breath to see that happen in my lifetime if I were you") hardly suggests to me that I was toeing some line of popular morality or political correctness.

The Silver Rule is not an "objective" moral standard by any means, but for people who aren't sociopathic or hypocritically self-serving it provides a decent rough-and-ready standard by which one's actions can be evaluated.

Your silver rule is just another form of train empathy that you borrowed from Christianity. I'm asking if one abandons God/God's righteousness completely what is left to return them to center? what is to anchor someone/you if society sets it's sights say on Children as being sexually viable partners? I asked someone   (red letters are used to spell his name) this question and got no response, so I will ask you since you seem froggy.

Lets say in a few years, while in search of the ever illusive 'gay gene' a pedophile gene is found.. a gene that when active makes certain people only sexually attracted to children. then another scientific break through occurs when mapping brain wave activity that states that children as young as 10 have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for any and all sexual activity, but only if this brain wave/activity is present.. This is studied 100 ways to sunday and low and behold it is true. Children as young as 10 have been properly documented and recorded in having said brain activity...

so then 'Nambla' starts pushing for access to Children but society says no.

Now does your 'silver rule' push you to write another paper putting pedophiles together with children? (in effect Does your 'silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed?) or are their limits? if so why do homosexuals get a pass and pedophiles don't?

To start with, I'm not aware of any wording in the NT that reflects the 'Silver Rule'. The first I encountered it was by way of Hillel. And before you start beating the drums and insisting that I've latched onto a 'religious' principle, I'd challenge you to explain in what sense the 'Silver Rule' requires belief in a deity. It strikes me as perfectly consistent with a secular viewpoint.

As for your hypothetical, I would need to know how exactly one goes from mapping brain wave activity to determining that the subject is mentally capable of forming mature, responsible choices regarding sexuality -- especially given that the subjects in your hypothetical are pre-pubescent. Needless to say, I'm skeptical that the conditions that might establish a strong correlation could even be defined much less established experimentally. And even at that, you're still a long, long way from establishing a causal relationship. We know that the brains of children continue to grow and develop; that is indisputable. So your goofy hypothetical already flies in the face of what we know about physiology and child development, and you've made no effort to define the parameters by which one could jump to the conclusion that "Brain wave pattern A" = mature/responsible sexual self-awareness. You're grasping at straws.

Regardless, the genetic proclivities of those who might harm others (pedophiles, psychopaths, etc.) don't provide ethical or legal cover -- much as you'd like to lump consenting gay adults into that group, which tells me a hell of a lot more about you than it does anyone else. There is nothing about the Silver Rule that necessitates anyone placing others in harm's way just because predators might have a certain genetic disposition.

The fact that you would even ask, "Does your silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed or are their limits?" shows that you don't grasp the most basic thing about it.

(January 27, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote:

Empathy is a joke. It can be manipulated in both directions. People can and have been trained to have it if certain conditions exist and with hold it if they do not.

For example why do you think Osama started with his terror attacks in the 90s? It was because he had empathy for the people of Iraq after gulf war1. Yet showed no empathy for those who did not share his religion/skin color.

What else do you think transcends your current moral value system?

Spoken like a true sociopath. You see in the case of Osama, he used the same moral system you propose, which instead of being built on empathy its built on absolute morals. You see if you use empathy and reason to try to see out another eyes, and then use rational thinking to reason out how to treat them. This works well for a moral system to go through your daily life, and works well when combined with moral utilarianism to apply to larger situations. Unfortunately your Bible falls flat on both counts because it causes suffering on a personal level by stifling expression and on a larger level causes division just like what you named above. Morality utilitarian system ground in rational thought and empathy has the precise opposite effect. It encourages unity for the betterment of everyone and free expression.

What part of EMPATHY is a Propaganda controlled response do you not get?

I gave several examples where society THIS SOCEITY has taken away all basic human rights to several different groups of people and has or is working to obliterate them!

This is NO Different than what Osama did. That's what Empthay is! It's sympathy for those in whom you've been trained to identify with. Take away their humanity with mindless propaganda and all empathy ceases.

(January 27, 2016 at 2:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't pay attention to the opinions on morality of some Christian who justifies slavery and prays for others to get cancer and AIDS.

And I don't pay attention to the opinions on morality of some douche who pretends he does not directly benfit from slavery daily, and makes up a false accusation that others pray for cancer and AIDS.

Oh, wait.. my response does show that I do indeed pay attention to said person's morality if I can list things I find morally objectionable. I guess I'm a hypocrite who is afraid to speak topically, but wants to get my two cents into the mix... Oh wait that's just you.

(January 27, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Drich Wrote: all of that is Very nice... now answer the questions I ask.
If you were born In 1920's Germany and grew up under those conditions, would have been a good little German and fell into what the rest of society was doing?

If you don't think so, what is it about your currently value system that would transcend time and space and keep you from marching jews into death camps?

Not all Germans were nasty you know, some of them had a conscience and opposed the Nazis many coming to a sticky end. But many people did rather evil things because their own morality was circumvented by strong motivators like nationalism, politics and religion. The army had also had to make an oath to Adolf Hitler which people took seriously back then.

(January 27, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Drich Wrote: What part of EMPATHY is a Propaganda controlled response do you not get?

No it isn't.
Empathy is the putting yourself in someone elses position and imagining that it was done to you. What you are talking about is the subversion or negating of empathy by propaganda. By making you see people as "other" you can treat them as less than human because you no longer see them as analogous to yourself and this lessens the ability to use empathy for them. 

Quote:I gave several examples where society THIS SOCEITY has taken away all basic human rights to several different groups of people and has or is working to obliterate them!

I have never removed basic rights from anyone! do you mean the knee jerk reactions of idiots to events, I think you do.

Quote:This is NO Different than what Osama did. That's what Empthay is! It's sympathy for those in whom you've been trained to identify with. Take away their humanity with mindless propaganda and all empathy ceases.

That's true, but  making empathy not work sometimes, or that it can be lessened does not negate the fact that that it is the root of morals.
All human interactions can be manipulated.
So what?

(January 27, 2016 at 12:19 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Can you point to a time period in history, any time period, where the above has not been the case (fluid social structures, conventions and agential [sic] behaviors that either inform or exist as a result of those structures and hence give form to 'morality')?

Yes! but not if you hold the current pop morality as your definition of right and wrong.

...ok. So could you elucidate?

(January 27, 2016 at 2:19 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: All I can do is use my brain and do my best. Again, it's better than blindly following a so-called standard that is clearly barbaric.

You still don't get it? you still can get out of your box thinking... If your standard is corrupt, truly corrupt wouldn't it label all other standards 'barbaric?' so then if their were no absolutes your 'best' would be only to take what is available and judge right and wrong from what you grew up with...

The question then becomes how do you know you did not grow up in a society as bad if not worse than the Nazis or anyone else you look at as being way/unquestionably evil?

Quote: I say so-called because the Bible is not really a moral standard. A standard has to be clear and consistent. You and I both know the Bible is neither. That of course is why there are so many Christian sects rather than a single Christian religion. You are forced to interpret the Bible. In the end, you do exactly the same thing I do: You derive your own sense of morality based on your own self-convictions. You have little choice being that you don't really have a standard. The only difference is that you may believe God is whispering in your ear, to guide you. I am under no such delusion.

actually no. I do not seek to contrive a morality from the bible. I simply look at and accept the sin and evil in my life and have sought and receive atonement for those sins. Which affords me the freedom to live apart from the law God uses to identify sin.

My behavior then becomes my direct offering of Love to God. I try and live what others may identify as a 'moral' life not because it is right, and I receive anything for it. I do so simply because it is the closest thing I can do to emulate the righteousness God has identified in the bible, as an expression of my faith and love towards him. "Right or wrong" be damned.

That is the difference between living a morality based life and living an atonement based life. If one understands atonement, then he knows their is no right we can do that can off set the wrong. So life ceases about trying to be right/moral, and becomes about seeking God.