(April 1, 2013 at 6:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: mt/mp? Don't know what it stands for.

Tale for another time, grounds are plenty fertile already.

Quote:Defining honesty to being good, and defining the exceptions to the rule.

Well.....clearly we're approaching this from different angles - but you know that I would mention that the reason you're having trouble - ambiguity, is that you've already begun to discuss something ambiguous....I'd offer this as a possibility because.....

Quote:When is it ok or even righteous to lie to society or people in society or to friends or to parents or to family?

We have laws that pertain to this that stand without having to reference morality (though it's undeniable that they -began- in our notions of morality..it;s just that it's beyond that point)...regardless of whether or not it is moral, in some situations lying is simply illegal. It's very easy to discuss lying from the legal standpoint. There's no ambiguity there (though a lawyer would try to argue some in - if his client were "plainly guilty").

So, in this case, can you see why I might offer the simple solution? We can discuss (leveraging language) lying and honesty very simply from the angle of legality - so on that count, it doesn't seem to be very ambiguous - we even expect small children to understand the difference between being honest and being dishonest (and largely they seem to be able to do just that)...... but as soon as you bring up morality - well, grab the reins and hold on tight.

Yeah I see what your saying. My example is probably due to it being ambiguous rather than language limits.

And in case of killing people, it often is ambiguous. For example, the war on Japan and nuking the two cities. To me, it seems evil. To others, it seems morally right.

Palestinian killing themselves to kill Israelis. A lot of people justify it, while "suicide" is condemned by the same people, let alone the issue of civilians.

(April 1, 2013 at 11:38 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(April 1, 2013 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Me: This is non-sequitur. Moreover objective morality and relative morality are not mutually exclusive from my perspective, because I believe ultimately morality boils down to the intention behind the act.

I agree that knowing what a person's true intentions behind an act would help me to personally decide what I think about their actions, whether right or wrong.

But as you said, without redefining the word "objective" in the absolute sense, the reminder of that which may be percieved as good by you and could still be viewed as bad by me, regardless of understanding the intentions. We may very well agree on the intentions but disagree on the action or any other combination of the variables.

I just think there are too many variables to incapsulate any one descision in a definitive category. There are too many angles too consider and we could both logically arrive at different conclusions. This is not the case with any other logical absolutes. This is what we would expect of something should it be purely subjective.

I believe this is where Divine Command Theory enters. Rightness or wrongness is judged on intent. But if God commands or prohibits something specific, your refusal to comply constitutes a negative intention. Instead of loving God (Luke 10:27), we go our own selfish way. Anything God commands is objective because there can be no exceptions--subjective human opinions mean nothing. Of course, we can choose to disobey. But that estranges us from our fountain and creator, our life-preserving force. If we disobey, that flow of life ends and we die. That's about as objective as it gets.

Does any other student of the Word have insight on this?

Divine Command Theory... so if I lied to save someone's life (like the teacher who saved her students by lying at the last shootings) it means I'm being morally bad because I've gone against God's arbitrary moral rules? Should I have let the person die instead in order to be morally good?

(April 2, 2013 at 2:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Divine Command Theory... so if I lied to save someone's life (like the teacher who saved her students by lying at the last shootings) it means I'm being morally bad because I've gone against God's arbitrary moral rules? Should I have let the person die instead in order to be morally good?

In that case, not to lie would be going against God, as would calling his rules arbitrary.

(April 2, 2013 at 2:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 2:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Divine Command Theory... so if I lied to save someone's life (like the teacher who saved her students by lying at the last shootings) it means I'm being morally bad because I've gone against God's arbitrary moral rules? Should I have let the person die instead in order to be morally good?

In that case, not to lie would be going against God, as would calling his rules arbitrary.

Please tell me you were being sarcastic? Divine Command Theory offers objective morals and here you are telling me that in this particular scenario "thou shall not give false testimony" can be bypassed?

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/

Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
(Google definition)

Welcome to secular morality bud.

---

oh and p.s, they are arbitrary rules. Your god said to stone people and it doesn't matter if I think that's right or wrong, the fact is that it is true that they have to be stoned... that is the morally "right" thing to do, even if my mind feels like it isn't. Therefore, it seems like these moral laws have been chosen arbitrarily without any real reason for making something "right" and something "wrong" so much so that even the words "right/wrong" lose all moral meaning. It is simply correct to stone someone. If you ask me why, I'd have to say "I don't know.. coz gawd said so?"

Gods laws are not arbitrary. Your obstinate application of what you think they are is.

(April 2, 2013 at 2:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Gods laws are not arbitrary. Your obstinate application of what you think they are is.

I've stated that a,b,c therefore p, and all you can do is claim ~p. Nice logic.

Why was the teacher allowed to lie in her circumstance despite the objective morals laws of the universe stating that she shouldn't?

Because those are not those laws.

(April 2, 2013 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Because those are not those laws.

So cryptic. The clear sings of a con at play.