(June 22, 2015 at 1:45 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 12:55 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Actually, that is a great way to put it. Culpability = a particular individual's moral responsibility.

However, the ACT itself is inherently immoral. While culpability may vary between the 2 offenders in my example, the objective act of killing 10 people at the mall remains an immoral act.

Let's use the American justice System as a metaphor for God's laws:

Murder is a crime in the US. (think of this as murder being inherently immoral in our universe)

However, there are varying degrees of responsibility we put on the murderer. There is guilty and there is innocent by reason of insanity. (think of this as the different levels of culpability of a person who has committed an immoral act)

So, if a person gets innocent by reason of insanity, does this change the fact that murder is a crime? No. Murder is still a crime. And that person has still committed a criminal act. But because of varying factors, this person's moral responsibility was lessened to innocent by reason of insanity verses a guilty.

This may not be the most perfect analogy, but I hope it helps you better understand what I mean by objective acts and personal culpability.

And what you're saying here is that the morality of the act is dependent upon the mindset of the actor because -- in a point you elide -- there is no such thing as a moral act without an actor, or moral judge.

That, in and of itself, renders morality subjective. You're making my case for me, every time you bring up these instances where you say an objective moral claim is modifiable by certain extenuating circumstances.  The is right, just, and normal.  Why would you deny doing it?

I am not asking you to agree with me. Just to understand what I am saying. Do you still not understand, or are you just saying you don't agree? What you just said above seems to indicate that you do not understand.

Let me try to explain it in the form of a question:

So, back to the American justice metaphor.

Murder is a crime. It is not lawful. It is not legal. It is a crime, period. This is American law.

If the insane person who murdered 10 shoppers at the mall got an innocent for reason of insanity verdict, does that mean that murder ceases to be a crime? Does the fact that some murderers get the innocent for reason of insanity verdict mean that murder stops being a crime?

CL: this will be my last ride round the merry go round, and feel free to not answer any of my questions. This is curiosity, not an interrogation I shall leave you in peace whether or not you answer these.

So... what does it matter if something is "inherently wrong"? What is the point of this phrase? Who is it inherently wrong to? Clearly not to us as humans, as we take the situation into account before deciding how wrong it was. If God thinks it's inherently wrong but even he makes allowances, what is left? What does it matter if it's inherently wrong, why not call it inherently cheesecake? At best you can say it's probably wrong before considering mitigating factors. Would you agree?

Objective means it applies to everyone and everything and is not dependent on anyone's opinions or perspective. A commandment about morality from God is therefor not objective. You seem to be wanting to make god's opinion objective. But he can have whatever opinion he wants, right? Or is his opinion ultimately bound by something else?

As for Jesus, it appears that because he said, "Treat others as you want to be treated" that we can just assume he meant whatever we like about other subjects whether he says so or not. That is quite clearly projecting your own morality onto the bible, not the other way round. Now don't get me wrong, that is great! I'll take your morality over the bible any day of the week.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:06 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 1:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1. Are you referring to the stories in the OT? If so, all I can say is that I 100% believe they were written allegorically. Meaning I don't believe God's hand ever came down from Heaven and murdered someone. When God became man and came to live as a human, He did not kill anyone. I cannot speak for those who believe these stories were written literally, so I have no idea what they would say about this.

2. See above lol.

3. No. I believe the act of stealing something from another person is an inherently immoral act.

4. I understand why he did and believe his culpability may have been greatly lessened, if not totally eliminated given the circumstances. I would never judge him as a bad person. I believe the objective act of cheating on your spouse by having sex with someone else is still an inherently immoral act.

5. See above. ;-)

6. Yes. I believe that being dishonest and lying about someone is inherently wrong. God wouldn't have to make false claims about Satan. The true claims are bad enough.

I know you don't agree, but I hope I helped you better understand my views.

No... I really don't.  I don't understand how someone as seemingly *good* as yourself feels any of that is ok or that you can possibly be fine with it.  I'll let others take it from here; your responses make me incredibly sad.

Wow, I'm sorry you feel that way.  

Which part about it bothers you so much, or makes me seem like such a bad person?

(fyi, just to clarify #5 says "see above". This was actually meant as "see #1."

Sorry; I know I said I'd stop, but I need to share this story:

When I was twelve, I paid for my piano lessons by babysitting my piano teacher's three-year old while she was teaching other kids' lessons.  One day, there was chaos in my neighborhood, with sirens and cops, etc.

Turns out, my piano teacher had gotten home from Mother's Day mass, and found her husband bludgeoned to death in their bed.  He was an attorney for the FBI and had many enemies, so the cops turned to them.  It wasn't until two weeks later, she called the cops and confessed to beating her husband to death.  She led them to where she had thrown the baseball bat, and they arrested her.  Apparently, she had walked in on her husband molesting their son, and she just lost it on him.  She had been molested as a foster child earlier in her life, and between that and finding her son in danger, she just lost it.

Two years later, she was cleared on temporary insanity.

Do you really see immorality there?  Can you really not see how there was nothing moral or immoral about that?  If not, I really am done here.  I thought you were a nice person, C_L, but if you can really say, after that story, that what she did was immoral, I have real problems with your version of morality.

OK one last little question CL, then I'm done

Has anything any of us has said given you pause for thought at all about your beliefs? This is not sarcastic, I'm honestly interested. Of course we haven't changed your mind about anything, I wouldn't expect so. I'm just wondering if anyone has caused you to think about things in a way you may not have before, or in more depth.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:17 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Sorry; I know I said I'd stop, but I need to share this story:

When I was twelve, I paid for my piano lessons by babysitting my piano teacher's three-year old while she was teaching other kids' lessons.  One day, there was chaos in my neighborhood, with sirens and cops, etc.

Turns out, my piano teacher had gotten home from Mother's Day mass, and found her husband bludgeoned to death in their bed.  He was an attorney for the FBI and had many enemies, so the cops turned to them.  It wasn't until two weeks later, she called the cops and confessed to beating her husband to death.  She led them to where she had thrown the baseball bat, and they arrested her.  Apparently, she had walked in on her husband molesting their son, and she just lost it on him.  She had been molested as a foster child earlier in her life, and between that and finding her son in danger, she just lost it.

Two years later, she was cleared on temporary insanity.

Do you really see immorality there?  Can you really not see how there was nothing moral or immoral about that?  If not, I really am done here.  I thought you were a nice person, C_L, but if you can really say, after that story, that what she did was immoral, I have real problems with your version of morality.

I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

Doesn't that negate the concept of objective morality? ._.

(June 22, 2015 at 12:32 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

(June 21, 2015 at 11:20 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: What about this is objective, then?

---

The act. Stealing is inherently wrong.

---

If people were good Christians there wouldn't be any need for anyone to ever steal anything because they would simply give their stuff to whoever wanted it and asked them for it.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not asking you to agree with me. Just to understand what I am saying. Do you still not understand, or are you just saying you don't agree? What you just said above seems to indicate that you do not understand.

That may well be seletive reading then. I think I made my positive disagreement plain.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let me try to explain it in the form of a question:

So, back to the American justice metaphor.

Murder is a crime. It is not lawful. It is not legal. It is a crime, period. This is American law.

If the insane person who murdered 10 shoppers at the mall got an innocent for reason of insanity verdict, does that mean that murder ceases to be a crime? Does the fact that some murderers get the innocent for reason of insanity verdict mean that murder stops being a crime?

(We'll ignore the fact that legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things.)

What you're saying is that the moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal.

I will copypaste that sentence with the pertinent points emboldened:

What you're saying is that the moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal.

Now, do you think the state of mind is irrelevant to culpability? Because it looks to me, from here, like you think that the moral responsibility for an event is distinctly tied to the mindset of the actor. Is that a fair statement to you?

Do you think your god was right to kill all but eight humans on Earth because he was disappointed with his own creation?

Do you think Charlie Manson was right to order the murder of seven humans?

Explain your answers, in detail.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:23 am)robvalue Wrote: OK one last little question CL, then I'm done

Has anything any of us has said given you pause for thought at all about your beliefs? This is not sarcastic, I'm honestly interested. Of course we haven't changed your mind about anything, I wouldn't expect so. I'm just wondering if anyone has caused you to think about things in a way you may not have before, or in more depth.

Hmmm I'm not sure.

Maybe a little bit. I've enjoyed discussing with you guys and seeing how you think. I've definitely learned a lot from all of you in regards to what it really means to believe in God. For example I did not know so many atheists thought morals and the value of human life are subjective. But after ya'll explained it to me, I could see how it would make perfect sense for a non believer to have those views. It's been interesting!

As far as my own faith goes, though, I'm not sure it's made a difference one way or the other. Not that you guys don't ask good questions. You certainly do! It's just that everything I've been asked is stuff I have considered before. But perhaps it has made me see some things more in depth without realizing so much. Or at least reenforced it by reminding me.

Either way, I am grateful I'm here!

---

(June 22, 2015 at 2:38 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

Doesn't that negate the concept of objective morality? ._.

Doesn't what negate it?