Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?).

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused about me. I'm not a moral philosopher, and I don't really appreciate being insulted as such.

Additionally, would you prefer I use a hard-copy dictionary online, and if so, do you have any suggestions as to how I might go about such a task?

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.

Or, it could indicate an impatience with such excruciating obtuseness.

I use words as they are defined. To pursue "right" further: it is a freedom of action, or from action, granted by the social contract. As for natural or inherent rights, there are none. Life does not owe me my next breath. My neighbor, however, owes me the right to pursue that breath without impediment from him.

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.

I'd suggest you learn how to read, then. I stated clearly that I accept them as axiomatic, yet here you are trying to portray my point as being that they are "self-evident". Those are two different terms, two different meanings, and I don't believe you are confusing them accidentally.

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.

It seems to me I've already answered that question, too, when I wrote "leave the world a better place than I found it."

I will assume you know what the word "better" means.

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.

Firstly, you're misrepresenting what I said -- again -- about what we call the Golden Rule; it is not about what other people should do to the subject in question. Secondly, it is obvious that unsound minds often do have impaired moral sensibilities, your cherry-picking notwithstanding. I notice you studiously avoided the descriptions of borderline personality disorder or sociopath, for example, both of which do indeed affect moral judgement and are in the panoply of "unsound minds". I'm not a lawyer and am not going to fill my posts with caveats in order to please your craving for unnecessary detail.

Just about everything in life has exceptions. I'm not going to litter my conversation with those exceptions.

If any members here are offended, please say so.

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.

I'm not writing a law. I'm offering my opinion. And this idea of yours that I must explore every caveat is irritating in the extreme, as I prefer conversations between people and not lawyers.

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?

You missed my point, which is that I'm uninterested in sitting here and running down every possible scenario "ever", because that would of necessity take forever itself. Yes, I could imagine situations in which someone would think they are doing good deeds but by my lights are doing evil.

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.

I doubt I'm so fascinating as to evoke such deep curiosity from a complete stranger online. I doubt your sincerity and don't think I'll be replying to you any more. Even if you are earnest, this sort of conversation, with someone invested in being willfully obtuse, is not my cup of tea.

Have a nice day.

---

I have actually been giving morality a great deal of thought. ... 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.

Well that is pretty ignorant. [Sorry but I always go for the obvious pun, is that not good?]

Seriously though I wonder what difference it truly makes to articulate a crisp definition of what are morally good and bad acts. Should we then make it our reason for living to do 'the good' and 'avoid the bad'? Who would call that a 'good' life? To me it all seems too self-conscious and myopically focused. Life is more complex than that.

I will often enough choose the expedient at the expense of the virtuous. Who doesn't? Does that mean I will throw people under a bus to save five minutes ore five dollars? No. But neither do I need to anticipate every possible set of choices and how I could/should respond in advance. Whatever decision I would reach now, I could reach then and there is something to be said for spontaneity.

There's also something to be said for a process that doesn't need a fully-explicated list of possible scenarios in order to arrive at a first-approximation answer quickly.

Most of the time, the conundrums in life don't permit us time to climb up one's ass in a fit of philosophy in order to arrive at the right answer, exploring every excruciating possibility.

Thus, my impatience with ivory-tower bullshit.