RE: Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?
January 28, 2021 at 7:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2021 at 7:42 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
If you don't know what I mean by moral fact that's perfectly fine, and there may be no moral facts, after all.
However, that effects your morality as "thinking on an issue" and your ethics as "actions produced". Your moral condemnation of contemporary christianity, for example, not a fact based action arising out of having thought about facts, if you don't know what I mean by moral facts. Actually couldn't be, even if you got it right (and there were a right to get). That would just be accidental.
An assertion to moral fact would be something like - The unnatural is wrong. The natural is good. Not all assertions of moral fact are facts (or even genuinely apprehended as such by their asserters), as we've seen - if any are. The question you posed can be interpreted as thinking about an issue, and can be answered by reference to facts of that issue, which would be actions informed by facts of the issue - but only if we allow for those things to be facts to begin with. Do you want to say that you can't believe contemporary christianity? That you personally detest it? That your society rejects it?
Or that there is, in fact, something wrong with it?
-skepticism, subjectivism, relativism, objectivism
I think that the relativist objection is probably pretty easy to make. Our society does reject anything which rejects our values - and, at least institutionally, it rejects the sorts of discrimination and harm that you might refer to. Or, at least, it did - they've been chipping away at that very successfully. To people who are skeptical that relativist measures like this describe something meaningful enough to base a moral sense on...however, these facts may stick the asserted landing - but only in a trivial (and perhaps not entirely accurate or, if we prefer, thoroughly representative) sense. The same people who could very soberly consider the notion, without reference to any superstition, could easily allow for a situation where some religion (maybe the target of your ire, maybe another) would compel a person to acts or ideology which a state might deem treasonous - it's not as if it's never happened before, but if that's all we're considering, relativistic facts of a society - so what?
However, that effects your morality as "thinking on an issue" and your ethics as "actions produced". Your moral condemnation of contemporary christianity, for example, not a fact based action arising out of having thought about facts, if you don't know what I mean by moral facts. Actually couldn't be, even if you got it right (and there were a right to get). That would just be accidental.
An assertion to moral fact would be something like - The unnatural is wrong. The natural is good. Not all assertions of moral fact are facts (or even genuinely apprehended as such by their asserters), as we've seen - if any are. The question you posed can be interpreted as thinking about an issue, and can be answered by reference to facts of that issue, which would be actions informed by facts of the issue - but only if we allow for those things to be facts to begin with. Do you want to say that you can't believe contemporary christianity? That you personally detest it? That your society rejects it?
Or that there is, in fact, something wrong with it?
-skepticism, subjectivism, relativism, objectivism
I think that the relativist objection is probably pretty easy to make. Our society does reject anything which rejects our values - and, at least institutionally, it rejects the sorts of discrimination and harm that you might refer to. Or, at least, it did - they've been chipping away at that very successfully. To people who are skeptical that relativist measures like this describe something meaningful enough to base a moral sense on...however, these facts may stick the asserted landing - but only in a trivial (and perhaps not entirely accurate or, if we prefer, thoroughly representative) sense. The same people who could very soberly consider the notion, without reference to any superstition, could easily allow for a situation where some religion (maybe the target of your ire, maybe another) would compel a person to acts or ideology which a state might deem treasonous - it's not as if it's never happened before, but if that's all we're considering, relativistic facts of a society - so what?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
