An Infinite Past?

[seer]

Again, thats why morals are subjective, morals can be both A and not A as far as human beings are concerned, but nature itself is silent on the matter. If you argue to the contrary, that nature itself is moral, then it is your burden to prove, and you are obviously incapable of doing that. The only evidence is on the subjectivists side.

Then just admit it Jim, that all ethical reasoning is both absurd and meaningless.

[shunyadragon]

Then just admit it Jim, that all ethical reasoning is both absurd and meaningless.

There is no such thing as ethical reasoning. Ethics exist as a part of cultures like many diverse attributes of cultures. There can be a reasoning discussion of ethics, but ethics are not necessarily reasoned.

[shunyadragon]

You are making my point, you are now comparing ethics to personal tastes. Which reduces moral reasoning to meaninglessness. It is meaningful that you prefer brown rice to white bread? Again, there is not, nor can there be, any correct answer to moral questions. Which answer is correct - to prefer white bread or to prefer brown rice.

And again: But you don't believe that do you Shuny - there are correct ethical answers, whether you call it God's command or law or I call it God's moral law we both agree, at least in principle, that there are right answers. Objectively right.

There are correct Divine Laws of God, but not correct ethical nor morality answers. Human ethics and morals are not absurd nor meaningless, they are simply morals and ethics of diverse cultures over time.

[seer]

There are correct Divine Laws of God, but not correct ethical nor morality answers. Human ethics and morals are not absurd nor meaningless, they are simply morals and ethics of diverse cultures over time.

Of course they are meaningless, as meaningless as your preference for brown rice, or how is your preference for brown rice meaningful? That was your example. And call it what you like but if the Divine Laws of God do exist then there are correct ethical answers. Like your quote about slavery.

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bond slaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things

That is an ethical question and answer.

[shunyadragon]

Of course they are meaningless, as meaningless as your preference for brown rice, or how is your preference for brown rice meaningful? That was your example. And call it what you like but if the Divine Laws of God do exist then there are correct ethical answers. Like your quote about slavery.

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bond slaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things

I do not consider the morals and ethics absurd and meaningless. nonetheless they are human and not Divine Law. They simply reflect the diversity of cultures and beliefs in human affairs. It is true that some would be considered wrong according to the Divine Law of God, such as those cultures that still allow slavery.

That is an ethical question and answer.[/QUOTE]

Actually no. it is simply a descriptive question and answer in a dialogue. I am not yet specifically making a moral nor ethical judgment here. I do consider any culture or society that approves of slavery in any form a violation of Divine Law.

[JimL]

Then just admit it Jim, that all ethical reasoning is both absurd and meaningless.

Why is it absurd that nature doesn't care how we humans choose to conduct ourselves? Why should mindless nature care? We get to choose what we percieve to be what is right and what is wrong, what is in our own best personal interests, as well as what is in the best interests of human society, the both of which are merged together. What is absurd seer is your belief that nature of itself must be moral. Morality per se, is the way in which life, the minds within nature, adapt to the conditions they find themselves in, but nature doesn't care whether you adapt or not.

[Tassman]

Why is it absurd that nature doesn't care how we humans choose to conduct ourselves? Why should mindless nature care? We get to choose what we percieve to be what is right and what is wrong, what is in our own best personal interests, as well as what is in the best interests of human society, the both of which are merged together. What is absurd seer is your belief that nature of itself must be moral. Morality per se, is the way in which life, the minds within nature, adapt to the conditions they find themselves in, but nature doesn't care whether you adapt or not.

Exactly right. Seer ignores the evolved instincts, which underlie everything we do, and fixates upon his unsubstantiated notion that without a deity there can be no real meaning; no notion of good and evil and that therefore "ethical reasoning is both absurd and meaningless". This is demonstrable nonsense - ALL human societies, as well as pre-human societies such as Neanderthal‘s, have had rigidly enforced codes of behaviours – long before we invented gods to tell us what to do.

As you say, "society" is basic in human evolution and our brains have evolved for precisely this purpose. I.e. we have developed a brain predisposed toward maintaining the social order whereby we observe the behaviour of those around us and, for the most part, respond in such a way that our behaviour doesn't conflict with the social norms. Otherwise one risks rejection from the social unit and this is a serious matter for social animals such as us. We cannot survive in isolation.

[seer]

Actually no. it is simply a descriptive question and answer in a dialogue. I am not yet specifically making a moral nor ethical judgment here. I do consider any culture or society that approves of slavery in any form a violation of Divine Law.

Well good, so there is an objectively right answer in your worldview, at least for slavery.

And BTW:

MORAL'ITY, n. The doctrine or system of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.

The system of morality to be gathered from the writings of ancient sages, falls very short of that delivered in the gospel.

1. The practice of the moral duties; virtue. We often admire the politeness of men whose morality we question.

2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality. But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.

[seer]

Why is it absurd that nature doesn't care how we humans choose to conduct ourselves? Why should mindless nature care? We get to choose what we percieve to be what is right and what is wrong, what is in our own best personal interests, as well as what is in the best interests of human society, the both of which are merged together. What is absurd seer is your belief that nature of itself must be moral. Morality per se, is the way in which life, the minds within nature, adapt to the conditions they find themselves in, but nature doesn't care whether you adapt or not.

No Jim, what is absurd is that a behavior like female genital mutilation is both good and bad, right and wrong. If there are no correct moral answers then all ethical reasoning is futile because there are no right answers to be had or found. You like lobster, I like steak - completely meaningless distinctions. So just admit it James, if you are correct, all ethical reasoning is both absurd and meaningless.

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, what is absurd is that a behavior like female genital mutilation is both good and bad, right and wrong. If there are no correct moral answers then all ethical reasoning is futile because there are no right answers to be had or found. You like lobster, I like steak - completely meaningless distinctions. So just admit it James, if you are correct, all ethical reasoning is both absurd and meaningless.

Yes, it is absurd to describe cultural practices as both good and bad, nor right nor wrong, because they are just cultural practices, and not in reality morals and ethics. It is possible within one culture that (involuntary) female genitalia, as well as male, mutilation could become a moral issue when it is condemned and considered immoral, but the physical practices themselves are not moral nor ethical issues.


Likewise, morals and ethics on the other hand are not absurd nor meaningless, they are simply represent the morals and ethics of the diversity of the cultures and societies throughout the history of humanity.

[seer]

Yes, it is absurd to describe cultural practices as both good and bad, nor right nor wrong, because they are just cultural practices, and not in reality morals and ethics. It is possible within one culture that (involuntary) female genitalia, as well as male, mutilation could become a moral issue when it is condemned and considered immoral, but the physical practices themselves are not moral nor ethical issues.

No Shuny, that makes no sense. Cultures do label specifics behaviors good or bad, moral or immoral. Female genitalia mutilation is considered good and necessary in some cultures and wrong in other cultures. These are moral considerations - period.

Likewise, morals and ethics on the other hand are not absurd nor meaningless, they are simply represent the morals and ethics of the diversity of the cultures and societies throughout the history of humanity.

Of course they are meaningless - is your personal preference for brown rice meaningful? How? Why?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, that makes no sense. Cultures do label specifics behaviors good or bad, moral or immoral. Female genitalia mutilation is considered good and necessary in some cultures and wrong in other cultures. These are moral considerations - period.

No, not necessarily good nor bad in every culture. For example: Some cultures in history, i.e. some Chinese and Mongolian who are not Muslim do not eat pork because they live in a low rainfall region where it is not practical to raise swine. Muslims and Jews consider it a sin to eat pork ad against Divine Law, and it is a religious issue. Others eat all different kinds of meat with no moral consideration.

Some primitive tribes in Africa do not perform genital mutilation simply because it is not a practice of their culture. In the Maasai culture of Africa it has been practiced since ancient times, without any consideration of being good nor bad in their view, it is simply a cultural practice in their view.

Jews believe that male genital mutilation is mandated by Hebrew law and must be done, is that right or wrong. Is male genital mutilation considered morally wrong or right in Christian Western culture?

Of course they are meaningless - is your personal preference for brown rice meaningful? How? Why?

It is neither meaningful nor meaningless.

[seer]

No, not necessarily good nor bad in every culture. For example: Some cultures in history, i.e. some Chinese and Mongolian who are not Muslim do not eat pork because they live in a low rainfall region where it is not practical to raise swine. Muslims and Jews consider it a sin to eat pork ad against Divine Law, and it is a religious issue. Others eat all different kinds of meat with no moral consideration.

Some primitive tribes in Africa do not perform genital mutilation simply because it is not a practice of their culture. In the Maasai culture of Africa it has been practiced since ancient times, without any consideration of being good nor bad in their view, it is simply a cultural practice in their view.

Jews believe that male genital mutilation is mandated by Hebrew law and must be done, is that right or wrong. Is male genital mutilation considered morally wrong or right in Christian Western culture?

So what? The point is many of these questions are considered moral. Whether a particular culture calls it that or not.

It is neither meaningful nor meaningless.

Then it is absurd, and you know that your preference for brown rice is just as meaningless as ones preference for or against female genitalia mutilation.

[shunyadragon]

So what? The point is many of these questions are considered moral. Whether a particular culture calls it that or not.



Then it is absurd, and you know that your preference for brown rice is just as meaningless as ones preference for or against female genitalia mutilation.

Question: Is female and male genital mutilation immoral by your objective moral standard?

[seer]

Question: Is female and male genital mutilation immoral by your objective moral standard?

That is not the question Shuny, are you really still not getting it? Have I not, time and time again, tried to get you to understand the difference between ontology and epistemology? And you now ask a question about epistemology - which is not what we/I are discussing? Sheesh!