An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

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!

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

[JimL]

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.

You are missing the point seer, either that or you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. As an agnostic you must have understood that morals were not or did not have to be objective, now that you are a Christian you unable to concede to that fact. Is it possible that as an agnostic you were correct in the notion that morals could be subjective, and that it is only your more recent adoption of the Christian worldview that hinders your ability to see the possibility of the naturalist subjective position regarding morals. It is true that if a good God exists, then his morality would be objectified in his creation, but if the world is natural, and there is no reason to believe that it is not, then there is no such thing as objective morality. You do not appreciate that fact I know, but as I said, nature does not care that you think it must be objectively moral. Btw ethical reasoning, like any other reasoning is not absurd or meaningless, it is the manner in which human beings make decisions concerning human welfare, which, being human, are not always the best decisions.

[seer]

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

You really are an idiot Shuny, this question has nothing to do with the argument. And the answer is yes for female genital mutilation. But I have no idea what you mean by male genital mutilation.

[seer]

Btw ethical reasoning, like any other reasoning is not absurd or meaningless, it is the manner in which human beings make decisions concerning human welfare, which, being human, are not always the best decisions.

Nonsense, in your world Jim there is never, nor could there be, a correct moral answer. That is by definition absurd, two completely opposite behaviors are equally correct. Try that reasoning with any other discipline and see how far you get. Moral reality is reduced to personal or cultural tastes. No more meaningful than our differing tastes for particular foods. All this logically follows from your position Jim, and the fact that you can't admit it proves where the real cognitive dissonance lies...

[JimL]

Nonsense, in your world Jim there is never, nor could there be, a correct moral answer.

So when you were agnostic were you also amoral? Are you capable of comprending the possibility of an amoral universe?

That is by definition absurd, two completely opposite behaviors are equally correct.

No, as I said you are not following. Human morals, being that they are subjective, and that would be true whether or not there is an objective standard, are neither correct nor incorrect in the ultimate sense. What you are arguing for is ultimate justice which you can only have if there is an ultimate judge, and you can supply no evidence of either the judge or of his objective standard.

Try that reasoning with any other discipline and see how far you get. Moral reality is reduced to personal or cultural tastes. No more meaningful than our differing tastes for particular foods. All this logically follows from your position Jim, and the fact that you can't admit it proves where the real cognitive dissonance lies...

Again seer, it is your desire that there be a God who rules the world and doles out ultimate justice, but until you can show evidence of this objective standard of his, then you have no argument to make other than it is what you desire and ergo, what you believe. The evidence though, regarding morality, is only apparent from the subjectivist perspective. Your argument amounts to this: "I believe that morality ought to be objective and therefore I don't need to make an evidentiary argument in support of it."

[shunyadragon]

You really are an idiot Shuny, this question has nothing to do with the argument. And the answer is yes for female genital mutilation. But I have no idea what you mean by male genital mutilation.

Then your moral assertion is subjective and arbitrary, and in both cases this involuntary. Anatomically the circumcision of the male penis is genital mutilation similar to the removal of labia in female genital mutilation.

What is your objective moral basis for there being a difference between the two.

[Jedidiah]

Anatomically the circumcision of the male penis is genital mutilation similar to the removal of labia in female genital mutilation.

Not a good description of FGM. In some cases that is all that is done, but there is wide variation. There is a lot of negative health results from FGM. None in circumcision that I have ever heard.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, in your world Jim there is never, nor could there be, a correct moral answer. That is by definition absurd, two completely opposite behaviors are equally correct. Try that reasoning with any other discipline and see how far you get.

Of course there can't be when the likes of you narrowly define "moral reality" as objective and absolute according to the alleged revelation of your deity. The problem is that you have never been able to provide examples of this absolute moral code of yours. You make the grandiose claim but don't deliver.

Moral reality is reduced to personal or cultural tastes. No more meaningful than our differing tastes for particular foods. All this logically follows from your position Jim, and the fact that you can't admit it proves where the real cognitive dissonance lies...

So the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and equal civil rights for all can be airily dismissed as merely matters of can they, given that they are not derived directly from God's revelation in scripture?

In actuality moral values have continually changed over the millennia and mostly for the better. Compare and contrast: Which are the more moral societies in your view - the modern western countries with their evolving social values, or the rigid religiosity of the Christian Third Word and Muslim Middle East?

[seer]

Then your moral assertion is subjective and arbitrary, and in both cases this involuntary. Anatomically the circumcision of the male penis is genital mutilation similar to the removal of labia in female genital mutilation.

What is your objective moral basis for there being a difference between the two.

Again Shuny, it was not the argument, we are not speaking of whether I or you know all the answers it is about whether right answers actually exist. And as far as I know most female genital mutilation removes the clitoris, thereby reducing sexual desire and pleasure for women. Male circumcision does not have that negative effect, as a child born into a Catholic family I was circumcised - no ill effects for me. And your religion too allows, but does not, require males circumcision, and is against female genital mutilation. So you own faith see the same distinction.

But again Shuny, this is NOT about whether we know the right answer in every situation it is about whether right answers actually exist - and you already agree that they do in the form of Divine Law.

[seer]

So when you were agnostic were you also amoral? Are you capable of comprending the possibility of an amoral universe?

Well in your universe how does not decide what is moral or not? And when you have opposite moral opinion how does one decide which is correct?

No, as I said you are not following. Human morals, being that they are subjective, and that would be true whether or not there is an objective standard, are neither correct nor incorrect in the ultimate sense. What you are arguing for is ultimate justice which you can only have if there is an ultimate judge, and you can supply no evidence of either the judge or of his objective standard.

No Jim, I'm saying for the reasons given that in your world moral reasoning is ultimately futile, and meaningless. And there is a third point, that all our ethical reasoning is ultimately meaningless because we as a species are ultimately meaningless.

Again seer, it is your desire that there be a God who rules the world and doles out ultimate justice, but until you can show evidence of this objective standard of his, then you have no argument to make other than it is what you desire and ergo, what you believe. The evidence though, regarding morality, is only apparent from the subjectivist perspective. Your argument amounts to this: "I believe that morality ought to be objective and therefore I don't need to make an evidentiary argument in support of it."

No Jim, I'm saying that is you are correct that it logically follows that all ethical reasoning is absurd and meaningless. That is obvious, and your refusal to admit that fact is telling.

[JimL]

Well in your universe how does not decide what is moral or not? And when you have opposite moral opinion how does one decide which is correct?

How do you decide? Thats how one decides! Do you always make the best decisions, or are your decisions subjective and sometimes poor decisions?

No Jim, I'm saying for the reasons given that in your world moral reasoning is ultimately futile, and meaningless. And there is a third point, that all our ethical reasoning is ultimately meaningless because we as a species are ultimately meaningless.

So, if you find out that there is no God and no reward for your obedience to him, what will you do?

No Jim, I'm saying that is you are correct that it logically follows that all ethical reasoning is absurd and meaningless. That is obvious, and your refusal to admit that fact is telling.

No, it is not absurd or meaningless, but your problem is that you want to be ultimately rewarded for who you are.

[shunyadragon]

Not a good description of FGM. In some cases that is all that is done, but there is wide variation. There is a lot of negative health results from FGM. None in circumcision that I have ever heard.

Your bringing in more criteria to determine whether female genital mutilation is immoral or not, which is a problem with making this an objective moral sin. In moral and health principle I agree with you, but this proposal takes genital mutilation out of any 'objective moral standard.'

[seer]

Your bringing in more criteria to determine whether female genital mutilation is immoral or not, which is a problem with making this an objective moral sin. In moral and health principle I agree with you, but this proposal takes genital mutilation out of any 'objective moral standard.'

Of course female genital mutilation is immoral, do you think God is OK with female genital mutilation as widely practiced?

[seer]

No, it is not absurd or meaningless, but your problem is that you want to be ultimately rewarded for who you are.

Let's try again. How is it not absurd if there are no correct moral answers? And any more meaningful than our other subjective tastes? I like the color green, you like the color blue - why are those differing choices meaningful?

[Tassman]

Of course female genital mutilation is immoral,

And this absolute moral law can be found where............?

do you think God is OK with female genital mutilation as widely practiced?

How do you know he's not?