Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

I guess that "why" is a question you'll have to ask Christ.

Read your New Testament Jim, that was my point. How is that unknowable? And how are our moral intuitions unknowable?

[carpedm9587]

Read your New Testament Jim, that was my point. How is that unknowable? And how are our moral intuitions unknowable?

And there's the "in the bible." Two for two...

He shoots - he scores!

[seer]

And there's the "in the bible." Two for two...

He shoots - he scores!

Why are you mocking me?

[carpedm9587]

Why are you mocking me?

Mocking? Seer - I predicted, in a private chat, what your responses would be to Jim's points, and I hit it two-for-two and was celebrating. I don't think anything I said was mocking or intended to mock. I have heard your arguments over and over again, understand them, and I pretty much know what you will respond to most arguments put forward.

I actually disagree with Jim about morality because he still holds (I think?) to the concept of objective moral truths that can be derived; he just doesn't think they arise from a god.

[seer]

Mocking? Seer - I predicted, in a private chat, what your responses would be to Jim's points, and I hit it two-for-two and was celebrating. I don't think anything I said was mocking or intended to mock. I have heard your arguments over and over again, understand them, and I pretty much know what you will respond to most arguments put forward.

I actually disagree with Jim about morality because he still holds (I think?) to the concept of objective moral truths that can be derived; he just doesn't think they arise from a god.

So it wasn't really a prediction. You knew how I would answer, and basically how any Christian would answer. So why you think that is reason for elation is beyond me - besides to mock.

[carpedm9587]

So it wasn't really a prediction. You knew how I would answer, and basically how any Christian would answer. So why you think that is reason for elation is beyond me - besides to mock.

I predicted how you would answer based on previous exchanges. Any statement concerning the future is a prediction, Seer. That's pretty much what the word means. And elation was due to getting it right, and within a couple posts. If you feel mocked, it was not my intention.

You know I find your moral arguments largely vacuous. I've made no secret of that opinion. Your response, usually, is to call me disingenuous, a hypocrite, or any other number of personal attacks, which is why, ultimately, I found it pointless to continue the discussion with you. It was essentially impossible to keep the discussion about the arguments being made and their relative merits.

ETA: Cue the passive-aggressive accusation...

[seer]

I predicted how you would answer based on previous exchanges. Any statement concerning the future is a prediction, Seer. That's pretty much what the word means. And elation was due to getting it right, and within a couple posts. If you feel mocked, it was not my intention.

You know I find your moral arguments largely vacuous. I've made no secret of that opinion. Your response, usually, is to call me disingenuous, a hypocrite, or any other number of personal attacks, which is why, ultimately, I found it pointless to continue the discussion with you. It was essentially impossible to keep the discussion about the arguments being made and their relative merits.

ETA: Cue the passive-aggressive accusation...

What ever mollifies your guilty conscience...

[carpedm9587]

What ever mollifies your guilty conscience...

And kudos to you for your attempt* at mind reading..

*failed

ETA: So many of you are good at the "presumptive win." It's a regular feature of many poster's approach.

[JimL]

And there's the "in the bible." Two for two...

He shoots - he scores!

[JimL]

Read your New Testament Jim, that was my point. How is that unknowable? And how are our moral intuitions unknowable?

There is no moral code in the New Testiment, if there were you wouldn't need intuition, and intuition isn't knowing.

[JimL]

Mocking? Seer - I predicted, in a private chat, what your responses would be to Jim's points, and I hit it two-for-two and was celebrating. I don't think anything I said was mocking or intended to mock. I have heard your arguments over and over again, understand them, and I pretty much know what you will respond to most arguments put forward.

I actually disagree with Jim about morality because he still holds (I think?) to the concept of objective moral truths that can be derived; he just doesn't think they arise from a god.

Well, I don't think that morals have some kind of objective existence as if they exist out there on there own as laws of some sort, I just believe that there are certain human behaviors/actions that are objectively in the best interests of a human society and that their opposites would not be in the best interests of society. Objective existence and objective facts are, I think, two different things.

[JonathanL]

There is no moral code in the New Testiment

LyCmnDm.gif

[JonathanL]

Well, I don't think that morals have some kind of objective existence as if they exist out there on there own as laws of some sort, I just believe that there are certain human behaviors/actions that are objectively in the best interests of a human society and that their opposites would not be in the best interests of society. Objective existence and objective facts are, I think, two different things.

"The best interests of a human society" is largely subjective. What you think is in the best interest for society could very well be diametrically opposite to what someone else might think is in the best interest for society. So ultimately you're back to subjective opinion again, the only difference is you've shifted the subjectivity one step further away.

[JimL]

"The best interests of a human society" is largely subjective. What you think is in the best interest for society could very well be diametrically opposite to what someone else might think is in the best interest for society. So ultimately you're back to subjective opinion again, the only difference is you've shifted the subjectivity one step further away.

I would argue that certain behaviors such as the freedom to murder, rob, etc etc are not in the best interests of society as a whole whether or not someone may subjectively disagree.

[JonathanL]

I would argue that certain behaviors such as the freedom to murder, rob, etc etc are not in the best interests of society as a whole whether or not someone may subjectively disagree.

And you could argue that, but unless you had objective values to ground your arguments in it would still ultimately just be your subjective opinion against theirs.