Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 07-15-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"But like I said, in the cheating question, the "someone" does not "understand" that what he or she is doing is morally wrong. So how can they be sinning?

You seem to be arguing for the very thing you've been accusing me of."

As I said, when a person does wrong without realizing that it's wrong, that isn't sin. It could be wrong in some other way, but not in the moral sense. I'm not very clear about your moral basis yet. I'm still trying to figure it all out.

Mageth · 07-15-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Yes, I would still have inherent human rights. I don't think it's possible for animals to "treat you as if you had any inherent rights" because animals don't comprehend the idea of rights. The natives may or may not treat me as if I had rights, depending on their opinions concerning human rights and what their priorities and objectives happened to be at the time.

"Human rights" are only valid in a society which recognizes those rights. They are inventions of society, inventions of humankind. Outside of a society that recognizes those rights, they do not exist, any more than computers or any other number of modern inventions existed 2000 years ago (when most if not all of the "human rights" you are granted by the U.S. didn't exist either).

Mageth · 07-15-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Keith
As I said, when a person does wrong without realizing that it's wrong, that isn't sin. It could be wrong in some other way, but not in the moral sense.

So under your system, the someone who doesn't think cheating on their spouse is morally wrong and thus cheats on their spouse, but because they don't consider it morally wrong doesn't "realize" it's morally wrong, is not "sinning" or behaving morally wrong? Or are they? And if they are, why? On what basis? And in what other way than morally would this cheater be doing wrong? There's no law in the U.S. against cheating on your spouse that I know of. (And please don't bring up traffic laws again - stick with this one).

I'm not very clear about your moral basis yet. I'm still trying to figure it all out.

You don't appear to be very clear about your own moral basis, either.

Keith · 07-15-2003, 06:33 PM

I said: "The natives may or may not treat me as if I had rights, depending on their opinions concerning human rights and what their priorities and objectives happened to be at the time."

I should have worded it...the natives may or may not treat me as if I had inherent human rights, depending on their attitudes and feelings concerning inherent human rights, as well as what their priorities and objectives happened to be, at the time."

Keith · 07-15-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"You don't appear to be very clear about your own moral basis, either."

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I'm very busy with other work and so it's necessary for me to make my replies swift and brief...but I sometimes word things in ways that can be misinterpreted quite easily.

Keith · 07-15-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"So under your system, the someone who doesn't think cheating on their spouse is morally wrong and thus cheats on their spouse, but because they don't consider it morally wrong doesn't "realize" it's morally wrong, is not "sinning" or behaving morally wrong? Or are they? And if they are, why? On what basis? And in what other way than morally would this cheater be doing wrong? There's no law in the U.S. against cheating on your spouse that I know of. (And please don't bring up traffic laws again - stick with this one)."

I don't think its possible for a person today, not to know that cheating on one's spouse is morally wrong. But if such a person exists, then that individual could cheat and yet not commit a moral wrong.

What other way than morally, could it be wrong? I don't know, maybe no other way...I'll have to think about it.

Keith · 07-15-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"What I said is that, ideally, we would all be better off if the "crowd consensus" was the "golden rule" (or better yet something like the modified golden rule I mentioned earlier)."

Without an objective moral standard, and without an objective standard for what is good, better, best, etc. (for society), how can this be true? You seem to be expressing your own subjective views about what would be "better" for society and inferring that this must be true for society. I can't tell if you were just giving me your own opinion, or if you meant that society OUGHT to be that way for another reason (other than what seems "better" to you).

Keith · 07-15-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"Another strawman. I never said that "everyone else should be morally bound to it." Morality, and adherence to a moral standard such as the one I suggested, is voluntary by nature. That's why I said "ideally"; in reality, not everyone is going to voluntarily follow such a moral standard. That's why societies have developed moral systems with rewards and punishments for various behaviors. In a society, certain moral standards may be enforced by law or otherwise - e.g. in our society, murderers are hopefully arrested, judged and punished. Certain moral standards may be rewarded when followed - e.g. you may get a reward if you return a money bag you found in the street to the bank."

But why punish a person for behavior than isn't objectively wrong? If rape and murder aren't objective moral wrongs, then punishing rapists and murderers is actually being done purely for the sake of political correctness.

Pain Paien · 07-15-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Keith:

Quote:

I don't think its possible for a person today, not to know that cheating on one's spouse is morally wrong. But if such a person exists, then that individual could cheat and yet not commit a moral wrong.

So you're admitting your own moral system is a subjective one, where right and wrong are determined by personal views of morality? Since there really isn't another way to view that comment, I have to conclude that's what you're saying. Thanks for conceding the point, this debate has run its course.

Keith · 07-15-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"Interestingly, following that moral standard allows me to get by n this society without violating any of the codified or other restrictions on moral behavior, and thus without getting crossways with the law, and helps me realize many of the rewards of good moral behavior."

(trying not to gag) Easy for you to say here and now, but if you were a Jew starving in a death camp while an SS officer begins firing up the ovens, I don't see how your own subjective fairness (your observing the GR) has anything to do with what the Nazis should or shouldn't be doing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2003, 04:42 PM	#223
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Keith As I said, when a person does wrong without realizing that it's wrong, that isn't sin. It could be wrong in some other way, but not in the moral sense. So under your system, the someone who doesn't think cheating on their spouse is morally wrong and thus cheats on their spouse, but because they don't consider it morally wrong doesn't "realize" it's morally wrong, is not "sinning" or behaving morally wrong? Or are they? And if they are, why? On what basis? And in what other way than morally would this cheater be doing wrong? There's no law in the U.S. against cheating on your spouse that I know of. (And please don't bring up traffic laws again - stick with this one). I'm not very clear about your moral basis yet. I'm still trying to figure it all out. You don't appear to be very clear about your own moral basis, either.

07-15-2003, 06:33 PM	#224
Keith Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S. England, and S. California Posts: 616	I said: "The natives may or may not treat me as if I had rights, depending on their opinions concerning human rights and what their priorities and objectives happened to be at the time." I should have worded it...the natives may or may not treat me as if I had inherent human rights, depending on their attitudes and feelings concerning inherent human rights, as well as what their priorities and objectives happened to be, at the time."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.