gstafleu

I see two moral questions with the Bible's genocides. 1) Did they violate moral standards of the time. 2) Are they used (because the are "holy scripture") to justify similar acts in the present. As to 1) somebody already mentioned the "golden rule," although the quote given was from Matthew, who postdates the genocides significantly. As for 2) I would point to the establishment of the state of Israel, which can be seen as a follow-up to the book of Joshua (the promised land and all that)--something similar goes for the current settlement practices: are they based on some divine promise that is related to one or more biblical genocides? On the Christian side we have the question if the genocides justify, in the eyes of some, a "spurring on" of a possible Armageddon, where non-believers (including unconverted Jews) will be thrown in a lake of fire while the "good" guys are raptured up and away.

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that you have thought this through, you know. We have to think about what "wrong" means.

Either it means "against some code"; or it means "inconvenient" or "unfashionable" or something equally different from the meaning that it is intended to bear in normal discussion.

If the former, then where does this code come from, and how does it come to have authority 3,000 years ago?

If the latter, well, I don't know about you but I always disliked people who redefine words like Humpty-Dumpty. It makes sensible discussion impossible.

I might add that I remember a society where the things that people take unquestioningly for granted today as "right" or "wrong" were unquestioningly considered absurd, and quite different things considered "right" and "wrong". What many may consider absolute looks very temporary to me, you see.

No indeed; the absolute moral law of mankind stands outside religion.

But you do have to believe in some absolute morality for the attack to make sense. This is not an normal atheist belief, as indeed your own comments above bear witness. Thus the pitfall to which I drew attention.

Not that my opinion is worth anything, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

TomboyMom

Why does a moral belief have to "absolute" or "objective" to carry weight? I'd rather have a subjective, non-absolute morality that condemns infanticide than an objective, absolute one that doesn't.
Also it's odd for the moral absolutists to be arguing that infanticide is sometimes justified, than that it is always immoral.

Roger Pearse

That's just your opinion.

Answer enough?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

I'm sure I have. This isn't the first time the subject has arisen.

I was specifically responding to your suggestion that the "contemporary cultural value" is dependent upon some sort of "absolute morality". That is simply an effort to impose your own beliefs others.

Rational thought and a desire to obtain peaceful co-existence amongst one's fellow humans seems to be sufficient to provide a prohibition against genocide.

In as much as constructs of one's imagination exist outside religion, I would tend to agree.

What attack?

I knew we would agree on something eventually!

On certain textual matters, however, I would tend to disagree.

Roger Pearse

I have no comment to make on your post, since in fact you seem to have been responding to what you thought I said, rather than what I did say.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Social justice is a logical rational conclusion, not an abstract external absolute.

One we have concluded how we should treat each other by asking how would we wish to be treated ourselves if we had any position in society, we have a measure to judge other - including ancient - peoples.

Nowhere is it assumed the current judges are perfect. And is not the concept of absolute intrinsically a religious idea?

Roger Pearse

That's your opinion.

Enough said?

Who laugh and say, "who needs your society's values?" As indeed the rich and powerful do today. Why not? They can, after all.

I find it odd that people can't grasp that statements "I would like this" or "I see this" cannot by any logical means create an imperative "I should do this", and still less "You should do this."

Of course if you are willing to just do whatever I happen to think best, well....!!! Or, more seriously, to do whatever those who have power think best, well....again!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

I guess that is easier than making an effort to express your position more clearly.

Stick to texts, Roger. Faith-based arguments don't appear to be your strong point.

Clivedurdle

http://www.bookrags.com/biography/john-rawls/

Seems to be the opinion of many academic philosophers as well as my own, and is thinking behind vast swathes of legislation internationally. But it is only my opinion!