20 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneScience cannot give 'moral' judgments.
When I was saying 'scientific truth', it was intended as short-hand for the absolute truth that science seeks. I was hoping that that was already established.
What you call ''the basics' is a flawed premise. If you can conceive of an absolute truth that science seeks, why can't you conceive of an absolute truth that should define 'morality'? I'm not ...[text shortened]... mething else:
Would you rather people be honest with you or dishonest with you? Why?
Kelly
20 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMorale is about what's best for all individuals in a group. Of course attitudes that obviously foment the positive attitude reach a consensus. Honesty is clearly the best for a group.
When I was saying 'scientific truth', it was intended as short-hand for the absolute truth that science seeks. I was hoping that that was already established.
What you call ''the basics' is a flawed premise. If you can conceive of an absolute truth that science seeks, why can't you conceive of an absolute truth that should define 'morality'? I'm not ...[text shortened]... mething else:
Would you rather people be honest with you or dishonest with you? Why?
That doesn't mean there's a perfect, absolute morale for everyone.
I agree there's a "best morale possible" achievable for a given society. But it may not be the best for some other society. Or it may change with time.
All because morale is born with the people.
So in your terms, I may seek for the perfect morale for me, but it doesn't mean it's the perfect/best morale for everyone.
20 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoI'd be interested in hearing your description of a society where honesty isn't ideal. Whatever it is, it wouldn't stand the test of time.
Morale is about what's best for all individuals in a group. Of course attitudes that obviously foment the positive attitude reach a consensus. Honesty is clearly the best for a group.
That doesn't mean there's a perfect, absolute morale for everyone.
I agree there's a "best morale possible" achievable for a given society. But it may not be the best for ...[text shortened]... he perfect morale for me, but it doesn't mean it's the perfect/best morale for everyone.
20 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHonesty is one of the consensual things that helps everyone in the society. That one gives little debate. But let's say for example euthanasia. That one can give a good discussion.
I'd be interested in hearing your description of a society where honesty isn't ideal. Whatever it is, it wouldn't stand the test of time.
20 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoEuthanasia? While I agree it'd make a good discussion, what we were discussing here is whether or not there exists an absolute truth that defines morality. A discussion at this point would only get us lost in detail.
Honesty is one of the consensual things that helps everyone in the society. That one gives little debate. But let's say for example euthanasia. That one can give a good discussion.
I'd readily agree that there is not currently a full understanding of that absolute truth (just as there is not a full understanding of the physical world). However, it seems that you are ready to concede that honesty would be a part of such an absolute truth. What about compassion? Or justice?
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMorale is everything that is good for us. If we agree certain things are good, independent of the society we live in, they actually stop being relative. The points that arise discussion are precisely the ones that aren't consensual.
Euthanasia? While I agree it'd make a good discussion, what we were discussing here is whether or not there exists an absolute truth that defines morality. A discussion at this point would only get us lost in detail.
I'd readily agree that there is not currently a full understanding of that absolute truth (just as there is not a full understanding of ...[text shortened]... ede that honesty would be a part of such an absolute truth. What about compassion? Or justice?
I didn't want to discuss euthanasia specifically. I only gave an example of a morale situation that for Christians (for example) is absolute wrong, but might not be for some other people (also absolutely).
21 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoAbsolute truths are absolute because they are eternal. They will pass the test of time.
Morale is everything that is good for us. If we agree certain things are good, independent of the society we live in, they actually stop being relative. The points that arise discussion are precisely the ones that aren't consensual.
I didn't want to discuss euthanasia specifically. I only gave an example of a morale situation that for Christians (for example) is absolute wrong, but might not be for some other people (also absolutely).
I sense you understand this about the physical truths that science tries to uncover. I would think that you'd understand that when an absolute physical truth is uncovered, whether or not all or even many recognize it as such at any given time is immaterial. This is also true of the absolute truths that should define 'morality'.
The points that are debated, are debated because there is a lack of understanding of the issue by one or more parties. This is true of physical truths as well.
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo you do believe in eternity ? Why do you find my time threads so incoherent then? How does the truth become eternal if it is not embodied in an eternal God who is Holy?
Absolute truths are absolute because they are eternal. They will pass the test of time.
.
(#Hypocrisy alert - case* 26567-ToO/thread/evil/ref-eternal21.3.08)
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt's rare that I come across an individual whose thoughts are so consistently incoherent. What's incoherent about your time threads are many of the premises and the conclusions that you draw from those premises.
So you do believe in eternity ? Why do you find my time threads so incoherent then? How does the truth become eternal if it is not embodied in an eternal God who is Holy?
(#Hypocrisy alert - case* 26567-ToO/thread/evil/ref-eternal21.3.08)
Even on this latest post of yours, you manage not only begin with a few false premises, but you also manage to jump to a couple of illogical conclusions. All this in your first three sentences.
Your actions become more juvenile everyday. Not only are you back to following me around from thread to thread looking to make disparaging remarks, you've taken to posting a "hypocrisy alert". I'd compare your actions to that of a fifteen year old, but it'd discredit fifteen year olds everywhere.
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWho cares about an absolute truth if it's impossible ot grasp it?
Absolute truths are absolute because they are eternal. They will pass the test of time.
I sense you understand this about the physical truths that science tries to uncover. I would think that you'd understand that when an absolute physical truth is uncovered, whether or not all or even many recognize it as such at any given time is immaterial. This is ...[text shortened]... f understanding of the issue by one or more parties. This is true of physical truths as well.
21 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoWhat makes you say that it's impossible to grasp?
Who cares about an absolute truth if it's impossible ot grasp it?
You seemed to be able to grasp honesty. What's interesting about honesty is that most everyone is able to grasp the concept as "right", only an extremely small percentage actually adhere to it. This should give you some insight into how far man has managed to advance. Is it any wonder that man understands so little about himself and the world he lives in? Hopefully he'll come to grasp it all. Until then, we'll remain little better than barbarians.
22 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneZZZZ Just answer the questions rather than deflecting. If you cannot justify your arguments then just say so. Calling me a 15 year old won't hide you behind the fog forever. Your position on eternity is either consistent or it isn't . If you do believe in eternity then you will realise the coherence of talking about time and 5 dimensions and free will. If not then what are you banging on about here?
It's rare that I come across an individual whose thoughts are so consistently incoherent. What's incoherent about your time threads are many of the premises and the conclusions that you draw from those premises.
Even on this latest post of yours, you manage not only begin with a few false premises, but you also manage to jump to a couple of illogical ...[text shortened]... r actions to that of a fifteen year old, but it'd discredit fifteen year olds everywhere.
22 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm trying to have a discussion about 'morality', which you've interrupted. Please be quiet while the adults are talking.
ZZZZ Just answer the questions rather than deflecting. If you cannot justify your arguments then just say so. Calling me a 15 year old won't hide you behind the fog forever. Your position on eternity is either consistent or it isn't . If you do believe in eternity then you will realise the coherence of talking about time and 5 dimensions and free will. If not then what are you banging on about here?
If you want to discuss "eternity", why don't you just start another "time" thread?
23 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou seem to be doing quite well yourself bringing in the idea of eternity. Don't worry I will try and stay away. Just try not to set off my hypocritonic detector next time. It's very sensitive and tends to go off when I read your posts.
I'm trying to have a discussion about 'morality', which you've interrupted. Please be quiet while the adults are talking.
If you want to discuss "eternity", why don't you just start another "time" thread?
Maybe another time you could explain what this absolute eternal truth actually is ?