Morals -- relative or absolute.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Are your arguing that this is merely a preference claim? I don't see people going to prison for preferring vanilla ice-cream to Twinkies.

I don't know what a "preference claim" is. No one cares much if people prefer ice cream or Twinkies; however people do care about getting raped or shot and want to prevent these things from happening.

[ ...[text shortened]... morality. That's how it is; "should" doesn't really belong in a discussion of this.[/b]

I don't know what a "preference claim" is.

Then I'd recommend you reread the thread. I devoted an entire post in comparing preference and normative claims.

Morals are a characteristic of an individual, not a group; each person decides for himself what he thinks of morality. That's how it is; "should" doesn't really belong in a discussion of this.

You seem to be either denying the existence of normative claims or confusing them with preference claims.

If morality is (as you claim) to be an individual phenomenon, I'm sure you'd support the abolition of all legal and penal systems, since they infringe on the individual's understanding of moral right and wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You had attempted to belittle the possible effects of a highly sophisticated process called 'natural selection' by calling it 'physical forces' which it is not.

[b]Why then did you condemn the practice across the board? You seem to have a different scale of measurement for yourself.
As I explained, I condem a practice if it is open to error and ab ...[text shortened]... s is how the 'end' is measured and how sure we are that the 'means' is the best one.[/b]

You had attempted to belittle the possible effects of a highly sophisticated process called 'natural selection' by calling it 'physical forces' which it is not.

I'll try in future not to cast in such a bad light a "process" you obviously have religious reverence for.

As I explained, I condem a practice if it is open to error and abuse, as the intended benefits are not achieved in such cases.

Most practices are open to error and abuse. Do you condemn people for driving in vehicles? How about hunting? Social drug use? Alcohol? You sir, are patently absurd and have a profoundly confused ethical stance.

Hitler and his supporters percieved the Jews as a threat to thier society. Americans percieved muslims and Sadam husein in particular as a threat to thier society.

Yeah, yeah. Show me the Auschwitz of Iraq. Show me the rounding up and mass execution of Iraqi civilians. Your analogy is more porous than Swiss cheese.

A well placed sniper could have eliminated Sadam much easier without as many casualties.

Who's to say the elimination of Saddam was the end goal? Methinks your confidence in the US military's ability to perform miracles it misplaced.

I would like to hear about a moral code that doesnt.

You incorrectly assume that there are only teleological ethical systems. i.e. where something is good as determined by its consequences. Try reading up on deontological systems where the motive determines whether an action is right or wrong. There are numerous examples of this system, including Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative or other "Natural Law" theories.

You yourself implied that torture for self defence was acceptable.

I implied nothing of the sort. I merely asked you a hypothetical question.

The main objections people have to 'end justifies the means' systems is how the 'end' is measured and how sure we are that the 'means' is the best one.

If only those were the main objections to “Consequentialism”.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"How can a brain think itself" is gibberish. Thought is a product of the brain. Try to restate this "thought" in some manner that makes a tiny bit of sense.

EDIT: If you're just going to play childish games, say so; I prefer not to waste my time.

Thought is a product of the brain.
Yet, according to your post which initiated this volley, thought is merely a product of impulses within the brain, i.e., purely physical in nature. Thus, the logical conclusion of the 'gibbberish' statement.

According to the notion that thought is totally (or even chiefly, for that matter) described via the physical characteristics, an individual truly has no responsibility for their actions. How could they: the impulses within their brain are tantamount to irresistable force (itself, an oxymoron, for what is resistance, if not thought first?).

Thought is the domain of the soul, (temporarily) transmitted in the locale of the brain. Like the branches of a tree bowing in the wind, the measureable impulses within the brain simply testify to the movement of the soul.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is neither imposible for the human brain to think of another brain (invent), nor is it imposible for humans to document and understand the workings of the human brain. So why cant a brain think itself? Many computer compilers (programs which create programs) are compiled using themselves.

So why cant a brain think itself?
Which is precisely the argument materialism wishes to hoist upon an unsuspecting audience.

Originally posted by Starrman
Point? Relevance? Explanation?

The greater good is defined by whom? Those that define it with the
power to push it upon others define what and who are right, and
those that disagree basically are left out in the cold until they get
some power to go with their ideas of what is the greater good. This
is the way of man, we know there is good, we are always on the look
out for ways to define it too. Personally, getting it right is a hard thing,
when man is so filled with selfishness too; separating what we think is
good from what we want, can be difficult under favorable circumstances
and more times than not, it isn’t always done by those in power while
they are under favorable circumstances.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Thought is a product of the brain.
Yet, according to your post which initiated this volley, thought is merely a product of impulses within the brain, i.e., purely physical in nature. Thus, the logical conclusion of the 'gibbberish' statement.

According to the notion that thought is totally (or even chiefly, for that matter) described via the ph ...[text shortened]... he wind, the measureable impulses within the brain simply testify to the movement of the soul.[/b]

Show me a soul sometime.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Show me a soul sometime.

Show me the wind.

Originally posted by Halitose
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.

The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.


So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]

When the scripture has laws and teaches that the Holy Spirit leads
and guides, wouldn't you think both are true when it comes to morals
being relative and absolute?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When the scripture has laws and teaches that the Holy Spirit leads
and guides, wouldn't you think both are true when it comes to morals
being relative and absolute?
Kelly

The spiritual life the believer is commanded to be engaged in is beyond morality; it is a life of integrity which, while including morality, far exceeds it in scope.

Among other portions, Paul's words regarding our freedoms as Christians (mature and otherwise) is a good example of this thought.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Show me the wind.

The wind can be measured. The soul is something merely asserted without any tangible proof of its existence. It is usually considered a sign of mental illness to claim that an invisible something is responsible for things in the "real" world. For example, if I was to claim that invisible tiny beings deliver my electricity to my house in blue packages, I would be considered delusional. The proof for the soul is equivalent to the proof for my invisible electricity deliverers.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The spiritual life the believer is commanded to be engaged in is beyond morality; it is a life of integrity which, while including morality, far exceeds it in scope.

Among other portions, Paul's words regarding our freedoms as Christians (mature and otherwise) is a good example of this thought.

Paul, naturally. Do any of you "Christians" actually read Jesus' words?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The wind can be measured. The soul is something merely asserted without any tangible proof of its existence. It is usually considered a sign of mental illness to claim that an invisible something is responsible for things in the "real" world. For example, if I was to claim that invisible tiny beings deliver my electricity to my house in blue packages, I ...[text shortened]... al. The proof for the soul is equivalent to the proof for my invisible electricity deliverers.

Converserly, the soul can be measured equally. You've not presented an argument against the existence of the soul as much as for the soul. Sure, the wind's results are measureable, but likewise are the soul's desires.

Again, show me the wind.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Converserly, the soul can be measured equally. You've not presented an argument against the existence of the soul as much as for the soul. Sure, the wind's results are measureable, but likewise are the soul's desires.

Again, show me the wind.

Gibberish. The wind is merely air moving from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure. It can be measured because it really does exist. To say that the wind does not exist because you cannot observe it with your eyes is imbecilic. You can sense the wind with a variety of other senses, the hairs on your skin, your ears etc.

The soul on the other hand cannot be thus sensed or measured. To say that the soul's desires can be measured and that this is proof of the existence of a soul, is presuppositional on the soul's existence. Before the desires of the soul can be talked about, show me the soul.

Originally posted by Starrman
Gibberish. The wind is merely air moving from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure. It can be measured because it really does exist. To say that the wind does not exist because you cannot observe it with your eyes is imbecilic. You can sense the wind with a variety of other senses, the hairs on your skin, your ears etc.

The soul on the ...[text shortened]... n the soul's existence. Before the desires of the soul can be talked about, show me the soul.

Gabberish. The soul's desires are measured when we detect some of the brain's electrical/chemical reactions. Unless, of course, you are positing that thoughts do not exist.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Gabberish. The soul's desires are measured when we detect some of the brain's electrical/chemical reactions. Unless, of course, you are positing that thoughts do not exist.

What? Did you not understand the second paragraph in my post? Or are you choosing to ignore it on purpose? You cannot talk about a soul's anything before you prove the soul exists. And if, to do this, you use definienda which lay within the measuring process, you fail to define anything.