Religion/beliefs

[CivicDuties]

LuckyThirteen said:

coldel said:

gregs656 said:

QJumper said:

So how does moral absolutism work when it comes to something like killing?

There are many cases when right or wrong is determined by circumstance or societal choice, so it's not a position that can stand on its own, and can only exist as a subset of a broader moral framework.

It could be argued that, like any complex system, it’s just a question of having all the information.

Would you kill baby Hitler given the chance...

No.

Because without history the way it was, we have no idea how today may have turned out.

For all we know the actions of Nazi Germany, and results could have been a factor in stopping similar action from a different aggressor in those decades, or the ones afterwards.

Better the devil you know. There are no guarantees if you changed an event.

We would not have NATO. We would not have had a Europe determined to be peaceful for many decades.

That's just two for starters

Yep, imagine Stalin given free reign over Europe - don't forget he invaded Poland in 1939 too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_P...

We sweep this under the carpet because they eventually became our "allies", but then once Hitler was off the table we essentially let them carve up half of Europe because everyone was too exhausted to fight on. See this from the eyes of people in countries like Poland and Romania who lived through Soviet oppression, and the outcome of WWII has a slightly different tinge.

See also Stephen's Fry's brilliant novel "Making History" on the subject of time travel and stopping Hitler's birth.

[coldel]

LuckyThirteen said:

No.

Because without history the way it was, we have no idea how today may have turned out.

For all we know the actions of Nazi Germany, and results could have been a factor in stopping similar action from a different aggressor in those decades, or the ones afterwards.

Better the devil you know. There are no guarantees if you changed an event.

We would not have NATO. We would not have had a Europe determined to be peaceful for many decades.

That's just two for starters

It was a question around morality rather than determination of history

Its immoral to kill a baby, but would it be morally acceptable to kill a baby if it was Hitler (ignoring the consequences) in hypothetical terms

[TwigtheWonderkid]

smn159 said:

Bible said:

1. You shall have no other God’s before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet.

Does anyone seriously believe that this is the best moral framework to live their lives by? The first four are around making sure that everyone sticks to the 'right' religion, the rest are the bleedin' obvious.

Are 5 & 10 bleedin' obvious. Some parents are crap, and not worthy of being honoured. Telling a child they need to honour their parents who are sexually abusing them isn't great.

And what's wrong wth coveting. Seeing what someone else has, wanting one for yourself, and working hard to afford it. Seems pretty healthy to me.

[coldel]

CivicDuties said:

Yep, imagine Stalin given free reign over Europe - don't forget he invaded Poland in 1939 too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_P...

We sweep this under the carpet because they eventually became our "allies", but then once Hitler was off the table we essentially let them carve up half of Europe because everyone was too exhausted to fight on. See this from the eyes of people in countries like Poland and Romania who lived through Soviet oppression, and the outcome of WWII has a slightly different tinge.

See also Stephen's Fry's brilliant novel "Making History" on the subject of time travel and stopping Hitler's birth.

OK missing the point somewhat. I was talking of moral absolutes.

If we all agree to kill is immoral, when is it ok to do so, and therefore does it make absolutism not a thing?

Please forget about the kill Hitler baby example...

[smn159]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

smn159 said:

Bible said:

1. You shall have no other God’s before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet.

Does anyone seriously believe that this is the best moral framework to live their lives by? The first four are around making sure that everyone sticks to the 'right' religion, the rest are the bleedin' obvious.

Are 5 & 10 bleedin' obvious. Some parents are crap, and not worthy of being honoured. Telling a child they need to honour their parents who are sexually abusing them isn't great.

And what's wrong wth coveting. Seeing what someone else has, wanting one for yourself, and working hard to afford it. Seems pretty healthy to me.

Yep, that too. the point is if this is the best moral code that the bible has to offer, it';s a pretty st one.

There will be those who say yes, but there are plenty of moral teachings in the rest of it. I guess that you just need to disregard the bits about stoning ginger people to death, murdering your own children if they give you any lip, destroying whole towns on a whim and the rest...

[Strangely Brown]

coldel said:

OK missing the point somewhat. I was talking of moral absolutes.

If we all agree to kill is immoral, when is it ok to do so, and therefore does it make absolutism not a thing?

Please forget about the kill Hitler baby example...

Thou shalt not kill is, AIUI, a mistranslation anyway. The commandment is though shalt not murder. Subtle difference but important.

And yes, the time travel example is a pointless distraction because it is an impossible situation. Not implausible or improbable but impossible.

Is it immoral to kill a baby? It depends...

The answer is always, It depends... because there are no absolutes.

[Strangely Brown]

smn159 said:

Yep, that too. the point is if this is the best moral code that the bible has to offer, it';s a pretty st one.

There will be those who say yes, but there are plenty of moral teachings in the rest of it. I guess that you just need to disregard the bits about stoning ginger people to death, murdering your own children if they give you any lip, destroying whole towns on a whim and the rest...

So we can sift and cherry-pick the bits that we agree with and disregard the bits that we don't. Hey, it's almost as it we are capable of making our own decisions using our own moral framework. Who'd a' thunk it.

[coldel]

Strangely Brown said:

coldel said:

OK missing the point somewhat. I was talking of moral absolutes.

If we all agree to kill is immoral, when is it ok to do so, and therefore does it make absolutism not a thing?

Please forget about the kill Hitler baby example...

Thou shalt not kill is, AIUI, a mistranslation anyway. The commandment is though shalt not murder. Subtle difference but important.

And yes, the time travel example is a pointless distraction because it is an impossible situation. Not implausible or improbable but impossible.

Is it immoral to kill a baby? It depends...

The answer is always, It depends... because there are no absolutes.

OK, so yes the comment was around absolutes, and if there are any as suggested by Gregs.

Lets ignore the bible and references, translations and Hitler references as it is clearly distracting. I was just trying to make it a bit more light hearted!

So...

It is immoral to kill. But is it? It would appear to me that there is a situation where killing, for ones own survival for instance, is morally justified. Therefore that moral are not absolute. So it asks the question, if some morals are absolute, what are they, and ones that aren't do those in themselves if they are morals disprove absolutism.

[CivicDuties]

coldel said:

Strangely Brown said:

coldel said:

OK missing the point somewhat. I was talking of moral absolutes.

If we all agree to kill is immoral, when is it ok to do so, and therefore does it make absolutism not a thing?

Please forget about the kill Hitler baby example...

Thou shalt not kill is, AIUI, a mistranslation anyway. The commandment is though shalt not murder. Subtle difference but important.

And yes, the time travel example is a pointless distraction because it is an impossible situation. Not implausible or improbable but impossible.

Is it immoral to kill a baby? It depends...

The answer is always, It depends... because there are no absolutes.

OK, so yes the comment was around absolutes, and if there are any as suggested by Gregs.

Lets ignore the bible and references, translations and Hitler references as it is clearly distracting. I was just trying to make it a bit more light hearted!

So...

It is immoral to kill. But is it? It would appear to me that there is a situation where killing, for ones own survival for instance, is morally justified. Therefore that moral are not absolute. So it asks the question, if some morals are absolute, what are they, and ones that aren't do those in themselves if they are morals disprove absolutism.

How about rape. Are there any circumstances in which that isn't an absolute case of immorality?

[coldel]

CivicDuties said:

How about rape. Are there any circumstances in which that isn't an absolute case of immorality?

You could argue that is an absolute yes.

But to kill, there are conditions where its not immoral.

For Absolutism to be a thing then you cannot have any that are not absolute. Having one that is doesn't prove Absolutism if others are not.

[gregs656]

Strangely Brown said:

Isn't that the very definition of, "It depends..."?

No. The existence of moral absolutes, things that just are right and wrong, doesn't preclude the existence of actions that are partly judged on non-moral components, or cases which are complex.

Similarly to the laws of physics, for example, there are absolute laws of physics but there are many things about the physical world we don't understand. That doesn't mean all the laws of physics are relative, it just means it's often complicated and confusing.

[gregs656]

coldel said:

For Absolutism to be a thing then you cannot have any that are not absolute. Having one that is doesn't prove Absolutism if others are not.

That's a misunderstanding on your part. Your second sentence is incorrect. If there are any moral absolutes, then morality can't be relative

Also, killing is something commonly understood to be an action that can be morally defensible. Murder is commonly understood not to be.

[paulguitar]

Strangely Brown said:

The answer is always, It depends... because there are no absolutes.

You might be right there.

[MC Bodge]

smn159 said:

Bible said:

1. You shall have no other God’s before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet. <your neighbour's ass?>

Does anyone seriously believe that this is the best moral framework to live their lives by? The first four are around making sure that everyone sticks to the 'right' religion, the rest are the bleedin' obvious.

It wouldn't take much to come up with something far better.

It is a list of things to keep order in society and the norms and hierachy of the time, with plenty of reinforcement of the religious aspects early on to add control off the tribe and weight to the commandments.

[Skeptisk]

gregs656 said:

coldel said:

For Absolutism to be a thing then you cannot have any that are not absolute. Having one that is doesn't prove Absolutism if others are not.

That's a misunderstanding on your part. Your second sentence is incorrect. If there are any moral absolutes, then morality can't be relative

Also, killing is something commonly understood to be an action that can be morally defensible. Murder is commonly understood not to be.

Killing and murder are just words not absolute things. They have to be defined and different societies in different places at different times have defined them differently. In societies with slavery with people as property then you could murder them (from our perspective) but in such as society it would only be killing.

Most people today in the West would call rape morally indefensible and an absolute evil but until very recently in the U.K. (and still in many countries) you couldn’t “rape” your wife as there was deemed consent.

Morality is only a concept that makes sense if viewed with respect to human societies. It isn’t like physics. 20 million years ago (a blink of the eye in cosmological terms) there were no societies and no morality. Yet there was still gravity, the strong force etc.

Morality is a bit of a problem for god. If it is absolute then god is not needed and not all powerful. Yet if morality is defined by god then it is just the whim of a deity and effectively random as anything god chose to be “right” would have to be followed by his believers.

[Strangely Brown]

Skeptisk said:

Morality is a bit of a problem for god. If it is absolute then god is not needed and not all powerful. Yet if morality is defined by god then it is just the whim of a deity and effectively random as anything god chose to be “right” would have to be followed by his believers.

... and how do you know that God is the good one and Satan is the bad one?

[Jinx]

smn159 said:

Yep, that too. the point is if this is the best moral code that the bible has to offer, it';s a pretty st one.

There will be those who say yes, but there are plenty of moral teachings in the rest of it. I guess that you just need to disregard the bits about stoning ginger people to death, murdering your own children if they give you any lip, destroying whole towns on a whim and the rest...

That was part of the original convenant - the one mankind failed to live up to (perhaps because of the ginger stoning). As such the second covenant (embodied by Jesus Christ) was required. This had two commandments: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22 37:40)

[MC Bodge]

Jinx said:

That was part of the original convenant - the one mankind failed to live up to (perhaps because of the ginger stoning). As such the second covenant (embodied by Jesus Christ) was required. This had two commandments: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22 37:40)

Who decided that the Old Testament should not just be consigned to the Christian theological dustbin?

[Strangely Brown]

Jinx said:

That was part of the original convenant - the one mankind failed to live up to (perhaps because of the ginger stoning). As such the second covenant (embodied by Jesus Christ) was required. This had two commandments: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22 37:40)

“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”

[Jinx]

MC Bodge said:

Jinx said:

That was part of the original convenant - the one mankind failed to live up to (perhaps because of the ginger stoning). As such the second covenant (embodied by Jesus Christ) was required. This had two commandments: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22 37:40)

Who decided that the Old Testament should not just be consigned to the Christian theological dustbin?

History (and history of ideas) should never be deleted or changed due to the current zeitgiest - Jesus understood this.