Morality

[Kurieuo]

Hypothetical Kenny. If you died, then woke up before God who appears to be judging everyone according to their moral conscience, do you think you'd pass?

After reading it again; let me give a different answer. Yes of course I would pass! After all, it is my moral conscience that I am being judged by

Wow, I'm not sure I've met someone who's never had a guilty conscience over doing something wrong.

My moral conscience would not require perfection in order to pass. I recognize I am not perfect, and it would be foolish and or cruel to require perfection from an imperfect person

Well then, great. Let's place God away now you've acknowledged you're not perfect according to your own morality. But then, it's your own morality isn't it? Can't you just tweak it here and there so that it doesn't really matter? Why you could potentially pass with flying colours, A+, 100% couldn't you? Maybe not in someone else's eyes, but in your own. It's your own morality afterall.

[RickD]

And I thought atheists accused Christians of inventing God.

Kenny conveniently invented some false, illogical god, just to discredit this impossible god.

[Byblos]

And I thought atheists accused Christians of inventing God.

Kenny conveniently invented some false, illogical god, just to discredit this impossible god.

That is exactly why I stopped conversing with him. But to be fair, at least he's been consistent with his illogical position. Never did he or will he take it to its logical conclusion.

[Kenny]

Hypothetical Kenny. If you died, then woke up before God who appears to be judging everyone according to their moral conscience, do you think you'd pass?

After reading it again; let me give a different answer. Yes of course I would pass! After all, it is my moral conscience that I am being judged by

Wow, I'm not sure I've met someone who's never had a guilty conscience over doing something wrong.

My moral conscience would not require perfection in order to pass. I recognize I am not perfect, and it would be foolish and or cruel to require perfection from an imperfect person

Well then, great. Let's place God away now you've acknowledged you're not perfect according to your own morality. But then, it's your own morality isn't it? Can't you just tweak it here and there so that it doesn't really matter? Why you could potentially pass with flying colours, A+, 100% couldn't you? Maybe not in someone else's eyes, but in your own. It's your own morality afterall.

Why tweak it here or there in order to get a higher score? You don't need to get an A+ 100% in order to get a passing score! No thank you; I would prefer an honest C over a dishonest A+.

Ken

[Kenny]

And I thought atheists accused Christians of inventing God.

Kenny conveniently invented some false, illogical god, just to discredit this impossible god.

That is exactly why I stopped conversing with him. But to be fair, at least he's been consistent with his illogical position.

You gotta love it; someone asks me to consider a hypothetical concerning God, doing something he would never do, I answer his question and all of a sudden everybody and their mother pops up accusing me of creating a false illogical God in order to discredit theirs; making me the bad guy again. Yup gotta love it!

Never did he or will he take it to its logical conclusion.

So what is this "logical conclusion" that you speak of ?

[PaulSacramento]

No Ken, you are missing the point that stealing - taking what belongs to another without permission is never viewed as good, even if it may be viewed as acceptable or even necessary.
Can you show me one case of a culture, since the beginning of recorded history, where theft is viewed as good?
Every culture has had a penalty for stealing ( even if they at some point they condone stealing from others), hence every culture has viewed stealing is wrong.

I like this part:

Every culture has had a penalty for stealing ( even if they at some point they condone stealing from others), hence every culture has viewed stealing is wrong.

Do you see a contradiction in that statement? My mama used to say; “actions speak louder than words”. If they condone something, they probably don’t see it as wrong, in spite of what they say.
You defied stealing as taking what belongs to another. If you were to go to the City of Seattle (the city council even) there are plenty of people in Government who feel if you have more, you should give to those who have less; and if you refuse to give to those who have less, the government should take from you and give to those who have less; because equity is far more important than equality. And it isn’t just my city, its many big cities in the USA. If this isn’t the definition you gave for stealing, what do you call it?

I see you don't understand that difference between something being condoned and it be right.

I think you are missing my point. My point is, any society that will say stealing (taking something that doesn’t belong to you) is wrong, will make countless exceptions of when taking something that doesn’t belong to you is okay.
Any society that will say killing (ending life) is wrong will make countless exceptions of when taking a life is okay
Any society that will say lying (purposely giving false information) is wrong, will make countless exceptions of when giving false information is okay.
See where this is going? These exceptions are generally going to be based on personal feelings, and extenuating circumstances. That is subjectivity; not objectivity.

Ken

No Ken.
Stealing is objectively wrong because NOWHERE is it viewed as right.
It may be condoned BUT never viewed as right.
THAT is the point.

[Kenny]

No Ken, you are missing the point that stealing - taking what belongs to another without permission is never viewed as good, even if it may be viewed as acceptable or even necessary.
Can you show me one case of a culture, since the beginning of recorded history, where theft is viewed as good?
Every culture has had a penalty for stealing ( even if they at some point they condone stealing from others), hence every culture has viewed stealing is wrong.

I like this part:

Every culture has had a penalty for stealing ( even if they at some point they condone stealing from others), hence every culture has viewed stealing is wrong.

Do you see a contradiction in that statement? My mama used to say; “actions speak louder than words”. If they condone something, they probably don’t see it as wrong, in spite of what they say.
You defied stealing as taking what belongs to another. If you were to go to the City of Seattle (the city council even) there are plenty of people in Government who feel if you have more, you should give to those who have less; and if you refuse to give to those who have less, the government should take from you and give to those who have less; because equity is far more important than equality. And it isn’t just my city, its many big cities in the USA. If this isn’t the definition you gave for stealing, what do you call it?

I see you don't understand that difference between something being condoned and it be right.

I think you are missing my point. My point is, any society that will say stealing (taking something that doesn’t belong to you) is wrong, will make countless exceptions of when taking something that doesn’t belong to you is okay.
Any society that will say killing (ending life) is wrong will make countless exceptions of when taking a life is okay
Any society that will say lying (purposely giving false information) is wrong, will make countless exceptions of when giving false information is okay.
See where this is going? These exceptions are generally going to be based on personal feelings, and extenuating circumstances. That is subjectivity; not objectivity.

Ken

No Ken.
Stealing is objectively wrong because NOWHERE is it viewed as right.
It may be condoned BUT never viewed as right.
THAT is the point.

As I pointed out to you before, the action YOU define as stealing IS viewed as right by many societies. Remember it is you who gave the definition of stealing. I just agreed with you.

[Philip]

Ken: As I pointed out to you before, the action YOU define as stealing IS viewed as right by many societies. Remember it is you who gave the definition of stealing. I just agreed with you.

Wrong - their test is, when on the receiving end of a behavior, do you feel wronged? Violated, etc. The most prolific thief is angered when someone steals from him - a very negative reaction. Even when such people feel it their personal right that they should steal from others, that doesn't mean that they think stilling is morally wrong - because they selectively judge such an action. They just view it as they have the power and opportunity to steal, and so they do. But, again, the truth of the objectivity lies in the reactions found on the receiving end.

[Kurieuo]

After reading it again; let me give a different answer. Yes of course I would pass! After all, it is my moral conscience that I am being judged by

Wow, I'm not sure I've met someone who's never had a guilty conscience over doing something wrong.

My moral conscience would not require perfection in order to pass. I recognize I am not perfect, and it would be foolish and or cruel to require perfection from an imperfect person

Well then, great. Let's place God away now you've acknowledged you're not perfect according to your own morality. But then, it's your own morality isn't it? Can't you just tweak it here and there so that it doesn't really matter? Why you could potentially pass with flying colours, A+, 100% couldn't you? Maybe not in someone else's eyes, but in your own. It's your own morality afterall.

Why tweak it here or there in order to get a higher score? You don't need to get an A+ 100% in order to get a passing score! No thank you; I would prefer an honest C over a dishonest A+.

So did you choose this morality or does it just seem embedded within your mind? It seems strange to me that this is your subjective morality, and yet, it seems like its a standard that presses against your own moral conscience telling you what is/isn't right. So much so that you'll accept its "C" grade of yourself rather than simply change your moral standards.

To put it in terms of icecream, if I like eating chocolate icecream over strawberry icecream, but eating choc icecream is considered bad by many, why then I'd tell them it is good and take my "A" grade. Yet, it seems like you can't really do this with your morality, you can't tell your moral conscience that actually what you did is good, and so then being honest with this standard that presses upon your mind, which judges you for your moral actions, you take what you call "an honest C".

[Kenny]

Ken: As I pointed out to you before, the action YOU define as stealing IS viewed as right by many societies. Remember it is you who gave the definition of stealing. I just agreed with you.

Wrong - their test is, when on the receiving end of a behavior, do you feel wronged? Violated, etc. The most prolific thief is angered when someone steals from him - a very negative reaction. Even when such people feel it their personal right that they should steal from others, that doesn't mean that they think stilling is morally wrong - because they selectively judge such an action. They just view it as they have the power and opportunity to steal, and so they do. But, again, the truth of the objectivity lies in the reactions found on the receiving end.

To consider an action wrong only when it is applied to you, but not when applied to everyone else, is an example of subjective; not objective.

[Kenny]

Wow, I'm not sure I've met someone who's never had a guilty conscience over doing something wrong.

My moral conscience would not require perfection in order to pass. I recognize I am not perfect, and it would be foolish and or cruel to require perfection from an imperfect person

Well then, great. Let's place God away now you've acknowledged you're not perfect according to your own morality. But then, it's your own morality isn't it? Can't you just tweak it here and there so that it doesn't really matter? Why you could potentially pass with flying colours, A+, 100% couldn't you? Maybe not in someone else's eyes, but in your own. It's your own morality afterall.

Why tweak it here or there in order to get a higher score? You don't need to get an A+ 100% in order to get a passing score! No thank you; I would prefer an honest C over a dishonest A+.

So did you choose this morality or does it just seem embedded within your mind?

I think its just embedded within my mind.

It seems strange to me that this is your subjective morality, and yet, it seems like its a standard that presses against your own moral conscience telling you what is/isn't right.

No; the standard IS my own moral conscience.

So much so that you'll accept its "C" grade of yourself rather than simply change your moral standards.

The only way I can change my moral standards is if I become convinced they are wrong.

To put it in terms of icecream, if I like eating chocolate icecream over strawberry icecream, but eating choc icecream is considered bad by many, why then I'd tell them it is good and take my "A" grade.

Is this grade A Chocolate Ice cream, or grade A Strawberry Ice cream? You lost me on that one bro.

, it seems like you can't really do this with your morality, you can't tell your moral conscience that actually what you did is good, and so then being honest with this standard that presses upon your mind, which judges you for your moral actions, you take what you call "an honest C".

Okay I think I get what you meant by “A” grade. My conscious and my standard are not in conflict with each other; they are the result of each other. Sometimes my emotions can get the best of me and I react in a way that I would not if I weren’t being emotional. I could be angry, excited, scared, etc. and these emotions could cause me to react to a situation in a way that I would not if I were to just calm down and logically consider the right thing to do. To logically consider the right thing to do would be an example of acting to my conscious and moral standard. To react out of anger would be an example of not meeting my own standard.
As far as changing my moral standard; to put in terms of Ice Cream, I could no longer change my moral standard due to convenience than I could change my preference of strawberry over chocolate ice cream due to convenience

Ken

[Philip]

Ken: To consider an action wrong only when it is applied to you, but not when applied to everyone else, is an example of subjective; not objective.

That might be true if we didn't observe this to be universally true - that all people, everywhere, including ALL prolific thieves, are angered and perceive a great wrong has been committed against them whenever someone steals from them. If it were merely subjective, how do you explain the total, universal reaction of perfect consistency?

[Kenny]

Ken: To consider an action wrong only when it is applied to you, but not when applied to everyone else, is an example of subjective; not objective.

That might be true if we didn't observe this to be universally true - that all people, everywhere, including ALL prolific thieves, are angered and perceive a great wrong has been committed against them whenever someone steals from them. If it were merely subjective, how do you explain the total, universal reaction of perfect consistency?

So you are asking how do I explain the universal reaction of people feeling bad when they are wronged, though selfish people don’t feel bad when someone everyone else is wronged? EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. When extenuating circumstances are taken into account before determining, this is an example of subjective.

[Philip]

Ken: So you are asking how do I explain the universal reaction of people feeling bad when they are wronged, though selfish people don’t feel bad when someone everyone else is wronged? EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. When extenuating circumstances are taken into account before determining, this is an example of subjective.

Extenuating circumstances can't explain a universal - as ALL people - no matter how selfish, evil, or kind, considerate, considered moral within their own cultures - consider a wrong done to them if someone steals from them. If it were merely subjective, we'd see wide inconsistency in that. Some would be glad they were visited by thieves - others, extremely angry. But that's not what we see. If ANYONE, without provocation, has been physically assaulted by another - no matter how selfish, murderous, or kind and forgiving, they see such action as a great wrong has been committed against them. That's another universal and objective moral standard!

[Nicki]

Ken: So you are asking how do I explain the universal reaction of people feeling bad when they are wronged, though selfish people don’t feel bad when someone everyone else is wronged? EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. When extenuating circumstances are taken into account before determining, this is an example of subjective.

Extenuating circumstances can't explain a universal - as ALL people - no matter how selfish, evil, or kind, considerate, considered moral within their own cultures - consider a wrong done to them if someone steals from them. If it were merely subjective, we'd see wide inconsistency in that. Some would be glad they were visited by thieves - others, extremely angry. But that's not what we see. If ANYONE, without provocation, has been physically assaulted by another - no matter how selfish, murderous, or kind and forgiving, they see such action as a great wrong has been committed against them. That's another universal and objective moral standard!

Isn't it just that no one likes being stolen from or assaulted? Being assaulted hurts, for a start, so it's pretty unpleasant. Being stolen from usually results in inconvenience or hardship, also unpleasant. Of course we usually have some sense of being violated as well.