"if morality comes from God then why is there disagreement about it among believers?"
Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:23 pm
Mebbe cuz God's word is perfect but the ears that hear it aren't.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I Morality is not objective [ simply claiming that it is does not make it so as it has to be demonstrated ]Immanuel Can wrote:
You have made a mistake there by confusing two claims :
I Morality itself is objective ( murder is absolutely wrong for example )
2 It is an objective fact that people want to believe ( subjectively ) in a thing called morality
( People want to believe there is a reason why we cannot murder even though we can )
That would likely be true if he ever said anything. All we ever hear are humans pretending.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:23 pm Mebbe cuz God's word is perfect but the ears that hear it aren't.
"evil" is seflishness.f12hte wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm Evil. What is it's source? Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind? If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil? Or is 'evil' even a thing? Or is it just a subjective idea? Or is it a human or even universal idea, in some respect? And if it is a universal idea, in what mind or matter does it exist? If evil exists, how did it come to be?
I hold a unique view of the world borne of my unique set of life experiences.
My unique worldview gives me a unique perspective on what is good and what is bad.
When I do a good thing, i think that the good reverberates down through the ages, since good actions engender knock-on good actions.
Ditto for when I do something that I consider bad.
So, the bad that I do is borne of my environment, filled with the knock-on effects of others' deeds, going back an eternity.
So evil, or at least culpability, has no origin? And if it has no origin, then how can it be said to exist?
per Christrainity, "I am good yet great evil"f12hte wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm Evil. What is it's source? Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind? If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil? Or is 'evil' even a thing? Or is it just a subjective idea? Or is it a human or even universal idea, in some respect? And if it is a universal idea, in what mind or matter does it exist? If evil exists, how did it come to be?
tell me more - not know of Shakespeare, my view is man being good, self knowledge/and self love.forgineancence is a good thing.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:12 am
I say that Shakespeare deliberately put that utterance in the mouth of a fool, Polonius, in Hamlet. It didn't work out well for him -- but he "got the point" in the end.
too simple mindset Sir.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:13 am We can waste a whole of time debatin' the source of evil: I prefer to just deal with what is -- on a practical level -- 'evil'.
In a nutshell: willingly, knowingly, deprivin' another of his life, liberty, or property is evil, yeah? Evil, then is not thinkin', but action (acts).
I think if I were seriously lookin' at Christianity: I'd find myself the cleanest translations of the oldest books and go with that.That would likely be true if he ever said anything. All we ever hear are humans pretending.
evil = selfishness, pride. ego (any trait that boosts the ego) vanity etc (all of the "seven" sins)Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:55 am I think of "evil" as the other end of the spectrum from "divine". Both terms can be applied in many different ways -- so intent is made clear by the context they're used in. They do not have to be associated with a religious mindset. They represent extremes of potential... whether it be in reference to people or energy. And our experience of it can seem as real as any other experience we have. Still, I think, we can take anything seriously or not...or commit ourselves to anything or not... and we can change channels. So, amidst so much potential, which channel(s) do we tune to...when it's all available? Evil is just one act on the stage.
My mind is more turned toward the Zinger trial, where the jurors know full well Zinger as a journalist who exposed the king and his men as scouderals - and knew that zinger as "gulity of libal against the king" (which the kings was deserving of such in print via zinger's newpaper) - but since "legally" of late it became illegal to dissparage the king - even if deserved and self evident............the jurors, using conscience rather than affirming the latter immoral law making it illegal to dissparge the king in all cases (inculding if he deserved dissparagement)) - ignored the law and rulled Zinger "innocent" (even after being locked up without food for 2-3 week to force a guity verdict!!!!!!!!!!! (histroy and knowledge of is important for those that value libery/rule of law).f12hte wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:39 pmSo you, yourself, decide what is evil. What's more, you and 11 other jurors decide what is evil. Does that make the person's acts absolutely evil, or just evil in your eyes?henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:13 am We can waste a whole of time debatin' the source of evil: I prefer to just deal with what is -- on a practical level -- 'evil'.
In a nutshell: willingly, knowingly, deprivin' another of his life, liberty, or property is evil, yeah? Evil, then is not thinkin', but action (acts).
I'm reminded of the story of the Taoist farmer, where events are first recognized as evil, but subsequently turn out to be instrumental to a good outcome, rendering the original judgement of 'evil' null and void.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 pm "Yet if you saw a bank robber about to kill an innocent by-stander, and you could and did not kill him and allowed him to kill, you would likely be jailed as well."
No, that's not the way American law works. If I were I cop, I'd have a legal obligation to intervene, but I'm not a cop. That's not to say I wouldn't have a moral obligation to intervene if I had the means to stop the bad guy (cuz I would have such an obligation if, and only if, I had the means).
yes but irreliven per the rule of law prior to 2006 in mass,henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 pm But, to risk myself against an armed man when I'm unarmed is just stupid
enaliemable rights are:
No!Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:49 pm Liberty is a legal term and your right to liberty can be taken from you by the law whenever it wants.
agreed. adding association (right to claim whom are your friends) and marriage (I'n mot married - it that matters lol - i affirm said right)henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:13 pm "The only right anyone has is what he can claim and fight for on his own."
No, your self-ownership, your right to your life, liberty, and property, is intrinsic to you. Whether you can successfully defend yourself or not doesn't negate that self-ownership or right to life, liberty, and property, no, it only means someone one else is wrong in depriving you of yourself (life, liberty, or property).
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:13 pm #
"What natural law gives you the right to life?"
Natural law describes what it 'is (the individual self-owns)'. It doesn't stop fire from singein' my keister or thieves from takin' my wallet. No my keister and wallet have to be defended by me.
#
count me in with you a Locke here!henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:13 pm "Liberty is a legal term and your right to liberty can be taken from you by the law whenever it wants."
Locke would disagree; I do disagree. Liberty is not merely a legal term, and -- yeah -- bad law, by bad law makers, can be exercised against me but that doesn't make it right.
#