TRUMP AHEAD?

[Harbal]

No, it only makes it legal. Like beating slaves to death or lopping off the heads of French kings -- also formerly made legal -- it's still murder.

I admire your ambition. You started by revising all the dictionaries to your liking, and now you've moved on to repealing the law.

Heh. I'm not "repealing" anything. We're talking about what's moral, not what the local laws will let you get away with.

We are talking about your applying technically incorrect terms to things in order to make them sound like something they are not.

But whereas I can challenge the injustices of the law with reference to objective truth regarding what's moral,

But you can't, can you? You can't even do it in the informal environment of this forum, let alone in that of the legal system. If you could, you would have just come straight out and said what is objectively wrong with abortion. Before you are prepared to even think about putting up an argument, you require your interlocutor to agree to let you win it.

even by your own account, all you've got to contradict the government is your feelings.

Good luck with that.

Good look with what? I'm not the one saying the world needs changing; that would appear to be you.

[Immanuel Can]

I admire your ambition. You started by revising all the dictionaries to your liking, and now you've moved on to repealing the law.

Heh. I'm not "repealing" anything. We're talking about what's moral, not what the local laws will let you get away with.

We are talking about your applying technically incorrect terms to things in order to make them sound like something they are not.

Well what we know morality "is not," is "subjective." And we know that, because there isn't even one little precept that Subjectivism can require of us. It's morally bankrupt. So now we've got to decide what is "technically correct": and we know it's not Subjectivism.

But whereas I can challenge the injustices of the law with reference to objective truth regarding what's moral,

But you can't, can you?

Sure I can.

...you would have just come straight out and said what is objectively wrong with abortion.

What is it about the word "murder" you don't understand?

[Alexiev]

If God speaks, He's more than capable of making Himself clear...even to his fallible creatures. Do not think that God stutters.

Really? How does He speak to you? Does He appear in a burning bush. saying, "I am what I am"? Does He speak through the Bible? If so, do you read it in Hebrew, or Greek or Aramaic?

Paul's letters weren't so different from the Quran. They are theological instead of historical or biographical (like much of the rest of the Bible).

Translations of the Quran are notoriously bad, because no Muslim would translate. It's heretical. Of course Christians once thought the same: Don't get caught with an English version of the Bible in the 16th century! You might be burned at the stake (a custom that, given the silly Fundamentalist belief in the literal truth of the Bible, should perhaps be reinstituted). How can the Bible be literally true after being translated so many times?

Individual instruction from the Deity might be crystal clear, but it remains "subjective", given the general usage of the word. Only experiences which can be observed by others are objective. Individaul and personal revelation is subjective.

[Alexis Jacobi]

For them to conceive of morality in the same way we do, they would have to have a whole lot of stuff in common with us and no significant difference. Otherwise the base perceptions that inform their morality will just be incompatible with ours.

But those differences are not that relevant to the picture I presented. One is supposing, and you are supposing, the manifestation of a moral system. Hence a response to and a relationship with •logos•.

[Immanuel Can]

If God speaks, He's more than capable of making Himself clear...even to his fallible creatures. Do not think that God stutters.

Really? How does He speak to you? Does He appear in a burning bush. saying, "I am what I am"? Does He speak through the Bible? If so, do you read it in Hebrew, or Greek or Aramaic?

In many ways, and pre-eminently, in the person of Jesus Christ. See Hebrews 1: 1-3.

Paul's letters weren't so different from the Quran.

Totally different. Different in content, and different in structure.

Translations of the Quran are notoriously bad, because no Muslim would translate.

Then Mohammed is not a prophet to anybody but Arabic speakers. To everybody else, he's incomprehensible, you're saying. And that's bad, because as you know, the Koran is the lone "miracle" that is supposed to validate his credentials. Without it, he would not be recognizable as a prophet at all, even to Arabic speakers. So to most of the world, he will never be a prophet, if what you say is correct. They cannot perceive his "miracle,"and thus have no reason to believe the words ascribed to him in the Koran.

But I'll bet you think he's supposed to be a prophet to everybody. But he can't be, if what you say is true.

How can the Bible be literally true after being translated so many times?

Because translations (proper ones) are not translations of translations, but translations of the text. As such, the more of them there are, the more accurate the translations possible become.

And no book in the history of the world has been more often, more carefully translated than the Bible. That's just an empirical fact. You might argue you don't agree with what the Bible says, but you can't fault the effort put into translating what was said. Literally nothing has had more, or more careful, or more expert attention more often.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now it's the year 2030, scientists on Earth discover life beyond our prior horizons.... So we send our greatest philosophical space-mind to argue with them about his biggest moral quandry, which happens to be abortion. Who is that guy?

Hmmmmm. What about it, Gary? You seem to be free of restrictive obligations? You are verbally skilled. Can you talk reason to the Spider Beings?

[Gary Childress]

But you can't, can you?

Sure I can.

Then please do, by all means. I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

[Immanuel Can]

I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

The objective definition is "premeditated killing." I think I gave that, did I not. I also explained why that's wrong. Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God, so to kill him is to act contrary to God. Locke said the same thing, actually.

[Harbal]

Heh. I'm not "repealing" anything. We're talking about what's moral, not what the local laws will let you get away with.

We are talking about your applying technically incorrect terms to things in order to make them sound like something they are not.

Well what we know morality "is not," is "subjective." And we know that, because there isn't even one little precept that Subjectivism can require of us.

Can you explain why not being able to require anything of you makes my moral opinions not moral? I don't see the logic.

And then you might explain why the fact that you can't come up with one little so called objective precept that can require anything of me doesn't make that precept similarly morally invalid.

But whereas I can challenge the injustices of the law with reference to objective truth regarding what's moral,

But you can't, can you?

Sure I can.

I guess we'll have to be patient, then.

...you would have just come straight out and said what is objectively wrong with abortion.

What is it about the word "murder" you don't understand?

I can't quite work out how yet another rascally little word managed to sneak its way into the wrong definition in the dictionary.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

[FlashDangerpants]

I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

The objective definition is "premeditated killing." I think I gave that, did I not. I also explained why that's wrong. Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God, so to kill him is to act contrary to God. Locke said the same thing, actually.

That definition is inadequate. Killings in self defence are not murders, so your minimum viable definition would be "unjustified premeditated killing".

[Harbal]

I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

The objective definition is "premeditated killing."

You forgot the "unlawful" bit.

Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God,

And does God have any documentary proof of ownership?

Locke said the same thing, actually.

Oh well, if Locke say so, it's game over.

[FlashDangerpants]

For them to conceive of morality in the same way we do, they would have to have a whole lot of stuff in common with us and no significant difference. Otherwise the base perceptions that inform their morality will just be incompatible with ours.

But those differences are not that relevant to the picture I presented. One is supposing, and you are supposing, the manifestation of a moral system. Hence a response to and a relationship with •logos•.

Is that the most pretentious way you could find to say that all moral systems are in some sense systematic? It's a truism, I guess, so well done...?

[Immanuel Can]

We are talking about your applying technically incorrect terms to things in order to make them sound like something they are not.

Well what we know morality "is not," is "subjective." And we know that, because there isn't even one little precept that Subjectivism can require of us.

Can you explain why not being able to require anything of you makes my moral opinions not moral? I don't see the logic.

If Subjectivism were applied, you can't even require something of yourself. It literally has no moral information in it. You're getting your only guidance from your feelings, just as you say. You have no need at all of moral information, because your feelings tell you what to do.

To know whether you were experiencing a moral or immoral feeling, you would have to consult something that transcends your feelings, and, so to speak, judges them, or better, provides grounds for you to be able to judge them. But what are such grounds? If feelings rule, there's no more to be known.

And then you might explain why the fact that you can't come up with one little so called objective precept that can require anything of me doesn't make that precept similarly morally invalid.

Easy. Because precepts that are objective are universal and stable for everybody. Feelings are judged by them. If I "feel like" murdering, that won't make murder right...it will still be objectively evil.

...you would have just come straight out and said what is objectively wrong with abortion.

What is it about the word "murder" you don't understand?

I can't quite work out how yet another rascally little word managed to sneak its way into the wrong definition in the dictionary.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Again the dictionary fails.

And you can see it does, because it gives you a definition that makes premeditated killing fine, so long as somebody's law says it's fine. So it makes it fine to slit the throats of infidels on the beach, so long as Sharia says yes to it. It makes slavery fine, so long as antebellum Southern Democrats declare it so. It makes revenge rape fine, so long as you are in Northern Pakistan. It makes gulags moral, so long as you are in Russia, and "re-education camps" fine if you are in China, and the Holocaust fine for Aryans.

Do you really want to go with a definition like that? Or do you have questions about the writers' wisdom?

[Immanuel Can]

I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

The objective definition is "premeditated killing." I think I gave that, did I not. I also explained why that's wrong. Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God, so to kill him is to act contrary to God. Locke said the same thing, actually.

That definition is inadequate. Killings in self defence are not murders, so your minimum viable definition would be "unjustified premeditated killing".

I considered adding that word in. It seemed unnecessary, but if you insist, fine. My comment would be that self-defense isn't premeditated. It may well be involuntary, in fact. But if you schemed to lead somebody to come into your house, and then you shot him and claimed self-defense, then you would still be a murderer.

There are other such cases. But we needn't get lost in the details here. We should keep things as clear as we can.

[Immanuel Can]

Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God,

And does God have any documentary proof of ownership?

Indeed He does.

You're "made in his image," in that unlike lower animals, you have personhood, self-knowledge, volition, freedom, moral awareness and responsibility. That makes humans quite unique among creatures in this world. The stamp of His work is on all of us.