Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[florduh]

Hans, next time follow my lead and get out early!

 

Glory!

[Neon Genesis]

The second element is intention, it's purpose or end. Good intentions do not make a bad object good.

 

The third element is the circumstances that affect an act. Again circumstances can not make an bad object good.

 

 

more to come on Natural Law..... peace; Dear Dogma

If circumstances and intentions do not effect the morality of an act, then who was right and wrong in this situation and why? What decision would you make if you were in this situation and why is your decision considered either moral or immoral?

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

[chefranden]

1. First element is the specific "thing" the action itself. This "thing" is called the object. This object can be good or bad (right or wrong), and our conscience tells us which is which. Stealing is wrong, charitable giving is right. Lying is wrong, telling the truth is right etc.

 

2. The second element is intention, it's purpose or end...

 

3. The third element is the circumstances that affect an act...

 

more to come on Natural Law..... peace; Dear Dogma

 

1. Note: Not everyone's conscience tells them the same thing. Your conscience tells you a suicide bombing is wrong. The suicide bomber's conscience tells him or her that it is right. Which of you knows the absolute? You suppose that your knowledge is at least a reflection of the absolute, but I say that it is no better a reflection of the absolute than the moral knowledge of any one that disagrees with you. You argue till the cows come home with your counterpart, both of you agreeing that there is an absolute but disagreeing about what it is and the source of it.

 

This is not a nominalist position on my part. This is a realist position, taking note of how things actually work. I am taking into account modern cognitive science where you are not doing so. You are willing to accept evolutionary science, but you are setting aside scientific knowledge of how the mind actually works in favor of an outdated scholastic point of view. If you are able to approach scientific understanding of human behavior via evolution then you may want to read Evolution For Everyone.

 

2. Stealing food from someone that is withholding it from the starving (for whatever reason) and giving it to the starving is not bad it is good, because it is just. Your fellow Catholics that follow liberation theology would agree with me.

 

3. You have failed to address my point from above that you and a Muslim would agree that rape is bad but you would disagree who is at fault. If one was forced to rape at gun point he is not a raper. The person with the gun is the raper. He is just using someone else's dick.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, next time follow my lead and get out early!

 

Glory!

My biggest fault is that I'm such an optimist.

[Guest end3]

You're missing me now Hans?.... .....you want I should start a thread for old time sake?, do you Spike, huh, do you? (reference to Bugs, Daffy, et al.)

[Kuroikaze]

What goes into making a specific act good or bad (right or wrong if you prefer)? The church says there are three elements of a moral act.

 

First element is the specific "thing" the action itself. This "thing" is called the object. This object can be good or bad (right or wrong), and our conscience tells us which is which. Stealing is wrong, charitable giving is right. Lying is wrong, telling the truth is right etc.

 

Your conscience tells you? I'm sorry, but this is too vague to be considered a proper logical argument. For one thing, as others have pointed out, different people's consciences tell them different things.

 

Many serial killers think they are doing the will of god when they murder people, considering that the god in the bible often commands people to kill in his name, on what logical basis can you claim the serial killer is wrong?

 

Stealing is always wrong? what is the basis for such a statement? you want to divorce the act from both the consequences and the situation, but I don't think it can be done. At the most basic level you cannot steal something unless there is another person who owns a thing that you can steal, so how can you logically divorce stealing from the context?

 

Charitable giving is right? Always? If this is so then how do you justify owning anything? If you own something shouldn't you be giving it to someone else? but wait, then they own it, so now THEY have to give it to someone else....this is going to get absurd really quick. Not too mention that you may give it to someone or organization that will not use your giving correctly. Consider the some of the crap the Red Cross has pulled in the last few years. Again, it just seems crazy to divorce the act from the consequence or situation in which the action is done.

 

The second element is intention, it's purpose or end. Good intentions do not make a bad object good. Cheating on a test to improve a grade even if one's intention is to someday become a physician and save lives is still cheating and wrong. Stealing food to feed the starving remains stealing and you cannot steal something that has been freely given, that's called sharing. In addition we can ruin a good object by having a bad intention. Being kind to an aged parent solely for the benefit of an inheritance is not enough to make the kindness of any value. Giving money to the needy so one can boast is hardly true charity. We can also do a thing with many intentions or "mixed motives" aswell, these do not in themselves make a good act bad, but they can reduce it's goodness considerably.

 

I disagree with this as well. If you give money to a homeless man to make yourself feel better you would argue that this is no longer a good act. I would argue that it depends on who you ask. Do you think the homeless man gives a rats ass WHY you gave him money? As far as he is concerned the effect is the same either way.

 

You may call me a nomanalist if you like, but I think you are wrong there too. I am simply living in the real world instead of some ivory tower where moral issues can be treated as abstract concepts. A moral philosophy that ignores reality is no moral philosophy at all.

 

 

The third element is the circumstances that affect an act. Again circumstances can not make an bad object good. They can however contibute significantly to making it less or more good or bad. Coercion for example is a circumstance, one could be coerced to rape a woman if a gun were were held to their head. A mother might steal a car to rush her dying child to the hospital. The responsability of the person doing them is far less than one who rapes for the thrill of it, or steals for a living. But they remain as they are stealing and rape.

 

Now you are just being confusing. Less or more good or bad? In an absolute moral system an act is either good or bad, you are introducing grey moral areas while trying to pretend you are not. Make up your mind. I would argue that a person who steels a car to rush a person to the hospital is not doing immoral at all, their intent is to save a life, and will, if possible, return the car once it is no longer needed.

 

Lets put this into practice shall we? I'm sure you are familiar with the following scenario. You are hiding some Jews from the Nazis, the Nazis come to your door and ask if you know where any Jew are? What do you do? If you tell him, the Jews will likely die, you might get in trouble for hiding them in the first place as well. If you lie they may go away. But lying is wrong. If you admit that there is no answer that is "perfectly moral" then you admit that there is no such thing as an absolute moral framework, if there were then you should have no trouble finding a perfect moral solution to the problem.

 

In order for an absolute moral system to work there cannot be any situations where all choices available are morally ambiguous.

[Antlerman]

Open address to all who are not nominalists;

Why? Are you saying that your doctrines are unable to address points of view that are not on your terms?????? Does this sound like the truth of a God??

 

So, your failure to understand the perceptions of this culture prove nearly conclusively that your truth of God is not Universal. If it were from God, it would transcend philosophies of all men. Instead, you insist on it being within a framework that you can address apologetically. This to me proves you have an argument, not Wisdom. If you did, you could speak beyond reason to something more.

 

I'm seeing you torn between an argument and an understanding, leaning more towards an argument. That's too bad. If you can't speak to Hans, it unlikely you have anything to offer more then yet another variation of a logic argument we've already been disappointed by. Sad, really. Perhaps you will move past your religion to something more. But you won't get there by being closed to another point of view. That's worshipping a belief, not knowledge and truth. I'm sorry for you.

[Ouroboros]

You're missing me now Hans?.... .....you want I should start a thread for old time sake?, do you Spike, huh, do you? (reference to Bugs, Daffy, et al.)

Yeah, yeah, I do miss our fights... a little...

 

... If you can't speak to Hans,...

I wonder if anyone can speak to me right now?! It seems like I pissing everyone off when debating them!

 

(How's my new avatar? Intimidating, isn't it? Beer drinking demon. That suits me.)

[Kuroikaze]

 

If you ask me, he is just creating a silly standard for the debate.

 

The way he uses the term nomanalist seems to suggest that in order for him to be willing to debate the existence of absolute morals, you have to admit absolute morals exist. Otherwise, you are a "nomanalist" and he won't debate you, thus the only way to get him to agree to a debate is to admit he is already correct in regards to the debate topic.

[Ouroboros]

If you ask me, he is just creating a silly standard for the debate.

 

The way he uses the term nomanalist seems to suggest that in order for him to be willing to debate the existence of absolute morals, you have to admit absolute morals exist. Otherwise, you are a "nomanalist" and he won't debate you, thus the only way to get him to agree to a debate is to admit he is already correct in regards to the debate topic.

Agree. That's my point with one of my earlier posts, saying something similar. He only will debate you if you agree first that he's right... like that would result in anything useful?

[Antlerman]

If you ask me, he is just creating a silly standard for the debate.

 

The way he uses the term nomanalist seems to suggest that in order for him to be willing to debate the existence of absolute morals, you have to admit absolute morals exist. Otherwise, you are a "nomanalist" and he won't debate you, thus the only way to get him to agree to a debate is to admit he is already correct in regards to the debate topic.

Agree. That's my point with one of my earlier posts, saying something similar. He only will debate you if you agree first that he's right... like that would result in anything useful?

Well this is just it. It's exactly like saying if you don't believe in the supernatural than I don't have a basis on which to argue a case for God's existence with you. And my point is that if you have to first believe in order to believe, there's something broken with that system and there's no point trying to present any argument for it at all! The frustration expressed by him that he can't talk with these hugely wide-spread ways of looking at the world since the rise of the 20th Century shows a couple things: that Christianity doesn't understand the question, let alone how to address it; and that they are hung up on a set of beliefs as the truth (effectively worshipping them) and therefore unwilling to try to understand a different aspect, a different perspective of the world they and everyone else live in - how I define religion as opposed to spirituality, or the pursuit of an understanding with the whole person.

 

So... is this the end of the argument? Has he exhausted what he had to offer and the argument dies and he goes back to his set of doctrines, or will this discussion actually take on some dynamic of exploration? (Tune in same bat-time, same bat-channel tomorrow and find out! )

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Good Morning all must be same bat time and channel again.

Again alot to respond to today and I feel disapointed I havent yet addressed some good posts from earlier. However I am hoping to submit a post later today on Natural law that might help to do so. It seems a common objection is that different people have different morals and consciences. Some of you seem to agree that some are more good than others, as I do, this would point the posibilty of perfect morals and perfect consciences. Some have held this is not the case but hopefully I can address both when I post later.

 

But first to the hypothetical question that was posed at the end of the day yesterday. I commented to my wife last night while thinking about it quoting Ned Flanders...."As far as melon scratchers go, it's a honey doo diddly." But after a nights rest things were clearer and I came up with this reply....

 

 

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?"

 

A question before I flip the switch. Have the five on the one rail been convicted of genocide while the one tied to the other is a doctor who claims to have a cure for cancer?

 

Again intent and circumstance can only cause the act to be more good or bad, not make a good act bad.

 

It is tantamount to asking "Is stealing as little as I need to feed my starving family good, While stealing as much as I can to feed my family better?" Stealing is wrong. Stealing as little as you need is wrong. Stealing more is worse. Saving someone from impending doom is good. Saving as many as you think you can is better.

 

Abandoning the switch, jumping infront of the train in an attempt to gain control and stop the train saving every one (even if some might consider it to be suicide) would be good because the object, the moral act itself is to save.

Abandoning the switch, jumping infront of the train in an attempt to free oneself from the cumbersome duty of posing ethical questions to oneself and wash one's hands of responsability would be bad because the object, the moral act itself is suicide.

 

peace; Dear Dogma

[SWIM]

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?"

 

A question before I flip the switch. Have the five on the one rail been convicted of genocide while the one tied to the other is a doctor who claims to have a cure for cancer?

 

See this is an ultra simple question to answer. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. The original 5 need not even be convicted of anything, they can be "nice" people. But if it is known for sure the doctor "really" can cure cancer, then by hitting the 5 you save millions. Straight and simple, the needs of the many out weight the needs of the one or the few.

[Legion]

... I am hoping to submit a post later today on Natural law...

I look forward to that Dear Dogma.

[Kuroikaze]

Again intent and circumstance can only cause the act to be more good or bad, not make a good act bad.

 

You are still doing it, this is just moral subjectivism dressed up in moral absolutes. Moral absolutes do not allow for "more good" or "more bad," To claim that such exists is a denial of absolutes if you ask me.

 

If you are claiming to believe in moral absolutes stick to your guns, don't water it down by reintroducing moral grey areas.

[Ouroboros]

Well this is just it. It's exactly like saying if you don't believe in the supernatural than I don't have a basis on which to argue a case for God's existence with you. And my point is that if you have to first believe in order to believe, there's something broken with that system and there's no point trying to present any argument for it at all!

Amen to that. And that's what they call a "leap of faith." It's so fascinating to see Christians coming here and over and over again trying to prove that their faith is valid. But why? If it's a leap of faith, then argument and logic can't be the reason. It's not a leap of logic, or leap of argument, or leap of rational thought, it's leap of faith! It means, the logic and reason only go so far, only to one point, and then one has to jump over rationality, reason, and logic, and make a statement of faith. So there has to be a gap. Then why do they keep on trying to make it something else? I actually respect a Christian who say he believes just because he does and without reason more than the ones that claim they have a reason for it. At least that's honest.

 

The frustration expressed by him that he can't talk with these hugely wide-spread ways of looking at the world since the rise of the 20th Century shows a couple things: that Christianity doesn't understand the question, let alone how to address it; and that they are hung up on a set of beliefs as the truth (effectively worshipping them) and therefore unwilling to try to understand a different aspect, a different perspective of the world they and everyone else live in - how I define religion as opposed to spirituality, or the pursuit of an understanding with the whole person.

That's very true. I think I've seen some theologians addressing this problem. (Like Spong) How can they respond to the world correctly if they don't even understand the questions?

 

So... is this the end of the argument? Has he exhausted what he had to offer and the argument dies and he goes back to his set of doctrines, or will this discussion actually take on some dynamic of exploration? (Tune in same bat-time, same bat-channel tomorrow and find out! )

He has hardly exhausted his energy. Many Christians (and many from other beliefs or unbeliefs) have an obsession to be right... I'm sure a lot of people think that of me! But it's natural. We try to figure out how the world works, and we create a schema for it. When it doesn't fit we get frustrated, or if it's challenged and we see there are problems with it, we get sometimes a bit passionate about it. But the problem probably is that no one of us can claim our "schema" of the world ever to be the right one or complete. So we are doomed to always meet challenges and be frustrated, because we're human.

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Go to dictionary.com pick any definition for nominalism here is the first...

 

 

(in medieval philosophy) the doctrine that general or abstract words do not stand for objectively existing entities and that universals are no more than names assigned to them.

 

This is the only person I have said I cannot dialogue with. Han has admitted to retaining it. Do you?

 

A dictionary definition means nothing to a nominalist. Does it mean nothing to you?

 

Of course we all know (including Han) that he is not really a nominalist or else he would'nt be excited about his new avatar being a beer drinking deamon, his avatar would be a black screen. Actually, I don't think he would have an avatar at all, I don't think he'd be doing much dialoguing with anyone and his 17,000 plus posts would not exist. Sorry Han you will have to renounce your Lordship over the universe of nominalism if you wish to remain and dialogue with anyone not just me. You may however choose to remain a part-time nominalist (created in the image and likeness perhaps??? ) picking and choosing which dictionary definitions you care to retain.

 

I have accused no one here including Han of being one, I suggested it seemed that way when he was unwilling to accept what I believed to be common held ground on terms like right and wrong, good and bad. I would only do the same later in dialogue with anyone else that was showing the same tendancies.

 

Although most of my posts will of neccesity be of a serious nature so you won't see alot of emoticons. I'm gonna beat you all to the punch showing that I can accept a post in jest as I hope Han will from me by saying I believe this last post of mine is a

is a Dogma doo diddly

 

(note please follow sarcasm for jest with a smilie to avoid misinterpretation something I myself neglected to do with my falacious farewell to Han...Sorry Han the post was meant in jest)

 

back later with natural law as promised peace Jacques

[Antlerman]

Good Morning all must be same bat time and channel again.

 

Some of you seem to agree that some are more good than others, as I do, this would point the posibilty of perfect morals and perfect consciences.

I think it's in this that the crux of the matter lays. Because one aspires towards a ideal, it does not mean the ideal is something that exists in reality. It's like a self-imposed carrot on a stick we hold out in front of us that we use to trick ourselves into trying to attain it. It's a psychological tool that we create that we make believable enough for us to be motivated by it. This is all good and fine, so long as no one threatens our doing this by pointing out that it's a self-created illusion. At which point, you have a reactionary response from those using their imaginary carrot, insisting and arguing to defend to themselves the legitimacy of the belief in the carrot. The carrot now become the Carrot, with a capital C, and all other forms of created motivators must be stamped out! All this to make the believers in the Carrot feel good about their use of the sacred Carrot.

 

Anyway, perfection is an ideal we of the West create as a goal to attain. It's fictional and has zero evidence as anything real in the universe. There is no perfection in the universe, as far as how we construct that model of motivation. This is a very Western ideal, and not one shared by other cultures, such as the East, where "perfection" is balance. Balance is far more realistic than streets of gold, so to speak. Perfection is a system that works through all of it's "flaws". Death is good. Death is good because it gives life opportunity to continue. Yet the Christian version of Perfection would have death as the enemy, rejecting the balance of life that works.

 

So is the Western ideal of "perfection", healthy? That's the real question that should be asked in ascribing values of "good" or "bad". Honestly, the way I see it, the question should be asked "What works best towards balance within the natural system". That's what should be called "good". Good in this case would be "imperfection" as evaluated by the Western Christian.

 

So no, this doesn't point to "perfect morals and perfect consciences", as you would mean that mean.

 

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.

Once in awhile, subtle clues pop out in people's word choices to me that raise suspicions as to possible prejudices. "Mad philosopher"? Why not "Predator Priest"? I've not known philosophers to be the diabolic villain in scenarios before, whereas priests on the other hand (who have lots of power and corruption) certainly do fit that role-type of a villain, both in fiction stories and real history.

 

Just a curious observation, that's all.

 

 

Again intent and circumstance can only cause the act to be more good or bad, not make a good act bad.

The act itself is nothing. It's simply an act. Our evaluation of it supplies a value relative to us, as to it "goodness" or "badness". There is no inherent "value" in something outside our evaluation of it.

[Ouroboros]

Your post got me thinking, isn't it so that many times when we aspire to something and work our way there, and when we get there it isn't exactly the way we though of it when we started, but we still like the outcome, and then we say: "this is what I wanted all the time, from the start." In other words, when we have all the answers, somehow we claim that's what we planned and that's what was the purpose, but if we had a record of our first intent we would see it isn't the same. Somehow, it doesn't matter which outcome we get, we always look back and consider it to be the first and final purpose, even though we didn't really know it. We're fooling ourselves to attribute purpose to a non-purpose chain of events, and we do this because we want to make some sense out of life.

 

DD,

 

I thought you couldn't discuss with a "nomalist" like me (a label you gave me, btw, and I never said I truly subscribe to), so why bring me up again? You like debating with me, even though you know you can't (according to your own declaration)? Or maybe you're just a masochist?

 

If you want a label on me, you can use the one I have: pragmatheist. It's a label Antlerman and I invented a while back. It doesn't stand for anything really, but it can be interpreted as: pragmatic atheist, or, pragmatic theist (if you so want). So I'm about thinking about the world in a practical way. What evidence fits with what theory. My view is too complicated for you to understand, because it's too simple. The first step is to do what Descartes did. Doubt yourself. Doubt your belief. Doubt everything. Hey, he was Christian wasn't he? So he must have been absolutely right. Yes? No? Maybe? I don't buy into absolute principles, but try, test, and re-test my own views and knowledge... constantly. And the things that works, those are the things that are more likely fitting for my life, and for my understanding of reality. To incorporate your belief or your God in my life, would be the same as heresy, since I would believe in YOU as the prophet and messenger of God, and I would be believing in your version of God. What would happen if I did copy your belief to 100%, and then next year you tell me that you have changed your mind a little about God's nature? Should I change my belief according to your belief, or should I keep on believing in the God you gave to me in the beginning? Who is right, if you change your mind, even the slightest? You would be wrong then, or you're wrong now, you can't be right both now and the future if there's even the slightest difference in your view. So which God should I believe in? My personal belief based on my own experience and thought? Or Your current belief?

[Guest Dear Dogma]

We all feel we know right from wrong even if sometimes we disagree,

 

Natural law is a fascinating subject to me it is the idea that there is a law written in our hearts, it is a law, discoverable by our own reason, which is part of our very nature. This part of our rational capability is called our conscience, which not only discovers what is right and wrong but amazingly encourages us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. Hardwired as it were to seek good over evil.

 

An important first step is to realize that the conscience guides only, and can only guide what it has considered. So we become more consciencous as we consider more and more things that are right and wrong. Pointing out here of course we are free to supress this prompting, as a matter of fact all of us do, some with greater frequency than others.

 

As creatures we are subject to certain biological laws just as animals, we need air to breath, and food to eat, and we all fall if dropped, we have no choice to disobey these laws. But man is different from animals in one way, uniquely possesing intellect, rationality, conscience he also has a law unique to his nature, which not only are animals not subject to....neither is man.

 

Interestingly if we were to examine the race of mankind as under a microsope we would see little sign of this law existing at all. Most people, Christians included choose to ignore their conscience with regularity if they see it as advantagious to themselves.

 

This un-explainable sensation of somehow feeling bad when we know we've done wrong, and good when we know we've done right, is the law written in our hearts. It is Natural law, and it was an important aspect of me returning to the faith. The first three chapters of C.S. Lewis' "mere Christianity" cover it well. For a more in depth and profound study I recomend "Natural Law, reflections on theory and practice" Jacques Maritain quick bio....Maritain was a strong defender of a natural law ethics. He viewed ethical norms as being rooted in human nature. For Maritain the natural law is known primarily, not through philosophical argument and demonstration, but rather through "Connaturality". Connatural knowledge is a kind of knowledge by acquaintance. We know the natural law through our direct acquaintance with it in our human experience. Of central importance, is Maritain's argument that natural rights are rooted in the natural law. This was key to his involvement in the drafting of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

 

 

On a personal note;

I'm guessing most here were presented a false Christian faith one based solely on the bible and were told to shun those idolators in rome. I've battled those same "fundies" elsewhere and can feel your pain. I was once myself in the same place you all are right now and rejected Christianity altogether as nonsense. I'm not saying there are'nt parts of the plan that would'nt seem "Religulous" either ( I think I'll wait for the video ) It was a long and difficult road back to the church for me, I tried absolutely every moral and ethical position I could think of against it, and it turned out to be exactly what it claimed to be, infallable when teaching on morals. I did'nt always want to accept it, but in my heart I knew it was right. Don't believe me? Try it.

 

Peace Dear Dogma

[Ouroboros]

So what in nature declares that "Humans" are the ultimate good in the Universe (or even just on Earth)? Do we discover that we are the meaning and purpose of the Universe, because ... of what?

 

Right and wrong is mostly about how we treat each other. Without humans, there wouldn't be human morality, would it? Or does nature somehow declare human morality as an absolute, underlying law of nature, so even if there would evolve a new species on another planet, their morality wouldn't be Xyz morality, but somehow they would discover that Human morality is the all good for the whole universe? How would they know their morality was a Human morality, unless they could travel to our planet? Are all intelligence and conscious thought the same a human thought? Amazing. We always tend to put ourselves and our species above everyone and everything else. We're a prideful animal.

 

Actually, when you talk about Natural Law, it sounds to me it's pretty much based on this principle: fair game. That was easy, wasn't it? That's your absolute law. No need of a divine source for that, it just makes pure sense, for survival.

[Hineni]

Sorry, this post is really tit-for-tat, but humans are animals, DD.

 

Just had to say.

 

Hineni

[chefranden]

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?"

 

A question before I flip the switch. Have the five on the one rail been convicted of genocide while the one tied to the other is a doctor who claims to have a cure for cancer?

 

Again intent and circumstance can only cause the act to be more good or bad, not make a good act bad.

 

Although you probably didn't notice you just showed that morals are relative. Relative to what? To the circumstances and your moral training -- however that went down. Morals cannot be absolute if only because an absolute cannot account for all circumstances. If in the field of transportation you could make an absolutely smooth highway, and absolutely round wheels you wouldn't need suspensions on cars. The suspensions makes up for the lack of absolutes in transportation. Relative morals make up for lack of absolutes in the field of ethics. Since your God did not supply an absolutely good world (how could he via evolution?) evolution had to select for moral ambiguity.

 

You say stealing is absolutely bad and then allow it to be mitigated. Mitigated relative to what? The circumstances, of course. You can't on the one hand argue absolute and then give relative examples to support your argument. That is tantamount, dare I say, to nominalism.

[chefranden]

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.

Once in awhile, subtle clues pop out in people's word choices to me that raise suspicions as to possible prejudices. "Mad philosopher"? Why not "Predator Priest"? I've not known philosophers to be the diabolic villain in scenarios before, whereas priests on the other hand (who have lots of power and corruption) certainly do fit that role-type of a villain, both in fiction stories and real history.

 

Just a curious observation, that's all.

 

Ah, but a very good observation that cuts to the heart of the discussion. How do I know that philosophers are bad? Because they think something other than I think. How do I know that priests are good? They think like I think. Another straight forward example of relative morals -- morals relative to what I think.

[chefranden]

Go to dictionary.com pick any definition for nominalism here is the first...

 

 

(in medieval philosophy) the doctrine that general or abstract words do not stand for objectively existing entities and that universals are no more than names assigned to them.

 

This is the only person I have said I cannot dialogue with. Han has admitted to retaining it. Do you?

 

A dictionary definition means nothing to a nominalist. Does it mean nothing to you?

 

This is just not germane to the discussion. No one is arguing for un-dictionary definitions except you i.e. absolute is not so absolute; it is sort of wishy washy but still absolute. Phooey!