Morality and the Bible (quote, Lute, Hang)

cardboard adolescent · 12-02-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Not to beat the metaphor to death, but there's nothing in the meaning of the word "line" that says it has to be straight. That's why the term "a straight line" exists, to clarify that one is talking about a line which is straight.

There's a difference between a line and a curve.

anticipation · 12-02-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

What does it matter if it's learned or if we're born with it? The fact is it's there.

the whole argument you were trying to make is that empathy is innate, meaning we were born with it. i just asserted that i didn't believe that.

streetwaves · 12-02-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Here's the thing: if there's no such thing as straightness, there's no such thing as lines. The very conception of a line invokes the abstract principle of straightness. Likewise, morality without absolutes collapses on itself and becomes an empty retroactive justification.

Again, there is no comparison between morality and straightness. One is based on a principle of absoluteness, and the other is, at most, subject to situational absolutes. By claiming that God is needed to "ground" our idea of morality, you suggest that morality is totally absolute, and it's not. It's completely relative to the situation, and is governed completely by our evolving sense of what is "right" and "wrong", based on past experiences.

**Janszoon** · 12-02-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaleidoscope..

Youre right..empathy is not a foundation in itself..i cant understand why someone would think it could ever be..and there must be a 'straight line' for us to go by.we cant just make our own 'straight lines' and then change them when that 'straight line' doesnt fit the situation. There has to be an absolute straight line somewhere..

I hear a lot of "must be"s and "have to be"s in this paragraph with nothing backing them up. What are your reasons for believing things must be the way you describe?

**Janszoon** · 12-02-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

the whole argument you were trying to make is that empathy is innate, meaning we were born with it. i just asserted that i didn't believe that.

That's actually not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that empathy is found in the overwhelming majority people.

**Janszoon** · 12-02-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

It matters because if it's learned, it can just as easily be unlearned.

And?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

There's a difference between a line and a curve.

You mean there's a difference between a curved line and a straight line.

kaleidoscope.. · 12-02-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by streetwaves

Again, there is no comparison between morality and straightness. One is based on a principle of absoluteness, and the other is, at most, subject to situational absolutes. By claiming that God is needed to "ground" our idea of morality, you suggest that morality is totally absolute, and it's not. It's completely relative to the situation, and is governed completely by our evolving sense of what is "right" and "wrong", based on past experiences.

Explain to me how morality is completly relative to the situation?

kaleidoscope.. · 12-02-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I hear a lot of "must be"s and "have to be"s in this paragraph with nothing backing them up. What are your reasons for believing things must be the way you describe?

because of (......) there must be (.....)

If there is no basis for morality to go by (empathy is not a good enough basis) then there cant be any morality at all...and everything isnt either good or bad. and morality cant change because then it wouldnt be morality..

cardboard adolescent · 12-02-2008, 07:16 PM

yay somebody's agreeing with me

**Janszoon** · 12-02-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaleidoscope..

because of (......) there must be (.....)

If there is no basis for morality to go by (empathy is not a good enough basis) then there cant be any morality at all...and everything isnt either good or bad. and morality cant change because then it wouldnt be morality..

You're doing the same thing again. You claim that "empathy is not a good enough basis" without providing your reasoning for making that claim. Obviously, since I have proposed the idea that empathy does make for a good foundation, I disagree with your claim. I'm not going to simply start agreeing with you simply because you assert that "empathy is not a good enough basis". You need to back that up with a reason why you think that if you want to attempt to convince me that your position is correct.

12-02-2008, 07:16 PM	#99 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	yay somebody's agreeing with me