changed Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is? If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality. In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma Alma 42:13 ...Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. I suppose Alma 42 suggests the laws of justice are more powerful than g-d. But then, nothing in this world is really just - we all hopefully experience mercy where we fall short, and we all become victims at some point and do not receive our just rewards for some little bit of work we do - it is not just that some are born in poverty ad others are born in wealth, that some are born in oppressive regimes... So what is the point of Christianity in an unjust world? Are we blessed for following the commandments? Consider how Jesus' apostles died... was this their just reward for a life of service? http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/ Let's say someone is LGBT - what is their Christian duty? Is some kind of self-flagellation required? how does this prepare anyone for heaven again? If I want to learn how to do something - how to change the oil in my car, or how to play a musical instrument, how to bake a cake - what is the best way to learn? Should I spend hours watching mistakes - spend months and years studying bad examples and experiencing the horror of food poisoning/car accidents etc. created from mistakes? Or would the faster more humane way to learn something be working with an expert - studying the correct way of doing things? If you want to learn how to love, what is the best way to learn this? Do you learn about love through isolation / abusive relationships / fake forced obligatory relationships etc.? We are supposed to think, we are supposed to be reasonable. We are NOT supposed to follow imperfect leaders or trust in the arm of flesh - at some point everyone has to stand on their own feet - have their own testimony - define their own belief system - rely on their own light - Perhaps part of g-d's test for everyone from all faiths is, are you just going to follow what some guy tells you? or are you able to stand on your own two feet? Would you refuse to comply with something that is not just? or are you the type to just mindlessly follow the leader? Judas was an apotle - just because someone is called, or some institution decides to start some practice - does not mean it comes from g-d. What is just? What is merciful? Study the scriptures, pray about it, what is actually commanded? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html How many of g-d's billions of children were blessed to be personally led by a prophet so they did not have think for themselves? ... a very small percentage it seems... so if g-d is just, and merciful, and wants the best for us - and we can look around and see what is happening - what is happening is what is best for us if g-d is merciful - and what is best for us is dealing with thousands of different religious organizations and so very many imperfect human leaders, so what are we supposed to surmise from this? The only way I can see it as being merciful and just is if the point is to force everyone to think for themselves, force everyone to become self-reliant, force everyone to choose principles of justice and mercy. Choice: a) follow your own conscience, reason out what is just, merciful, loving, prove that you are strong enough to stand up for principles regardless of "authority" figures etc. b) choose loyalty to imperfect humans - choose not to think for yourself, choose to let go of all personal responsibility - take no ownership of their mind - and just "follow the leader"... rely on others to tell you what to do and try to push all your sins onto them - "I was just doing what I was told to do" As for me - if it is just, anything that is virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy - then great, count me in! If it is something that is not just, not merciful → I don't care who you are, you can count me out. Principles are more important to me than loyalty to some organization. You think g-d commanded this or that?? If it is not just or merciful or loving, sorry, but I do not think g-d commanded it. Edited May 3, 2018 by changed
california boy Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Why does everything need to be universalizable? Gay people will always be a small minority of the population. It's not a question of straight people entering into marriage with someone of the same gender and so the human race dies out. It's a question of what to do if you're gay. Gay marriage is the moral option if you're gay. Straight marriage is the moral option if you're straight. Simple, and it passes Jesus' test of "good fruits". Other options for gay people (marry against your orientation or stay single) don't usually lead to good outcomes, just as those same options wouldn't lead to good outcomes for straight people either. Morality doesn't change, but our moral awareness changes and evolves all the time. Hopefully we awaken to a fuller understanding of morality over time. This is a really great statement for why gay marriage is good on moral grounds. Obviously the other options for gays was not working out all that well. Can anyone point to a way of living their lives as a gay person that is better than finding a person to share their life with?That is so fundamental to the way humans are wired. Religious beliefs that celibacy is a better, more healthy way to live flies in the face not only of what we know about the importance of companionship, but flies in the face of their own life experience. How many Mormons do you know that desires to never get married? I wish every Mormon that is against gay marriage would carefully consider what you wrote here. 2
mfbukowski Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Why does everything need to be universalizable? Gay people will always be a small minority of the population. It's not a question of straight people entering into marriage with someone of the same gender and so the human race dies out. It's a question of what to do if you're gay. Gay marriage is the moral option if you're gay. Straight marriage is the moral option if you're straight. Simple, and it passes Jesus' test of "good fruits". Other options for gay people (marry against your orientation or stay single) don't usually lead to good outcomes, just as those same options wouldn't lead to good outcomes for straight people either. Morality doesn't change, but our moral awareness changes and evolves all the time. Hopefully we awaken to a fuller understanding of morality over time. I subscribe to the Kantian view of morality including the Categorical Imperative. For morality to be in any way rational, it must be justified by universal rules. It's complicated. This is probably the shortest possible answer- for the rest read the article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Quote Thus, at the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect. Quote 5. The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature Kant’s first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (G 4:421). O’Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1980, 1989), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and we will follow their basic outline: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible. The easiest way to explain it, and to show how it is enshrined in human reason is to reduce it to what your mom might say: "What if everybody did that"?
Gray Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I subscribe to the Kantian view of morality including the Categorical Imperative. For morality to be in any way rational, it must be justified by universal rules. It's complicated. This is probably the shortest possible answer- for the rest read the article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ The easiest way to explain it, and to show how it is enshrined in human reason is to reduce it to what your mom might say: "What if everybody did that"? Hmm, I'm not sure I can buy that. Specialization is part of what has allowed us to thrive. Not everyone can or should be doctors, or philosophers, or farmers. Not everyone can or should be Mormon or Catholic or Buddhist. In any case, gay marriage can certainly be interpreted as being closely analogous to straight marriage. Same idea, different gender mix. Same moral standards for both. As Daniel said, it's all just "marriage". So what if everyone got married? Do you believe that polygamy is immoral? That certainly wouldn't work out well if everyone did it. Edited May 3, 2018 by Gray 1
changed Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The easiest way to explain it, and to show how it is enshrined in human reason is to reduce it to what your mom might say: "What if everybody did that"? Many preach it is wrong to follow the crowd - I actually think that crowds usually are traveling in a good direction. Want to find a good restaurant? follow the crowd! want to listen to some really good music? follow the crowd! want to stand on the shoulders of giants? to work in a team? experience synergy? be united in one heart and one mind? ... isnt' the point of love and unity coming together with everyone in a big crowd? If on average crowds were going in wrong directions, humanity would have killed itself off - would have wiped itself from the face of the earth. That we have survived, that we still exist - it means the majority of people through the majority of time have been doing things that were good for our survival. Most crowds are good to follow. Most people are amazing, decent, good human beings. Isolation is evil. Judging everyone around you as "going in the wrong direction", thinking you know better than everyone else, ??? really?? I am a mother, and a teacher. I tell my young students to follow good crowds... yes, we discuss risky shift phenomenon - but for the most part, learn from others, be a team player, don't isolate yourself - join together with the group, be part of something bigger than yourself, join the crowd!! Edited May 3, 2018 by changed 2
mfbukowski Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Well, it comes from Plato, and you know how us Catholics love that Greek philosophy That contradicts what the other poster said: that whatever God decides is right and his decision makes it right. You are saying that God always chooses the right, but his choice does not create the right. I'm wondering if there is a Mormon consensus on this. I ask because you have a very unique view of Mormonism so I'm never quite sure if your answer is what the majority of Mormons believe If I understand you correctly, are you saying that homosexual has been against morality because it doesn't help the species survive? Two sides of the same coin. If we decide to eat healthfully in a sense we are accepting a law we have created for ourselves- Mark now eats healthfully. I can break that law I have created to determine my own behavior or not. On the other by accepting the principle that a law for "healthful eating" exists, our taking on that law is also observing a law we have not created. That is a kind of "meta-law". So we all both make "New Years Resolutions" for ourselves- creating new laws for us, but those are almost always connected to a meta-law of some kind. This is called "self determinination" Clearly we have this story of the "Council of the Gods" and this idea that God himself was once a man. And don't let anybody tell you that is not doctrinal. That means he had a body like ours and learned principles like ours. God does not create planets OR morality - according to the story- "ex nihilo" but organizes matter using existing laws both those of physics and morality. There is a phrase known by all LDS - "For that is the way Father gained His knowledge". God Himself gained knowledge and continues to progress through his children. Again, it is like a diet. There are universal laws of what healthful eating is and we are free to accept those laws or reject them. What ever we decide, we have "determined" our own destiny (self-determination) The view is one of positive liberty vs negative liberty- as seen for example by Isaiah Berlin http://faculty.www.umb.edu/steven.levine/courses/Fall 2015/What is Freedom Writings/Berlin.pdf Every good liberal knows that freedom is not innate but created by laws. That is why liberals love universal health care for example- freedom is the acceptance of laws one makes or accepts for himself We have individual liberty/agency to make laws for ourselves which are tied to meta-laws or to break them all and be slaves to our passions. Conservatives stress negative liberty and liberals stress positive liberty through the making of law. Every Democrat loves new laws which supposedly "create freedom" from hunger, sickness, poverty and every other ailment known to man banned forever by legislation. THAT is creating freedom by making laws. So the whole argument from the "other poster" is just semantics. I have not read it nor do I wish to. The whole idea of "Self-Discipline" is the same essentially as "self-determination". Liberty through determinism. And no I am not saying that homsexuals are not self disciplined. This is a philosophical notion about morality- not about behavior. Edited May 3, 2018 by mfbukowski
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: "So the whole argument from the "other poster" is just semantics. I have not read it nor do I wish to. "
Jeanne Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 49 minutes ago, changed said: Many preach it is wrong to follow the crowd - I actually think that crowds usually are traveling in a good direction. Want to find a good restaurant? follow the crowd! want to listen to some really good music? follow the crowd! want to stand on the shoulders of giants? to work in a team? experience synergy? be united in one heart and one mind? ... isnt' the point of love and unity coming together with everyone in a big crowd? If on average crowds were going in wrong directions, humanity would have killed itself off - would have wiped itself from the face of the earth. That we have survived, that we still exist - it means the majority of people through the majority of time have been doing things that were good for our survival. Most crowds are good to follow. Most people are amazing, decent, good human beings. Isolation is evil. Judging everyone around you as "going in the wrong direction", thinking you know better than everyone else, ??? really?? I am a mother, and a teacher. I tell my young students to follow good crowds... yes, we discuss risky shift phenomenon - but for the most part, learn from others, be a team player, don't isolate yourself - join together with the group, be part of something bigger than yourself, join the crowd!! I so admire you!
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, changed said: Many preach it is wrong to follow the crowd - I actually think that crowds usually are traveling in a good direction. Want to find a good restaurant? follow the crowd! want to listen to some really good music? follow the crowd! want to stand on the shoulders of giants? to work in a team? experience synergy? be united in one heart and one mind? ... isnt' the point of love and unity coming together with everyone in a big crowd? If on average crowds were going in wrong directions, humanity would have killed itself off - would have wiped itself from the face of the earth. That we have survived, that we still exist - it means the majority of people through the majority of time have been doing things that were good for our survival. Most crowds are good to follow. Most people are amazing, decent, good human beings. Isolation is evil. Judging everyone around you as "going in the wrong direction", thinking you know better than everyone else, ??? really?? I am a mother, and a teacher. I tell my young students to follow good crowds... yes, we discuss risky shift phenomenon - but for the most part, learn from others, be a team player, don't isolate yourself - join together with the group, be part of something bigger than yourself, join the crowd!! Generally when the "follow the crowd" proverb is used, it is in connection with some decidedly negative or disreputable action. So while there is merit to what you say here, I don't think it is the sort of thing most people have in mind when they condemn the urge to "follow the crowd." Edited May 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Eek! Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: Sort of, I write and edit in a corporate environment for a living and write a little on the side for fun. Well I can't begin to tell you the number of times I'm quick-skimming a thread and have to slam on the brakes to get caught up on the latest hellish, slithering, mutatious... thing.
Jeanne Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Generally when the "follow the crowd" proverb is used, it is connection with some decidedly negative or disreputable action. So while there is merit to what you say here, I don't think it is the sort of most people have in mind when they condemn the urge to "follow the crowd." Unless you follow the mormon crowd right?😉
gopher Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 13 hours ago, california boy said: If gopher's statement is true then, what that means is that Mormons over 50 are influenced more by Nickelback than what the church leaders are telling them. Some might find that a bit disturbing. Because the one thing that is clear, support for gay marriage has shifted dramatically amongst Mormons over 50. I also find it alarming that there are Mormons that like Nickelback (who hit it big in the 90's). Imagine Dragons is the actual band in question and are often referred to as the Nickelback of this decade. yes, I'm an east coast music snob.
Jeanne Posted May 3, 2018 Posted May 3, 2018 50 minutes ago, Calm said: I don't like groups. I like songs. I used to buy and entire album...for one song.☺️
nuclearfuels Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 18 hours ago, The Nehor said: Not sure. Just theories. As far as I am aware no revelation has come forth on this point. We can reason our way to guesses but that is not definitive. True. Stands to reason, IMHO anyway, that God and His Ancestry did not infact create morality, gravity, physics, commandments, etc. They simply obey the rules and progress in their own sphere and element after His and Her kind. That's the beautiful part about the potential each of us have
The Nehor Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: True. Stands to reason, IMHO anyway, that God and His Ancestry did not infact create morality, gravity, physics, commandments, etc. They simply obey the rules and progress in their own sphere and element after His and Her kind. That's the beautiful part about the potential each of us have I am not sure reason helps here. I doubt a lot of that.
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 13 hours ago, Daniel2 said: So... if an action "comprises a rule necessary for survival of the species," you're saying that's moral....? In other words, it seems you're suggesting that actions which perpetuate the species---survival of the fittest--the laws and rules of evolution---are comprised within "morality"....? As in... the strongest alpha male taking the wives of the weaker males in the clan/tribe to ensure the fittest offspring possible? Or occasional culling of the weaker members of the tribe who are a drain on resources and don't reproduce anymore...? Or any other number of behaviors that maximize survival of the species by ridding the population of the weak and infertile who are a drain on resources....? The implication behind your statement that "It is not a universalizable principle for all of humanity" seems to suggest that if any given action isn't "a universalizable principle for all humanity", it isn't or can't be "moral".....? An action like... cutting the head off an intoxicated and incapacitated tyrant who may or may not pursue you after you escape the city under cover of darkness and head into the desert....? Or a command to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in order to inherit any given promised land? Or taking additional wives without your own wife's knowledge and while denying doing so publicly? Finally, if it can be demonstrated how homosexuality helps the species to survive, would you then consider it moral....? Ironically, from my perspective, "morality" is a higher law that teaches us to transcend the laws of evolution/survival of the fittest/perpetuate the species no matter the cost. "Morality" asks more of us than to focus soley on actions that allow us to perpetuate our own genome, for evolution doesn't include caring for the sick, afflicted, disabled, etc. Evolution doesn't encourage monogamy. Evolution doesn't focus on charitable giving, unless survival is a side-effect. In my view, morality most often transcends evolution/survival instincts. Look up the word comprises, you don't know what it means. Saying that morality makes up the rules necessary for survival does not imply that all that might contribute to the survival of the species is moral. You have the logic backwards. It is not a bilateral relation. Regarding universifiability read Kant. The post was an answer to a question from someone who would have understood the post, it was not addressed to someone who is unfamiliar with these arguments.
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 12 hours ago, RevTestament said: As the "other poster" please realize that I did not speak as an official spokesman of "Mormon Doctrine." In fact I concluded that "I don't believe you will find any LDS consensus on this issue:" However, I stand by my statement. Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I believe that even God has to uphold the law of justice. If He tries to change that, I believe He would no longer be God. So that is not something that is created by His word. It's more of a law of morality. That God will seek to make us equal through justice - eye for an eye kind of stuff. It is an enduring truth and a foundation of the atonement. Nevertheless, He has given commandments which are not necessarily immutable. He might command a law of inheritance for a polygamous family in Moses' day, but none for Christians. Is that a violation of justice? He commanded animal sacrifices for Israel, but none for Christians. If He commanded the Church not to enter polygamy, and it did, are they sinning? I say yes. They are sinning against Him and His word. If He commanded Israel to go into the Holy Land, and they did not, was He justified in punishing them in the wilderness for 40 years or not? They sinned against Him. He didn't have to command them to enter the land. That was not really a matter of righteousness was it? There are many examples of commandments, which I believe may be temporary. Yet, not to follow them, I believe is sin, because we would be breaking His law, which is at least one definition of sin. Agree!
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 11 hours ago, changed said: Many preach it is wrong to follow the crowd - I actually think that crowds usually are traveling in a good direction. Want to find a good restaurant? follow the crowd! want to listen to some really good music? follow the crowd! want to stand on the shoulders of giants? to work in a team? experience synergy? be united in one heart and one mind? ... isnt' the point of love and unity coming together with everyone in a big crowd? If on average crowds were going in wrong directions, humanity would have killed itself off - would have wiped itself from the face of the earth. That we have survived, that we still exist - it means the majority of people through the majority of time have been doing things that were good for our survival. Most crowds are good to follow. Most people are amazing, decent, good human beings. Isolation is evil. Judging everyone around you as "going in the wrong direction", thinking you know better than everyone else, ??? really?? I am a mother, and a teacher. I tell my young students to follow good crowds... yes, we discuss risky shift phenomenon - but for the most part, learn from others, be a team player, don't isolate yourself - join together with the group, be part of something bigger than yourself, join the crowd!! Good for you! But that has nothing to do with Kant. I was providing a simple analogy that apparently has been misunderstood.
california boy Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Look up the word comprises, you don't know what it means. Saying that morality makes up the rules necessary for survival does not imply that all that might contribute to the survival of the species is moral. You have the logic backwards. It is not a bilateral relation. Regarding universifiability read Kant. The post was an answer to a question from someone who would have understood the post, it was not addressed to someone who is unfamiliar with these arguments. What a condescending statement. Perhaps you should have addressed your remarks to only people familiar with these arguments in a private message.
pogi Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, Gray said: Hmm, I'm not sure I can buy that. Specialization is part of what has allowed us to thrive. Not everyone can or should be doctors, or philosophers, or farmers. Not everyone can or should be Mormon or Catholic or Buddhist. In any case, gay marriage can certainly be interpreted as being closely analogous to straight marriage. Same idea, different gender mix. Same moral standards for both. As Daniel said, it's all just "marriage". So what if everyone got married? Do you believe that polygamy is immoral? That certainly wouldn't work out well if everyone did it. Ya, I think universal morality is impossible to argue for a Mormon. The difficulty with assigning a universal morality is that there are always exceptions to the rule. If the rules are "thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, monogamy, etc", there are exceptions to those rules. What might be moral for one person, may not be moral for another. Take this moral in the Book of Mormon for example - "it is better that one man perish then a whole nation dwindle and perish in unbelief." If morality is universal, then that moral has to be taken as a universal injunction for all, and not just for Nephi in that very specific situation. Nephi believed that God commanded him to kill and therefore we call it moral. The Israelite’s did the same. However, when radical Islam does it, we demand that it is immoral. Morality is purely a matter of faith in my opinion. A person has to follow their own morals/heart, but shouldn't be surprised when they get push back from people with different morals. In the end, God will judge our hearts/morals. Edited May 4, 2018 by pogi 3
The Nehor Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 21 hours ago, changed said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma Alma 42:13 ...Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. I suppose Alma 42 suggests the laws of justice are more powerful than g-d. But then, nothing in this world is really just - we all hopefully experience mercy where we fall short, and we all become victims at some point and do not receive our just rewards for some little bit of work we do - it is not just that some are born in poverty ad others are born in wealth, that some are born in oppressive regimes... So what is the point of Christianity in an unjust world? Are we blessed for following the commandments? Consider how Jesus' apostles died... was this their just reward for a life of service? http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/ Let's say someone is LGBT - what is their Christian duty? Is some kind of self-flagellation required? how does this prepare anyone for heaven again? If I want to learn how to do something - how to change the oil in my car, or how to play a musical instrument, how to bake a cake - what is the best way to learn? Should I spend hours watching mistakes - spend months and years studying bad examples and experiencing the horror of food poisoning/car accidents etc. created from mistakes? Or would the faster more humane way to learn something be working with an expert - studying the correct way of doing things? If you want to learn how to love, what is the best way to learn this? Do you learn about love through isolation / abusive relationships / fake forced obligatory relationships etc.? We are supposed to think, we are supposed to be reasonable. We are NOT supposed to follow imperfect leaders or trust in the arm of flesh - at some point everyone has to stand on their own feet - have their own testimony - define their own belief system - rely on their own light - Perhaps part of g-d's test for everyone from all faiths is, are you just going to follow what some guy tells you? or are you able to stand on your own two feet? Would you refuse to comply with something that is not just? or are you the type to just mindlessly follow the leader? Judas was an apotle - just because someone is called, or some institution decides to start some practice - does not mean it comes from g-d. What is just? What is merciful? Study the scriptures, pray about it, what is actually commanded? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html How many of g-d's billions of children were blessed to be personally led by a prophet so they did not have think for themselves? ... a very small percentage it seems... so if g-d is just, and merciful, and wants the best for us - and we can look around and see what is happening - what is happening is what is best for us if g-d is merciful - and what is best for us is dealing with thousands of different religious organizations and so very many imperfect human leaders, so what are we supposed to surmise from this? The only way I can see it as being merciful and just is if the point is to force everyone to think for themselves, force everyone to become self-reliant, force everyone to choose principles of justice and mercy. Choice: a) follow your own conscience, reason out what is just, merciful, loving, prove that you are strong enough to stand up for principles regardless of "authority" figures etc. b) choose loyalty to imperfect humans - choose not to think for yourself, choose to let go of all personal responsibility - take no ownership of their mind - and just "follow the leader"... rely on others to tell you what to do and try to push all your sins onto them - "I was just doing what I was told to do" As for me - if it is just, anything that is virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy - then great, count me in! If it is something that is not just, not merciful → I don't care who you are, you can count me out. Principles are more important to me than loyalty to some organization. You think g-d commanded this or that?? If it is not just or merciful or loving, sorry, but I do not think g-d commanded it. You font size changes are so offensive that I refuse to read this.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted May 4, 2018 Popular Post Posted May 4, 2018 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Generally when the "follow the crowd" proverb is used, it is in connection with some decidedly negative or disreputable action. So while there is merit to what you say here, I don't think it is the sort of thing most people have in mind when they condemn the urge to "follow the crowd." 5
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 5 hours ago, california boy said: What a condescending statement. Perhaps you should have addressed your remarks to only people familiar with these arguments in a private message. Thanks for the condescending board nannying.
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 On 5/3/2018 at 8:49 AM, Daniel2 said: So... if an action "comprises a rule necessary for survival of the species," you're saying that's moral....? In other words, it seems you're suggesting that actions which perpetuate the species---survival of the fittest--the laws and rules of evolution---are comprised within "morality"....? As in... the strongest alpha male taking the wives of the weaker males in the clan/tribe to ensure the fittest offspring possible? Or occasional culling of the weaker members of the tribe who are a drain on resources and don't reproduce anymore...? Or any other number of behaviors that maximize survival of the species by ridding the population of the weak and infertile who are a drain on resources....? The implication behind your statement that "It is not a universalizable principle for all of humanity" seems to suggest that if any given action isn't "a universalizable principle for all humanity", it isn't or can't be "moral".....? An action like... cutting the head off an intoxicated and incapacitated tyrant who may or may not pursue you after you escape the city under cover of darkness and head into the desert....? Or a command to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in order to inherit any given promised land? Or taking additional wives without your own wife's knowledge and while denying doing so publicly? Finally, if it can be demonstrated how homosexuality helps the species to survive, would you then consider it moral....? Ironically, from my perspective, "morality" is a higher law that teaches us to transcend the laws of evolution/survival of the fittest/perpetuate the species no matter the cost. "Morality" asks more of us than to focus soley on actions that allow us to perpetuate our own genome, for evolution doesn't include caring for the sick, afflicted, disabled, etc. Evolution doesn't encourage monogamy. Evolution doesn't focus on charitable giving, unless survival is a side-effect. In my view, morality most often transcends evolution/survival instincts. Again just to clarify I will state it more simply. Morality MAKES rules necessary for survival of the species. It does not follow from that that all that is needed for survival of the species is therefore moral. Eating is necessary for survival of the species. Eating has nothing to do with morality as long as you're not eating people. On the other hand sometimes eating people may actually be the moral thing to do which is necessary for the survival of the species as has happened in some disastrous situations where dead people were in abundant supply, but other food was not. We are not talking about actions we are talking about principles which make actions moral. Better?
Recommended Posts