Morality in of Itself.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 252
#151
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe that morality is consistent subjectively, but objectively this would be an inconsistency because you're looking at a larger picture. This is why it is so important to specify the lens or scope intended to be captured within our perspectives.
#152
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that morality is consistent subjectively, but objectively this would be an inconsistency because you're looking at a larger picture.
The larger picture remains in the afterlife because life on earth is temporary but death is forever, and within that consistency is those that are judged good in this life goes to heaven and those that are judged bad goes to hell, sounds pretty consistent to me.
#153
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I was speaking of the larger picture relative to a subjective view being the objective view, but the term "larger picture" could also be used as you've demonstrated. It's important to consider the context in which the phrase is applied.
#154
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
It's interesting how you pointed out that within inconsistency there can be consistency. Some view that people go to heaven inconsistently based on their actions, yet simultaneously others can say God Judges individuals consistently between heaven or hell. It is in this way that consistent and inconsistent must refer to something. In the first case it was their actions judging their afterlife, and in the second it was whether humans always go to heaven or hell. This demonstrates how everything can be considered consistent in one aspect while simultaneously inconsistent in another aspect, demonstrating that nothing is inherently consistent.
#155
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
In the first case it was their actions judging their afterlife, and in the second it was whether humans always go to heaven or hell.
What’s the difference?
#156
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
The first example shows their actions judging the afterlife are inconsistent as one person doing an action gets a result and another person doing the same action a different result, yet the second example shows how there can still be seen a consistency as all humans go to either heaven or hell.
#157
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
The first example shows their actions judging the afterlife are inconsistent as one person doing an action gets a result and another person doing the same action a different result
I don’t believe this, I believe the same actions warrants the same results.
#158
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Tarik.


What's the difference.

The difference is hypothetical.


#159
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
I don't claim to know for certain that any of which I said to be true, it is merely speculation based on the religious text itself, which I presume would be believable for people who believe in the religion.
#160
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that morality is consistent subjectively, but objectively this would be an inconsistency because you're looking at a larger picture.
Then I guess that begs the question, what makes it objective?
#161
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to an individual being treated consistently by that individual's moral standard given to them by God, which is consistent for that individual. However, the larger picture includes there are many different individuals, which are treated by various different moral structures as demonstrated in the Bible. This shows the inconsistency of morality from the broader lens, I referred to this as the objective view, demonstrating how morality is inconsistent between individuals.

In essence, morality is consistent subjectively, and inconsistent intersubjectively.
#162
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I appreciate how your careful questioning has helped me deepen my understanding of morality. I'm certain this will better prepare me to explain morality in the future.
#163
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Which is the most moral?

Killing a Muslim terrorist.

Or not killing a Muslim terrorist.


And what would the Muslim terrorists moral viewpoint be?


And who is actually the immoral terrorist?
#164
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Which is the most moral?
Killing a Muslim terrorist.
Or not killing a Muslim terrorist.
Based on utilitarianism it is better to kill an active Muslim terrorist, but it may be different given an alternative moral structure.

And what would the Muslim terrorist's moral viewpoint be?
I would imagine it is quite similar to the Christian theology, where we must put our faith in God and do no matter what he asks. The only difference is what they are commanded in their Bible.

And who is actually the immoral terrorist?
Terrorist: defined as a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Based on utilitarianism I would consider the Muslims to be immoral, and the illegal violence they display shows only they could be considered the terrorist. However, given an alternative moral structure it may be different, but they would still be considered the terrorist.
#165
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
However, the larger picture includes there are many different individuals, which are treated by various different moral structures as demonstrated in the Bible. 
How do you know The Bible is the foundation of objective morality?
#166
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I already said I don't know for certain:
"I don't claim to know for certain that any of which I said to be true, it is merely speculation based on the religious text itself, which I presume would be believable for people who believe in the religion."

I do believe it is a reasonable assumption to make for most people. Where would you suggest looking otherwise?
#167
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I do believe it is a reasonable assumption to make for most people.
Most people huh? Aren’t you the one that said

I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator
#168
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I said I do not believe cultural norm is much of an indicator, I did not say the majority of people. Cultural norm fluctuates, religious text has consistently been idolised by the majority of people throughout recorded history and various cultures, which I believe to demonstrate significance.
#169
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I said I do not believe cultural norm is much of an indicator, I did not say the majority of people.
Any culture concerning the majority of people is normal, anything significantly less would be abnormal.
#170
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I said earlier that cultural norms fluctuate; this refers to the present of a given time. I said I believe anything concerning the majority of people that have consistently idolised throughout recorded history demonstrates significance through its consistency. There is no further explanation I can provide. What are your thoughts?
#171
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Cultural norm fluctuates, religious text has consistently been idolised by the majority of people throughout recorded history and various cultures, which I believe to demonstrate significance.
I’m not so sure about that, many people who claim to be religious have reservations about The Bible, not to mention there’s many other religious texts as well.
#172
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific. There are definitely some underlying commonalities that extend to just about all religions.
#173
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific. 
Then why do you only quote The Bible when referring to inconsistencies?
#174
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe everything can be viewed as consistent and inconsistent given different scopes.
#175
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe everything can be viewed as consistent and inconsistent given different scopes.
Care to elaborate on that?
#176
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
One person can act consistently within an hour, and inconsistent within their life.
A person may be consistent within their life, but inconsistent with humanity.
An orange may have a consistent flavor in one slice, but inconsistent considering its whole.

In each example I demonstrate how one thing, given a scope, can be consistent, while in contrast a different scope makes it inconsistent.
I'm trying to clearly demonstrate that consistency and inconsistency are relative to the reference, and nothing is inherently consistent or inconsistent.
#177
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe everything can be viewed as consistent and inconsistent given different scopes.
That doesn’t explain why you only reference The Bible.
#178
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Well, that wasn't what you asked. I have been referencing the Bible since it often is associated with an objective morality.
Why do you think me referencing the Bible for moral questions is significant?
#179
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Why do you think me referencing the Bible for moral questions is significant?
Because you said

I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific.
Last I checked The Bible is pretty specific.
#180
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. 

So I'm not sure that semantics is an indicator of morality.

Neither am I sure that one sided legitimisation of military action is an indicator of morality.

In us and them scenarios morality is assumed by each side, and therefore quite clearly demonstrates that as a species we have no shared moral constant.