Moral Relativism

[M&F]

The post with the offending message was deleted, actually.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

The joke in question, if you're curious, was "Why is a bisexual like an iPad? No orienation lock."

It's insulting because nobody, regardless of their orientation, should be compared to an Apple product.

 

[Aobaru]

^That would be my guess.

Wait... who was he calling douchebags?

 

[Phantom]

Wait... who was he calling douchebags?

I believe it was yours truly, since it was my post he was quoting.

Back on topic. I believe that certain morals hold true in most every culture, like anti-murder or stealing. Though some can vary on what qualifies as murder, i.e. human sacrifice.

 

[hopeandjoy]

The joke in question, if you're curious, was "Why is a bisexual like an iPad? No orienation lock."

It's insulting because nobody, regardless of their orientation, should be compared to an Apple product.

Oh, Karkat, you made the insane urge to track Pwemon down and punch him in the face go away with your humor. How do you do it?

That said, I don't know about you, but I can't wait for the enevatable second account.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Don't really get the joke? Is it that bisexuals aren't gay or straight?
It's a pretty lame joke but I don't get why it's so offensive.

 

[M&F]

Don't really get the joke? Is it that bisexuals aren't gay or straight?
It's a pretty lame joke but I don't get why it's so offensive.

Well, for one, bisexuality is still a sexual orientation.

 

[hopeandjoy]

The impication is that bisexuals are whores. At least, that's what I take from it.

He also already had tons of infraction points, if I remeber correctly, so this could've been the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

 

[Minish]

The impication is that bisexuals are whores. At least, that's what I take from it.

Firstly, could we try to mind our language? And also, could we please stop talking about Pwnemon. Yes, he has been banned; let's try to move on!

 

[Karkat Vantas]

This comic seems relevant.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Well, for one, bisexuality is still a sexual orientation.

I never said it wasn't?

 

[M&F]

I never said it wasn't?

You didn't, the joke did.

 

[leo33wii]

no. most morals are objective, in the sense the people rely on a doctrine or someone to guide them spiritually and not themselves.
so when someone ask about Nazi's beliefs vs. (place name here) is a dumb question. it shows that Nazi's are objective because they get their belief from someone greater than them. the only way to know which party is correct is to ask god himself, and since he doesn't exist, it isn't likely that he will.

 

[leo33wii]

also, you really can't get any morals from a christian god. it's logically impossible.
christians can only know what a sin is or what a sin isn't from what god has to say in the bible.
and according to god and all doctrines, all sins are equal in the eye of god.

i mean really, someone who is saved doesn't stop sinning, they continue to sin. it's more about what happens to the individual, but it doesn't matter because all sins are equal.
from telling a white lie, to stealing, to pedophilia, to rape, and to murder-- all equal in the eyes of god. in other words, you're morally on par with Hitler.

So the argument of being a christian means your a moral example quickly falls apart.
being saved has no meaning.
"being a better human being" means nothing other than sinning less. so when a christian states that they're morally superior, they believe that they're not

 

[Eloi]

the only way to know which party is correct is to ask god himself, and since he doesn't exist, it isn't likely that he will.

Ooor, by rational deduction from sociological observations! I like that answer better, personally. =D

also, you really can't get any morals from a christian god. it's logically impossible.

Well, not directly, yes, but one can parse a sense of personal morals that may have a lot in common with other peoples parsed personal morals if from the same text, thus establishing a moral standard.

christians can only know what a sin is or what a sin isn't from what god has to say in the bible.

Or by applying "Love your neighbor, do onto others as you would have done onto you." as a categorical imperative of mutual rational self-interest between all people.

and according to god and all doctrines, all sins are equal in the eye of god.

Yes, but the above categorical imperative shows that Biblical law has a commandment hierarchy, as the alleged Jesus figure was alleged to say that was the greatest commandment.

i mean really, someone who is saved doesn't stop sinning, they continue to sin. it's more about what happens to the individual, but it doesn't matter because all sins are equal.
from telling a white lie, to stealing, to pedophilia, to rape, and to murder-- all equal in the eyes of god. in other words, you're morally on par with Hitler.

But not your peers.
And the feelings and reactions of your peers matter the most according to Jesus' greatest commandment of extended, mutual self-interest between all people.

So the argument of being a christian means your a moral example quickly falls apart.

This would be true of Jewish morality.

But Christian morality is not based in sin, its based in commandments.
The reason things are sin is because Jesus laid a categorical imperative of mutual self interest, and thus victimizing behaviors are sin.

being saved has no meaning.

Well, at least, it shows you have gratitude for the alleged sacrifice Jesus made to give you a one-way ticket to heaven.

"being a better human being" means nothing other than sinning less.

Which, as shown above, means engaging in less victimizing behaviors, which means they extend mutual self-interest to the human race, and thus act as members of the same race and not as self-serving agents.

Considering I have the same (nontheistic) categorical imperative and view on morality, I would have to agree with that.

so when a christian states that they're morally superior, they believe that they're not

Well, obviously they believe they do if they are asserting as such.

 

[leo33wii]

Ooor, by rational deduction from sociological observations! I like that answer better, personally. =D
which proves that morals are still objective. you're not deciding personally what is right or wrong, but what is socially accepted, which, if it were socially acceptable to rape, "wouldn't be wrong?"
(i put quotes and italics because we both know that isn't the case)


Well, not directly, yes, but one can parse a sense of personal morals that may have a lot in common with other peoples parsed personal morals if from the same text, thus establishing a moral standard.
if i were to ask you what does it mean to be morally righteous, how would you answer?


Or by applying "Love your neighbor, do onto others as you would have done onto you." as a categorical imperative of mutual rational self-interest between all people.
since god claimed to be his own son, this does not prove anything. this "love thy neighbor" is still a statement from god.


Yes, but the above categorical imperative shows that Biblical law has a commandment hierarchy, as the alleged Jesus figure was alleged to say that was the greatest commandment.
except the 10 commandments, or do you ignore those commandments, in case you forgot god claimed the first couple of commands to be most important?

But not your peers.
And the feelings and reactions of your peers matter the most according to Jesus' greatest commandment of extended, mutual self-interest between all people.
but anyone can corrupt that. the nazi's did that, they had a mutual self-interest between all people.

This would be true of Jewish morality.

But Christian morality is not based in sin, its based in commandments.
The reason things are sin is because Jesus laid a categorical imperative of mutual self interest, and thus victimizing behaviors are sin.
right, and what god commands as sin is sin and what isn't... isn't

Well, at least, it shows you have gratitude for the alleged sacrifice Jesus made to give you a one-way ticket to heaven.
so in other words i can rape children and kill women and ruin everyone lives on earth, but by being saved none of that matters because i have excepted that jesus died for our sins

Which, as shown above, means engaging in less victimizing behaviors, which means they extend mutual self-interest to the human race, and thus act as members of the same race and not as self-serving agents.

Considering I have the same (nontheistic) categorical imperative and view on morality, I would have to agree with that.
since the old and the new testament both claim that all sins are viewed equally, being saved means nothing. so "less victimizing behaviors" can't exist because they are all equal.


Well, obviously they believe they do if they are asserting as such.
like i said before, all sins are equal. so how can a christian claim to be morally superior when they can't make that claim in the first place, yet somehow do?

 

[Eloi]

which proves that morals are still objective. you're not deciding personally what is right or wrong, but what is socially accepted, which, if it were socially acceptable to rape, "wouldn't be wrong?"
(i put quotes and italics because we both know that isn't the case)

Well, no, because rape is a victimizing behavior and is thus immoral by my secular standards.

Your argument would be more applicable with Divine Command Theory.

if i were to ask you what does it mean to be morally righteous, how would you answer?

Abstain from victimizing behaviors.
People would probably say the same (abit less concisely.)

since god claimed to be his own son, this does not prove anything. this "love thy neighbor" is still a statement from god.

except the 10 commandments, or do you ignore those commandments, in case you forgot god claimed the first couple of commands to be most important?

Yes, but what I said was claimed to be the most important.
Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Matthew 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment. Matthew 22:39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matthew 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Thus by 36 and 38, there is an established hierarchy where treating others the way you want to be treated is foremost, and by 40, is what all of the other commandments have basis in, and is thus a concise summary of the spirit of the law that supercedes the specific laws in question.

but anyone can corrupt that. the nazi's did that, they had a mutual self-interest between all people.

Um, no.
They believed in war as a way to keep a stable economy and the explicit murder and marginalization of various groups of people. They in no way reflected this, unless you believe the term 'people' can be consciously redefined.

right, and what god commands as sin is sin and what isn't... isn't

But you are missing the point.

The greatest commandments are saying what to do, the other commandments say what not to do.

so in other words i can rape children and kill women and ruin everyone lives on earth, but by being saved none of that matters because i have excepted that jesus died for our sins

First of all: Women and children aren't comparable
Second of all: Yeah, that's why moral definition isn't given by the religion, but the adherent of it.

since the old and the new testament both claim that all sins are viewed equally, being saved means nothing. so "less victimizing behaviors" can't exist because they are all equal.

That makes no sense.

If all victimizing behaviors are equally wrong, DON'T DO ANY OF THEM. Or at least try not to and abstain from the especially damaging ones by applying Common Sense.

ike i said before, all sins are equal.

If all sins are equal, why would the OT demand differing sacrifices and punishments for each specific behavior usually on scale of impact it makes while based on the golden rule?

so how can a christian claim to be morally superior when they can't make that claim in the first place, yet somehow do?

That doesn't follow.

 

[Light]

i mean really, someone who is saved doesn't stop sinning, they continue to sin. it's more about what happens to the individual, but it doesn't matter because all sins are equal.
from telling a white lie, to stealing, to pedophilia, to rape, and to murder-- all equal in the eyes of god. in other words, you're morally on par with Hitler.

This idea is really a mechanism to promote equal acceptance into the Christian community, since even the "less sinful" members are still born sinners. In effect, this should lead Christians into non-judgemental mindset toward the "outside" world, even though it doesnt really work that way.

It's not such a bad idea really, from my perspective, (well anyway, it could be worse) because our behaviors and actions (and even, more or less the whole of our personality) are a product of the life we are born into. So Hitler was from my perspective very unfortunate, doing what he thought was best for humanity, and those who are raised with the sense to act with actual benevolence toward humanity are lucky.

Unfortunately people who won't accept this turn out to be the most judgmental people, thinking that their soul or whatever is fundamentally superior to someone else. Granted, thinking that the way one turns out is entirely up to one's choices (which it is, but the decisions one makes is the outcome of the way the choice is perceived) is an excellent mental construct for avoiding mistakes.

So the argument of being a christian means your a moral example quickly falls apart.
being saved has no meaning.
"being a better human being" means nothing other than sinning less. so when a christian states that they're morally superior, they believe that they're not

Right, being a better person just means sinning less, but being saved has whatever meaning you make it have. This is why Christianity fills such a nice niche in world religion, someone struggling with some burden of guilt can be accepted by a good community and feel like they are just like everyone else, and have a new hope for living a better, more sinless life.


I hope some of that made some sense.

 

[leo33wii]

ok. the whole, less sinning thing is not being understood here, so let me replace sin with the word murder:

"so being a better human being means nothing other than murdering less."

you're still murdering but doing it less in comparison to other people. and since your soul has already been saved, that won't actually stop you from murdering...

do you see what i'm getting at here??

 

[Eloi]

ok. the whole, less sinning thing is not being understood here, so let me replace sin with the word murder:

"so being a better human being means nothing other than murdering less."

you're still murdering but doing it less in comparison to other people. and since your soul has already been saved, that won't actually stop you from murdering...

do you see what i'm getting at here??

1: Um, no, I don't, because not murdering people would make you a better human being.

2: And you would be looked upon favorably by your community more if you weren't a murderer, even if you won't die ultimately, being a murdered would probably drive your family and friends away from you, and the life of a loner is a sad one. So its more about personal relationships here than ultimate fate, because ultimate eternal fate is not a whip-cracking simplistic reward-punishment system that is common in the strawman.

Now, to show a defense of Christianity, in 2:, substitute 'murderer' with 'sinner' and see how much sense that makes.

Now, to show a critique of Christianity, in 2:, substitute 'murderer' with 'gay person' and prepare to be sad.