Re: Cruel Logic Discussion: The morality of sins

[wiley16350]

Just a couple of comments. The 9th commandment accurately translated is "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness". So it doesn't rule out lying to save a life or lies to keep from hurting peoples feelings and what not. The 6th commandment accurately translated is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" which means it's wrong to take a life unlawfully. So the types of killing you show as being allowed are lawful and even commanded in the bible.

[YY4Me133]

He didn't put god first on his list. He's going to hell!

[alpharomeo663]

If God does exist, why would He wish for any of His creation to mistreat each other for personal convenience? If God created us, the moral standard must be high. Otherwise, how could you possibly argue morality? What is the standard? If the standard is as low as you claim, then you are actually proving the original cruel logic video by your response. No morality means rape and murder is ALWAYS okay because it makes the offender feel better. You know that's not true because there is a higher rule

[FireDragons42]

@alpharomeo663 You started by making the assumption that God is good, which wouldn't necessarily be true even if there were one. But there need not be any transcendent moral code. The rapist considers his acts to be right, but everyone else views it as wrong because it causes harm to the victim. This is morality, the standards that society has come to agree upon that lead to the greatest benefit and greatest reduction of harm to all of us.

Assuming a "higher rule" actually causes many problems.

[alpharomeo663]

@FireDragons42 He who created all things has the ultimate right to decide what is objectively good and what is objectively evil. Morality would only be subjective in the sense that His will is the definition and the ultimate standard of morality. Everything He does, then, by definition and origin, is good. What He desires is good. What He despises is evil. This is very simple. You actually agree with God on what is good and what is evil. To disagree, one could label you a sociopath.

[FireDragons42]

@alpharomeo663 A notable problem of this "higher rule" is where this higher rule came from. If things are right or wrong only because God says so, then you're saying that if God said that rape was okay then you'd be allowing that it would then be so because God said so. If these things are good and bad on their own merits and God is only telling us what they are, then you don't need a God to discover them as our species did over the course of our evolutionary history.

[Venaloid]

It seems you can never disprove absolute morality to someone because no matter how good the effects of a lie are, a theist can always say "Well God still says that the act itself is wrong no matter the consequences, therefore it is". Hmm.... what about lying to keep yourself from violating another absolute moral? What then? Absolute morality doesn't exactly allow for either doing it or not doing it.

[philWynk]

Actually, your response in the vid to "rape" pretty much demolishes your argument. All claims of immorality are subsets of acts which in other situations may be acceptable; the criteria by which we judge some version of the act improper are called "moral rules." Coveting = immoral wanting. Bearing false witness = immoral lying. Theft = immoral taking possession. Etc. You seem to agree that the core absolute morals exist, and merely quibble over where the lines are.

[philWynk]

The correct discussion covers the topic, "Are morals arbitrary, or are they non-arbitrary?" The rebuttal of the "Cruel Logic" vid would require that morals be arbitrary. Your own discussion here acknowledges that morals are non-arbitrary -- that they actually have meaning. If they have meaning that exists outside of ourselves, then they are not arbitrary, and by commonly accepted definition, "absolute."

Short version: your definition of "absolute" is silly.

[FireDragons42]

This wasn't a response to 'Cruel Logic' vid itself, it was a response to a discussion that was occurring in the comments. The person, slikrik, said that these items were morally wrong 100% of the time. This video was made to give him the examples of how this isn't necessarily true, and try to get him to understand that morality is far more complicated that he was trying to imply, and that it isn't always a simple black and white.

In the context, 'absolute' was defined properly.

[philWynk]

Fair enough as stated. I'm content, just so long as readers here know that your claim "Nothing is right or wrong all the time" does not falsify the argument in Cruel Logic, nor does it prove that morals are "relative." If your claim is simply that morality is a complicated topic, we're good.

[rollsthepaul]

Killing a tyrant is not immoral.

[kyokumajr]

Respect is earned is arguable. At least so far as I hear many people do argue this. I Dont just to be clear; just telling you.

[FireDragons42]

Indeed. Personally I try to give people a base level or respect which then can go up or down based on their actions. So from me, people can earn respect or disrespect.

And to people who say that respect must be given no matter what, I shake my head since I guarantee that at least privately their opinion differs based upon actions.

[kyokumajr]

But then don't yu contradict yourself by previously claiming repect is earned, when now you say some people just posses a certain level of respect which can go down.

[FireDragons42]

Not really. Even if you gave someone no respect to start, that is a base level. I don't think that just because my base level is a non-zero value that this should invalidate the idea that respect is earned, because in order to move from that base value, you have to do things that merit a change.

[kyokumajr]

But then the initial value is already a non 0, meaning a people autmatically posses some level of respect by default.

[FireDragons42]

Maybe. Perhaps I've worded this poorly. Let me try again. A lack or respect, is not necessarily the same as disrespect. I suppose that by definition our base point would have to be zero, so that anything positive is movement into respect, and negative is a move towards disrespect.

Even still though, I think we can still start with a level of respect and still end up with a justifiable disrespect if someone's actions merit it.

[kyokumajr]

Um... then try asking how those are even absolutes if in the case of there being no god(s) some of those don't apply at all? Furthermore, to claim those like blasphemy are, wouldn't he/she have to "prove" a theistic God first?

[FireDragons42]

Not only would you have to prove a God, you'd have to prove that that God cares if we use its name in vain. Proving God is only step one. Hopefully, he'll respond soon and we can truly get to those fun things.

Unfortunately it's very hard to carry out a theistic discussion in YouTube comments.

[kyokumajr]

So true... & I imagine making a video response each time would be hellish as well.

[kyokumajr]

The affects of the placebo are minor & only take affect for a certain period of time (for instance sugar pills as pain relievers).

PS: This guy does realize that according to the Bible to get a wife one just needed to go & rape a chick in case she is unwilling?

About murdering to save others: you could just shoot in the leg or smth. This is really hard since it depends on the situation.

[FireDragons42]

True, placebo doesn't last, but with psychosemantic conditions it can "cure" the condition.

I'm not sure if he realizes the biblical rape-wife thing or not, but I didn't bring it up to respect his request to discuss these without looking at whether the bible is right or not.

If someone had the gun to the hostage's head, it may be that a head shot is needed to prevent them from being able to squeeze the trigger as a reflex action. I didn't say there were many times, but just once is enough.

[kyokumajr]

But if you're not accounting for the bible, then the last few of his points about God & etc make no sense whatsoever.

[FireDragons42]

SlikRik asked me to not "change the subject to whether the bible is right or not" so I tried to avoid the bible as much as possible to avoid accusations of doing so. But since that last few things can only be wrong if there is a god like in the bible that cares about such things then it was impossible for me to avoid it with them.

[kyokumajr]

So... from which soft spot did he pull out the last few points then? (since the validity of the Bible cannot be arguable or too relevant to the points of dicussion)

[FireDragons42]

There have been no arguments yet to prove his case. I asked another user for anything that was right or wrong all the time, and SlikRik responded with this: ------------ Lying Rape Murder Stealing Coveting Blasphemy Dishonoring Your Parents Idolatry Not Putting God First --------------- That was the entirety of the post. I made a quick response listing short answers for why I thought he was wrong, and then he asked for more in depth responses, hence this video.