Moral person by what standard? God is the very standard of morality... By your standard of morality I may not be a good person, but why should I be worried about that? — Agustino
I have no problems with such laws. If they happen to be the laws of my society, then I will follow them. I wouldn't personally advocate for such laws because I'm not used to living in such a society (and I personally find it barbaric), but I can certainly imagine living back in the day and accepting such laws as part of the way the world is. My bet is that if you too lived in Ancient Judea, you too would have accepted stoning as the just punishment for adultery too. Most people did in those days. What makes you think that you would have been different?You should be worried. That's very disconcerting. No one who permits stoning adulterers to death, whether your fictional "God" or anyone else, can rightly be called the very standard of morality. Where is your humanity, Agustino? — Sapientia
No, it's not besides the point. If your answer is "no", then it shows that there is nothing intrinsically immoral with having stoning as the punishment for adultery. It may seem immoral to us, because it is very distant from the way our society is currently structured. We don't have such punishments even for mass murder.That's beside the point, so I choose not to answer. — Sapientia
No, it's not besides the point. If your answer is "yes", then it shows that there is nothing intrinsically immoral with having stoning as the punishment for adultery. It may seem immoral to us, because it is very distant from the way our society is currently structured. We don't have such punishments even for mass murder.
However, just because we're not used to something, and we have a very difficult time imagining it, doesn't mean that it is therefore immoral. I think the Ancient Jews would be horrified with our modern societies too.
So if you are honest with yourself you will come to this same conclusion. — Agustino
It really isn't outside the point. If one looks at the surrounding forms of punishment, one would quickly see that Judean laws were not cruel whatsoever, contrary, they were much more merciful than the pagan nations. — Waya
From an objective viewpoint though, what determines right from wrong? — Waya
Yet the measage of Jesus as it appears in the gospels is more about personal transformation via forgiveness.
It's about freedom from the cycle of violence that accompanies the pursuit of justice.
Agree? — frank
Moral person by what standard? God is the very standard of morality... By your standard of morality I may not be a good person, but why should I be worried about that? — Agustino
↪Sapientia You say it is wrong. They say it was right. How dare you become a moral agent! From an objective viewpoint though, what determines right from wrong? — Waya
Nothing could show your lack of moral understanding more clearly.How dare you become a moral agent!
The question of what establishes objective morality is a legitimate one and involves looking at what our intuitive conscience determines is moral and in looking at consistencies and themes in what presents as moral and arriving at logical theories to explain what is moral.
In arriving at a theory (e.g. Kantianism, utilitarianism, divine command theory, etc.), we have to see how well each theory works against what we know to be right and wrong. The Bible, if presented as a morally inerrant document, is rejected based upon it's draconian response to dishonesty in marital relationships. The Bible therefore can't be looked upon as a perfect guide, but more a source of inspiration from very primitive peoples. — Hanover
Contrary, somehow, people are missing the point.Nothing could show your lack of moral understanding more clearly. — Banno
There's this whole field of philosophy called ethics. I suggest you look into it. — Baden
Oh really? — Waya
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.