toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours

[Town Heretic]

I wouldn't call it "wrong" (or "right" for that matter) - only acknowledge that the event occured and evalutate it's impact on myself: if that girl was a part of my life (related to a close friend or relative of mine), her attacker will soon find me breathing down his neck with every gun and blade I can get my hands on.

Beyond the question of empathy, the problem with your response is that it assumes only the most obvious, narrowed impact to be of consequence. But the thing which harms the stranger in his neighborhood frames his response to you in yours and in the larger sense we all live among neighbors and the sum total of their actions and inactions frame our existence, speak to our safety and contribute or detract from our happiness. So the ability to enjoy the tranquility of your own existence is integrally tied to the peace of the fellow next, and next, and next.

 

[nicholsmom]

That's not a commandment against lying in general. The context is specific and cannot be applied to Rehab's situation by any stretch of the imagination. Try again. I need to see a commandment.

In what possible stretch of your imagination can you say that Rehab did not bear false testimony? She was asked by officials of the law, and she replied with false testimony. It's clear-cut, unambiguous, and breaks the 7th commandment without question.

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

There we have a clear, unambiguous commandment. It is absolutely wrong to work on the sabbath, right? YOU don't work ever on the sabbath, right? :think:

I do keep a sabbath - for me, and many in the US, it takes place on Saturday or Sunday. The sabbath was made for man (Mk 2:27) - to benefit us by requiring that we take one day out of the 7 to rest from our money-making work, to enjoy the blessings God has given, and to place our faith in Him for our provision.

This is very interesting:

Colossians 2:15-17 (New International Version)

And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
​

(emphases mine here and following)

Is lying in there? Nope. Christ fulfilled the Sabbath requirement. But lying is in here:

Ephesians 4:24-25 ()
and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Therefore, putting away lying, “ Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another.​

That's a pretty clear command, right there.

And here:

Psalm 5:4-6 (NIV)
You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
with you the wicked cannot dwell.

The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong.

You destroy those who tell lies;
bloodthirsty and deceitful men
the LORD abhors.
​

The penalty for telling lies was set aside for Rehab because God intended to spare her - she provided a place for the spies in peace as a testimony of her desire to follow the god of the Israelis. She didn't do it very well - lying - but God wasn't nit-picking, He'd chosen her for His own good pleasure.

And here:

Psalm 34:12-14
Whoever of you loves life
and desires to see many good days,

keep your tongue from evil
and your lips from speaking lies.

Turn from evil and do good;
seek peace and pursue it.​

Ever hear of parallelism? This is an example of synonymous parallelism - two statements that are synonymous written in parallel for emphasis. Evil and lies are equated here most clearly.

One more, for good measure:

Zeph 3:13 (NIV)
The remnant of Israel will do no wrong;
they will speak no lies,
nor will deceit be found in their mouths.
They will eat and lie down
and no one will make them afraid.
​

Synonymous parallelism again - trebled this time.

There are plenty of others, if you are willing to be open to the notion that God hates lies - all of them.

 

[nicholsmom]

The point of the story is that what she did was right.If a man brake in to your home to murder your child, a child that you happened to know was playing at the neighbors, it would not be a sin for you to say that you don't know where that child is. It would in fact be evil for you to tell the man your child is next door, expecting God to intervene.

There is no, "I have a gun and I know how to use it." in this situation? I have only two choices, a lie or the absolute truth? What requires me to answer his question? Nothing. Is that deception? No. I would tell him that I have no intention of allowing him to harm my child or any other. That is not deceit - it is truthful to the core and in no way puts my child in harms way.

Rehab could have done other than deceive and still have protected those spies. Had she done so, the outcome would not be different absent the account of her lie.

 

[Gurucam]

So you're saying bad things don't happen to good people? Bad things only happen to those who aren't under God's grace?

Good and bad people, good and bad actions and/or results are our human perceptions.

One is driven to actions by what one perceives to be wise, although others may see flaws in same.

A thief steels because he perceive that that is a wise way to come by wealth. The problem is that His perception is clouded because he has a 'vail' over his heart.

Fact is that there is a better and easier way to obtain wealth and that is through the grace of God. But the physically oriented thief is blinded. He cannot see or know this Truth.

There are just two basic types of people. Those who still have 'vails' over their hearts and cannot be and are not, under grace of God. Secondly those who have lost the 'vails' which covered their hearts and are under grace of God.

Those who are under grace of God have access to God's organization of their activities. And under this organization, they have God given freedom, liberty and justification to express and materialize all the ideas, beliefs and interests of their heart including the needs, desires and aspirations which arises from these.

This omniscient organization of their activities by God enable them to do any thing that their heart desires without accruing sin. However this is an expression of one's free will with respect to things of one's spirit, without accruing sin.

I am saying that under this system, all things that come to one (i.e. those under grace of God) does so under the will (or sanction) of God.

We, as humans tend to perceives these as good or bad. However for God it would have to be appropriate.

It is different for those who are not under grace of God. Anything can happen to those who are not under grace of God. They are without God's protection. They are always subject able to the will of man.

 

[bybee]

Sorry to say

Sorry to say

Let us face it, seems that there could be only two reason why that would happen.

The child was not under grace of God (i.e. not under God's protection) or the child was under grace of God and it came to her under grace of God (i.e. under the will of God).

How else?

It is either that God is in control or He is not in control.

If one is under grace, God is in control of one's life. If one is not under grace, then God is not in control and then, that bad entity is in control of one's life.

Seem that one must first seek the kingdom of God, that is one must come under grace of God first thing. And this seems to be applicable also to children.

Indeed it seems that even children must come under grace of God before they are protected by God. Until then, it seem clear that they are just as vulnerable and susceptible as adults. Until then, it seems that, they are waking on their own and God can do nothing for them.

Paul did confirm that humans can bring forth either 'children of the flesh' or 'children of God'. Clearly such a child had to have been a 'child of the flesh' and therefore outside the protection of God. However such a child should have been, under the protection of man.

One under grace of God is His child. Can you see God letting a 48 year old or any one, rape a His child, unless it is His will that that happen? God does not sleep or look the other way when it comes to His children. Therefore if such a thing happens to a child and it was not the will of God, then that child cannot be a 'child of God'. The other type of child is a 'child of the flesh'. Then that child must have been a 'child of the flesh' and therefore outside the protection of God and should have been under the protection of man.

If one bring forth 'children of the flesh' then be prepared to look after them at every turn. However if one bring forth 'children of God' then God will look after them at every turn. If one ignores Paul on marriages and fruits of marriages, in Romans: 7 verses: 1 to 6 it is at one's own peril.​

Your anthropomorphic picture of diety is very telling, about you! bybee

 

[bybee]

in community

in community

Beyond the question of empathy, the problem with your response is that it assumes only the most obvious, narrowed impact to be of consequence. But the thing which harms the stranger in his neighborhood frames his response to you in yours and in the larger sense we all live among neighbors and the sum total of their actions and inactions frame our existence, speak to our safety and contribute or detract from our happiness. So the ability to enjoy the tranquility of your own existence is integrally tied to the peace of the fellow next, and next, and next.

We live in community. bybee

 

[Tico]

Originally Posted by 4string
Society to a degree...

Though there is a degree of positive feedback for moral 'correctness'. If a society has horrible moral standards the consequences will be horrible in turn and it'll be a less stable society, to revert to a cliche look at Nazi-Germany.

Fill in the blank. You say "society to a degree". What else out there would get to decide if the consequences are desirable? "To a degree" doesn't mean completely.

You inherently know that a 48 year old man raping an 8 year old girl is wicked, but you also know that you can't leave it up to society because you get the Nazis or worse every so often.

Furthermore you pass judgment by referring to horrible moral standards and horrible consequences. How can you know if they are horrible or not if the society decided that both the morality and the consequences are perfectly fine with them?

 

[Punisher1984]

I really want an answer, Punisher.


So in your view, my daughter, who has Down syndrome, deserves Hell on Earth simply because she'll never be the sharpest knife in the drawer?

No one "deserves" anything - they just get the cards causality deals to them (however favorable or unfavorable those are). While I have nothing against people with disabilities (to an extent I am one - I have been diagnosed with a mild form of Apsberger's syndrom), I personally judge individuals for their ability to overcome the limitations placed upon them (as I myself have to a large degree): should I find myself in a position where I am inflicted with any disability that severely impares my ability to function as a sovreign entity I will happily put a gun to my own head and pull the trigger - as I find the thought of a life without my sovreignty as one not worth living.

 

[Punisher1984]

And if that girl was NOT a part of your life, you'd let the rapist live and hope that tomorrow he doesn't find YOUR daughter?

If the girl in question wasn't part of my life I'd take no extreme measures to hunt the fool down after the fact, but if it was happening right in front of me I'd put him out of his misery quickly.

 

[Punisher1984]

Beyond the question of empathy, the problem with your response is that it assumes only the most obvious, narrowed impact to be of consequence. But the thing which harms the stranger in his neighborhood frames his response to you in yours and in the larger sense we all live among neighbors and the sum total of their actions and inactions frame our existence, speak to our safety and contribute or detract from our happiness. So the ability to enjoy the tranquility of your own existence is integrally tied to the peace of the fellow next, and next, and next.

If you refer to life in the context of crowded environment (like a city) you'd be correct - however I hate what city life has become and plan to get out as soon as I possess the resources to do so and head for the sparsely populated rual areas (where land is fairly cheap and neighbors aren't a big concern so long as I build a big enough fence to keep them off my territory).

 

[Delmar]

I think the more moral thing here (assuming lying to be evil that is) would be to tell the man you refuse to tell him where your son/daughter is...

My question would be what the appropriate level of force, if any, for a moral man (by Knight/nicholsmom's standards) is to stop the would be child killer?

Misdirection is often more effective than open refusal. Why make the guy mad and get yourself shot?

 

[Delmar]

There is no, "I have a gun and I know how to use it." in this situation?

I didn't think I had to explain every little detail. The guy has the drop on you, and you have no oportunity to get to your weapon

I have only two choices, a lie or the absolute truth? What requires me to answer his question? Nothing. Is that deception? No. I would tell him that I have no intention of allowing him to harm my child or any other. That is not deceit - it is truthful to the core and in no way puts my child in harms way.

and just might get you shot, in which case you are no longer there to protect your kids.

Rehab could have done other than deceive and still have protected those spies. Had she done so, the outcome would not be different absent the account of her lie.

and yet the Bible is clear that God honored her actions. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Gurucam]

Your anthropomorphic picture of diety is very telling, about you! bybee

Indeed it must be telling about me.

However and even very much more important: any anthropomorphic picture of deity must be unacceptable and unpalatable to the very great masses who are called to Christianity and who according to Jesus' prophesy will not get Truth and therefore will not be saved and chosen.

And it is critical that aspiring Christians note this latter fact and start rising above their (must be limited) perceptions.

What does it tell you about me?

 

[Delmar]

I think the more moral thing here (assuming lying to be evil that is) would be to tell the man you refuse to tell him where your son/daughter is...

My question would be what the appropriate level of force, if any, for a moral man (by Knight/nicholsmom's standards) is to stop the would be child killer?

The Bible does not justify evil, yet what Rehab did was justified. You are clearly denying what the Bible says, in order to cling to your theology. It is pretty sad really!

 

[The Horn]

The problem with the whole issue of morality is that while there are some things which are obviously right or wrong, such as murder
(of born people ), cruelty, lying, cheating, stealing, greed, oppression, ruthless ambition etc , and that other things, such as the question of abortion, homosexuality and homosexual rights etc, which are not black and white, but filled with shades of gray.

 

[Town Heretic]

The problem with the whole issue of morality is that while there are some things which are obviously right or wrong, such as murder (of born people ), cruelty, lying, cheating, stealing, greed, oppression, ruthless ambition etc , and that other things, such as the question of abortion, homosexuality and homosexual rights etc, which are not black and white, but filled with shades of gray.

Absent a seat of absolute moral authority, what would distinguish the taking of any life for any reason with any other act in terms in terms of value? Either it serves self interest and that is our motivation/standard or it serves an idea of the good that exists independent of wish or whim and that is our controlling principle. :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Absent a seat of absolute moral authority, what would distinguish the taking of any life for any reason with any other act in terms in terms of value? Either it serves self interest and that is our motivation/standard or it serves an idea of the good that exists independent of wish or whim and that is our controlling principle. :e4e:

The golden rule can often stay a person's hand, and I think it is commonly observed among the wise and those who understand the mutual human condition between us all. Sure, this could be 'the good' in itself, but it doesn't necessarily require a God or anything.

Beyond that, the taking of life Can be differentiated from any other act in terms of value. It can be done through empathy (as noted above) or through philosophical argument in the way that life has "infinite" value, it is not bound to the same level of the other values since it is the ground of all value.

In any case, self-interest and the good are never fully separate other than in theory.

 

[skeptech]

Indeed, no one, even the most ardent atheist, lives as a true moral relativist...

Indeed, everyone, even the most ardent Christian, lives under a relative morality.

All of morality can be rationalized as relative. Rape and murder are wrong, because they're defined to be.

Societies work because they define a set of moralities. Within the society, those moralities can be considered absolute, and people who don't abide by them are "sinning" or "doing wrong" and are punished. Other societies will have different moralities, and when the two societies come together, then miscommunication, mistrust, and wars ensue. That's reality.

Yikes, I hope he and I share the same taste in ice cream if we ever happen to meet at the parlor.

Indeed, people have been tortured and killed for less.

 

[Son of Jack]

All of morality can be rationalized as relative. Rape and murder are wrong, because they're defined to be.

Tell that to a 5 year old child who experiences it...

 

[Town Heretic]

The golden rule can often stay a person's hand, and I think it is commonly observed among the wise and those who understand the mutual human condition between us all. Sure, this could be 'the good' in itself, but it doesn't necessarily require a God or anything.

Actions don't, defining them does, however, require some standard and a means for measurement. I noted the alternatives. I don't recall declaring that one must believe in God, though I think it preferable on any number of levels. Just a point of clarification.

Beyond that, the taking of life Can be differentiated from any other act in terms of value.

Only once one establishes the weight and scale. And then we're back to how that is accomplished and my point again.

It can be done through empathy (as noted above) or through philosophical argument in the way that life has "infinite" value, it is not bound to the same level of the other values since it is the ground of all value.

It can be argued any number of ways, but it comes down to an assigned value relative to our understanding or desire, or a standard reflective of something eternal and outside of it, existing without our consent.

In any case, self-interest and the good are never fully separate other than in theory.

I completely agree and have argued that the aim of the selfless and selfish man are essentially the same, only one of them actually understands how to find the happiness, the good that he half sees and grasps for. :e4e: