Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Alan Klein]

And yet, with God, who gets to interpret him/her?

A Christian preacher has claimed that gays should be executed because the Bible commands it.

https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/06/christian-preacher-says-gays-should-be-executed-because-the-bible-commands-it/


Or how's this:

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

God's morals, Alan?

So you're presenting another argument why we should not call any particular policy as being moral or immoral.  Thank you. 

[OmerV]

So you're presenting another argument why we should not call any particular policy as being moral or immoral.  Thank you.

So if slavery was a "policy" condoned by God, how can one argue with God, right?

[Alan Klein]

So if slavery was a "policy" condoned by God, how can one argue with God, right?

You're getting off on another subject that wasn't being discussed.  We were talking about accusing people's political policy feelings as being immoral  and using someone's personal belief of what's moral as the basis to decide which public policy is best.   No one group, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, has a monopoly on morality.  Nor should we use man's interpretation of what is moral as its basis because man can justify any behavior. 

[faberryman]

Nor should we use man's interpretation of what is moral as its basis because man can justify any behavior.

What other interpretation of what's moral is there other than man's.

[Alan Klein]

What other interpretation of what's moral is there other than man's.

God's.

[faberryman]

God's.

I think you will find there is a difference of opinion among men as to what that may be.

[Alan Klein]

I think you will find there is a difference of opinion among men as to what that may be.

It's a good place to start.

[OmerV]

It's a good place to start.

 

[Rob C]

You're getting off on another subject that wasn't being discussed. We were talking about accusing people's political policy feelings as being immoral  and using someone's personal belief of what's moral as the basis to decide which public policy is best.   No one group, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, has a monopoly on morality.  Nor should we use man's interpretation of what is moral as its basis because man can justify any behavior.

Exactly as you fudge the answer to which god and which brand of morality.

Do you imagine it's sensible to bring a god and morality into a conversation then not define either when challenged? It's just another red herring, an attempt to gloss over a mantra that has you by the short and curlies.

;-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

God's.

what about those of is who are atheists??

[Alan Klein]

Exactly as you fudge the answer to which god and which brand of morality.

Do you imagine it's sensible to bring a god and morality into a conversation then not define either when challenged? It's just another red herring, an attempt to gloss over a mantra that has you by the short and curlies.

;-) 

I didn't bring morality into the discussion.  James did.  He accused conservative thinkers of being immoral.  Let him defend why that is so.  I only said responding to his argument by saying we shouldn't use morality to judge most decisions about government policy.  Especially since moral judgements are forever being violated by man since he can make up excuses why anything goes.  Morality therefore must come from some place beyond man's ego.  We have used the bible, God, the Ten Commandments, and whatever to give us a basis for moral behavior.  WHile different religions have different theories about these things, and men always argue about what they really mean, I would think that many precepts such as not stealing or not killing are pretty much universal moral beliefs.  However, when it comes to government policy, we should stay away from accusing any beliefs as being moral or immoral.  These are just methods of trying to use shame to get your policy accepted.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Morality is what helps a society survive.

[Alan Klein]

what about those of is who are atheists??

Much moral behavior has become ethical behavior accepted by everyone.  These behaviors have been incorporated into civil and criminal law.  Telling a judge he can't send you to jail for robbing a bank because you're an atheist and don;lt accept God's moral precept against stealing won't keep you out of jail.  In any case, I never said you have to believe in anything to live a moral and decent life.  Just don't tell me I'm immoral because I don't believe in renewables.  That's a religion I don;t buy. 

[James Clark]

I didn't bring morality into the discussion.  James did.  He accused conservative thinkers of being immoral.

For the third time, no, I didn't. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's.

What preposterous drivel. If one refuses to accept an evidentially unsupported belief in a supreme being (or indeed supreme beings), one is without morals?

An atheist might as well argue that what a theist believes is "God's" law derives from Man's law but is, bizarrely, attributed to a fictional being.

Jeremy

[JoeKitchen]

For the third time, no, I didn't.

I think some here are stuck on your use of "moral obligation," which is not really discussing morality, in your first post.  Perhaps intellectual would have been better and more accurate.

So for the sack of argument, let us all imagine James meant to say, "... our intellectual obligation to think beyond our biology ..."  This pretty much says the same thing and does not bring religion into the mix. 

[Alan Klein]

For the third time, no, I didn't. 

Jim, here is your statement.
"Haidt is fascinating... Speaking personally, I find him much more constructive than Peterson, but my understanding of his theory is different from yours, or perhaps just drawn from a different exposure to what he (Haidt) has done.    In essence, if I remember right, he's arguing that at baseline conservatism is valid because it's adherents think it to be so.  That is, if the "market of ideas," with it's roots in human biology, see value in conservatism, then it *has to*, by definition, have value to humanity.  I think that's a sound point, but on the other hand, I think it throws aside our moral obligation to think beyond our biology."

You stated first that conservatives tend to believe from their "biology".  However, in order to be moral, you have to think beyond your biology. Hence, conservatives are not moral because they don;t think beyond their biology.


You're calling conservatives immoral.  Frankly, that thinking goes on too much.  Liberals accuse conservatives of being evil, refusing to even allowing them to speak.  For most things, we should get out of the business of making government policy on moral arguments.  That's the position I've been taking here.

[Alan Klein]

I think some here are stuck on your use of "moral obligation," which is not really discussing morality, in your first post.  Perhaps intellectual would have been better and more accurate.

So for the sack of argument, let us all imagine James meant to say, "... our intellectual obligation to think beyond our biology ..."  This pretty much says the same thing and does not bring religion into the mix. 

I disagree.  See my last post.  James meant exactly what he said.  That conservatives are immoral because they cannot think beyond their biology. 

[Alan Klein]

What preposterous drivel. If one refuses to accept an evidentially unsupported belief in a supreme being (or indeed supreme beings), one is without morals?

An atheist might as well argue that what a theist believes is "God's" law derives from Man's law but is, bizarrely, attributed to a fictional being.

Jeremy

Jeremy, I never said that non-believers are bereft of morals.  I said the opposite.  Please see my earlier post #32.


However,  without having some system of rules that transcend man's, we are left with man possibly destroying the moral system making excuses why it's just as moral.  So we can then justify murder and all sorts of mayhem against our fellow man.  Men can even abrogate and "misinterpret" God's laws, as ISIS did,  so clever we are at justifying our immoral actions and desire for power.

[James Clark]

I disagree.  See my last post.  James meant exactly what he said.  That conservatives are immoral because they cannot think beyond their biology.

Again - for the fourth time - I said no such thing.  I explained that my recollection of (part of) Haidt's theory is that certain aspects of our worldview are evolutionarily driven, and are "baked in" so to speak, and I used conservatism as a portion of that content because, as Joe said, that's what Haidt was examining originally.  I then said that to leave it at that (i.e. to claim biological imperative and then throw our hands up and say, "oh well!" abrogates our moral responsibility to work beyond our biology - to take advantage of our unique position of being self aware and aware of others - to utilize the benefit our sentience. 

Joe's suggestion that substituting "Intellectual" for "moral" might be a better choice is fine.  I don't think it should be necessary, but if it eliminates a trigger word, fine by me.

Clear?