The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you say that the ten commandments are a code or a set of principles?

"Thou shalt not kill" is more like a principle -- it sounds categorical, but then there's self-defense, etc. Jesus boiled them down into two principles in Matthew 22.

But which Ten Commandments? Exodus or Deuteronomy?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Principles are more general, and may conflict in specific instances. For example, the principle of respecting others' autonomy may conflict with the idea of doing the greatest good. To me, the word code suggests a more realized set of rules. The difference I'm thinking of is like that between the sort of principles involved in constitutional law, and the sort of analysis that goes into drafting and interpreting statutes.

Also, I've quoted 1 Corinthians a few times now because it's hard for us to grasp these principles. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

So according to you principles may conflict. Specific statutes or an entry in a code will not conflict because they are detailed enough to remove any ambiguity. However, only principles can be universal where specific statutes may not. Is that what you are saying?

For example. It may be a universal principle that one shouldn't lie. It may also be a universal principle that one shouldn't aid another person in the killing of an innocent life.

So if the Nazi's come to your door, and you are hiding a Jewish family, and they ask if you are hiding a Jewish family what do you do? In this case I think the principle of not aiding in the killing of an innocent life overrides the principle against lying. In that particular case the right thing to do is to lie. Here the act of an omission is not enough. If you say nothing that may lead the Nazis to suspect you are hiding these people. The moral thing do do here is to lie as convincingly as possible. You should do whatever you can to protect the people in your house.

So there I have created a more specific rule where two principles seemingly conflict. The rule is that you should lie, if lying will help protect an innocent life.

So is that rule that I made out of the two conflicting principles not universal because it is more specific?

I believe that such a rule is universal, no matter what culture or in what time period.

Do you disagree?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So according to you principles may conflict. Specific statutes or an entry in a code will not conflict because they are detailed enough to remove any ambiguity. However, only principles can be universal where specific statutes may not. Is that what you are saying?

For example. It may be a universal principle that one shouldn't lie. It may also be a universal principle that one shouldn't aid another person in the killing of an innocent life.

So if the Nazi's come to your door, and you are hiding a Jewish family, and they ask if you are hiding a Jewish family what do you do? In this case I think the principle of not aiding in the killing of an innocent life overrides the principle against lying. In that particular case the right thing to do is to lie. Here the act of an omission is not enough. If you say nothing that may lead the Nazis to suspect you are hiding these people. The moral thing do do here is to lie as convincingly as possible. You should do whatever you can to protect the people in your house.

So there I have created a more specific rule where two principles seemingly conflict. The rule is that you should lie, if lying will help protect an innocent life.

So is that rule that I made out of the two conflicting principles not universal because it is more specific?

I believe that such a rule is universal, no matter what culture or in what time period.

Do you disagree?

I think it depends on the facts. With a little work, we could probably come up with a situation that tests our intuition in that situation. For example, suppose the lie will threaten even more innocent lives.

I don't understand why you want to articulate moral rules, instead of deciding how to deal with individual circumstances as they arise.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "universal." I thought I knew before, but now I'm not sure.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Thou shalt not kill" is more like a principle -- it sounds categorical, but then there's self-defense, etc. Jesus boiled them down into two principles in Matthew 22.

But which Ten Commandments? Exodus or Deuteronomy?

1) From what I understand the more actual translation is thou shall not murder. But in any case, isn't thou shall not Kill really a rule with exceptions.

An exception being self defense, stopping the victim from kiling someone else etc.

Is the principle that shall not kill universal, but the exceptions not universal because they are more specific and are acting too much like a code?

2) Which Ten Commandments? Does it really matter? For it to matter you would have to think that the two different sets of commandments are different to such a degree that the one is more like principles, and the other is more like a code. Is that what you think?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) From what I understand the more actual translation is thou shall not murder. But in any case, isn't thou shall not Kill really a rule with exceptions.

An exception being self defense, stopping the victim from kiling someone else etc.

Is the principle that shall not kill universal, but the exceptions not universal because they are more specific and are acting too much like a code?

Since you seem to accept that that commandment does not mean what it literally says -- i.e., that there are exceptions to it, such as self defense -- it's not clear to me whether it's part of your universal moral code. Perhaps you could explain. I don't have a problem with the principle I extract from the commandment, which is that you shouldn't kill.

2) Which Ten Commandments? Does it really matter? For it to matter you would have to think that the two different sets of commandments are different to such a degree that the one is more like principles, and the other is more like a code. Is that what you think?

It doesn't matter to me, since I think each version is an effort to see through that glass. But it should matter to you, if you're trying to arrive at a universal moral code, since the differences in wording will have different implications.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it depends on the facts. With a little work, we could probably come up with a situation that tests our intuition in that situation. For example, suppose the lie will threaten even more innocent lives.

I don't understand why you want to articulate moral rules, instead of deciding how to deal with individual circumstances as they arise.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "universal." I thought I knew before, but now I'm not sure.

By universal, I mean not relative. Moral relativity implies that morals change in different societies and in different times. I disagree with that.

If it is wrong to kill an innocent in Georgia, it is wrong to kill an innocent in Bangaladesh. Right and wrong don't change with a culture or location.

The right thing to do can change with circumstances (it is normally wrong to kill, but not if it is in self defense etc), but not with location or culture.

There is very relevent when people say we should not go around the world imposing our morality on other people. If morality is not relative then there is nothing wrong in trying to pressure other countrys into accepting our moral view. For example, if pressure Egypt into ending female circumscission or ending child labor. That would be fine. If female circumscission is wrong, then we should do whatever we can to try and stop it no matter where it exists. The only wrong move would be to impose an immoral value on another culture. Like trying to force other cultures to adopt child labor.

Or moral relativist might argue that child labor is OK in certain cultures. Or "who are we" to impose our values on other cultures by getting them to stop child labor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
By universal, I mean not relative. Moral relativity implies that morals change in different societies and in different times. I disagree with that.

If it is wrong to kill an innocent in Georgia, it is wrong to kill an innocent in Bangaladesh. Right and wrong don't change with a culture or location.

The right thing to do can change with circumstances (it is normally wrong to kill, but not if it is in self defense etc), but not with location or culture.

There is very relevent when people say we should not go around the world imposing our morality on other people. If morality is not relative then there is nothing wrong in trying to pressure other countrys into accepting our moral view. For example, if pressure Egypt into ending female circumscission or ending child labor. That would be fine. If female circumscission is wrong, then we should do whatever we can to try and stop it no matter where it exists. The only wrong move would be to impose an immoral value on another culture. Like trying to force other cultures to adopt child labor.

Or moral relativist might argue that child labor is OK in certain cultures. Or "who are we" to impose our values on other cultures by getting them to stop child labor.

Do you think people can reasonably disagree about how universal moral principles apply in given circumstances? To me, it's obvious that the answer is yes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since you seem to accept that that commandment does not mean what it literally says -- i.e., that there are exceptions to it, such as self defense -- it's not clear to me whether it's part of your universal moral code. Perhaps you could explain. I don't have a problem with the principle I extract from the commandment, which is that you shouldn't kill.

You avoided the question. But I will answer yours.

The question you avoided is if "thou shall not kill" is a principle then is an exception to thou shall not kill a code section or a rule. So that shall not kill = general principle. It is OK to kill in self defense = code or statute. You have said that General principles can be universal but code cannot. Does that mean thou shall not kill is a universal principle, but killing in self defense is not a universal principle.

I believe there is a moral answer to every situation. And such answer is universal. I think our conscience can guide us to the answer. However, I think sometimes we have trouble reading our conscience because of other stuff that makes it hard to read our conscience correctly. For example, anger, prejudice, fear, envy, past traumatic experience etc.

I don't know every detail but I am pretty sure the moral codes says that it is wrong to kill and innocent person. It is OK to kill someone if you need to kill them in self defense, it is also OK to kill someone, if it is necessary to stop them from harming someone else. I think it gets a lot more complicated than that but I am pretty sure what I have just said is part of the code.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It doesn't matter to me, since I think each version is an effort to see through that glass. But it should matter to you, if you're trying to arrive at a universal moral code, since the differences in wording will have different implications.

You avoided the question again. You stated that Principles are universal but codes and statutes are not. So is either the versions of the ten commandments princples or a code. It makes a difference on whether you think they are universal.

In answer to your assertion, the difference between the two is important to me. But I don't think the ten commandments are necessarily in line with the moral code. I am not sure if taking the lords name in vain is a violation of the moral code. Or if having other "Gods before me", or if worshiping Idols is a violation of the UMC. I am pretty sure that killing is, and bearing false witness against your neighbor is.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you think people can reasonably disagree about how universal moral principles apply in given circumstances? To me, it's obvious that the answer is yes.

Of course they can disagree, but I think one is right and the other is wrong. Sometimes the two choices may be equal, but if there is a moral choice, then two people cannot have two different opinions on what the correct moral choice is and be right. One has to be wrong.

For example, George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was either a moral decision or an immoral decision. We can disagree on that, but if we disagree, only one of us would be right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You avoided the question.

I don't think I did. We both are talking about what the commandment, "thou shalt not kill" means.

I think it states a principle that killing is wrong. Generally, not categorically.

I'm not sure what you think it means.

The question you avoided is if "thou shall not kill" is a principle then is an exception to thou shall not kill a code section or a rule. So that shall not kill = general principle. It is OK to kill in self defense = code or statute.

I really don't follow you. You're making this complicated.

You have said that General principles can be universal but code cannot.

I don't think I was trying to draw that distinction, no. You can have any kind of code you want.

Does that mean thou shall not kill is a universal principle, but killing in self defense is not a universal principle.

Beats me. I'm not sure I follow.

I believe there is a moral answer to every situation.

Only one?

And such answer is universal. I think our conscience can guide us to the answer. However, I think sometimes we have trouble reading our conscience because of other stuff that makes it hard to read our conscience correctly. For example, anger, prejudice, fear, envy, past traumatic experience etc.

And because we see through a glass, darkly.

I figure I might as well keep repeating this idea until you respond to it in some way.

I don't know every detail but I am pretty sure the moral codes says that it is wrong to kill and innocent person. It is OK to kill someone if you need to kill them in self defense, it is also OK to kill someone, if it is necessary to stop them from harming someone else. I think it gets a lot more complicated than that but I am pretty sure what I have just said is part of the code.

Pretty sure? How can you be sure? What happens if you're not certain? What happens if someone else is pretty sure it's the other way around?

You avoided the question again. You stated that Principles are universal but codes and statutes are not. So is either the versions of the ten commandments princples or a code. It makes a difference on whether you think they are universal.

I don't recall saying that. I was trying to talk about how the commandments are understood. I can't figure out what you make of them. For example, this business about killing the "innocent" -- that's not in the ten commandments.

In answer to your assertion, the difference between the two is important to me. But I don't think the ten commandments are necessarily in line with the moral code. I am not sure if taking the lords name in vain is a violation of the moral code. Or if having other "Gods before me", or if worshiping Idols is a violation of the UMC. I am pretty sure that killing is, and bearing false witness against your neighbor is.

How do you deal with the fact that you can't be sure about this stuff? What good is it saying there is a universal moral code if reasonable people can't be certain what it is?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course they can disagree, but I think one is right and the other is wrong. Sometimes the two choices may be equal, but if there is a moral choice, then two people cannot have two different opinions on what the correct moral choice is and be right. One has to be wrong.

For example, George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was either a moral decision or an immoral decision. We can disagree on that, but if we disagree, only one of us would be right.

But if we aren't sure about these things, we can't really know who is right and who is wrong. So what does it matter that there are these moral absolutes, if they are beyond our reach? (If we see them through a glass, darkly.)

Read 1 Corinthians 13 and see what you make of it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think I did. We both are talking about what the commandment, "thou shalt not kill" means.

I think it states a principle that killing is wrong. Generally, not categorically.

I'm not sure what you think it means.



I really don't follow you. You're making this complicated.






I don't think I was trying to draw that distinction, no. You can have any kind of code you want.

In the beginning of this conversation you said that you believe in universal moral principles. I then said " you believe in a universal moral code?" Then you said that I wasn't reading you carefully because you specifically said principle and not code. You pointed out that you thought that principles could be universal but that most definitely did not mean that you thought a code could be universal.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And because we see through a glass, darkly.

I figure I might as well keep repeating this idea until you respond to it in some way.

It is too vague for me to respond to. Does it mean that there is a universal code but we have trouble seeing it? Then I agree with you. Otherwise, what does it mean?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Pretty sure? How can you be sure? What happens if you're not certain? What happens if someone else is pretty sure it's the other way around?

You can't be sure. And that sucks. But sometimes I am almost absolutely sure. Is Genocide immoral. I am almost absolutely sure that it is. If someone argues with me (Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot) I can pretty safely say they are wrong and I am right.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall saying that. I was trying to talk about how the commandments are understood. I can't figure out what you make of them. For example, this business about killing the "innocent" -- that's not in the ten commandments.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the ten commandments were an early attempt at trying to delineate the moral code. I think since that time Rabinnical scholars have figured out that the code is a lot more complicated than that. How most Jewish scholars view the gravity of violations of certain of the commandments has changed. Killing is much more of a grave violation than taking the lords name in vain, or committing adultry.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How do you deal with the fact that you can't be sure about this stuff? What good is it saying there is a universal moral code if reasonable people can't be certain what it is?

I deal with it because I have to. What choice do I have? It is important that we agree there is a universal moral code, or where are we. What is the foundation of our laws? How can I say Genocide is wrong and think our government should do everything it can do to prevent it if there is no universal moral code? Just because we can't be sure every detail of the code, does not diminish the importance of acknowledging that it is there.

Just because we can't make our legal system perfect, does that mean we should give up and not make any laws?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But if we aren't sure about these things, we can't really know who is right and who is wrong. So what does it matter that there are these moral absolutes, if they are beyond our reach? (If we see them through a glass, darkly.)

Read 1 Corinthians 13 and see what you make of it.

Just because we can't be sure all the time there is some stuff we can be pretty sure about. And that is important. Torturing innocent people slowly to death is wrong. We can pretty sure of that. What is important is that we acknowledge that slowly torturing innocent people to death is wrong and since morality is universal we should try and stop any such activity from occurring anywhere in the world.

Without the acceptance that morality is universal, then how can we go about promoting justice?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
In the beginning of this conversation you said that you believe in universal moral principles. I then said " you believe in a universal moral code?" Then you said that I wasn't reading you carefully because you specifically said principle and not code. You pointed out that you thought that principles could be universal but that most definitely did not mean that you thought a code could be universal.

Again: That's not what I was or am trying to say. The distinction I was drawing between a principles and a code does not have to do with universality.

It is too vague for me to respond to. Does it mean that there is a universal code but we have trouble seeing it? Then I agree with you. Otherwise, what does it mean?

Here is a short explanation, available to anyone who might type a few words into Google:

To see “through a glass”—a mirror—“darkly” is to have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality. The expression comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul; he explains that we do not now see clearly, but at the end of time, we will do so.

You can't be sure. And that sucks. But sometimes I am almost absolutely sure. Is Genocide immoral. I am almost absolutely sure that it is. If someone argues with me (Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot) I can pretty safely say they are wrong and I am right.

Me too. But I don't go around talking about a Universal Moral Code.

I deal with it because I have to. What choice do I have? It is important that we agree there is a universal moral code, or where are we.

Why?

What is the foundation of our laws? How can I say Genocide is wrong and think our government should do everything it can do to prevent it if there is no universal moral code? Just because we can't be sure every detail of the code, does not diminish the importance of acknowledging that it is there.

Are you just saying that there are some fundamental moral truths, even if we can't be certain how they play out in some circumstances? If so, so what?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Again: That's not what I was or am trying to say. The distinction I was drawing between a principles and a code does not have to do with universality.

Ok. You said you believe in universal principles. But you do not believe in a universal moral code. Why do you belive in universal principles and not a universal moral code. Or when I asked you "do you believe in a universal moral code" why didn't you say that one may exist.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here is a short explanation, available to anyone who might type a few words into Google:

To see “through a glass”—a mirror—“darkly” is to have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality. The expression comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul; he explains that we do not now see clearly, but at the end of time, we will do so.

So it is like I said. There is a universal moral code, we just have trouble seeing it sometimes.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Me too. But I don't go around talking about a Universal Moral Code.

Why not - you seem to have admitted in believing in one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you just saying that there are some fundamental moral truths, even if we can't be certain how they play out in some circumstances? If so, so what?

What is the difference between fundamental moral truths and a universal code?