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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

There are fundamental moral principles, but they are hard for us to see and understand, though we do our best. Sometimes, it is pretty clear how they apply, and there's nothing to talk about. Other times, it's not at all clear, and reasonable people can disagree.

This being the case, there's just no point in talking about a universal moral code. There's just too much disagreement among reasonable people about what that code might be, and the work involved in anticipating what might happen is just not worth it.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are fundamental moral principles, but they are hard for us to see and understand, though we do our best. Sometimes, it is pretty clear how they apply, and there's nothing to talk about. Other times, it's not at all clear, and reasonable people can disagree.

This being the case, there's just no point in talking about a universal moral code. There's just too much disagreement among reasonable people about what that code might be, and the work involved in anticipating what might happen is just not worth it.

In other words, there are many "universal" moral "codes". One of the great tragedies of history are the number of immoral battles fought to establish which of two purportedly universal moral codes should be dominant.

I believe there is a powerful inherant desire for morality within people, and would give that desire universality. But how we express and codify that desire, well, that's the problem.

So, my problem is with either the term universal or the term code. I can accept the idea of universal morality or of moral codes, but can't get to all three at once without envisioning world war III in the process.

[Shape Shifter]

I checked their website and it didn't say anything about a code. I hear Munich is good, though.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Rational people can ignore the social contract all the time. People do crimes that a never discovered and that never effect them or their reputations. People cheat on their taxes, steal and do other stuff that violates the social contract yet reap the benefits of the social contract.

People also lock their cars when they leave them on the street. Just because it hasn't been stolen yet doesn't mean you don't have to take precautions.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK.

Do you believe in a universal moral code?

If not, what do you believe morality is based on?

I believe in a moral code. It would be nice if it applied more often than not, but I don't believe that any code can be applied universally.

To take your earlier precept: it is immoral to kill innocent people. What about bombs and artillery? Should we eschew their use because they also kill innoncents? On an even more basic level, who gets to decide who is innocent?

Morality is an aspiration, and, I believe, part of what makes us human. Call it instinct, call it soul, call it the UMC if you must. But the truth is that morality is always applied based upon a balancing of factors.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just remembered that you are Jewish. Isn't that correct?

Are you a religious Jew? If you are you should be backing me up here.

I think the Jews were the first people to realize that there is one universal moral code that applies to everyone. They were the first people (as far as I know) to determine that morality is not relative (and they have been paying for it ever since).

I agree with that. For thousands of years Jewish religious scholars have been arguing amongst themselves trying to determine what is in the code (which is why some of our best lawyers and judges have come from the rabbinical tradition). But they all agree that there is one code, they just disagree with what is in it.

I agree with them that there is a UMC. Obviously there are certain Jewish scholars I am more an agreement with than others, but in general they all have a much deeper understanding of the UMC than I hope to ever have.

It seems that most of the liberals on this board think that the idea of a UMC is a joke. But so far no one has convinced me that they are right and the rabbinical scholars are wrong.

If you don't think that religious Jews think that morality is applied on a relative and not an absolute basis, I suggest you try reading a bit about the Talmud and the Mishnahs. Or simply contemplate the fact that the Jews don't really have a concept of Hell.

[taxwonk]

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?

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?

I don't recall the Ten Commandments having a stated set of exceptions or saying Thou shall not murder. I believe the commandment is Thou Shall not Kill.

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't recall the Ten Commandments having a stated set of exceptions or saying Thou shall not murder. I believe the commandment is Thou Shall not Kill.

The original hebrew was "ratsach" (I don't know how to do Hebrew characters here). Of course, none of us here speak a 5000 year old form of Hebrew, so whether the prohibition on ratsach means we should not "kill", "murder", "prey upon" or "tease mercilessly", I don't know. I believe there are scholars who can debate this question at great length.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
The original hebrew was "ratsach" (I don't know how to do Hebrew characters here). Of course, none of us here speak a 5000 year old form of Hebrew, so whether the prohibition on ratsach means we should not "kill", "murder", "prey upon" or "tease mercilessly", I don't know. I believe there are scholars who can debate this question at great length.

See, e.g., Talmud; Mishnahs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are fundamental moral principles, but they are hard for us to see and understand, though we do our best. Sometimes, it is pretty clear how they apply, and there's nothing to talk about. Other times, it's not at all clear, and reasonable people can disagree.

This being the case, there's just no point in talking about a universal moral code. There's just too much disagreement among reasonable people about what that code might be, and the work involved in anticipating what might happen is just not worth it.

Thus, this board serves no purpose and we'd all do much better to discuss fisting on the fb.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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

Both. The murdering is an absolute no-no. Why? because its incurable. The stealing, the banging of the neighbor's wife... That's all up to the audience. That stuff can be fixed/insured, etc... Nobody dies from it. So while you ought not to do it, its not the end of the world if you do. That, in my mind, makes it a principle.

A can of warm keystone Light to anyone who says prohibitions against theft in modern criminal codes makes that commandment necessarily "code."

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Both. The murdering is an absolute no-no. Why? because its incurable. The stealing, the banging of the neighbor's wife... That's all up to the audience. That stuff can be fixed/insured, etc... Nobody dies from it. So while you ought not to do it, its not the end of the world if you do. That, in my mind, makes it a principle.

A can of warm keystone Light to anyone who says prohibitions against theft in modern criminal codes makes that commandment necessarily "code."

Wow. You'd have someone fixed for banging the neighbor's wife. How Sharia of you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
Wow. You'd have someone fixed for banging the neighbor's wife. How Sharia of you.

Shaaaaar--- aaaaarrrrrr-- aaarrrri- a, Ba-yay-beeee. Oh, wait, you probably didn;t mean the.... nevermind.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you don't think that religious Jews think that morality is applied on a relative and not an absolute basis, I suggest you try reading a bit about the Talmud and the Mishnahs. Or simply contemplate the fact that the Jews don't really have a concept of Hell.

On this I know you are wrong. You should try reading a bit about the Talmud and the Mishnahs yourself. Ask any rabbi about moral relativity and they will tell you that morality is definitely not relative. There is one God, and his law applies to everyone. Different groups of people do not live under different law. What is moral and just in Botswana, is moral and just in souther Alabama. Jewish scholars may argue what is moral and what is not, but morality is not relative.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
People also lock their cars when they leave them on the street. Just because it hasn't been stolen yet doesn't mean you don't have to take precautions.

What the hell does this mean?