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

[Spanky]

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.

Where the Ten Commandments originally written in English? I have heard a few different Jewish scholars say that the word in Hebrew that is often translated as Kill is probably more apropriately translated as murder.

I never said the Ten Commandments had exceptions. When did I say that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
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.

When someone posts to this board, they are implying they believe in a Universal Moral Code. If we all did not really think one existed this board would not make any sense. If morality is relative what is the point of this board? We are always arguing that something is right or wrong. But if morality is relative: something can be right and wrong at the same time. I could think aborting a fetus is murder and you could think it is not. You could think outlawing abortion is the right thing to do and I could disagree with you. But unless we agree that there is one right or wrong answer to all these questions arguing about it is absurd. If there is no UMC then everything we discuss could have many right answers.

Every single poster to this board believe in a UMC, has assumed there is a UMC when they have made their posts, but argues with me when I say there is a UMC. It is beyond ubsurd.

Every time you say something is wrong, or something is immoral you are assuming there is a UMC or your statement makes no sense.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
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.

If there are different "moral codes" who are you top say that "immoral battles" were fought to institute these codes. Every time you use the world immoral you imply that there is a UMC.

Originally posted by Captain
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.

Yes mankind has been struggling with it for centuries but it is an important struggle to have.

Originally posted by Captain
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.

You guys get so caught up in the word Code. But there is no difference between a universal code and universal principles. Universal morality implies a universal code. Actions can be either moral or immoral. If what is moral or immoral is universal, and there is an infinite number of factual circumstances to judge, then there is a infinite number of moral laws.

If you don't want to call it a code. Fine. But it seems like a pretty appropriate term to me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

That is why I call it a code because it is long a complicated. It is infinitely complex. But in every factual situation you can argue if it is wrong or right. Like we could argue about the firebombing of WWII. Was that moral? Some people think that it was OK because the bombing helped destroy the German war machine that was killing millions of innocent people, and would continue to kill innocent people. Other people think that killing civilians is never OK. If morality is relative, arguing about is uselss. What was moral for FDR might not be moral to you.

But if you think Morality is universal and not relative then you can critisize FDR and argue with someone whether or not the bombings were moral. Morality is complicated, and different fact situations require you to make exception to broad principles, but that does mean morality is relative. It just means it is complicated. For every fact situation there is an answer, no matter how complicated, which means it is not relative.

If you think that female circumscission is always wrong you think that morality is not relative. If you think that female circumscission is OK to save the life of the women, that does not mean you think morality is relative, you just think the rules have to be really complicated to address all the possible factual situations. If you think it is OK in Georgia to have female circumscission to save the life of a women, but not in Rwanda then you are a moral relativist. But if you think the rule applies universally, even though such a rule is an exception to the all female circumsicission is wrong rule, you are not a moral relativist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Morality is complicated, and different fact situations require you to make exception to broad principles, but that does mean morality is relative.

Who do you think is disagreeing with you, and on what grounds?

All I can say is, if this is what it takes to fill the moral void of Clinton's legacy, I can't even imagine what it's going to take to fill the moral void of the Bush years.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
If there are different "moral codes" who are you top say that "immoral battles" were fought to institute these codes. Every time you use the world immoral you imply that there is a UMC.

Caught in the language, are we? There is a moral urge and instinct that finds expression; it is common to most of the human race, but there clearly are exceptions. Are there moral rules, principals or codes that transcend time and place? Such as the 10 commandments?

Sure. Thou Shalt Not Ratsach.

Unfortunately, none of us know what Ratsach means.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Every time you say something is wrong, or something is immoral you are assuming there is a UMC or your statement makes no sense.

One of the limitations on this discussion is that we (well, most of us) are trained in the law, and not in philosophy.

Political experience and training encourages quick and facile responses to even the most difficult questions.

Legal training encourages somewhat deeper thinking, but also teaches heavy reliance on precedent, controlling authority, and arguments by analogy -- so we all struggle with topics like this one where there isn't such a clear structure for the argument.

The bottom line is that this whole discussion is just a (slightly) more sophisticated version of those endless, late night, "why are we here" bull sessions from high school or college. It goes nowhere, resolves nothing, and is not all that interesting.

I mean really, Spanky: "Every time you say something is wrong, you presuppose a UMC or your statement is meaningless."
That is complete horseshit.

Even if we were all trained and skilled in philosophical discourse, we would merely be equipped with better tools to go around in circles at a slightly deeper level. So let's not.

S_A_M

[Captain]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
One of the limitations on this discussion is that we (well, most of us) are trained in the law, and not in philosophy.

Political experience and training encourages quick and facile responses to even the most difficult questions.

Legal training encourages somewhat deeper thinking, but also teaches heavy reliance on precedent, controlling authority, and arguments by analogy -- so we all struggle with topics like this one where there isn't such a clear structure for the argument.

The bottom line is that this whole discussion is just a (slightly) more sophisticated version of those endless, late night, "why are we here" bull sessions from high school or college. It goes nowhere, resolves nothing, and is not all that interesting.

I mean really, Spanky: "Every time you say something is wrong, you presuppose a UMC or your statement is meaningless."
That is complete horseshit.

Even if we were all trained and skilled in philosophical discourse, we would merely be equipped with better tools to go around in circles at a slightly deeper level. So let's not.

S_A_M

Of course, back then, bull sessions were also undertaken in a more conducive state.

Or, in other words, Wow! Oh, man! Like, Wow!

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Captain
Of course, back then, bull sessions were also undertaken in a more conducive state.

Or, in other words, Wow! Oh, man! Like, Wow!

Apropos of nothing, have you used this guy as your avatar yet?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing, have you used this guy as your avatar yet?

No! Next up!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

There is one God and His law applies to everyone. That is not the same as saying that we know what that law is, or that the law is immutable.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where the Ten Commandments originally written in English? I have heard a few different Jewish scholars say that the word in Hebrew that is often translated as Kill is probably more apropriately translated as murder.

I never said the Ten Commandments had exceptions. When did I say that?

You have said a number of times that it is permissible to kill at times. And yet, the commandment admits of no exception. Even if one grants that the commandment proscribes only murder, then that means only that one cannot kill with intent.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Captain
Sure. Thou Shalt Not Ratsach.

Unfortunately, none of us know what Ratsach means.

Please. It's what hangs under the hindquarters of a male Rat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You have said a number of times that it is permissible to kill at times. And yet, the commandment admits of no exception. Even if one grants that the commandment proscribes only murder, then that means only that one cannot kill with intent.

Are you claiming your crucifixion of Jesus was an accident?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You have said a number of times that it is permissible to kill at times. And yet, the commandment admits of no exception. Even if one grants that the commandment proscribes only murder, then that means only that one cannot kill with intent.

1) I never said I agree with the commandment. I have said that it is wrong to kill innocent people and there are exceptions to that rule.

2) As far as that commandment goes Jewish Scholars have argued for centuries about where is applies and where it does not. Just like the Constitution gurantees freedom of speech, the courts have ruled that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Jewish scholars have treated this commandment the same, and have debated when exceptions apply.