"What I am saying is that, today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong."
"Denying women basic liberties is a moral wrong."
"Forcing women (or anyone) into a marriage is a moral wrong."
"Deliberately targeting and killing children in wartime is a moral wrong."
These statements appear to be statements of Fact. It appears that the claim is that X is "a moral wrong", and that this claim is a Factual claim.
If these claims are Factual, then by what objective standard are these "a moral wrong"?
Have these practices always been "a moral wrong"?
If one looks at the phrase " today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong.", it seems to indicate that while slavery is "today" "a moral wrong"; at some previous point in history it was not "a moral wrong".
It seems strange to me that the concept of "a moral wrong" would not be both consistent and objective.
So, we have these two statements.
" Just because slavery was accepted as moral then does not mean it IS moral.
" Can you not agree with me that slavery is a moral wrong. Period?"
One which argues that slavery was "moral' at one point, while the other argues that "slavery is a moral wrong. Period?" (Strange punctuation is from the original quote)
The whole "accepted as moral"v. "IS moral", seems to indicate some confusion. It certainly confuses me.
It seems like slavery is either an objective "moral wrong" or it is not. The concept that morality is defined by acceptance seems strange to me. If that is the case, then it would be accurate to call Hitler, Stalin, and Mao "moral". Personally, I've never thought of them as moral.
Of course, the question of the innate morality of humanity is still open.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
"Please cite some research to support that claim. It could be, I just have not seen any research to say one way or the other."
"Do you know this thing that you’re stating as a fact, or is this just your best guess, not based on any research?"
I've left in the punctuation errors so that I can maintain the integrity of the quotes.
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral..."
I'm still waiting.
Craig...
If these claims are Factual, then by what objective standard are these "a moral wrong"?
By the objective standard of harm. We have certain self-evident and God-given rights, wiser people than I have stated, and amongst these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Those who would take away the life or deny liberty for no just reason are objectively causing harm, I'd say.
Do you disagree?
As to whether or not they are factual claims, I'd say they are self-evident claims. It is obvious that you don't have the right to enslave another person, or to kill another person, because that is an assault on liberty and life. It causes harm, objectively so.
Do you disagree?
~Dan
Craig...
Have these practices always been "a moral wrong"?
Not every culture has accepted the notion of basic human rights. For instance, in many ancient cultures - including biblical cultures - there was no notion that polygamy or slavery or selling your children or forced marriages were innately wrong.
WERE those behaviors wrong? Is there something to the notion of progressive revelation... that people have recognized more morality as time has passed? I don't know. I don't know that there is much sense in judging ancient morality by modern standards.
Today, without a doubt, I would say that behavior that denies personal human liberties, that cause unjust harm, that these are objectively morally wrong.
Do you disagree?
"By the objective standard of harm>'
I'm sure that it wouldn't be be asking too much for you to expound on this "objective standard of harm" and how it somehow underpins an objective standard of morality.
"I'd say they are self-evident claims."
Which doesn't address that issues raised.
"It is obvious that you don't have the right to enslave another person,..."
Obvious too whom. There are plenty of examples of current cultures who believe that it is obviously moral to enslave people. As your quote indicates, that slavery as a moral wrong is dependent on the culture.
"...or to kill another person,..."
Except, of course, that (at least in the U.S.) we do have the right to kill people under certain circumstances.
"It causes harm, objectively so."
which does not suggest that "causing harm" is an objective standard. It certainly doesn't provide support for a claim of fact. Nor a claim of objective morality.
In fact, you can't objectively prove that all actions that cause harm are objectively wrong.
OK, you've spouted some nonsense that doesn't answer the questions asked, nor does it provide any sort of objective support for your claims.
However, since you have still not demonstrated that your underlying premise is factually, objectively, true. I am going to set some boundaries for this.
Before I allow any further comments to remain. You must address your unproven claims of fact. These remain unaddressed from an earlier thread. So, once you address those claims, then (in the interest of maintaining an orderly conversation), I will allow comments that move beyond those claims.
To be clear, the claims you have made are.
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral..."
I will not allow any more of the (Well, most of the people I know appear to be trying to act in a moral way) anecdotal digressions.
You have made statements that are clear claims of the innate state of humanity. Until you can prove them, or retract them, your commenting privileges will be limited.
Look, you're asking me questions. Feel free to receive my answers or not, but don't be all jerky about it.
You're wanting answers to this?
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral..."
My evidence, Craig, is you. It's me. It's all the people I know. It's nearly all the people I have ever heard of, ever.
Dan,
Until you prove or modify your underlying premise, I see no reason to move on. To be clear the claims of fact you made are;
Look, you're asking me questions. Feel free to receive my answers or not, but don't be all jerky about it.
You're wanting answers to this?
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral...".
You have not provided any evidence to support these claims. Once you provide evidence to support these claims, then we can move on. Until then, I see no point in allowing you to present your unsupported opinion as if it is fact.
"My evidence, Craig, is you. It's me. It's all the people I know. It's nearly all the people I have ever heard of, ever."
This is NOT evidence of the claims you made. At best it is anecdotes about how you perceive or observe the actions of people around you when you observe them. Which is, of course, all it can be. It does not address motivation, nor does it address behavior unobserved by you.
So, please support the claims you made. If necessary, you could modify, correct, or retract your earlier claims. But, I see no point in moving further otherwise.
For the record, I saved the rest of your comment and will be happy to address it's failings once you hold up your end of the deal.
Yes, Craig, we are done. You will not receive my honest answers and you are unable to answer my reasonable questions.
There's nothing to do about it until such point as you humble yourself a bit, seems to me.
In Christ,
Dan
"You will not receive my honest answers..."
I have received your answers, and saved them until you provide evidence to support your underlying claims of fact. So, in point of fact, your above statement is demonstrably not true.
"...and you are unable to answer my reasonable questions."
All one has to do is take a look at the multiple posts answering your questions to know this is false.
BUT, you misrepresent my position. It is not that I am unable to answer your questions. That is false. It is that I have placed your questions in moderation until you provide proof of your claims of fact. When you do, then the conversation can move forward in an orderly manner.
"There's nothing to do about it until such point as you humble yourself a bit, seems to me."
It's not an issue of my humility at all. It's an issue of you being unable to provide evidence to back up your claims. It's an issue of you being unwilling to recant or modify your claims (which could be a humility issue). But either way for you to try to make this about me, when you clearly won't prove or adjust your position is laughable.
I've been clear. In the name of being orderly, you can prove the underlying premise of your position as stated (as fact) by you, then we can move on to your questions and false assertions.
"I came to your pages because someone cited you as a reasonable conservative Christian who could provide reasonable, data-supported discussions."
If you are referring to me reference said page as a resource, then the above statement is either a mistake or a lie.
I referred to to a couple of posts that contained links to some references that addressed your issues. I did not in any way suggest that you would find "data supported discussion". That term is laughable given your lack of data to support your claims of fact.
Okay, my mistake. I thought you were offering what you thought was a reliable source.
Obviously, having spent several days there, we see the same sort of question-dodging, ad hom and strawman fallacies that I have repeatedly found at most conservative blogs.
The guy does not appear to believe in the notion of human liberty of personal autonomy, at least as it relates to women! The guy is a science-basher! He is a magical thinker (someone who admits reality but argues against it because "god..." or magic or prayer).
Where have all the solid conservative thinkers gone?
Anyway, we do not seem to be able to come to any agreement about questions and answers so this will be my last post here, Craig. I'll continue in my search for a conservative who is prepared to answer questions that are asked of them and who does not have difficulty admitting reality.
God bless you and thanks for the many attempts at answers, just the same.
In Christ,
Dan
"I'll continue in my search for a conservative who is prepared to answer questions that are asked of them and who does not have difficulty admitting reality."
Of course, since you are not willing to do what you demand of others, I see no reason for you to get so defensive.
As I have pointed out, you are on a blog with literally hundreds of answers to questions you have asked, and I stand ready to answer your additional questions once you lay the factual foundation for your position.
The fact that you are more interested in blaming others than in doing the exact same thing you demand from others is telling.
Feel free to continue to misrepresent and lie about me and others if it helps you to feel better about yourself.
But, as far as I'm concerned, all you need to do is provide proof that your statements of fact are actually factual, then we can move on. Why this rational and reasonable approach is so problematic for you I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with your desire to not be wrong and an unwillingness to admit mistakes or overstepping in your proclamations.
So, I have your missing comment saved and will gladly address everything as soon as you support your position.
"For me, I am always glad to defend my positions, even if the questions are difficult to answer. It sharpens my mind and clears my thinking."
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral...".
Except, of course, when you won't defend your positions.
I have to say that it has been interesting to see that Fred has reached exactly the same conclusions about you as every other person who you have disagreed with. As well as a few who agree with you.
Some folks might take that and re evaluate their theology. Some might re evaluate their communications skills.
Some, might blame everyone else and complain.
"Dan, you’re obviously determined to stand your ground. I have no idea why you’re bothering to ask Fred anything at all – you have no desire at all to change your position. This is just you and Fred, sparring. Your written correspondence just drips with an intentioned and determined will to reject anything and everything Fred says that doesn’t match your convictions. I’ll bet you really do know how OT laws and regulatory statutes get sorted out in the NT. I’ll bet Fred is really wasting precious time with you. The fact is, I don’t believe you care one wit whatever is posited against your position."
A perceptive assessment, from someone without the history that some of us have.
I ask questions to seek the answers and, in this case, because I don't believe there are any good answers in defense of their positions. And apparently I'm correct, given that they opted not to answer them.
I was banished NOT for a lack of politeness, NOT for being disrespectful, NOT for a failure to love my fellow conversationalists, but for no good reason other than gossip and slander.
That they can't answer my questions is a sure sign that they should reconsider their positions. That they (conservative bloggers, generally, in my experience) opt for character attacks rather than respectful debate is a sure sign that they should repent and move away from the emotional and irrational and towards something more moral and solid, rationally speaking.
Yes Dan, you have it right. You are persecuted everywhere. It can't possibly be anything you've done, or anything you say, or any position you hold, it must be everyone else.
I hope you realize how that sounds.
If you had ever one time, ever, given the slightest hint that anything anyone had said to you had made you reconsider, study, or change your opinion, I might even believe you.
But you haven't.
So feel free to keep up your pity party. Just don't think you'll get any sympathy from me.
Especially given your refusal to provide proof of your statements of fact in this very thread.
As always, Craig, you misunderstand.
This is not a pity party for me. I am feeling sorry for YOU guys. You don't appear capable of addressing reasonable questions in a loving, respectful or rational manner. Or at all, most of the time.
To illustrate this, I ask you to tell me, Craig, what did I DO at Fred's to deserve banning? The answer? Nothing. At all. Unless you count polite disagreement as grounds for banning.
That's what I'm saying, Craig. It's odd and inexplicable how so many conservatives on the blogosphere are willing to ban for no solid reason other than fear - that "they" might be a false teacher or that "they" are sneaking about up to no good... in spite of having zero evidence for such claims (that they/you all inevitably make) to support the charges.
Again, you can disagree with m opinions all day long, but you can't rationally say I'm being dishonest or disingenuous. I actually believe what I believe and I actually believe it as I seek to follow Jesus. Being merely mistaken is NOT the same as being a false teacher. Not biblically, not rationally.
The collective inability for conservative bloggers to deal with polite questions respectfully and rationally IS a pity, but it's not a pity for me.
Dan
...I can't help but return to this line of yours...
It seems like slavery is either an objective "moral wrong" or it is not. The concept that morality is defined by acceptance seems strange to me.
It SEEMS, then, that you must be arguing that slavery - the owning of another person against their will - is NOT a moral wrong. Clearly, God in the Bible never condemns slavery outright and, indeed, taking the texts as literal history as you do, God ordered Israel to enslave some people. Therefore, by your reasoning, "either slavery is objectively wrong or it is not," you must either think slavery (and polygamy and selling your children into marriages and stoning to death those who work on Saturdays) is not immoral or that God has commanded people to do immoral acts.
This line of thinking seems, to me, to be a much more serious kerfluffle for you than for me.
Do you affirm that slavery can be a moral good? Really?
Or, is it the case that you think that God sometimes commands people to do immoral acts?
You seem to paint yourself into a rationally, morally and biblically unsustainable corner.
But I'm sure you see it another way.
Dan,
Fred was quite clear about why he "banned" you. I presumed you read his explanation and understood it.
"It SEEMS, then, that you must be arguing that slavery - the owning of another person against their will - is NOT a moral wrong."
No it doesn't. It seems as though I'm trying to get you to be specific. You have claimed that slavery is (an objective) "moral wrong" while also claiming that, " today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong.". Your first claim would indicate that slavery is (objectively permanently) a "moral wrong". Your second indicates that slavery is a "moral wrong" only to the degree which it is accepted as such. ("today" is is a "moral wrong", but in the past in might not have been) The problem is that you have already claimed that there is no objective transcendent moral standard, so when you make claims of fact that contradict other claims of fact (that you have made), you end up with an incoherent and untenable position.
My trying to get to the bottom of this contradiction is at the heart of this post.
You can either assert that there are things that are objectively, transcendentally "morally wrong", or you can argue that morality is defined societally. You can't argue both. As long as you continue to do so, and to refuse to clarify, I remain confused.
So, your problem in your last comment is that your are assuming (or assigning me) a position which I have not taken, and presuming to make me argue for the position you have decided I have, rather that a position I actually hold.
If you would like to provide the information I asked for in my original post as well as clarify the contradictions as I've pointed them out, that would be great.
If, not....
I don't know if you'll follow up or not, but...
I re read your last comment and one more problem occurred to me. or at least, I'm not sure if I adequately addressed it.
My entire issue up to this point is your lack of support for YOUR assertions.
YOU (not me) asserted that "today slavery is a moral wrong".
I have not made any assertions about the morality or lack thereof when it comes to slavery.
YOUR assertions, (at a minimum) leaves open the door to slavery not being a moral wrong when removed from the context of "today"
So, to be clear. If you want to clarify YOUR positions and provide support for your claims, please do so.
But at this point you seem to be suggesting that "moral wrong" is both transcendent as well as driven by societal context. Until you deal with the incoherence of this contradiction, it makes no sense for you to try to ascribe to me positions which I do not hold. If you want to know, ask, don't make stuff up.
I do think I figured out why it bothers you so much when you gee pulled up short at peoples blogs. So many of us have tried for so long to give you the leeway which allows you to drive the conversation where you will and to ignore questions and any evidence that goes against your personal hunch. So, when someone doesn't allow you to use your playbook, you get upset and try to rationalize the situation. It seems that you are incapable of entertaining the possibility that it is you and your manner of interaction that causes problems.
I don't have time to post the quotes, but it seems as though you are making a fair amount of claims about things being factually moral in your conversation with MA. IT seems as though, given your denial of transcendent moral standards, that you are claiming that those things are not objectively (im)moral, but that they are immoral in your opinion.
You do realize that this contradictory position is exactly what you are bashing Marshall for.
Good catch, Craig. I have been trying to pin Dan down on this issue now and then. I maintain that morality is dictated by God, not our own personal notions of based on some ambiguous degree of "harm" (which itself is thus far ambiguously defined by Dan). As such, harm itself cannot be the defining factor, as God has provided harmful consequences for those who fall short, even assuming that we might disagree as to what constitutes "falling short". This can clearly be supported by the very fact that He sent us a Savior. To save us from what, exactly? If it is only to save us from separation from God, are we to regard this separation as something less than harmful?
Harm as a criterion for morality is subjective and self-serving. Scripture, I think it is safe to say, it rather clear on what constitutes morality. It is that which pleases God in its most basic sense. Pleasing God might compel us to inflict harm. For example, laying down one's life for another, turning the other cheek (in its most literal sense) and simply "dying for God", that is, sacrificing that which pleases ourselves in order to please God, can all legitimately be called "harmful".
No. Harm cannot be a criterion for judging what is moral since there is no way to apply the term in a manner that has widespread agreement.
A far better way to decide what is moral or immoral is to look to Scripture for determining what pleases or displeases God. Our purpose for existing is to please Him. Therefore, if it pleases Him to rape puppies, as Dan would disingenuously suggest, raping puppies is a moral act. It is really that simple.
We don't have to worry if stoning an adulterer is moral or not, as such a punishment is no longer required of us. But back when it was, it would have been immoral to refrain from stoning one convicted of adultery, since that is what God mandated for the sin. It really doesn't matter in the least how it offends Dan's sensibilities. It would still be moral to exact that sentence were the Law still in effect for us.
So, murder isn't "immoral" because of the harm it causes. It is wrong because God says it is. He says not to do it. Indeed, according to Scripture, it seems quite clear that the reason it is prohibited is because of how it is an assault on that which is in the image and likeness of God, not the actual person.
All this is not to say that perpetrating harm is not sometimes sinful, but only that it is not the reason why an act is immoral. But in Dan's self-serving world, such a criterion allows for sinful acts that might not be overtly harmful, such as homosexual behavior. At the same time, Dan can pretend he knows that sexual acts he opposes, such as incest, are always harmful, or harmful often enough for the purpose of drawing an irrelevant distinction between behaviors.
Post a Comment