"Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

[Norbeone]

There is also the common Atheist argument, "Who says there is a purpose?".  This argument attempts to undermine religion's claim to understand purpose by denying it exists.  But that clouds the issue.  If a purpose doesn't exist, then science can still not tell us about it, by definition.  It will always remain a thing of philosophy.

It doesn't cloud any issue. There is no good reason to believe humans have a purpose. Nothing points towards it, and so it is a very valid and neccesary thing to do to question its whole notion. If someone wants to claim we do have a purpose, then it is up to them to prove it, and that has not been done. Nor has any even far-out theory been suggested - theory being something useful to help explain something. Purpose is not at all useful.

[Wanderer]

Aland.

And how did you cope with the constant back and forth between text and translation? Are you at least relatively fluent in deciphering basic syntax in Greek sentences? I may take these texts for granted, but I think the effort required for comprehension by a non-native speaker would be quite copious... and admirable.

[Catison]

I find all these questions completely besides the point, whether philosophers think that our morality contains degrees of truth or not - when asked why they think a 'true morality' exists, and how it could (metaphysically) I have never been able to find anything beyond 'just an intuition' that there is.

Consider this example.  A man kills his wife because she wasn't able to produce children, and then at trial explains, "Your honor, you only find my acts heinous because you have an old morality.  My morality has evolved."

Without and understanding of a good, objective morality, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions when we are only judging them by our personal morals?

[adamdavid80]

Consider this example.  A man kills his wife because she wasn't able to produce children, and then at trial explains, "Your honor, you only find my acts heinous because you have an old morality.  My morality has evolved."

Well, actually, this exists in some cultures.  Except there's no trial or explanation to the judge, b/c it IS considered perfectly moral.

[Catison]

Well, actually, this exists in some cultures.  Except there's no trial or explanation to the judge, b/c it IS considered perfectly moral.

So, its ok, right?

[Catison]

If someone wants to claim we do have a purpose, then it is up to them to prove it, and that has not been done.

Yes, this is my point.  The question of purpose is outside the realm of science.  It will forever remain in the realm of philosophy, as is the case of your personal philosophy:

There is no good reason to believe humans have a purpose.

[karlhenning]

Can't put it simpler than that.

[M forever]

Without and understanding of a good, objective morality, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions when we are only judging them by our personal morals?

There is no such thing as "objective" morals. Its all conventions. If there was, then it would be an exact and absolute science, which as people here keep pointing out, is something that doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as "personal morals" either. What you think is good and bad only applies to yourself, and you are free to think to think and do whatever you like (by "you are", I mean that in the sense of "one is", not necessarily of you as a person, because you have apparently decided to give up your intellectual and spiritual freedom) - as long as it does not negatively affect other people.
At that point, negotiations begin between people about what is deemed acceptable and what not. And those standards change all the time. The so-called "moral teachings" of the churches have practially not affected that at all throughout history, despite all the nice things it says in the bible abd other textbooks about this and that. People just keep "interpreting" their "holy texts" according to their current definitions and needs.
These negotiations do not begin because at that point, "morals" kick in. They simply begin because of conflicting desires and ideas. Since we are a social animal, we do have to make "compromises" and overall, that isn't too difficult for us because we do have the desire to live in an organized social group.

However, what you think and do, in your private life, in your private and intimate sphere among the people who you decide to develop friendships and relationships with, has nothing to do with "morals". Whether you play with yourself or what you do with your boyfriend/girlfriend (or both) is nobody's business as long as all involved are acting freely. In other words, keeping your girlfriend/boyfriend (or both) chained to the wall in your basement is not OK, unless they actually dig that.

That has nothing to do with "morals", or rather, the interpersonal consensus makes it "moral".

On the other hand, I find it highly immoral if people want to dictate other people what to do in their personal and private spheres. That has nothing to do with "good morals". It has nothing to do with qualifying for the "afterlife" either. It is just an attempt to control and enslave people.

[Catison]

- as long as it does not negatively affect other people.

Now who is imposing his morals on other people?

[Catison]

On the other hand, I find it highly immoral if people want to dictate other people what to do in their personal and private spheres. That has nothing to do with "good morals". It has nothing to do with qualifying for the "afterlife" either. It is just an attempt to control and enslave people.

I thought morals didn't exist.

[Guido]

Consider this example.  A man kills his wife because she wasn't able to produce children, and then at trial explains, "Your honor, you only find my acts heinous because you have an old morality.  My morality has evolved."

Without and understanding of a good, objective morality, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions when we are only judging them by our personal morals?

But I don't think morality has any real power - so it's irrelevant that his morality has evolved. I can acknowledge the fact that our morality has evolved, without then thinking that it is 'right' in any real sense or that we should be beholden to it in any way. It's just a very reasonable explanatory mechanism for why we have morality. As I said, it only has adaptive advantages, nothing else (I am taking evolution to include up to the evolution of early culture). For me, this is a legal issue, along with where that derives from. I don't think the law derives its power from God's goodness, or the moral code he has laid out for humans.

[adamdavid80]

So, its ok, right?

Well, that is the philophical $64,000 question.  Which, I'm estimating, can also tie into the question of church doctrine that we were earlier discussing. 

If something is the absolute norm in a culture - Romans enjoyed murdering amongst their lower class for sport - only an outside influence can make it alter or evolve, into a new understanding of what constitutes "morality".  Hell, look at Darfur.  Look at Nazi Germany.  Look at U.S. foreign policy.  Sometimes "immorality" and "homeland security" can find no common ground (but they can find interesting new phrases: "torture" becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques").

Uhmmm...let's say Jainism, the sect that beleives all killing - man, animal, insect - is wrong.  They're vegans through and through and wear henkies over their mouths so as not to swallow microscopic insects while their mouths are open.  So, according to them, we're all barbarians.  But we look at that example (and, mind you, it is, I'm aware, an extreme example) and say, "Sheesh!  Those people are CUH-RAAAAAZY!"

but are they wrong?  Are we?  End of the day, it's a matter of belief and philosophy. 

I try to take it all from the viewpoint of empathy.  In your view, the empathy would extend to the unborn.  In mine, I might share that view, but - in regards to abortion - I do believe that it's an experience that should be decided by the individual having the direct experience.

[Joe_Campbell]

In mine, I might share that view, but - in regards to abortion - I do believe that it's an experience that should be decided by the individual having the direct experience.

Like...the fetus?

[adamdavid80]

Like...the fetus?

And this is where Brett and I keep going in circles (as with each side of the debate).

In one side, the belief is that a being is a living entity from the moment of insemination.

On the other, the belief is that that fertilized egg is not yet "alive", that it's a zygote.

We can discuss it back and forth for eternity, but the differing beliefs - I believe - should be respected.  My own perspective is, I honestly think it's wonderful that you have that belief.  However, if someone else does not, than the govt has no place telling her what she can and can't do with her body.

(also, as discussed earlier, it's largely a matter of economics.)

I have a question: it's my experience that the most fervent believers of the immorality of abortion are the most ardent supporters of the death penalty.  Are these your own feelings (all y'all pro-lifers), and if so, can you explain the contradiction?

[M forever]

I thought morals didn't exist.

I didn't say that. Please read again.

Now who is imposing his morals on other people?

Explain how saying everyone should be free to do what they like is I "imposing my morals" on other people. It is the contrary. I am saying, let everyone find their own "morals". I don't care if they conform with mine. That people can't just do what they like in situations in which it affects others is self-explanatory, follows from that, and a matter of mutual respect and social behavior and solidarity. But mostly respect.
Give me a reasonable answer. No kindergarten stuff like the above.

[M forever]

Like...the fetus?

Fetuses (feti?) aren't individuals. They are part of the women bearing them. Show a little respect for women, even though you may fear and resent them. Keep your filthy nose out of their private parts.

[Joe_Campbell]

Fetuses (feti?) aren't individuals. They are part of the women bearing them.

Evidently, that is what's being debated. Do you feel better about yourself now? You fabricated an attack on women, then stuck up for them! How brave!

[M forever]

No, I don't feel better, I feel sick every time I am reminded that some people - like you - have the nerve and the perversity to want to dictate to women what they should do with their bodies. No doubt, the age old resentment of and revenge on women which led to witch hunts and other forms of oppression, no doubt, the revenge of those who feel threatened by the eternal feminine.

[Joe_Campbell]

Way to put words in my mouth. It's only your opinion that the fetus is a part of a woman (the entire point of the most recent part of this discussion), and you used that to launch on an unprovoked tirade against a straw man.

[M forever]

Don't call yourself a strawman; you don't have to put yourself down, even though, yes, your contributions don't have much original substance. BUt there is no need to be that harsh on yourself.

Since in many parts of this continent, there is little to no sexual education, I can understand that you don't actually understand where a fetus is located. It is, in fact, deep inside the woman. I guess you can google that or look it up on wikipedia.
That is not my opinion.
It is my opinion, however, that women and their intimate sphere should be highly respected (like anyone's intimate sphere), so it is really none of your or other religious hypocrites' business what is going on between their legs and inside their bodies.
Why are you so fixated with that? Because you normally don't get there? So you and your "religious" friends at least want jurisdiction over that area? Understandable, maybe, but very, very pitiful.

Funny, you sanctimonious people pretend to know about God and the deep mysteries of the universe an the holy spirit, but you get stuck in and totally fixated on these very, very earthly and fleshly issues.

As if we didn't have bigger problems. And as if the religion you pretend to adhere to didn't in its core texts preach understanding, forgiveness, and helping each other. Women in a critical, sensitive, and very personal situation like this can certainly be much better helped and supported than in those ways. But then you would have to take your noses out of their panties, and that you don't want to give that up is obvious.