Does Anyone Else Find Moralizing Obnoxious?

Post Reply New Topic

Think you might get a Jack-Boot in the face when you meet your moral twin???

Tadzio

A morality based on social interaction makes the person who goes against it objectively unpopular but not objectively wrong. I don't think there can be good without God.

A "one star" review of William Lane Craig's book "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" at amazon-dot-com includes the nearly identical "opposite" quote from Craig's website:

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5767 around the 7th paragraph from the bottom of the long web page.

Much the same was said by others on "volatile issues" (the "hostile" cited delivery of "eternal life" from the "issue" was held "not sufficient" domestically), and even "Cat Stevens" was banned from the U.S.A. (and variously burnt in effigy, and domestic artistic works destroyed), with no warmly welcoming debate of "issues" available. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678694.stm
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... ingers.php

Now, with issues in line with the "William Lane Craig-ites", the "rules" are near entirely different.

Tadzio

^^^

So let me deal a bit with what you are claiming. Theistic morality in the sense I am talking about deals with moral ontology (where it comes from) not moral epistemology (what is right and wrong). The first sign that someone either does not know what they are talking about or just wants to muddy the water is that they discuss moral epistemology in a discussion of moral ontology. If you want to investigate OT ethics go buy a copy of 'Is God a Moral Monster' by Paul Copan, it deals sufficiently with your objections.

Hi Craig91,

So you claim two Craig quotes can't go together without conflict because of departmental policy.

That's a crock of balderdash and then some.

"Where it came from" is distinct from "what is right and wrong" (unless you're on a one-way street, going the wrong way, or maybe into a scatology fetish). That explains "Don't Do As I Do, Do As I Say", but how does it fit with your "I don't think there can be good without God", since the "God" origin is to be distinctly cut? Don't worry, it happened to the Titanic too. And, "wrong departure" means "heavenly bliss" in La-La Land.

Wait!! ! Darn, Double Darn, there are "ontology" sections and all my sectioned "epistemology" and "philosophy" books. Those idiots must not know Craig's Mandatory Golden Rules of Thinking Thoughts. Then,: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45085

Well, "consciousness" is a good example, because it has no valid, nor objective, definition. Such nonsense is best avoided in science, and nonsense should be minimized in everything else: See Wolff, Kant, Heidegger, Quine, and hundreds of others. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

"Did you get the count of the bubbles in your beer?" also has both ontological and epistemological aspects, and all three taken to excess endanger sobriety.

I put Paul Copan with the stack of "WatchTower's" and "Awake's" with his "When God Goes to Starbucks" apologetics (2008), out of the way.

In the real world, Ted Bundy & Hitler couldn't make the "few-thousand-years" wait list, though at the Pearly Gates, I doubt the argument involving distinctions between ontological aspects and epistemological aspects of crimes against humanity worked as any "Get Out of Hell For Free" Card.

Meanwhile, cow manure makes a smelly, but still better, compost ingredient than recycled paper.

Tadzio

I find righteous hate even more disturbing than irrational hate because the righteous haters are taken seriously.

I would actually have a great deal of respect for someone who says they are against moralizing and who also, true to that belief, never practices it.
Someone shoots their mom dead, and they say, "Hey, listen, who am I to judge you? But nice shot. "

I'm FOR morals, of course, but I have respect for anyone who is thoroughly consistent, simply because being thoroughly consist is practically impossible.

Do you moralmonkeys think before you vomit cliches?

Listen, if someone shoots your mom (and you care about your mother) that's a sufficient reason to be upset. Herp-a-fuckin'-derp. Unlike you mystic assclowns we don't have to look for magical 'justification', we do what we please because we can. You can't think outside of your moral box, amorality is incomprehensible to you; the idea that amorality actually prescribes any kind of behavior is submoronic.

You're justifying your own "amorality" now by providing an explanation for it. You want to be right in this argument do you not. Like I do and anyone who every argues about anything does. You want to be true and right. That is what morality is.

Why? Because it's a standard emotional response? No, because to be honest I was next to overjoyed when I found out my dad died. I just knew I couldn't act like I was or people would think I was a sick freak. OK, sure, I knew my dad had problems that he couldn't help, but regardless of how you excuse abusive parenting if things are bad enough you're glad to see them go. That's how I felt as a little kid, anyway, and things might have been different if he'd lived longer. I dunno. But I didn't shed one tear for my dad.

No, emotions aren't good enough. There has to be some underlying guiding factor that's going to predetermine how you feel about your particular circumstances. A sense of right and wrong best explains this aspect of emotional response.


Condescending, aren't we? Sounds like a sense of RIGHTeousness to me.


We don't?


"Because we can"? Isn't that just another justification?


Not true. Sure, morality provides boundaries, but moral "laws" can be broken, ignored, or "tuned out." It's possible to build a sort of thick skin that ultimately throws all the rules out the window. To harden the heart, in a sense, and eventually overcome the inherent emotional response that happens when breaking "the rules."

Other than that--no, nobody can think outside of a moral box--lol, and that includes those who claim to have no morals. Oh, I'm sure the rare sociopath exists who doesn't give a rip and pulls the wings off flies, burns ants with magnifying lenses, and staples bunnies' eyes shut, but this if far from the norm of human behavior.


If morals exist, amorality cannot exist. So, yeah, it's incomprehensible.


That sounds like another judgment call. You're apparently just labeling something as wrong. That's a MORAL judgment call. You can't seem to even support your own assertions without passing moral judgments!

I have my own moral code that is largely self created and based on a bare minimum of naked assertions. I don't expect others to follow it or even respect it, but I try to live my own life in accordance with it. I do find other people's moralizing to be tiresome, usually in direct proportion to the subjectivity of their morality.

All personal moral frameworks are equally subjective. Some just have different axioms and lead to different ideals.