|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 15, 2006 22:48:44 GMT -5
I apologize if this is addressed somewhere else and I've missed it - please feel free to delete this thread and send me a message on where to find the relevant one, if so!
I've seen a lot of people throw out argument about autonomy and I don't really understand the point.
Are we independent? Is that it? Please explain. Sorry that I'm not just picking out the different arguments from the threads I've seen it in... I like to have things all together in one place ^_^
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 22:52:03 GMT -5
Good thread Hopeful. I'm anxious to see responses too, as I've been denounced as "autonomous, and thus 'reduced to absurdity'" as well. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 22:56:35 GMT -5
To be autonomous is to be self-governing. However, the conflict arises if you say that everyone is autonomous.
One person says, "what is right is to tolerate homosexuals."
Another person says, "what is right is to beat up homosexuals."
If each individual has the right to be autonomous regarding morality, one cannot appeal to any universal morality (God given morality) to condemn any other actions. You would be forced to say, "that is right for you".
The ultimate conclusion would be that everybody is right and nobody is wrong. Sounds great, except you couldn't say the KKK, Nazis, Crusaiders, Terrorists, or any other people are wrong because they can make up their own morality and nobody can question or condemn that morality.
Basicly if truth/morality is relative and detemined by the individual or society, truth/morality being a ball of clay to be twisted and manipulated rather then a solid rock (two tablets of the Ten Commandments) then no action or behavior can be universally condemned but all actions must be accepted and tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 22:59:33 GMT -5
To be autonomous is to be self-governing. However, the conflict arises if you say that everyone is autonomous. One person says, "what is right is to tolerate homosexuals." Another person says, "what is right is to beat up homosexuals." If each individual has the right to be autonomous regarding morality, one cannot appeal to any universal morality (God given morality) to condemn any other actions. You would be forced to say, "that is right for you". The ultimate conclusion would be that everybody is right and nobody is wrong. Sounds great, except you couldn't say the KKK, Nazis, Crusaiders, Terrorists, or any other people are wrong because they can make up their own morality and nobody can question or condemn that morality. Why why why do you refuse to acknowledge the argument I and others have made multiple times concerning this? NO ONE is saying it's okay for the KKK to go lynch people they don't like. In fact, I have provided logical reasons why this is wrong. As I have said over and over, morality is open to interpretation until you infringe upon the rights of others. When your beliefs begin hurting other people, you have overstepped your bounds. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. Oh and PS: Jesse, you have said in the past that you only keep harping on homosexuality because we keep bringing it up. I'm pretty sure this thread proves otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 23:01:58 GMT -5
Says who? Who gives people rights? And where do those bounds come from? Who establishes those bounds?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 23:05:47 GMT -5
Says who? Who gives people rights? And where do those bounds come from? Who establishes those bounds? I would say that human rationality and compassion does, but I doubt you'll accept that answer. I, like you, believe in the Creator and I believe that She/He has gifted us as human beings with a conscience. This conscience tells me that hurting fellow human beings is wrong. So in my belief, the Creator has established these bounds.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 15, 2006 23:09:19 GMT -5
Jesse: To be autonomous is to be self-governing. However, the conflict arises if you say that everyone is autonomous.
One person says, "what is right is to tolerate homosexuals."
Another person says, "what is right is to beat up homosexuals."
If each individual has the right to be autonomous regarding morality, one cannot appeal to any universal morality (God given morality) to condemn any other actions. You would be forced to say, "that is right for you".
The ultimate conclusion would be that everybody is right and nobody is wrong. Sounds great, except you couldn't say the KKK, Nazis, Crusaiders, Terrorists, or any other people are wrong because they can make up their own morality and nobody can question or condemn that morality.
Basicly if truth/morality is relative and detemined by the individual or society, truth/morality being a ball of clay to be twisted and manipulated rather then a solid rock (two tablets of the Ten Commandments) then no action or behavior can be universally condemned but all actions must be accepted and tolerated.
Hmmm... Let's see. For me, it's not a matter of whether or not I believe in Judgment, it's that I find concerning myself with it irrelevant with how to live.
What about "Majority rules, but minority rights"? I'm fudging that quote a bit, I'm afraid.
This is still a little confusing for me, so bare with me please.
Hypothetically, if you were the only person in the world, do you justify everything you do by society's standards (like the quote I made implies)? In this case you would be society... so everything's justified. Autonomy. Hmmm.... so you're asking if the human race as a whole is autonomous?
*think thinks* Hmm... ok, then. Yes, we are autonomous. I'd like to give you a chance to give your response to that before I explain what I mean, if you don't mind ^_^ It's okay if not, just lemme know!
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 23:57:16 GMT -5
I think Jesse just changed this thread into a debate about what determines moral authority. I say strong independent leaders within a society ripe to their ideas are the ultimate decision makers when it comes to moral authority.
I mean, Napoleon said, "God is on the side with the biggest guns." If you can motivate enough people to follow you and accumulate some metaphorical big guns, you're off and ready to determine right and wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 0:07:12 GMT -5
Ok, I've decided to start taking some swings at these great discussions. HopefulHeart said: What I am saying is that even if I was the only person in the world, I would still be under the authority of God's sovereign decrees, not my own. What I am saying is that I cannot be autonomous, I cannot make up a universal standard. If I could, then so could you, and so could Hitler... When a conflict arises, what are we to do? Morluna said: No one except... the KKK perhaps. Even though I agree with you that they are wrong, if morality is relative, how can you say that something in fact is wrong? Do you see how an outside source other than ourselves is necessary to determine morality and truth? I bring you back to argument A: Morluna said: OH PRAISE TO THE LORD!!! BREAKTHROUGH!Morluna, I think that you are catching on. I suppose now I might just have to take you off the list of being autonomous. You have just stated that morality is not relative, but in fact absolute and universal as dictated by the creator. But now the question remains, is the conscience alone the only means by which God speaks to us as far as morality and is the conscience completely adequate and infallible? Can it be seared as with a hot iron as the Bible says, suppressed, or manipulated? Morluna said: Hey, I know I am not the smartest guy around... but I try. Sometimes I feel like I am typing on a computer. Miles
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 0:14:54 GMT -5
I think Jesse just changed this thread into a debate about what determines moral authority. I say strong independent leaders within a society ripe to their ideas are the ultimate decision makers when it comes to moral authority. I mean, Napoleon said, "God is on the side with the biggest guns." If you can motivate enough people to follow you and accumulate some metaphorical big guns, you're off and ready to determine right and wrong. I hope that you are joking. Given that framework, you are giving justifiable grounds for Hitler, the Taliban, the crusades, slavery, rape... So, if I can get enough people to disagree with you on this message board, then that make you wrong... that is if you are in fact correct in your assessment. Miles
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:16:32 GMT -5
Morality; while the concept of it is timeless, what is considered moral is not.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:19:43 GMT -5
I think Jesse just changed this thread into a debate about what determines moral authority. I say strong independent leaders within a society ripe to their ideas are the ultimate decision makers when it comes to moral authority. I mean, Napoleon said, "God is on the side with the biggest guns." If you can motivate enough people to follow you and accumulate some metaphorical big guns, you're off and ready to determine right and wrong. I hope that you are joking. Given that framework, you are giving justifiable grounds for Hitler, the Taliban, the crusades, slavery, rape... So, if I can get enough people to disagree with you on this message board, then that make you wrong... that is if you are in fact correct in your assessment. Miles Nope, every single concept you have mentioned was subsequently defeated by a superior and is ultimately rejected from modern western society.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 0:21:42 GMT -5
Morluna, just to clarify, are you now saying that you would refute the claim that an individual has the authority to determine truth/morality and are in stead confirming that God defines morality universally?
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 0:32:47 GMT -5
I hope that you are joking. Given that framework, you are giving justifiable grounds for Hitler, the Taliban, the crusades, slavery, rape... So, if I can get enough people to disagree with you on this message board, then that make you wrong... that is if you are in fact correct in your assessment. Miles Nope, every single concept you have mentioned was subsequently defeated by a superior and is ultimately rejected from modern western society. Native Americans were defeated by those who had "the bigger guns". Iraq was defeated by those "with the bigger guns". Ever single rape victim was defeated by those "with the bigger guns". Every child that was ever molested was defeated by those "with the bigger guns". If what you are saying is true every murder ever commited was justified. Do you see the conclusions and implications of your theory for morality? Miles
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:37:01 GMT -5
Nope, every single concept you have mentioned was subsequently defeated by a superior and is ultimately rejected from modern western society. Native Americans were defeated by those who had "the bigger guns". Iraq was defeated by those "with the bigger guns". Ever single rape victim was defeated by those "with the bigger guns". Every child that was ever molested was defeated by those "with the bigger guns". Do you see the conclusions and implications of your theory for morality? Miles Oh, I never claimed that this theory is a good way for the world to work, it is just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:38:13 GMT -5
Theory would be the wrong word, replace that with hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:40:48 GMT -5
Whats the matter Miles? You like your quote but can't appriciate how morbid a quote it really is? You know those images are where that quotation was derived from.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 0:43:44 GMT -5
So drsocc, do you concede? I was hoping not to get onto too many red herrings and I hope that this thread will get back on track, however drsocc, how do YOU determine morality given that you don't seem to actually subscribe to what you just proposed earlier?
Miles
Lord willing, to be continued in the afternoon on the Lord's day...
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 0:45:33 GMT -5
Whats the matter Miles? You like your quote but can't appriciate how morbid a quote it really is? You know those images are where that quotation was derived from. You are incorrect, John Wesley said that long before Vietnam. John Wesley died in 1791. It is talking about the spiritual sense not the physical sense. But that is irrelavent to the argument at hand. Red herring. Miles
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:53:07 GMT -5
I don't concede anything. I will still stick by my observation of large bureaucracies and moral authority. Most individual morality is formulated from their parents. Families being the most basic unit of a society have the greatest control over what is considered moral in a populace, be it christian morals or some other philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:53:59 GMT -5
Whats the matter Miles? You like your quote but can't appriciate how morbid a quote it really is? You know those images are where that quotation was derived from. You are incorrect, John Wesley said that long before Vietnam. John Wesley died in 1791. It is talking about the spiritual sense not the physical sense. But that is irrelavent to the argument at hand. Red herring. Miles Self emolation has been around long before Wesley coined his witty little phrase.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 0:55:58 GMT -5
Could you light yourself on fire for God? If God came out of the clouds (yeah I know this won't happen, I'm just musing on a 'what if' questions), and asked you to light yourself on fire, would you do it?
Also, didn't God at one point try and get Abraham to kill his son, only to back off at the last minute? Doesn't that seem kind of sick to anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 1:13:34 GMT -5
Ok, I've decided to start taking some swings at these great discussions. HopefulHeart said: What I am saying is that even if I was the only person in the world, I would still be under the authority of God's sovereign decrees, not my own. What I am saying is that I cannot be autonomous, I cannot make up a universal standard. If I could, then so could you, and so could Hitler... When a conflict arises, what are we to do? Morluna said: No one except... the KKK perhaps. Even though I agree with you that they are wrong, if morality is relative, how can you say that something in fact is wrong? Do you see how an outside source other than ourselves is necessary to determine morality and truth? I bring you back to argument A: Morluna said: OH PRAISE TO THE LORD!!! BREAKTHROUGH!Morluna, I think that you are catching on. I suppose now I might just have to take you off the list of being autonomous. You have just stated that morality is not relative, but in fact absolute and universal as dictated by the creator. But now the question remains, is the conscience alone the only means by which God speaks to us as far as morality and is the conscience completely adequate and infallible? Can it be seared as with a hot iron as the Bible says, suppressed, or manipulated? Morluna said: Hey, I know I am not the smartest guy around... but I try. :) Sometimes I feel like I am typing on a computer. Miles Don't get too excited dear. And just what do you think I'm catching on to? I understand your view perfectly well and honestly haven't learned much about you since this whole discussion began. A few issues have become more clear, but on the whole I understand how you see the world. And if you think I don't understand the way Christians view things you haven't paid attention when I've talked about the years that I spent following your doctrine. I get it. Okay? I got it a long time ago. You're not revealing any great truth to me that I'm not already acquainted with. Now then... as to this quote: "You have just stated that morality is not relative, but in fact absolute and universal as dictated by the creator." Maybe this isn't exactly what I said, but if that's the case I apologize for not being clear enough. What I intended to say is that I believe the Creator placed a conscience inside all of us and that all human beings fundamentally know, through the instinctual human understanding, that anything hurtful to fellow human beings is wrong. I don't mean to say that the Creator has set forth an infallible code of conduct or set of laws to live by, outside of "love thy neighbor." To me, it seems that anything outside of this commandment is open to interpretation. This idea of the conscience becoming "seared or manipulated," ... no. That isn't possible. I guess if someone were brainwashed... but that's another thing altogether. Morluna, just to clarify, are you now saying that you would refute the claim that an individual has the authority to determine truth/morality and are in stead confirming that God defines morality universally? Miles See above. I refute nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 16, 2006 1:13:40 GMT -5
*think thinks* Hmm... ok, then. Yes, we are autonomous. I'd like to give you a chance to give your response to that before I explain what I mean, if you don't mind ^_^ It's okay if not, just lemme know!
Thanks Miles for taking up the issue. Now, onto the fun of hashing out semantics (it's fun and I find it important at times, lol). Besides, I'm thinking maybe my view on 'autonomy' is what's causing my misunderstanding here. Let's see...
We were created by God. God only creates good. He did not create evil. Evil is a concept by man to explain the absence of goodness/God/etc. So it seems to me that simply by having a term for that absense... *wanders off into mutterings, thinking*
We're not autonomous in the sense that we live within the limits and based on the materials given to us by God. The conscious, the soul, the heart... (I usually say heart, but I have to recognize that others use different focal-points for that). Hmmm... so does autonomy even exist?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 1:15:31 GMT -5
Also, didn't God at one point try and get Abraham to kill his son, only to back off at the last minute? Doesn't that seem kind of sick to anyone else? What is this universal code of conduct that you are referring to? What outside ethical standard are you using to judge the behavior of God in the Bible? Are you saying it is sick only if you think it is sick? Are you trying to appeal to majority? What foundation are you working from? Miles Lets try to avoid the red herrings. New threads for new topics.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 1:20:02 GMT -5
Could you stop using the phrase "red herring?" Just like Jesse's little "reduced to absurdity" catchphrase, it's really irritating.
I'm just sayin'...
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 1:23:21 GMT -5
Eh, I was avoiding making threads that would only require a 2 or 3 post response, but whatev. Also, you want me to put that in the theology section, the random section the world view section or what? Too many pointless forums.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 1:24:59 GMT -5
Could you stop using the phrase "red herring?" Just like Jesse's little "reduced to absurdity" catchphrase, it's really irritating. I'm just sayin'... I know, I havn't used that phrase since I was in third grade and my teachers were talking about Hardy Boys books.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 1:28:32 GMT -5
Morluna and drsocc, that's a red herring. Just kidding. Ok, I'll try call them rabbit trails from now on. But back on topic... My conscience tells me that drunkenness, pornography, premarital sex, abortion, lying, stealing, murder, and homosexuality are wrong. Does my conscience agree with your conscience? Miles Seriously this time, I am about to log off and sleep. Tomorrow is another day. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 1:31:22 GMT -5
Morluna, that's a red herring. Just kidding. Ok, I'll try call them rabbit trails from now on. But back on topic... My conscience tells me that drunkenness, pornography, premarital sex, abortion, lying, stealing, murder, and homosexuality are wrong. Does my conscience agree with your conscience? Miles Seriously this time, I am about to log off and sleep. Tomorrow is another day. Cheers. No, it doesn't. But that's okay. If that morality is right for you, then you should live that way. It isn't right for me, so I should not. You should allow me the chance to live how I should, and I will allow you to live how you should. That's just basic human respect. "Rabbit trails" ... could you just call it what it is instead of relying on stupid analogies and metaphors? Whatever.
|
|