[I decided to bait him into a trap using moral codes against the bible and posted some links about Utilitarianism, not suprisingly, he covered up free speech and deleted the links, closed the thread and posted stupid crap, totally missing the point of the original post.]
God is a moral absolute. is a relative practice where morality is determined by the action's relative impact and whether the impact is positive or negative.
Moreover, it denies the overall sin nature of man as well as the existance of God. It seems to be most commonly promoted by the likes of Karl Marx.
22 comments
If a moral absolute behaves in an immoral manner, define morality, given your parameters.
And, stop diddling the teeny boppers; 15 will get you 20!
You know, Bro. Randy, I'd shut up about relative morality, considering the only moral absolute you've got is God's demands.
"God is a moral absolute. is a relative practice where morality is determined by the action's relative impact and whether the impact is positive or negative."
Everyone, whether they admit it or not, whether they are hardline Fundies or not, live by situational ethics. It has to be done that way or life would be immpossible.
"Moreover, it denies the overall sin nature of man as well as the existance of God."
Well, that's a good thing. God is imaginary and, therefore, sin does not exist.
"It seems to be most commonly promoted by the likes of Karl Marx."
Well, Karl hasn't promoted much of anything over an hundred years.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it communist.
"Companions, the creator seeks, not sheep. Not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks. Those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters, for all about him is ripe for the harvest." Friedrich Nietzsche
Edit : I just realized that this clown would probably associate Nietzsche only with the quote "God is dead.". I'm sure he'd dismiss the whole of his writings based solely on that one out-of-context quote. Thus, it's probably safe to ignore me.
Papabear,
It reads to me like a lame attack on consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a defining example) rather than situational ethics. He's just asserted that any theory which bases morality on the injuries done (or pleasures given) to other people is relative. But moral relativity and consequentialism are neither incompatible nor necessarily connected; they are orthogonal.
One could avoid explaining all this and still twist his panties around with Kant if they like. Kant's ethics are non-consequentialist, objective, and don't require God. And Habermas has done a pretty good job updating it; making it clearer, avoiding historical criticisms and giving it a developmental rather than metaphysical foundation in his theory of communicative action.
Thanks, Bro. Randy. That clears that up nicely. You might find it interesting that Karl Marx's brothers, Groucho and Harpo, also didn't believe in "the overall sin nature of man."
Old Viking: And now, my impression of Karl Marx:
(*dons black-rim glasses, heavy black mustache, and cigar to wiggle in hand*)
"Capitalism is the woist thing I ever hoid of."
(*wiggles eyebrows*)
~David D.G.
(stolen from Robin Williams)
where morality is determined by the action's relative impact and whether the impact is positive or negative.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.