patrick.net

simchaland says

Finding a common base for morals can’t be done without tolerance. Without tolerance it’s going to be one group’s set of morals that is chosen and rammed down everyone else’s throats.

Then, lets find what we can agree is intollerable. Is intollerance intollerable? What would you say should be listed as intollerable?

I think there are absolute lines between good and bad, and I think tollerance blurs some lines that should not be blurred. I also think common kindness is mistaken for tollerance.

Bap33 says

I think there are absolute lines between good and bad, and I think tollerance blurs some lines that should not be blurred.

You would make a very good Fundamentalist who would love living in a Theocracy. I suggest moving to Saudi Arabia to see the end game of your thinking.

sim, are you suggesting there is no absolute right and wrong? That's why I kinda felt that would be a good starting point. Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? To be fair I should answer also, and my answer is Yes.

Bap33 says

sim, are you suggesting there is no absolute right and wrong? That’s why I kinda felt that would be a good starting point. Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? To be fair I should answer also, and my answer is Yes.

Perhaps there is an absolute right and wrong in a Universe (or dimension) where there are absolutes that can be known a priori.

We live in a finite universe. We are finite creatures in this universe. We are not omniscient. We cannot know the absolute as limited, finite, creatures. Therefore, logic dictates that we can't afford to live in absolutist terms since we cannot know the absolute, or even if it exists.

So, for us, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong that functions in our finite universe. We are bound by space/time and we are in no position to judge morality in absolutist terms. It would be arrogant to presume that we could place a firm line between the concepts of "right" and "wrong." These concepts have changed their bounds over time in human history and they are still evolving. Morality, therefore, isn't a matter of two discrete poles. It's more of a spectrum, or circles that overlap. We may share some moral ideals with another group. Those ideals on which we may agree might be starting points for dialogue. Also there are moral ideals that groups don't share. These ideals should also be in the dialogue so that our vision expands as much as possible.

Basically, I believe the question is more complicated than asking, "Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong?" This question points to other questions that must be answered first, like the metaphysical question "Is there an absolute right and absolute wrong?" Then the next question is, "As limited and finite beings, can we know absolute right and absolute wrong?" Then comes your question. Then many questions follow after that.

Question 1) Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? Possibly. One way or another, we can't prove it definitively due to the answer I have for question 2.

Question 2) As limited and finite beings, can we know absolute right and absolute wrong?" No, as limited and finite beings we are not omniscient and cannot know whether or not absolute right or absolute wrong exists.

Question 3) Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? Following the answers of question 1 and question 2, I would argue that we can't know the answer to this. So my answer is: maybe or maybe not.

Question 4) Since we cannot know absolute moral ideals, should we create absolute moral ideals for us to follow? In my opinion, it is unwise and illogical to create moral absolute ideals since we cannot know if absolute morality exists.

Question 5) What should we do to develop a system of morality? In my opinion, we should be constantly questioning our ideals and testing their utility and veracity. In that case a system of morality will include a spectrum or circles but no absolute line.

The Roman Legal system operated like this in practice. Roman Law set forth impossible ideals to which everyone was supposed to reach. The Romans, knowing that no one could reach the ideals because of our limited nature, would temper their judgement about whether or not someone was following the law based on how close or far away someone is to the ideal. That is why they had lawyers. The lawyers specialized in rhetoric to argue shades of gray. Due to the Romans' practial nature, a yes or no decision was needed and that was left up to a judge, who all Romans knew to be human and fallible. They amended laws and changed them throughout their history depending on the then current moral standards.

Only Fundamentalists think in terms of absolute right and absolute wrong. To think in absolutist terms one must abdicate reason and rely on blind faith that 1) there is absolute right and absolute wrong and 2) we can know absolute right and absolute wrong. In believing this way, one opts for faith without reason.

There is a middle ground most religious and spiritual people live in, it's called faith informed by reason. And most religious and spiritual people recognize that we cannot know it all and we should always question our conclusions.

So, as you can see, your quesiton is much larger than simply the question you asked. I cannot answer that question adequately enough without showing the complexity.

@thunderlips, I disagree. In your example the issue being questioned is one of priority and duty, not "lie or not". In The Bible a similar example was given where a lady lied to guards about the guys she was hiding in her room ... and Lot lied to the Sodomites that were knocking at the door asking to have sex with the Angel that was in his house. So, it should not be felt that telling a lie is always bad. Jesus never lied, he just refused to answer and answered questions with questions -- but didn't lie. As a matter of fact, the commandment is to "not bare false witness' .. and that is not so much about telling a lie as it is false accusations. In the old Hebrew laws they had it set up so that the accuser was in danger of serving the same penalty as the accused, should it be proved that the accuser was bearing false witness. So, telling a lie is not anywhere near the area of absolute ... When the wife askes if she looks fat, say no and it's ok, but, bringing false claims of theft against a neighbor, before a judge, is an absolute no-no.

@sim,
are you absolutly sure of anything other than the absolute lack of any absolutes in life? lol

By the way, one point you stated as a fact made me want to share a counter. You said we are finite in this finite universe. I humbly suggest we are infinite in an infinite universe. Maybe that is where the divide begins?

One thing is for sure (in my mind), a common base and understanding of moral / immoral, right / wrong would be a good Cornerstone to build a healthy and happy society.

simchaland says

There is a middle ground most religious and spiritual people live in, it’s called faith informed by reason. And most religious and spiritual people recognize that we cannot know it all and we should always question our conclusions.

great post.

just for basic reference:

1. Have no other gods.
2. Have no idols.
3. Honor God's name.
4. Honor the Sabbath day.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not perjure yourself.
10. Do not covet.

I am guilty of them all, incase anyone wonders. Don't wanna seem all Holy and perfect and such.

@simchaland

Isn't it equally intolerant to disallow the views of those who consider the mosque to be an affront to those who died on September 11th, 2001? If there is no absolute right or wrong, then these two examples of intolerance should be equal. It is equally intolerant of the emotions of the families of those killed to demand the mosque should be built as it is intolerant of Islam to say that it cannot be. Actually, there is greater intolerance on the part of those wishing to build the mosque, because they refused to compromise when offered other locations for their building. So one side was trying to compromise by offering an acceptable alternate location, but the builders of the mosque refused to be tolerant of the feelings of the families.

Also, it is a major reach to claim that the mosque issue is indicative of any threat to religious freedom. The constitution guarantees the right to practice whichever faith you wish, it does not guarantee that there will not be repercussions to your choices. The street corner preacher informing a gay couple that they will burn in hell has every right to his belief, just as I have every right to tell him that I think he's a fool. It is perfectly constitutional for people to express their beliefs that the mosque should not be built, and the majority of people recognize the the builders have the right to build the mosque if they wish to. The majority just believes that they should choose not to out of deference to the families.

The article you linked contains the important information. Yes, there are a few nutbags around the country who oppose the building of any mosque anywhere, but these are the absolute minority, and (again as the article states) there are larger groups of non-Muslims defending the mosques in those areas. Very few people believe it should be illegal to build mosques, most Americans believe that it is legal to build the mosque near Ground Zero.

ahasuerus99 says

Isn’t it equally intolerant to disallow the views of those who consider the mosque to be an affront to those who died on September 11th, 2001?

Who is disallowing them? They seem to be rather loud and obnoxious and I don't see anyone stopping them from being loud and obnoxious, nor should anyone.

We are all allowed to have our own opinions and give voice to them.

What we are not allowed to do is to take away the right others have to express their religious beliefs, no matter how vile we feel those beliefs to be. That is the point of this entire thread.

Those who don't want the mosque built there get to voice their opinions all they want. At the end of the day, they don't have the right to eliminate those Muslims' right to build a mosque where ever zoning laws allow for it.

So, the Muslims have to tolerate the hate speech of those who would take away their right to religious freedom. These Muslims don't have the right to take away that freedom of speech from the protesters. These Muslims are free to build that mosque where ever they like according to local zoning laws. And protesters have the right to dislike the placement of the mosque or the building of any other mosque in this country, and give voice to it. The protesters do not have the right to take away these Muslims' right to build that mosque where ever local zoning laws would allow. Neither group should infringe on the rights of the other.

That is the whole point of this thread. We need to re-learn tolerance in this country if we are to save the USA that is put forth in our Constitution.

ahasuerus99 says

Very few people believe it should be illegal to build mosques, most Americans believe that it is legal to build the mosque near Ground Zero.

And you and I have a very different opinion about what is really going on around this mosque controversy.

ahasuerus99 says

Isn’t it equally intolerant to disallow the views of those who consider the mosque to be an affront to those who died on September 11th, 2001?

We should allow them their views. But then, we should recognized that they're nuts. They want to restrict a religion's right to have a place to worship because of some extremists. If that's the case, we should not allow any christians to worship within a certain perimeter of a planned parenthood clinic.

Muslim extremists killed a shitload of people. But they don't represent the muslim religion as a whole, and the freedoms for which we fought should apply to every religion.

Google this: Glen Allport, Have you had enough government regulation yet?

This short article puts everything in proper prospective...except the radical liberals will go nuts and will probably denounce the article and the author (but that's only because they have mental impairments).

I liked PGE as a limited-monoploy myself. They (and Army Corps) had done the foundation work, so it made sense for them to enjoy the fruits of their labor ... alot like train people. Just my opinion.