Who determines the Maxim: the moral Law?

[Taz]

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

So how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

So the answer to the OP is Nature. Nature determines the moral law.

Morality is subjective, as you might think something like gay sex is immoral, but others don't see it that way, and nature has too many examples of homosexuality and transgendering to mention. But I'm sure that you still think that you're on the moral high ground on this matter.

Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

 

[Taz]

Chapter 9 Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative

Who determines what the moral law requires?

The Pope? Nope.
The President? Congress? Nope.
Your parents? Nope.
The Bible? Nope.
The majority of those in your community or culture? Nope.

It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason.

And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others. It is not because you have different personal goals. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are different than other people. It has nothing to do with you as an individual.

For Kant, what determines what the law requires is exactly the same as that which makes you infinitely valuable -- your freedom, your ability to choose. And it is your reason that allows for that. Without reason, there is no freedom. Without reason, there is no capacity to choose. Therefore the life of morality requires that you/we all act in accord with reason -- because it is reason which is the source of our freedom, our autonomy, our dignity.

In short, you determine the right thing to do by appealing to your own universalizing and impartial rationality. It so happens that, since all human beings are rational in precisely the same way -- in virtue, that is, of being able to think abstractly and in terms of universal laws -- what you ought to do in situation A,B,C is exactly the same as what someone else ought to do in situation A,B,C.

Who Determines the Maxim: the moral Law ?

^ All BS. God determines moral law. Whether man's laws on earth follow it is a different story.

Oooh, I'll tell you one thing: The Earth always follows God's moral laws.

God's moral law? You mean like the time god drowned nearly everyone, including babies, in his worldwide flood?

That is called a red herring argument.

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

 

[ding]

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

So how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

So the answer to the OP is Nature. Nature determines the moral law.

Morality is subjective, as you might think something like gay sex is immoral, but others don't see it that way, and nature has too many examples of homosexuality and transgendering to mention. But I'm sure that you still think that you're on the moral high ground on this matter.

Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

 

[ding]

^ All BS. God determines moral law. Whether man's laws on earth follow it is a different story.

Oooh, I'll tell you one thing: The Earth always follows God's moral laws.

God's moral law? You mean like the time god drowned nearly everyone, including babies, in his worldwide flood?

That is called a red herring argument.

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

 

[cnm]

There are three possible states; societies can be moving towards virtue, moving away from virtue or static.

And of course virtue is determined by the community.

 

[cnm]

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Slavery is moral. Ok.

 

[Taz]

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

So how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

So the answer to the OP is Nature. Nature determines the moral law.

Morality is subjective, as you might think something like gay sex is immoral, but others don't see it that way, and nature has too many examples of homosexuality and transgendering to mention. But I'm sure that you still think that you're on the moral high ground on this matter.

Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?

 

[Taz]

God's moral law? You mean like the time god drowned nearly everyone, including babies, in his worldwide flood?

That is called a red herring argument.

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Our country is totally FUCKED UP! And there's no such thing as objective moral law, who gets to decide, you?

 

[Marion Morrison]

That is called a red herring argument.

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Our country is totally FUCKED UP! And there's no such thing as objective moral law, who gets to decide, you?

Part of the reason our country is "totally FUCKED UP" is subjective morality believing retards such as yourself that indoctrinate kids into that way of thinking. It's a significant part of why there are more school shootings these days. Suck on that!

 

[cnm]

Subjective truth is also discovered.

 

[cnm]

Part of the reason our country is "totally FUCKED UP" is subjective morality believing retards such as yourself that indoctrinate kids into that way of thinking.

Don't forget the subjective morality that considers the slaughter of other people's school kids to be a reasonable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi-automatics.

 

[Taz]

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Our country is totally FUCKED UP! And there's no such thing as objective moral law, who gets to decide, you?

Part of the reason our country is "totally FUCKED UP" is subjective morality believing retards such as yourself that indoctrinate kids into that way of thinking. It's a significant part of why there are more school shootings these days. Suck on that!

So who gets to set the standards of morality? The NRA?

 

[ding]

Part of the reason our country is "totally FUCKED UP" is subjective morality believing retards such as yourself that indoctrinate kids into that way of thinking.

Don't forget the subjective morality that considers the slaughter of other people's school kids to be a reasonable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi-automatics.

Easy access? No. Liberty and freedom? Yes. Gun accidents and violence are a cost of liberty and freedom just as automobile accidents and deaths are a cost of transportation.

And since no one who supports 2nd Amendment rights condones murder of any kind, your argument is disingenuous.

 

[ding]

Subjective truth is also discovered.

No. It is rationalized.

 

[ding]

That is called a red herring argument.

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Our country is totally FUCKED UP! And there's no such thing as objective moral law, who gets to decide, you?

The moral law is what we ought to do, not what we do do.

 

[ding]

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur.

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

So how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

So the answer to the OP is Nature. Nature determines the moral law.

Morality is subjective, as you might think something like gay sex is immoral, but others don't see it that way, and nature has too many examples of homosexuality and transgendering to mention. But I'm sure that you still think that you're on the moral high ground on this matter.

Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?

Statistics says otherwise, Taz.

So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

 

[ding]

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Slavery is moral. Ok.

No. That is a great example of moral relativity.

 

[ding]

There are three possible states; societies can be moving towards virtue, moving away from virtue or static.

And of course virtue is determined by the community.

No. Virtue is decided by outcomes.

 

[cnm]

Easy access? No.

Yes.

 

[cnm]

No. Virtue is decided by outcomes.

No. Outcomes determine how valid were the community norms. The community decides the norms.