Deuteronomy 13:6-11

[diver52]

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

I think you read past what I actually said.

Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.

Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.

What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.

Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?

Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.

Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.

Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.

You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.

Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.

Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.

That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.

Suffering is not antithetical to reproduction. When a herd of bison are threatened they form a circle with the calves and cows inside and the bulls outside. This means one or more bulls will be attacked and they will suffer. They may die. That does not make the behavior immoral.

If you are going to consider morality as just a cause and effect for survival, then the survival must be that of the group. It is only through the group that the individual survives.

 

[diver52]

Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?

Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.

Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.

Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.

You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.

Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.

Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.

That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.

Suffering is not antithetical to reproduction. When a herd of bison are threatened they form a circle with the calves and cows inside and the bulls outside. This means one or more bulls will be attacked and they will suffer. They may die. That does not make the behavior immoral.

If you are going to consider morality as just a cause and effect for survival, then the survival must be that of the group. It is only through the group that the individual survives.

You misapllied my logic again.

Bulls are not fully logical first off, but casting that aside --- obviously losing 2 bulls versus interrupting the very act which allows the species to reproduce ...preserving reproduction causes less suffering and so its justified to lose 2 bulls if it means preserving the on-going reproduction of the species. Thats just obvious, it was an easy example, and its why in many scenarios actual human beings act selflessly...because selfless acts are many times required to prevent greater suffering and so its innate in many human beings to act in such a way. And its because of your misapprehension of the logic that many cultures are immoral. They misapprehend as well.

I think it is you misapprehending. You assume that because you think something it immoral, then it must be immoral. That really is just another example of how subjective morality can be.

Let's take it to a grand scale. Germany invades Poland. To declare war against Germany means a lot of suffering and death. Was declaring war immoral?

 

[diver52]

I'm enjoying this, but I do have some stuff to do today. Hopefully, we can take it up later.

 

[ding]

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

If that were the case then there should be no expectation that others should agree with you when you quarrel with them.

That's a false inference.

Then you should be able to explain how it is false rather than just making an accusation that it is false.

You'd have to go and study the case for moral objectivity in a secular framework, ding, because I don't have the patience for someone as fundamentally flawed in their reasoning as you are...that also adds in cockyness to coincide with their flaws...because that isn't my BAG, bayybayy.

Sorry, dude. BUUUuUUUt, as the offer has always stood, if you really need to see me make the case you can always ask someone else to ask me for ya

But I have studied that. Morals are effectively standards which exist for logical reasons and they can’t be anything secular man wants them to be. At least not without suffering the logical consequences of their actions.

 

[ding]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

Humans are subjective. Morals are effectively standards which exist for logical reasons. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

 

[diver52]

Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.

Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.

You didnt apply "my logic" correctly, and humans are not without error which is why you see some cultures consider immoral things...moral. You just proved it.

Correct...evolution's guiding force is Reproduction. Suffering is anti-thetical to that, which is why we conceptualized a way to describe the way that behaviors effect suffering. We call that "Morality," but Im happy to call it bacon or something when it makes people uncomfortable.

Morals are not some magical thing which actually exist. They're conceptions of how behaviors effect us. When suffering is measurable, Morality ~ i.e. the measurement of how a behavior effects suffering, is objective.

That some cultures come up with the wrong answers doesnt mean that Morality is thus magically subjective...it means they measured wrong.

Suffering is not antithetical to reproduction. When a herd of bison are threatened they form a circle with the calves and cows inside and the bulls outside. This means one or more bulls will be attacked and they will suffer. They may die. That does not make the behavior immoral.

If you are going to consider morality as just a cause and effect for survival, then the survival must be that of the group. It is only through the group that the individual survives.

You misapllied my logic again.

Bulls are not fully logical first off, but casting that aside --- obviously losing 2 bulls versus interrupting the very act which allows the species to reproduce ...preserving reproduction causes less suffering and so its justified to lose 2 bulls if it means preserving the on-going reproduction of the species. Thats just obvious, it was an easy example, and its why in many scenarios actual human beings act selflessly...because selfless acts are many times required to prevent greater suffering and so its innate in many human beings to act in such a way. And its because of your misapprehension of the logic that many cultures are immoral. They misapprehend as well.

I think it is you misapprehending. You assume that because you think something it immoral, then it must be immoral. That really is just another example of how subjective morality can be.

Let's take it to a grand scale. Germany invades Poland. To declare war against Germany means a lot of suffering and death. Was declaring war immoral?

I beg to differ. The ONLY reason even the CONCEPT morality EXISTS is as a guide ... how one party effects another.

If you cannot apply the scientific method and the laws of logic to determine those effects and apply them across the very bedrock goal of survival and reproduction...then thats on you.

the woo woos and the theists over-inflate how simple of a concept morality actually is.

And your hypothetical lacks pertinent details to be able to gauge if its a moral war or not. Id be glad to answer if you properly elucidate the details. Why the war, whats the goal..whats it to prevent...what happens if thats not prevented...

those questions and more would have to be answered, necessarily, to respond to your hypothetical.

That you thought it was answerable as it stood only further shows that its you thats misapprehending.

If it's a one-on-one thing, then it can't be anything but subjective.

As to my example, I have no idea how you could possibly get more pertinent details unless you have never read a single history book. There was suffering and death on a monumental scale. Cities wiped out, tens of millions of lives snuffed out. You claim suffering and death is the basis of immorality. So was declaring war against Germany immoral? Unless, (and you seem to be saying this) it all depends. Which is the very essence of subjective.

 

[diver52]

Suffering is not antithetical to reproduction. When a herd of bison are threatened they form a circle with the calves and cows inside and the bulls outside. This means one or more bulls will be attacked and they will suffer. They may die. That does not make the behavior immoral.

If you are going to consider morality as just a cause and effect for survival, then the survival must be that of the group. It is only through the group that the individual survives.

You misapllied my logic again.

Bulls are not fully logical first off, but casting that aside --- obviously losing 2 bulls versus interrupting the very act which allows the species to reproduce ...preserving reproduction causes less suffering and so its justified to lose 2 bulls if it means preserving the on-going reproduction of the species. Thats just obvious, it was an easy example, and its why in many scenarios actual human beings act selflessly...because selfless acts are many times required to prevent greater suffering and so its innate in many human beings to act in such a way. And its because of your misapprehension of the logic that many cultures are immoral. They misapprehend as well.

I think it is you misapprehending. You assume that because you think something it immoral, then it must be immoral. That really is just another example of how subjective morality can be.

Let's take it to a grand scale. Germany invades Poland. To declare war against Germany means a lot of suffering and death. Was declaring war immoral?

I beg to differ. The ONLY reason even the CONCEPT morality EXISTS is as a guide ... how one party effects another.

If you cannot apply the scientific method and the laws of logic to determine those effects and apply them across the very bedrock goal of survival and reproduction...then thats on you.

the woo woos and the theists over-inflate how simple of a concept morality actually is.

And your hypothetical lacks pertinent details to be able to gauge if its a moral war or not. Id be glad to answer if you properly elucidate the details. Why the war, whats the goal..whats it to prevent...what happens if thats not prevented...

those questions and more would have to be answered, necessarily, to respond to your hypothetical.

That you thought it was answerable as it stood only further shows that its you thats misapprehending.

If it's a one-on-one thing, then it can't be anything but subjective.

As to my example, I have no idea how you could possibly get more pertinent details unless you have never read a single history book. There was suffering and death on a monumental scale. Cities wiped out, tens of millions of lives snuffed out. You claim suffering and death is the basis of immorality. So was declaring war against Germany immoral? Unless, (and you seem to be saying this) it all depends. Which is the very essence of subjective.

lol bro you didn't say you were referencing an actual war - that was VERY non specific, jeeze.

no, saying "it all depends" doesnt make it subjective. All that's saying is that it "all depends" on how each aspect is measured against the objective standard which I'm referring to: human suffering.

Declaring the war can be said to be good or bad depending on how it works out vs. that goal of least suffering. We can measure that: OBJECTIVELY. That's why the details matter. Did Warring with Germany prevent greater human suffering, in the long term? That's the moral question.

one on one is not necessarily subjective, i wouldnt even know what that means. perhaps you need to define how you're using objective, because you keep resorting to this "your opinion doesnt make something objective" thing when I'm not invoking my opinion as what makes anything objective....but it's the nail you're trying to drive over and over again. it's the wrong nail

Ok. Measure WWII objectively.

 

[diver52]

I think it is you misapprehending. You assume that because you think something it immoral, then it must be immoral. That really is just another example of how subjective morality can be.

Let's take it to a grand scale. Germany invades Poland. To declare war against Germany means a lot of suffering and death. Was declaring war immoral?

I beg to differ. The ONLY reason even the CONCEPT morality EXISTS is as a guide ... how one party effects another.

If you cannot apply the scientific method and the laws of logic to determine those effects and apply them across the very bedrock goal of survival and reproduction...then thats on you.

the woo woos and the theists over-inflate how simple of a concept morality actually is.

And your hypothetical lacks pertinent details to be able to gauge if its a moral war or not. Id be glad to answer if you properly elucidate the details. Why the war, whats the goal..whats it to prevent...what happens if thats not prevented...

those questions and more would have to be answered, necessarily, to respond to your hypothetical.

That you thought it was answerable as it stood only further shows that its you thats misapprehending.

If it's a one-on-one thing, then it can't be anything but subjective.

As to my example, I have no idea how you could possibly get more pertinent details unless you have never read a single history book. There was suffering and death on a monumental scale. Cities wiped out, tens of millions of lives snuffed out. You claim suffering and death is the basis of immorality. So was declaring war against Germany immoral? Unless, (and you seem to be saying this) it all depends. Which is the very essence of subjective.

lol bro you didn't say you were referencing an actual war - that was VERY non specific, jeeze.

no, saying "it all depends" doesnt make it subjective. All that's saying is that it "all depends" on how each aspect is measured against the objective standard which I'm referring to: human suffering.

Declaring the war can be said to be good or bad depending on how it works out vs. that goal of least suffering. We can measure that: OBJECTIVELY. That's why the details matter. Did Warring with Germany prevent greater human suffering, in the long term? That's the moral question.

one on one is not necessarily subjective, i wouldnt even know what that means. perhaps you need to define how you're using objective, because you keep resorting to this "your opinion doesnt make something objective" thing when I'm not invoking my opinion as what makes anything objective....but it's the nail you're trying to drive over and over again. it's the wrong nail

Ok. Measure WWII objectively.

I'm not really in any position to do so, I dont have classified intel, I dont have thorough study, I dont have the statistics, I havent contemplated the outcomes of the War versus not having it...

That can all be done, mind you...I just havent done it...and Im not about to pretend to have the required details so that I can make a quip out of it.

Ok. Who has done it?

 

[diver52]

If it's a one-on-one thing, then it can't be anything but subjective.

As to my example, I have no idea how you could possibly get more pertinent details unless you have never read a single history book. There was suffering and death on a monumental scale. Cities wiped out, tens of millions of lives snuffed out. You claim suffering and death is the basis of immorality. So was declaring war against Germany immoral? Unless, (and you seem to be saying this) it all depends. Which is the very essence of subjective.

lol bro you didn't say you were referencing an actual war - that was VERY non specific, jeeze.

no, saying "it all depends" doesnt make it subjective. All that's saying is that it "all depends" on how each aspect is measured against the objective standard which I'm referring to: human suffering.

Declaring the war can be said to be good or bad depending on how it works out vs. that goal of least suffering. We can measure that: OBJECTIVELY. That's why the details matter. Did Warring with Germany prevent greater human suffering, in the long term? That's the moral question.

one on one is not necessarily subjective, i wouldnt even know what that means. perhaps you need to define how you're using objective, because you keep resorting to this "your opinion doesnt make something objective" thing when I'm not invoking my opinion as what makes anything objective....but it's the nail you're trying to drive over and over again. it's the wrong nail

Ok. Measure WWII objectively.

I'm not really in any position to do so, I dont have classified intel, I dont have thorough study, I dont have the statistics, I havent contemplated the outcomes of the War versus not having it...

That can all be done, mind you...I just havent done it...and Im not about to pretend to have the required details so that I can make a quip out of it.

Ok. Who has done it?

Studied WWII? Historians, Students, Hobbyists...I'd presume - perhaps even sociologists, psychologists and other Sciences, too.

You presume? If you can't do it and you know of no one else who can do it - then how do you know it can be done? And if someone did do it, how do you know it wasn't biased? What are the objective standards for evaluating suffering?

 

[Andylusion]

Is Deuteronomy 13:6-11 literal or is it a metaphor?

None of us actually know because none of us lived in ancient Israel but I suspect it is literal. Thousands of years later we still have residual behaviors of Jewish people that refuse to go see their friend's kid baptized or to go watch a hillarious play performed by a church or to even go to a friend's birthday party hosted at a church. There are even Hadisdic Jews in New York that are more extreme than that.

I suspect this was literal but I further assume the executions were rare. It probably disincentivized people enough from corrupting their culture. For their culture to survive diaspora tells me that this Old Testament mess wasn't a joke to them like Christianity is a joke to Christians.

The question remains.

Is Deuteronomy 13:6-11 literal or is it a metaphor?

Literal of course.

And the reasoning behind it should be self evident. The people of Israel, and G-d, made a pact together. Both agreed to the terms of that pact.

The pact included the complete and utter destruction of Israel, and the slaughter of it's people, as G-d withdrew from them, if they turned away from G-d.

Therefore, for a member of Israel to turn away from G-d and worship idols or foreign 'gods', was not just a personal choice.... it was an action that would lead to the destruction of Israel and the death of millions of people.

It wasn't just a 'disincentive' from merely turning away from G-d. It was that a person engaged in such activity could in the end lead to the ruination of the entire society.

And... it did. As the Israelites turned away from enforcing this law in Deuteronomy, the hearts and minds of the people of Israel turned away from G-d, and the pact between Israel and G-d was fulfilled. They turned away, and G-d withdrew his protection, the enemies of the Jews rose up against them, and the nation was destroyed, and millions of Jews were slaughtered, both back then and to this day.

Everything G-d warned would happen, happened.

If the Israelite's had kept Deut. 13:6-11 enforced, it is likely Israel would have never been wiped out, and dispersed for almost 2,000 years throughout the world.