Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[alang1216]

Tel-Aviv is probably 90% atheist and just culturally nationalist Jews. They will eventually turn toward Jehovah (Jesus) when America no longer can defend them and the Lord will part the Mt. of Olives and stand in the midst showing his wounds in his hands and feet that he received in the house of his friends. Zacharia chapters 12 - 14.

Let me know when that happens, I wouldn't want to miss it.

 

[Meriweather]

IDK. Ask those who were burned at the stake for witchcraft how well one-truth government worked out for them.

Except...that was not truth even at its base. The issue that wasn't addressed was, Is it moral to burn anyone to death? There were forms of death even more cruel than that. Were those moral?

 

[Meriweather]

You presume there is a "truth". I bet Hitler honestly believed he did what he did, the Holocaust, to save his country from the pollution of the Jews. What could be more moral?

There are moral truths. Is it moral to kidnap Jews from their homes and communities? Truth would have shown that Jews, on the whole, were prosperous and contributed to society. Is it moral to rob others of their prosperity?

 

[Meriweather]

If the entire world followed two, simple guidelines, we'd have world peace and harmony:

1) The Ten Commandments.
2) The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Matthew 7:12, which states, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Yes. This is the basis of morality and moral truths.

 

[Dekster]

Except...that was not truth even at its base. The issue that wasn't addressed was, Is it moral to burn anyone to death? There were forms of death even more cruel than that. Were those moral?

Might makes right, at least in the moment.

 

[ding]

I don't understand why you stick to your fantasy instead of accepting reality. Is it because you believe a moral god would not create an amoral world?

What fantasy would that be? I love me some reality.

Do I believe a moral god would not create an amoral world? I don't think in terms of that. The reason I believe God is moral is because I believe morality is the extant attribute of reality and immorality is the negation of the extant attribute of reality. Do you have any questions about that?

 

[Meriweather]

Might makes right, at least in the moment.

"Might makes right" is bitter sarcasm.

 

[alang1216]

There are moral truths.

Yes. Like belly buttons, everyone has one.

Is it moral to kidnap Jews from their homes and communities? Truth would have shown that Jews, on the whole, were prosperous and contributed to society. Is it moral to rob others of their prosperity?

If you view Jews as Christ-killers, baby-killers, foreigners, and parasites that are a threat to the nation, sure.

 

[ding]

So you set arbitrarily the boundaries of your supernatural beliefs where you wished them to be. Sounds right.

It may sound right to you but it isn't right. I don't think in those terms. I think in terms of origin, purpose and meaning. What you are suggesting seems illogical to me. It's you who is setting arbitrary boundaries. Does your logic go like this... if ghosts exist, God exists? If ghosts don't exist, God doesn't exist? How is that not arbitrary?

 

[ding]

So what world do you live in? Certainly not this one.

One where forced abortions are already a reality. It's literally one of the poster children for moral relativity.

 

[Meriweather]

Why can't we all just get along? We don't, it is called reality. Check the polling data.

We don't get along because morality based on one truth and moral relativity based on everyone deciding for themselves what is right for them are at odds.

For those who want to believe in moral relativity, there is really no need for government. Everyone can decide for themselves what the speed limit is for them, whether they need to stop at lights or stop signs. No need for stores--people just take what they want wherever they find it. No need for minimum wage--employers pay whatever they want, if anything at all. This is moral relativity at its extreme, if anything can be seen as extreme as killing innocent life.

If we gathered around truth, wouldn't there be less dissent in society as a whole?

 

[alang1216]

Do I believe a moral god would not create an amoral world? I don't think in terms of that. The reason I believe God is moral is because I believe morality is the extant attribute of reality and immorality is the negation of the extant attribute of reality. Do you have any questions about that?

Apparently I'm an Anti-Realist (who knew):

Moral anti-realism is the meta-ethical view that objective, mind-independent moral facts or properties do not exist. It denies that moral claims are true or false in an objective sense, arguing instead that morality is constructed by humans, based on subjective emotions, or that moral statements are generally false.
Effective Altruism Forum +4

Key Aspects of Moral Anti-Realism

• Types of Anti-Realism: Major branches include moral non-cognitivism (moral claims express emotions, not facts), moral error theory (all moral claims are false), and moral subjectivism/relativism (moral truths are relative to individuals or cultures).
• Contrast with Realism: Unlike moral realists who believe "murder is wrong" is a mind-independent fact (like "water is
  
  "), anti-realists argue that moral claims are subjective or projected onto the world
  .
  • Distinction from Nihilism: While all moral nihilists are anti-realists (believing no acts are moral or immoral), not all anti-realists are nihilists; some believe in subjective, relative moral obligations.
    

Arguments For and Against

• Arguments For: The main arguments include the Argument from Queerness (objective moral values would be bizarre entities unlike anything else in science) and the Argument from Relativity (different cultures have wildly different moral beliefs, suggesting no universal truth).
• Arguments Against: Critics argue that it fails to explain the intensity of moral, leading to a "defective" concept of morality. Another major criticism is that anti-realism cannot explain why moral progress (e.g., abolishing slavery) seems real rather than just a change in opinion.
  

How It Functions
Anti-realists often interpret moral claims as expressions of preference or social convention rather than objective facts. They argue that even without objective moral truth, human values can still exist, such as through shared social agreements or personal emotional responses.

 

[Dekster]

"Might makes right" is bitter sarcasm.

Is it? The government is largely amoral and the power to enforce whatever it is enforcing is all about their ability to coerce people. Forcing a business to hire a homosexual or be punished isn't fundamentally different than prohibiting a business from hiring homosexuals and punishing the ones that knowingly do. In a democracy like ours, the morality of public policy is dictated by who gets +1 in the most recent election.

 

[alang1216]

One where forced abortions are already a reality. It's literally one of the poster children for moral relativity.

"Forced" abortions?

 

[Meriweather]

Yes. Like belly buttons, everyone has one.

And only one. If belly buttons were like opinions, everyone would have an abundance of them. Belly buttons are more like having one truth.

If you view Jews as Christ-killers, baby-killers, foreigners, and parasites that are a threat to the nation, sure.

Again, that would be an opinion/feeling--not a truth. Remember how this all started. It was based on a sentiment that if the handicapped (either physically or mentally) were protected and allowed to reproduce, the human face would disintegrate and ultimately wipe themselves out. Therefore, these genes, for the good of all of society, must be eliminated. Once you scare people with this logic, you look around for others you want to do away with, and get people to believe the most prosperous have genetic defects and therefore must be abolished, their prosperity confiscated.

Advertising 101: First scare people, then sell them something that removes the scare that was implanted into them.

 

[Meriweather]

Is it? The government is largely amoral and the power to enforce whatever it is enforcing is all about their ability to coerce people. Forcing a business to hire a homosexual or be punished isn't fundamentally different than prohibiting a business from hiring homosexuals and punishing the ones that knowingly do. In a democracy like ours, the morality of public policy is dictated by who gets +1 in the most recent election.

And this is why I have a bitter opinion of government. The federal government was founded to protect the nation, establish transportation, and trade. How we allowed its tendrils into every aspect of personal life is not the freedom the Founding Fathers of this nation envisioned for this country.

 

[alang1216]

And only one. If belly buttons were like opinions, everyone would have an abundance of them. Belly buttons are more like having one truth.

Of course no two belly buttons (truths) are the same.

Again, that would be an opinion/feeling--not a truth. Remember how this all started. It was based on a sentiment that if the handicapped (either physically or mentally) were protected and allowed to reproduce, the human face would disintegrate and ultimately wipe themselves out. Therefore, these genes, for the good of all of society, must be eliminated. Once you scare people with this logic, you look around for others you want to do away with, and get people to believe the most prosperous have genetic defects and therefore must be abolished, their prosperity confiscated.

Advertising 101: First scare people, then sell them something that removes the scare that was implanted into them.

The NT puts the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews. Matthew: "His blood be on us and on our children". Not a truth?

 

[knuckles]

Interesting choice. There is quite a number of differences between Jews, some are deeply religious, some are agnostics or atheists and are only culturally Jewish. I doubt they all share a single truth.

People fail but the Ten Commandments do not.

 

[Meriweather]

Of course no two belly buttons (truths) are the same.

What two moral truths that are not the same?

The NT puts the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews. Matthew: "His blood be on us and on our children". Not a truth?

Exactly who called for this? It was the political leaders of that time--it certainly was not the commoners or even the everyday practitioners of Judaism. Even two of the leaders had nothing to do with this. The political leaders gathered together a mob, kind of like what is done today--Minneapolis being the most recent example of powerful players gathering their mob.

At that time there is an estimated population of about 600,000 Jews. Let's say there 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem that were there to celebrate Passover. Clearly not even all of these were present at the trial. In other words, probably less than one percent of the Jews in Palestine were crying, "His blood be on us and on our children." No, that was the blood of those political leaders, the few but the powerful.

In Revelation, how did John view this: He viewed the followers of Christ washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb, because that blood is what sanctifies. Christ's death was to redeem the entire world, and that redemption included the children of those who were calling for his crucifixion. This is a good example for those of us who appreciate irony....

 

[alang1216]

What two moral truths that are not the same?

Abortion is OK vs abortion is never OK.

Exactly who called for this? It was the political leaders of that time--it certainly was not the commoners or even the everyday practitioners of Judaism. Even two of the leaders had nothing to do with this. The political leaders gathered together a mob, kind of like what is done today--Minneapolis being the most recent example of powerful players gathering their mob.

At that time there is an estimated population of about 600,000 Jews. Let's say there 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem that were there to celebrate Passover. Clearly not even all of these were present at the trial. In other words, probably less than one percent of the Jews in Palestine were crying, "His blood be on us and on our children." No, that was the blood of those political leaders, the few but the powerful.

In Revelation, how did John view this: He viewed the followers of Christ washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb, because that blood is what sanctifies. Christ's death was to redeem the entire world, and that redemption included the children of those who were calling for his crucifixion. This is a good example for those of us who appreciate irony....

I think this is your interpretation, one not widely shared at all times in all places.