Melody said:


But Stanley, the issue is not the subjectivity of HUMANS, but of MORAL STANDARDS. Of course humans have to use their judgment to apply morals to situations, that does not mean that the moral changes. The moral stays static.

From a metaphysics point of view your statement makes sense. However, in the real world we do not always know the exact correct morality of every dilemma we face. You talk about something that we cannot palpate or see. In the end the subjectivity of humans rule the day.


See, it was the "collective opinion" of German society that it was allowable to kill Jews. According to the standard you are proposing, they were justified. Do you not see that?

Relative morality can be devastating, I agree. Perhaps you think I am proposing that moral relativity is great. I only say that moral relativity is the only thing we have------- and many times it does not do the job.

Absolute moralists who where fundamentalist Christians once believed that slavery was acceptable because Blacks were subhumans. These were folks who believed in the same theology that you and FH follow. I would say that their morality was clearly relative.


Remember, the definition of moral relativism is:
It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth

But, there is no standard. The only way you can come up with a standard is to prove the existence of God. I believe in God, however, I cannot prove to you or anyone else that God exists.


If all morals are not transcendent and simply emerge from one's personal preferences, then that would make moral judgments impossible. It would be impossible to say anything is wrong since there is no absolute standard of right.

What humans do is come up with a point of reference which is the consensus of folks like you and me. Then that becomes the moral standard. But, as I said above, that point of reference changes constantly and hence now we think slavery is wrong.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

FH said:

FH response: (** No, I disagree Stanley. The CHOICE is always there, but it does NOT change the “moral code” or the fact that “sin” of all types is wrong.


But the “choice” is not what determines “right or wrong,” it is the moral code itself that determines that.


We are NOT talking about a “matter of degrees” as to whether or not some action is a sin. Certainly we understand that some actions may have a greater “degree” of harm, but your argument is sort of like saying that someone is “just a little bit pregnant.”

You propose that morality is absolute because of the existence of God. In a sense, that is the only way you can argue that morality is absolute.

So you would need to prove the existence of God to then show that there is an absolute moral code that comes form God.

in MY humble opinion. God HAS written commandments that cover every possible action and situation.

Yes, it is your humble opinion and since you see everything in black or white (pregnant versus non-pregnant) perhaps you can discuss this dilemma:

I happen to think that abortion is wrong because there is a living person inside a woman’s womb. I am pretty sure you also agree that abortion is wrong. However, as moral relativist I am willing to make an exception and accept abortion when I know the mother will die and that the fetus has a congenital deformity that is incompatible with a useful life. In a sense, I am not an absolutist when it comes to abortion.

What is your position regarding abortion when the mother will surely die with the pregnancy?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>

What humans do is come up with a point of reference which is the consensus of folks like you and me. Then that becomes the moral standard. But, as I said above, that point of reference changes constantly and hence now we think slavery is wrong. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, you have just defined moral relativism. And by doing so, you are supporting that notion that since society once supported slavery, therefore, it was justified. Slavery was ok yesterday and is wrong today.

Your kind of reasoning, and the practice thereof, is what has led to most of the mass slaughters in this century. With ever changing morals, based on society's mores, no man is safe because what is immoral today, may be moral tomorrow.

By your standard, the Germans were justified in slaughtering 6 million Jews because it was the "consensus" of the German people that is was ok to slaughter Jews.

Would you then support it if Americans decided tomorrow that it is ok to round up and gas Jews? Since, as you said: ".....consensus of folks like you and me. Then that becomes the moral standard."

Stanley, with all due respect, I think you are simply confused about the meaning of moral relativism. Because unless you admit that morals are absolute, then you have no grounds to condemn the Nazis nor could you object if non-Jewish Americans had a "consensus" that it was ok to round up and gas Jews. That was the moral code of the Nazis, Stan.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>

What is your position regarding abortion when the mother will surely die with the pregnancy? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is a sad and tough situation, but I don't believe it is murder when an abortion has to take place to avoid the death of the mother. I tend to think that it is tantamount to murder to let the mother die.

However, if there are no objective moral standards, then why not just kill both? If there are no objective moral standards, then it doesn't matter.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

How about when the mother is only 12 years old?

How about when the mother has been raped by her father or brother?

My opinion is that men should NOT have opinions on abortion. (unless it is pro-choice)

There are some who believe that a fetus does not have a soul until the first breath is taken. I am one of them.


weaver, turning off her computer now.

weaver, how does rape justify murder? Do 2 wrongs make a right in some kind of warped logical leap? I have never understood that logic. Is a child who is a product of rape or incest some kind of subhuman who is not worthy of life? Do you not believe that their lives are just as valuable as your own child?

Being able to take a breath is NOT the definition of life. The unborn is a LIVE HUMAN in its' earlist form. Just because it can't breath does not mean it is NOT A LIVE HUMAN.

{{{{{{{{shudder}}}}}}}}}}}

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My opinion is that men should NOT have opinions on abortion. (unless it is pro-choice)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">huh? By what standard should men not have a right to their opinion over the subject of abortion? huh? And how can you claim you are "pro-choice" if everyone involved doesn't get a "choice?" That is not "pro-choice," that is anti-choice.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Days like today I am truly scared for mankind. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So you would need to prove the existence of God to then show that there is an absolute moral code that comes form God. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stan-ley - Okay. But before going into that, let me simply thank you for succinctly stating the premise and the truth regarding Morality. There is either an "absolute moral code" that is there by the authority of God, or there is simply moral relativisim that is dependent upon man and subject to change at man's desire. I happen to agree with you that ONLY God has the "authority" to establish a moral code according to His will. God IS sovereign, and we do not have the right nor the authority to pick any Morals that would conflict with His or be in opposition to His.

Now, I CAN prove the existence of God. Remember Stan-ley, I was an agnostic previously and had an "I'm from Missouri, show me!" attitude. Once having been confronted with the proof, it was up to me to decide to put aside my "pride" or to reject the proof simply because I didn't want to surrender my "autonomy" to anyone or anything else.

So, tell me Stan-ley, before I go too far afield with this, just what proof do YOU consider to be sufficient proof for you that you would be willing to lay down any pride and simply accept the proof?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, it is your humble opinion and since you see everything in black or white (pregnant versus non-pregnant) perhaps you can discuss this dilemma:

I happen to think that abortion is wrong because there is a living person inside a woman’s womb. I am pretty sure you also agree that abortion is wrong. However, as moral relativist I am willing to make an exception and accept abortion when I know the mother will die and that the fetus has a congenital deformity that is incompatible with a useful life. In a sense, I am not an absolutist when it comes to abortion.

What is your position regarding abortion when the mother will surely die with the pregnancy?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, Stan-ley, I do believe that abortion is wrong.

No, Stan-ley, I'm not going to allow you to try to distract the discussion my theoretical arguments of exceptional conditions. For example, there are precious few incidents where the choice is between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. Modern medicine, things like C-Sections, etc., have reduced the risks to an amazingly low level. In most cases there is no "need," only choice and "convenience."

What "congenital deformities" that would be "incompatible with a useful life" do you have in mind? Where would you make that determination and who would "draw the line?" Anencephaly, cleft palate, what characteristics would be included and which would be excluded from qualification as lending the existence of the fetus to a "useful life" of whatever length of time?

Ok, I apologize for jumping in here. Most of this thread has been so difficult to read, you all are so above my head most of the time but I have a real problem the is statement:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> However, as moral relativist I am willing to make an exception and accept abortion when I know the mother will die and that the fetus has a congenital deformity that is incompatible with a useful life. In a sense, I am not an absolutist when it comes to abortion.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What exactly would you consider a useful life??? My DS is brain damaged, non-verbal, completely dependent for all his care, has seizures every day AND is the most beautiful soul you would ever meet, sweetest little guy, beautiful on the outside, loves without boundaries and the strongest most determined person I have met in my entire life. This child is more of a blessing in my life than anyone could ever imagine and is loved so much he has been asked to be a ring bearer in an upcoming wedding. He brings joy to every single person who meets him. If you so much as imply that someone like my boy is not considered a useful life that you have some serious looking in the mirror to do. I am sorry for my anger but I have dealt with this enough in my lifetime!! An answer would be appreciated.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How about when the mother is only 12 years old?

How about when the mother has been raped by her father or brother?

My opinion is that men should NOT have opinions on abortion. (unless it is pro-choice)

There are some who believe that a fetus does not have a soul until the first breath is taken. I am one of them. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Weaver, I understand your anger and frustration, however, using one sin to justify the commission of another sin, especially when it entails the taking of another life that is NOT our own, is NOT the answer to difficult scenarios. It would be no more correct than for me to say that it would be okay for a woman victim of a rape to summarily kill her rapist. While I am certain that she would have much emotional justification for such a killing, it still isn't right.

There are some who believe that a fetus does not have a soul until the first breath is taken. I am one of them. Weaver, this IS at the heart of the current discussion and is "on target" as to why there is disagreement.

I happen to believe that life begins at conception and that the soul is present at that time. God knew us before we were conceived, before we were wonderfully knit together in our mother's womb from the two "half strands" of DNA that were used to "create" the unique person that we each are. Obviously, my belief is predicated upon believing in God and my acceptance of what is commonly referred to as the "I AM" of Scripture; of Jesus Christ who is God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, the Triune God of Christianity.

For those who do NOT accept Him as their Lord and Savior, they are free to choose any set of moral beliefs that they choose.

I suspect that your disagreement is not so much with the existance of God as it is with the "imposition" of anyone else's opinion over your own. I suspect that if I granted you the "exception" of abortion for any of the extreme cases that you cited, but that all other reasons would be denied, you would still object. It is NOT a matter of "degree," it is a matter of "whose authority" to tell anyone that they can or cannot do something. Rejecting God's authority leaves only moral relativism left, along with the changing mores of society in general.

But why stop with just abortions of the unborn? Why not sanction the termination of anyone who is not "productive" by whatever definition you want to define "productive?"

Why are we worried about Social Security running out of money when all we have to do is to eliminate the elderly and frail who are not leading a "productive income generating life?"

Lines, Weaver, lines. Where do we draw the lines? Who establishes the limits? Why should anyone be subject to the choices of another? Who on earth has the authority?

There are some who believe that a fetus does not have a soul until the first breath is taken. I am one of them. Then you have never seen a sonagram, or been in a neonatal unit, or you CAN'T admit to their being alive prior to birth, or you would have to face the horror of the genocide that we have unleashed upon nation in the name of "women's rights." You are "one of them" means that you sanction and believe that Partial Birth Abortion is okay and that the brains being sucked out of the baby is not the killing of an innocent. This is one form of barbarism that our "concession" to abortion has led to.

Weaver, I find it hard to believe that you are that callous, so I think that there is some other personal reason why you say that "men should have no opinion regarding abortion" (I assume because men don't get pregnant). What is it that makes you think the taking of an innocent's life is "morally justifiable" under all conditions?

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: ForeverHers ]</small>

I've asked the Mods to shut down this thread.

It's gotten way beyond any useful Marriage Builders infidelity value.

WAT

WAT - You can certainly ask the Moderators to shut down the thread, especially since you started it.

If they do choose to shut it down, I'll be very interested to know the reasoning behind it, especially considering how you began the thread and the "gauntlet" that you tossed down:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'll stack my "humanistic" right and wrong moral compass up against ANYONE'S who professes to obtain theirs from supernatural guidance. Period. And I am FAR from being alone.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What has ensued in this discussion are respectful answers to your "stacking" challenge, not as you made it as simply YOUR personal choice for a moral compass, but as you made it a choice for many others with the implication that it is superior to, or at least "as good as" any other moral compass out there. Along with that you took a "swipe" "supernatural" morals that originated with God.

But you can "take your bat and ball" and go home. That is your right, to "end the game" when it no longer suits "your purpose." We all have that choice, but I did expect a bit more from you as one of the "wiser souls" on MB.

One last thought, in what way is this ONE thread taking away from MB or your perceived purpose of MB? Or doesn't "moral choices" have a place in Marriage Building?

(((((faithful follower)))))

God bless you and your son!

Edited cos FH you just saw FF's post.

Jen

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: KiwiJ. ]</small>

FH, thank you. I guess I was spitting nails angry when I posted that. Hope I didn't offend anyone. FH, for what it is worth you have helped me tremendously here on MB. I truly appreciate it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />