Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 14 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 13 14
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
You can't say that everyone gets to make up their own morals and then selectively reject one set of morals. That is contradictory.


You're not making any sense ML. It is not contradictory at all. I make up my morals and may choose to reject others', just like you do, and just like everyone else does. That is not contradictory, that is perfectly consistent. You may not realize it, but you are actually making up your own morals and are claiming them to be absolute - but there is no source for your morals, other than what you made up and decided to adopt as universal.

Quote:
Using your logic, we owe Hitler an apology because his culture condoned the murder of Jews.


I did want to address this point.. If morality was universal and absolute, then the entire world would have fought against Hitler or slavery But instead, a sadly large number of people thought that Hitlers positions were moral, or even noble. And when our esteemed founding fathers owned slaves, a large portion of this country thought nothing of it. They thought it was in fact moral, absolutely and universally moral.

Do I agree with the Nazi and the slave owners? Of course not, and I would have fought against them had I been alive back them. Just like today a lot of people are fighting back against the moral execution practices in this country, against the moral murder of animals, while others consider those actions to be "absolutely moral".

It is precisely because morality is not universal that we have constant battles between countries, between religions, and between people (witness the election debates). Everyone is convinced that they have the universal morality on their side.

But there is no fountain of truth in this universal morality everyone has their own morals, if not in the big life and death issues, then certainly in the more minute details of how much can one speed.

To claim that morality is universal, without providing a source for this universal truth, defies all logic.

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: kerala
These types of arguments sound very neat and tidy until you actually start to think about them in some depth.


Exactly.

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
Your examples only confirm what I said, that morals are absolute.


I know I won't get an answer, but why not try... Whose morals, ML? Yours? Hitler's? Slave Owners? Republicans? Democrats? Christians? Catholics? Jews (Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform)? Muslims? Vegetarians? Vegans?

Help me out here, give me a source for these "universal" principles you keep referring to...

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
You can't say that everyone gets to make up their own morals and then selectively reject one set of morals. That is contradictory.


You're not making any sense ML. It is not contradictory at all. I make up my morals and may choose to reject others', just like you do, and just like everyone else does. That is not contradictory, that is perfectly consistent. You may not realize it, but you are actually making up your own morals and are claiming them to be absolute - but there is no source for your morals, other than what you made up and decided to adopt as universal.


AGG, I know it doesn't make sense to you now, but I think if you really think it through, you will understand how contradictory your position actually is. First off, you are asserting your OWN universal moral absolute when you say:

"Morality is in the eyes of the beholder"

And secondly, you can't negate my assertion that there are moral absolutes when you have just asserted that all morality is legitimate. That is the basic position of a moral relativist and that is what you are promoting whether you understand it or not.

Quote:


I did want to address this point.. If morality was universal and absolute, then the entire world would have fought against Hitler or slavery


That makes no sense at all. All you are saying here is that unless 100% of people AGREE that killing Jews is murder and AGREE to fight Hitler that killing Jews was not immoral?

A person's perception or acceptance of a moral absolute does not change the moral absolute. Otherwise, we have wrongly incarcerated thousands of Americans for the crime of murder in this country.

A moral absolute does not have to be universally ACCEPTED to be a moral absolute. That is not how the world works.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
Your examples only confirm what I said, that morals are absolute.


I know I won't get an answer, but why not try... Whose morals, ML? Yours? Hitler's? Slave Owners? Republicans? Democrats? Christians? Catholics? Jews (Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform)? Muslims? Vegetarians? Vegans?

Help me out here, give me a source for these "universal" principles you keep referring to...

AGG


You have already answered this, though. You told us that:

Originally Posted By: AGG
Morality is in the eyes of the beholder


You told us that ALL morality is legitimate. Are you backtracking from that position?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
[
But there is no fountain of truth in this universal morality everyone has their own morals, if not in the big life and death issues, then certainly in the more minute details of how much can one speed.


Is that a universal absolute or does it only apply to you? grin

Here you do it again, you make a claim of a universal moral ["everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth"] in the same sentence where you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality.

You just refuted yourself.........in the same sentence.

C'mon, AGG, surely you can see the contradictions in your posts?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: writer1
As a comparison, the religion I used to belong to believed it was immoral to drink coffee or tea. Most people wouldn't have an issue with these substances, but it was very much against the teachings of the church. I don't think anyone would suggest that a person who wasn't a member of the church would have to follow the rules of this particular church, just because its members deemed such practices as "immoral."


Yup, great example. The moral absolutists don't like to get into these examples though, because things become far less black and white then, and who wants to deal with shades of grey when you have "absoluteness" and "universality" on your side...

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
For example, murder is immoral regardless of its acceptance across the universe.


So is our country immoral for killing Osams Bin Laden? For killing countless Iraqis? For dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima? How about killing someone in self defense?
How about killing someone preemptively because you know they are about to kill others?

No universal answer to those questions, which is why you have yet to answer them....

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
For example, murder is immoral regardless of its acceptance across the universe.


So is our country immoral for killing Osams Bin Laden? For killing countless Iraqis? For dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima?


But if murder is not a moral absolute there would be nothing TO debate. Do you see how your examples only give CREDENCE to the notion of moral absolutes? If murder is not universally immoral, then WHO CARES about the killings in those examples?

People might disagree about the application of said moral, but even *YOU* don't disagree with the basic moral principle of murder. While people may get morality wrong in complicated situations, they don't get it wrong on the basics.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane


You have already answered this, though. You told us that:

Originally Posted By: AGG
Morality is in the eyes of the beholder


You told us that ALL morality is legitimate. Are you backtracking from that position?


Not at all, my position is in fact simple - everyone defines their morality, because there is not universal morality.

It is YOUR position that I am asking about, because you have yet to tell me where this secret source of universal morality can be found for others to review and follow. Please humor me, where can I find it?

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
[

Not at all, my position is in fact simple - everyone defines their morality
, because there is not universal morality.
v


Is that universally true or only true to YOU, though?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane

Here you do it again, you make a claim of a universal moral ["everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth"] in the same sentence where you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality.

You just refuted yourself.........in the same sentence.

C'mon, AGG, surely you can see the contradictions in your posts?


OK, I think someone else has been drinking this morning, and it's not me this time.

Where is the contradiction between "everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth" and "you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality. "? That is exactly the same statement, which is that there is no universal morality.

And until you tell me where it can be found, I will have to assume that universal morality simply means "ML morality", even though I don't know what that means...

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
[

Not at all, my position is in fact simple - everyone defines their morality
, because there is not universal morality.
v


Is that universally true or only true to YOU, though?


I don't have any idea what you are asking me, ML.

I'm going to bow out of this silly argument where I keep asking the same questions and not getting even an attempt at an answer.

When and if someone makes the effort to tell me where the source of all the universal moral answers can be found, I'll be happy to re-engage, but I won't hold my breath...

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
Originally Posted By: MelodyLane

Here you do it again, you make a claim of a universal moral ["everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth"] in the same sentence where you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality.

You just refuted yourself.........in the same sentence.

C'mon, AGG, surely you can see the contradictions in your posts?




OK, I think someone else has been drinking this morning, and it's not me this time.

Where is the contradiction between "everyone has their own morals - there is no fountain of truth" and "you DENY that there is such a thing as a universal morality. "? That is exactly the same statement, which is that there is no universal morality.

And until you tell me where it can be found, I will have to assume that universal morality simply means "ML morality", even though I don't know what that means...

AGG


OH DEAR. TEEF

This reminds me of my cousin Joe Don. He went to the farm with my grandfather once and disappeared into the shed for a short time. He came out with a gas ring around his mouth. My grandfather let him walk around all day with the gas ring.

I am embarrassed that you can't see the contradictions in your posts, AGG. I mean that sincerely. As far as my own "morality," I do not believe that *I* make moral absolutes - IT IS YOU WHO BELIEVES THIS.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy

I don't have any idea what you are asking me, ML.


I know. dontknow


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 15,806
Likes: 7
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 15,806
Likes: 7
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
And until you tell me where it can be found,


I already answered this, I think.

Quote:
I will have to assume that universal morality simply means "ML morality",


Then you'll be arguing against a strawman from here on out, I guess.


If you are serious about saving your marriage, you can't get it all on this forum. You've got to listen to the Marriage Builders Radio show, every day. Install the app!

Married to my radiant trophy wife, Prisca, 17 years, who is a beautiful angel.
Attended Marriage Builders weekend in May 2010

If your wife is not on board with MB, some of my posts to other men might help you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 8
P
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 8
I'm a years-long reader on this site (not married, not even sure what got me hooked in many years ago, but I find some of the discussions interesting), and I just now registered so that I could respond to A Good Guy by saying:

This is the very definition of a no-win argument, but I nonetheless wanted to chime in to tell you that I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense to me -- completely. To me, the world is full of all sorts of shades of grey. There are times when I personally would find it easier if the world was more black and white, and even times when I envy people who do see things in black and white. But what can I do? Sometimes, it's like speaking Italian and expecting someone who only understands Swahili to get what you're saying. People are just different...

Anyway, carry on! I've appreciated your thoughts over the years. You do, in fact, seem like a very Good Guy.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Portola

. To me, the world is full of all sorts of shades of grey.


I don't think that is a surprise. grin


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: Portola
This is the very definition of a no-win argument, but I nonetheless wanted to chime in to tell you that I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense to me -- completely. To me, the world is full of all sorts of shades of grey.


Thanks Portola, and I appreciate your support. Sometimes I wonder if my English (my third language, maybe that's the problem) is hard to comprehend.. I mean I ask simple questions, but instead of getting a straightforward answer I get a story about cousin Joe with a gas ring around his mouth dontknow.

The world has always been grey, as shown by the endless wars and election battles - people try to force their "universal" morality onto the great unwashed. I just have to laugh at the absolutists who cannot even cite the sources for their morality other than "they just know it because it is universal". But then they can't answer any of the dozens of "simple" questions I asked in the past few pages.

Anyway, thanks for joining and participating, nice to have you onboard.

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted By: markos
Originally Posted By: AGoodGuy
And until you tell me where it can be found,


I already answered this, I think.


I read back a little bit, are you referring to this statement?:

Originally Posted By: markos
it is up to us to REASON about right and wrong in order to DISCOVER it. i.e., to discover correct principles and to discover how to correctly apply them in each situation.


If so, that sounds an awful lot like the point I have been trying to make here for the past few days. Reason, thought, and discovery is what leads to a set of morals; since no two people reason, think, and discover things the same way, the idea of a universal morality is absurd.

AGG


Page 8 of 14 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 13 14

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
2 members (WierdSituation, 1 invisible), 19 guests, and 94 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Brad344, Bobbyboy341, Steve123, kenmw, lawenda
71,695 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,537
Posts2,322,668
Members71,696
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5