stanford rape case

[Anomaly]

@Peace

Claiming that objective morality is written on the heart of every person (by God), but many won't admit it is a pretty bold statement, all based on subjective assumptions.  

For the average person, religious or spiritual or atheist, it's recognizing and acting on empathy and kindness.  It's a balance of personal good and the good of the group.     If you could present a copy of God's list of 5 objective moral principles that we all got, as you claim, you may have an argument.  Otherwise, the standard for good is the majority opinion developed over the ages, vetted through humans reason and logic.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

@Peace

Claiming that objective morality is written on the heart of every person (by God), but many won't admit it is a pretty bold statement, all based on subjective assumptions.  

I do not think it is based on subjective assumptions. I think that my belief is based on evidence. We know that the Earth is in motion. We have multiple historical accounts of Jesus resurrected (known as the gospels). Thus is it is more reasonable than not to conclude that God exists and that Jesus is God. We know that Jesus founded a church, and that various people in that church wrote books now known as the New Testament. We have reason to believe that they are divinely inspired because Jesus said that he would give his Church the ability to speak without error. And certain portions of those inspired books (for example, Romans 2:14-15) indicate that God's moral commands are written on the heart of every person.

You are free to disagree with any or all of that, of course, but I do not think I am basing my conclusion on any subjective assumptions.

What are the specific subjective assumptions that you believe I am basing my conclusion on?

Quote

For the average person, religious or spiritual or atheist, it's recognizing and acting on empathy and kindness.  It's a balance of personal good and the good of the group.    

But the question is, why should any person act on empathy or kindness? Why should we be empathetic or kind? Why should a person consider the good of the group instead of only his own personal good? If it does not come from God, then where does it come from?  Is it safe to assume that you just believe that these are just behaviors that can be attributed to evolution?

Quote

If you could present a copy of God's list of 5 objective moral principles that we all got, as you claim, you may have an argument.

Just start with the New Testament. But we don't have originals. You have me there. We only have copies of copies, unfortunately.

Quote

 Otherwise, the standard for good is the majority opinion developed over the ages, vetted through humans reason and logic.

Your view is cool with me. But it is a subjective standard.  What is "wrong" at point A in time can be "right" at point B in time, and what is "right" in point A in time can be "wrong" at point B in time. You cannot assert that rape is wrong at every point in time and under every circumstance. You can only say that rape is wrong as long as 51% of the people in the community being scrutinized believe that it should be penalized.

For example, you cannot say that slavery in the United States was wrong at the point in time in US history when it was accepted by the majority. In the past slavery was right because its permissibly was consistent with majority opinion.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Peace

[Anomaly]

Skavery is a poor argument to use along with biblical instruction.    Was it slavery, or how people were treated as slaves then compared with slavery in the 1800's and now?  Again, an evolved understanding of personhood and empathy.   Religion often does a poor job of respecting persons unless they conform to the belief system. But that's another matter.  

We've really derailed this thread when trying to discuss an appropriate societal response to this specific rapist, Brock Turner.   There are lots of issues to address and it's not a simple issue of a single moral dictate defining punishment,  redress, Justice, etc. 

 

looking back lack at your response, I only use a phone,  my morality isn't simply defined by current majority opinion.   We look back in history and have the knowledge and understanding of previous generations.   A slight advantage over animal instincts.   We live in a human society with knowledge of the past and ability to imagine the future.  Your argument is invalid and hypothetical.  

Edited June 10, 2016 by Anomaly

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Skavery is a poor argument to use along with biblical instruction.    

I disagree.

Quote

Was it slavery, or how people were treated as slaves then compared with slavery in the 1800's and now?  

I do not understand the question, but when you get to a computer and can rephrase it a bit more clearly I will try to answer it.

Quote

Again, an evolved understanding of personhood and empathy.  

Sorry. I am having trouble understanding this too.

Quote

Religion often does a poor job of respecting persons unless they conform to the belief system. But that's another matter.  

Perhaps that is true concerning some people or some religions. I think you would be hard pressed to find a religion or  belief system that respects the human person more so than the Catholic faith. But if you have something in mind I will consider it.

Quote

We've really derailed this thread when trying to discuss an appropriate societal response to this specific rapist, Brock Turner.   There are lots of issues to address and it's not a simple issue of a single moral dictate defining punishment,  redress, Justice, etc. 

OK. But that does not change the fact that rape is morally wrong in every circumstance, and you cannot justify saying so without acknowledging that there is a divine lawgiver.

Quote

 

looking back lack at your response, I only use a phone,  my morality isn't simply defined by current majority opinion.   We look back in history and have the knowledge and understanding of previous generations.  

Now you need a history book to conclude that rape is wrong? 

How does knowledge of history make rape any more or less wrong? Rape is wrong in every circumstance, regardless of who, what, when, where or why, or the extent to which it was or was not accepted in the past.

A person with no knowledge of history or "the understanding of previous generations" knows that rape is wrong. This is because it is contrary to the divine law that is written into our conscience. You just refuse to admit it. Why?

Quote

A slight advantage over animal instincts.   We live in a human society with knowledge of the past and ability to imagine the future.  Your argument is invalid and hypothetical.  

I do not see where it is invalid. Can you please specify?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Peace