tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4966085339194617227..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: What Can Account for Morality, We're Asked?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67180927290253170652009-03-03T20:02:00.000-05:002009-03-03T20:02:00.000-05:00In fact, I was guilty of saying "Jewish person" ea...In fact, I was guilty of saying "Jewish person" earlier in the thread which may have misled you somewhat - I sometimes make that mistake when tired.<BR/><BR/>I should have said (as I usually do - Hebrew people or Israelites).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45943934809036623672009-03-03T19:47:00.000-05:002009-03-03T19:47:00.000-05:00Eric"What made Abraham, the 'first' Jew, a Jew?"“J...Eric<BR/><BR/><EM>"What made Abraham, the 'first' Jew, a Jew?"</EM><BR/><BR/>“Jew” means of Judea, or of the kingdom of Judah. Abraham wasn’t a Jew. God’s chosen people however are the descendents of Jacob (Israel). Edomites were not considered to be Jews and indeed in Malachi they are described as being inhabitants of “…the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD…”. Abraham remarried and his second wife Kenturah bore the fathers of the tribes of Canaan.<BR/><BR/>The reason that people say that the Jews are God’s chosen people is probably because after the kingdom split into Judea (tribes of Judah and Benjamin) and Samaria (the remaining eleven); it was Judea that held onto the purer of the Judaic traditions. The Samaritans were of both Israelite and Assyrian blood and engaged in polytheistic tradition that brought scorn of the people of Judea onto their heads.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you would like to redefine what you were saying with more correct terminology and historical accuracy?<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sarah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85889456067378374102009-03-03T15:33:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:33:00.000-05:00Eric, To clarify...Hitler wanted the wealth and la...Eric, <BR/><BR/>To clarify...<BR/><BR/>Hitler wanted the wealth and labor of the Jewish culture, but wasn't willing to abide by it's rules. This clearly fits the description given. <BR/><BR/>Post hypothetical victory, Hitler would fail to "put his money where his mouth is" if he were found in the same situation. This implies that Hitler didn't really see his rational as moral, in the conventional sense, but as something he could get away with by means of exploitation and use of force. (Which is itself another moral quandary) <BR/><BR/>To assume otherwise requires Hitler to have a substantial justification in this specific case, should another race asserting to be more "genetically fit" made the same claim on his own society. None was provided. <BR/><BR/>However, there are indications that Hitler though of himself as being "divinely" chosen by God or nature, despite having no substantial evidence to support this position. Most would agree this was some form of delusion. In the same way, it seems unlikely that Hitler would give in to any opposing force that later claimed divine right over his wealth, labor, etc.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this is the the fundamental problem with claims moral higher ground due to divine revelation. God's enemy is conveniently your enemy and vice versa.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35648370828503088852009-03-03T00:16:00.000-05:002009-03-03T00:16:00.000-05:00Nevermind, I'll deal with your points in a bit. So...Nevermind, I'll deal with your points in a bit. Sorry for the agression Eric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34145368258913574042009-03-03T00:13:00.000-05:002009-03-03T00:13:00.000-05:00Ah, yeah I see the one that I repeated there; my m...Ah, yeah I see the one that I repeated there; my mistake with the old CTRL + C CTRL +V etc.<BR/><BR/>Despite this oversight which I apologize for, your entire first argument still mirrors this site.<BR/><BR/>Too closely, in sentence structure etc - not just sentiment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71523660857674447392009-03-02T23:55:00.000-05:002009-03-02T23:55:00.000-05:00"Shut up, liar."You're making an inference that I'..."Shut up, liar."<BR/><BR/>You're making an inference that I'm lying, but I have incontrovertible proof that you're lying. All one has to do is look at the second sentence you quote from my post, and compare what you *claim* is the quote from your source -- which conveniently matches mine word for word -- with what your source *actually* says -- which is not even close to matching mine verbatim. It doesn't get any clearer than that.<BR/><BR/>But this is all nonsense. If you want to deflect attention away from your inadequate arguments with unsubstantiated charges, fine. I prefer to focus on the arguments.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally -- and this is a fine point of logic, so you may not be capable of understanding it -- we could *both* be lying about this tangential issue, and it wouldn't affect the resolution of the fundamental issue in the slightest. Which, again, demonstrates the importance of focusing on the arguments themselves if truth is what you're interested in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6995666821356875252009-03-02T23:46:00.000-05:002009-03-02T23:46:00.000-05:00Everything you said was on one website page in the...Everything you said was on one website page in the exact same order and almost exact wording.<BR/><BR/>Shut up, liar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49252771767571324892009-03-02T23:43:00.000-05:002009-03-02T23:43:00.000-05:00"Forgive me if I refrain from discussing your..."Forgive me if I refrain from discussing your other points, as you've pretty much proven yourself to be a liar and a thief of other people's work."<BR/><BR/>No, you're avoiding discussing my other points because I've simply demolished your argument. Reasoning isn't for everyone.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of reasoning (or the lack thereof), let's look at the charge you're making. Take the first sentence of mine you quoted, and google it. How many sources do you come up with that both deal with the same issue and contain matching fragments? Am I 'plagiairzing' all of them? Let's look at a few...<BR/><BR/>Here's my first sentence:<BR/><BR/>"Indeed, according to the Talmud, the Torah was offered to all peoples, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it."<BR/><BR/>Here's what we find on the first page of a google search (note, we don't find the source you cited):<BR/><BR/>"The Lord offered the Law to all nations; but all refused to accept it except Israel"<BR/>http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=478&letter=C<BR/><BR/><BR/>"According to the Rabbis, the Torah was offered first to the other nations of the world, but they all rejected it..."<BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=3oHg70lQL0IC&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=Indeed,+according+to+the+Talmud,+the+Torah+was+offered+to+all+peoples,+and+the+Jews+were+the+only+ones+who+accepted+it&source=bl&ots=f4JU8A-miz&sig=IKAJ5pLyj_CmZs78d7cVNKtui1A&hl=en&ei=Ga6sSbX3MMiVnge3rqHBBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result<BR/><BR/>"According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it."<BR/>in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081218074134AAhzXfQ <BR/><BR/>"This is quite at variance with their belief that they are "God's chosen people," because "God offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it," and so "Jews have a special status in the eyes of God" (Rich)."<BR/>http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1153698300117&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout<BR/><BR/>Wow. You know what -- with the exception of that last example, in which a source was provided, I think they're all guilty of plagiarism -- that is, given your lame criteria. Please. We're dealing with general knowledge that is often expressed (as my examples above demonstrate quite clearly) in similar language. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Your second example is most telling, and puts you in a particularly bad light. You quote my words, then pretend to have quoted from your source, which you claim is *exactly* the same as my sentence. Talk about a blatant lie! Let's see what your source *actually* says, after looking again at the second quote you provided from my post:<BR/><BR/>Eric: "In some versions of this story, the Jews were offered it last; in others, they were chosen by god because they were among the lowliest of people, so their successes would be have to be seen as the work of god!"<BR/><BR/>Your source: "The story goes on to say that the Jews were offered the Torah last, and accepted it only because G-d held a mountain over their heads! (In Ex. 19:17, the words generally translated as "at the foot of the mountain" literally mean "underneath the mountain"!) Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d's might rather than their own ability."<BR/><BR/>Hmmm, that's not exactly the 'verbatim' quote you claimed it was, eh? So, who's *demonstrably* lying now? All one has to do is to look at your last post, in which you claim I lifted my entire sentence from the source you cite; however, as I've shown above, that's not at all the case. Shameful.<BR/> <BR/>If you can't deal with my arguments (and the lack of substance and understanding in all of your posts indicates that you can't), admit it or ignore them, but don't make yourself look ridiculous with the equivalent of claiming that anyone who says 'E=MC^2' without citing Einstein is guilty of plagiairsm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15716186031605803832009-03-02T22:05:00.000-05:002009-03-02T22:05:00.000-05:00Taken from the very first site I found when I goog...Taken from the very first site I found when I googled the topic:<BR/><BR/><EM>According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it.</EM><BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM>Indeed, <STRONG>according to the Talmud, the Torah was offered to all</STRONG> peoples,<STRONG> and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it.</STRONG></EM><BR/><BR/>They wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM>In some versions of this story, the Jews were offered it last; in others, they were chosen by god because they were among the lowliest of people, so their successes would be have to be seen as the work of god!</EM><BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM><STRONG>In some versions of this story, the Jews were offered it last; in others, they were chosen</STRONG> by god <STRONG>because they were among the lowliest of people, so their successes would be have to be seen as the work of god!</STRONG></EM><BR/><BR/>They wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM>Because of our acceptance of Torah, Jews have a special status in the eyes of G-d, but we lose that special status when we abandon Torah.</EM><BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM>Note also that the Jews lose any 'special status' they have with god any time they abandon the Torah...</EM><BR/><BR/>Source<BR/><BR/>http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm<BR/><BR/>Your entire counterpoint was almost verbatim plagiarism - unless you'd like to assert that your memory is <EM>that good</EM>.<BR/><BR/>You could have just posted the link. Forgive me if I refrain from discussing your other points, as you've pretty much proven yourself to be a liar and a thief of other people's work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3258218281188115342009-03-02T21:37:00.000-05:002009-03-02T21:37:00.000-05:00"I also question the validity of using hearsay to ..."I also question the validity of using hearsay to back up your points; and would rather you presented your argument with applicable scripture or historical evidence instead of a cut-and-paste job of the first "Google" site that fitted your search criteria."<BR/><BR/>Hi Codewordconduit<BR/>Ah, but pure speculation about my sources is acceptable? I didn't 'cut and paste' a word of my response, and I didn't 'google' to find a site that that backed up my points. People who have read widely very often cannot recall a source offhand, and people posting extemporaneously on internet blogs don't generally feel obliged to cite everything they bring up. If you doubt this, read through a number of perfectly respectable threads on this (or on any decent) blog -- don't see many citations, do you? If you ever get around to studying informal logic, the first thing you'll learn is to keep in mind the *category* of discussion you're having, since *that's* what determines your obligations. <BR/><BR/>"No, I don't thinks so, as the pentateuch and oral law tradition began roughly with Moses many years again after the promise to Abraham."<BR/><BR/>You've completely missed a rather important question, the answer to which contains the key to this whole discussion:<BR/><BR/>What made Abraham, the 'first' Jew, a Jew? Was he a Jew before his covenant with god? No, he wasn't. If his covenant with god made him a Jew, then what does that say about the nature of Jewishness as such? Is it on a par with 'racial superiority,' as you suggest, or with a people trusting god and accepting his law? The answer is obvious, isn't it? How can it be identified with racial superiority if the first Jew was not, in any sense whatsoever, a Jew by virtue of his race?<BR/><BR/>(Incidentally, since the source of the Jewish people was to be Abraham's son, it's farcical to expect god to give the law in its 'complete' form to a people who didn't yet exist! But you're certainly right, there were Jews before the Torah, and I concede I misspoke; I was thinking about how Jews are defined today and projecting that conception back on the OT Jews as a whole; I should have spoken more generally of covenantal reasons, and instead incorrectly restricted my criteria to the Torah alone. N.B. However, this doesn't in any way affect my main point: **they were Jews because of their covenants with god; they weren't party to those covenants because they were Jews**. Hence, your analogy still fails.)<BR/><BR/>"They don't lose their "chosen" status with God, and according to the Bible never will."<BR/><BR/>I never identified the 'special status' of the Jews with their identity as god's chosen people, so this is a strawman.<BR/><BR/>"From your argument is it then acceptable to have racist laws regarding anyone not of the same faith as you?"<BR/><BR/>First, you're conflating 'race' and 'faith' here -- two distinct categories. But more to the point, given that my argument comprises a critique of Eller's conception of morality, this question is literally incoherent. <BR/><BR/>However, speaking as an advocate of a broadly Aristotelico-Thomistic conception of natural law (which is to say, as someone who *reasons* from the *fundamental principles* of AT natural law, not as someone who accepts dogmatically every *conclusion* various advocates of AT natural law, including Aquinas himself, have reached) I would not find such laws acceptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50335465715129013792009-03-02T19:57:00.000-05:002009-03-02T19:57:00.000-05:00Oh, also @ EricFrom your argument is it then accep...Oh, also @ Eric<BR/><BR/>From your argument is it then acceptable to have racist laws regarding anyone not of the same faith as you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28367104254260267652009-03-02T19:44:00.000-05:002009-03-02T19:44:00.000-05:00The OT Jews were looked favorably upon by god beca...<EM>The OT Jews were looked favorably upon by god because they accepted the Torah, not because they were inherently 'better' than others.</EM><BR/><BR/>No, I don't thinks so, as the pentateuch and oral law tradition began roughly with Moses many years again after the promise to Abraham.<BR/><BR/>Genesis 18:18-21<BR/><BR/><EM>"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates—<BR/><BR/> 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites,<BR/><BR/> 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites,<BR/><BR/> 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.</EM><BR/><BR/>And there we have the Promised Land, well before the Torah was around to be accepted or otherwise. This land was promised specifically to the descendents of Abraham through Sarah. Agreed? And the promise was nothing to do with a nonexistant Torah, agreed?<BR/><BR/>This "Promise" gave the Israelites the right to take the land of Canaan as their own, despite not actually owning any of it at the time.<BR/><BR/>In other cases we would call this an invasion.<BR/><BR/><EM>Note also that the Jews lose any 'special status' they have with god any time they abandon the Torah; this alone demonstrates that it has nothing to do with the inherent superiority of the Jewish people themselves.</EM><BR/><BR/>No they don't lose their special status - God "rebukes" them but never forgets them - and their racist, segragist laws still stand - even in exile (as much as they could).<BR/><BR/>They don't lose their "chosen" status with God, and according to the Bible never will.<BR/><BR/>I also question the validity of using hearsay to back up your points; and would rather you presented your argument with applicable scripture or historical evidence instead of a cut-and-paste job of the first "Google" site that fitted your search criteria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25975969026299035582009-03-02T17:18:00.000-05:002009-03-02T17:18:00.000-05:00Hi Codewordconduit I think your analogy is premise...Hi Codewordconduit<BR/> I think your analogy is premised on a flawed understanding of the relationship between the Jewish people and god.<BR/><BR/>The OT Jews were looked favorably upon by god because they accepted the Torah, not because they were inherently 'better' than others. Indeed, according to the Talmud, the Torah was offered to all peoples, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. In some versions of this story, the Jews were offered it last; in others, they were chosen by god because they were among the lowliest of people, so their successes would be have to be seen as the work of god! Note also that the Jews lose any 'special status' they have with god any time they abandon the Torah; this alone demonstrates that it has nothing to do with the inherent superiority of the Jewish people themselves. Now, I'm not saying that I take any of this to be historical truth; rather, I'm showing how the Jews own stories about their relationship with god are not consonant with the presuppositions of your analogy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65212455887357480812009-03-02T08:23:00.000-05:002009-03-02T08:23:00.000-05:00Some American Indian tribes evolved to accept a fo...Some American Indian tribes evolved to accept a form of euthanasia.Their elderly or sick often took it upon themselves to go out into the wilderness to be left to die ending pain and saving dependency thus in a certain way strengthening the tribe.<BR/><BR/>Other tribes in other parts of the world elsewhere evolved with different morals whereby this type of thing did not happen.<BR/><BR/>Did the American Indian feel guilty like they had done anything wrong by not following some ultimate morality supposedly available for all humans worldwide.<BR/><BR/>No they did not!.<BR/><BR/>Their morals that they followed were naturally formed and at the time worked best for the strength and survival of the tribe.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72455800453893967312009-03-02T06:21:00.000-05:002009-03-02T06:21:00.000-05:00Eric, you are using anti-semitism as an example or...Eric, you are using anti-semitism as an example or "wrongness" for want of a better word.<BR/><BR/>Is this because you believe that the elevation of one race for special treatment above all others is wrong (as in the case of Hitler's Aryanism?)<BR/><BR/>If this is the case then how do you attepmt to square the circle of God's preferential treatment of the Jewish people throughout the OT?<BR/><BR/>The Mosaic laws that allowed a Gentile to be treated in an unequal manner to a Jewish person?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23572076621036757532009-03-01T21:42:00.001-05:002009-03-01T21:42:00.001-05:00"it seems to me that you just do not understand wh..."it seems to me that you just do not understand what cultural relativism is all about."<BR/><BR/>John, that may indeed be the case. There's a heck of a lot that I don't understand, which is why I read informative blogs like yours. <BR/><BR/>I understand the empirical thesis of cultural relativism, as I think we all do, but I've never seen a decent case made (in my judgment) for the metaethical thesis of cultural relativism. I will add that it's not only theists who say this; there are a large number of atheistic modern philosophers who advocate various conceptions of moral realism. In fact, you'll find just as many, if not more, moral realists in philosophy departments as you will moral relativists (of course, I haven't checked every philosophy department in the nation; this is simply the sense I get from speaking to students from other departments and from following the work of contemporary moral philosophers).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72882957725096596402009-03-01T21:42:00.000-05:002009-03-01T21:42:00.000-05:00Eric, I know you're a smart guy but it seems to me...Eric, I know you're a smart guy but it seems to me that you just do not understand what cultural relativism is all about. You're judging it as an outsider and you think you have the right to do so.<BR/><BR/>All cultures think their own cultures are better than others and that the others are weird. Head hunters are judged by us to be wrong. They would think men who fail to hunt heads are wimpish. It was a badge of courage to them.<BR/><BR/>This does not entail we cannot argue that ours is a better culture. That's why cultures change as they come into contact with each other. And it does not entail that someone inside a particular culture cannot demand reform either. <BR/><BR/>Any description about this will either be too simplistic if done in a few paragraphs, or much too long to write and be read. <BR/><BR/>Look at it this way. If we evolved and there is no ultimate standard for right and wrong, which I think is the case, then human beings make up their own rules to live by. There will be some major similarities to the rules we create because we are human animals. But there will be differences as well, sometimes major ones, like child sacrifice as practiced by OT peoples and Mayans. I think there is a better, more rational basis for our rules then some other rules because it's based upon an analysis of who we are as human social animals devoid of religious beliefs. We'd have to talk in terms of specifics and this could be a long discussion. In those cultures where polygamy and child marriage was acceptable those societies worked well. But our society does not accept those rules at all and for reasons we think are acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line is that if there is no ultimate morality we must choose the rules that we think are the best ones for ourselves. It might eventually be the case that in a global world of the future the whole world might come to an agreement about most all of the same rules. At that point there would be one world culture which would be every bit a cultural relativism as what we experience now. And in that future world culture I would like my rules to be accepted based on the reasons I provided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64337869630892681422009-03-01T21:20:00.000-05:002009-03-01T21:20:00.000-05:00Here's a simple way, I think, to get my (basic) po...Here's a simple way, I think, to get my (basic) point across. Abigail Adams gave the young John Quincy Adams this bit of advice:<BR/><BR/>When conscience claps, let the world hiss.<BR/><BR/>Do you agree or disagree? I'd wager that most of us would agree with this proposition; it's why we admire people like Thoreau. However, Abigail's proposition is inconsistent with Eller's conception of morality as the "moral rules made up by people in order to define what it means to be part of any culture."<BR/>Eller's maxim would be, <BR/><BR/>"When the world claps, let conscience hiss." <BR/><BR/>Surely, few of us would agree with this. But if that's the case, why agree with Eller?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20970883467720225662009-03-01T19:50:00.000-05:002009-03-01T19:50:00.000-05:00"By failing to agree with his own moral stance he ..."By failing to agree with his own moral stance he himself used against the Jews (those who assert they are genetically superior should be allowed to take what they want from, enslave and kill those who they deem genetically inferior) His actions are morally inconsistent."<BR/><BR/>Right, he certainly would be inconsistent, but Eller isn't speaking only about logic; Hitler's inconsistencies become, according to Eller, immoral, and immoral in an odd (to us) sense: to the extent that his society has come to embrace his previous moral prescriptions, his assertions to the contrary (e.g. the genetically superior cannot morally oppress the genetically inferior in his case) must be judged *immoral* -- yet none of us would be willing to accept this conclusion. So it seems to me that *if* this is where Eller's reasoning leads us, we have strong prima facie grounds to be very skeptical of it. <BR/><BR/>"Had such actions actually been considered moral by Hitler, they wouldn't just apply to others. It would have applied to himself as well." <BR/><BR/>This isn't true, given Eller's conception of morality (as I understand it from John's sketch of it). What matters isn't Hitler's moral judgments, but society's moral judgments. To the extent that his actions and judgments jibe with his society's moral rules, he's moral, and to the extent that they don't, he's immoral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63141071986263426052009-03-01T19:36:00.000-05:002009-03-01T19:36:00.000-05:00Eric, What Luther or any Christian has said, or wh...Eric, <BR/><BR/><B>What Luther or any Christian has said, or whether there was any consensus, and so on, is completely irrelevant.</B><BR/><BR/>I was using John's comment as a laundry list of Hitler's actions against the Jews. Nothing more is implied. <BR/><BR/><B>The question is, in a possible world such as the one I described, would Eller's conception of morality provide us with the resources to assert what we'd all like to assert, to wit "Antisemitism is immoral, even if it defines what it means to be part of such and such a culture?"</B><BR/><BR/>Even if Hitler had won, you could simply fast forward to some point in the future and replace the Russians with the Japanese or China. You could even use an opposing sub-faction of Germans who though they were genetically superior base on height, etc. Again, it seems unlikely that Hitler would agree with such an assertion, give up his wealth and allow his faction to be enslaved and killed, based on such claims. <BR/><BR/>By failing to agree with his own moral stance he himself used against the Jews (those who assert they are genetically superior should be allowed to take what they want from, enslave and kill those who they deem genetically inferior) His actions are morally inconsistent. Had such actions actually been considered moral by Hitler, they wouldn't just apply to others. It would have applied to himself as well.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15635515442391157802009-03-01T18:53:00.000-05:002009-03-01T18:53:00.000-05:00Will G, "goodness is good for the sake of good" ma...<I>Will G, "goodness is good for the sake of good" makes no sense. What is good? Why would "good" mean "good" for the sake of itself? You are trying lift yourself by pulling your bootstraps.</I><BR/><BR/>I think there was a recent poll somewhere that asked 'If you knew for sure that something was the right thing to do, would you feel obliged to do it?' I think the vast majority of people said 'yes'. So there is something about good that simply obliges you do whatever the 'good' is. You have in a sense, no choice about it if you think it *really* is the right thing to do.<BR/><BR/>Then how come people aren't perfect? It's because we constantly think of reasons why our situation or instance is special. So it's OK for e.g. me to cut in line because I'm in a hurry, to use a small example (there are others you could think of). We all do the wrong thing from time to time because the brain is good at coming up with rationalisations for our behaviour. Outside of rationalisations that make our specific situation unique or special, we all feel obliged to do the right thing, I think.<BR/><BR/><I>If what you meant was "goodness is acting for somebody else's benefit without expecting a reward", then that does not exist. Nobody ever does anything unless they get a reward out of it; the reward can be the pleasure obtained by making others happy, but it is a reward nonetheless.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a truth by non-contradiction, an analytic truth. If you define pleasure as 'Something that motivates' and an act as 'Something requiring motivation to do' then by definition 'Something that motivates' will always motivate an 'Act that requires motivation'. So we will always get something out of doing the right thing because it requires motivation, which pleasure is. I don't think that says anything about people being basically selfish; it has to be true no matter what.Will Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067095710794983853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55655364415112326162009-03-01T18:47:00.000-05:002009-03-01T18:47:00.000-05:00John, I'm not sure how your defense of rational eg...John, I'm not sure how your defense of rational egoism jibes with Eller's notion of morality as the "rules made up by people in order to define what it means to be part of any culture." I think you'd be assuming quite an onus if you want to argue that we in America define ourselves according to your conception of rational egoism.<BR/><BR/>Scott, you missed the point of the thought experiment. What Luther or any Christian has said, or whether there was any consensus, and so on, is completely irrelevant. The question is, in a possible world such as the one I described, would Eller's conception of morality provide us with the resources to assert what we'd all like to assert, to wit "Antisemitism is immoral, even if it defines what it means to be part of such and such a culture?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87138480256946621042009-03-01T16:34:00.000-05:002009-03-01T16:34:00.000-05:00Take a possible world in which Hitler had been vic...<B>Take a possible world in which Hitler had been victorious in WW2, and had killed all those who disagreed with him, except for a small number of Jews who managed to hide their identity. Hitler's world society now is, the small number of Jews excepted, in complete agreement with the notion that anti-semitism is moral, and that for the good of society all Jews must be killed.</B><BR/><BR/>Eric, <BR/><BR/>You seem to have glossed over many of the points made the the original post and related coments. Specifically...<BR/><BR/><I>Anyone who doesn't accept the moral rules of a culture are not allowed in the group, or we banish them, ostracize them, imprison them, and kill them. Do you want the benefits of being in the group? Then obey the moral rules, or at least don't get caught. Otherwise, you’re on your own. As such, there is nothing prohibiting someone from not accepting the moral rules of a culture if s/he doesn't want the benefits of the group</I><BR/><BR/>Let's apply this to Hitler's actions against the Jews and their culture. <BR/><BR/>As John duly noted, Hitler copied from the anti-Semitism play book of the Bible and Luther. <BR/><BR/>Hitler wanted to benefit from the Jewish culture by taking it's wealth, but is unwilling to abide by it's rules. He destroyed their homes, property, literature and art. He administered punishments based on non-Jewish laws. He enslaved their youth. <BR/><BR/>So, here, we see Hitler invading the Jewish culture by force. And what what his justification for such actions? <BR/><BR/>Whether he believed it or not, Hitler gave the impression that was punishing the Jews for their involvement on Jesus' crucifixion. He also claimed that the Jewish race was inferior and the German race was superior. <BR/><BR/>Was there significant evidence that supported his position on race? No. Was there a consensus on such position. No. For the sake of argument, even if such a consensus existed, would forceful removal of wealth, enslavery and even death be agreed upon? No. <BR/><BR/>So, by the definition above, Hitler was acting immoral. <BR/><BR/>Next, let's reverse the situation. Had the Russians made the same racial claims against the Germans, do you think they would have laid down and allowed them steal, enslave and kill their people because some other culture thought they were inferior? Do you think the US would have acted any different?<BR/><BR/>Hitler's actions were based on assertions which he could not substantiate, nor would he consider such actions against his own culture "right." As such, he was acting inconsistently inside his own moral framework.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32149105682890589642009-03-01T14:09:00.000-05:002009-03-01T14:09:00.000-05:00Eric, I had linked in the OP to my atheist ethic. ...Eric, I had linked in the OP to my atheist ethic. I think I explained it there, especially in <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheistic-ethic_23.html" REL="nofollow">Part 5</A>.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42837631878965890772009-03-01T14:04:00.000-05:002009-03-01T14:04:00.000-05:00John, with all due respect, you didn't answer the ...John, with all due respect, you didn't answer the question!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com