Morality Made Simple

[Father Heathen]

Yes, there is.

If there were such a list, it wouldn't include splitting someone's skull open with stones for rotating crops, eating shrimp, speaking to menstruating women, etc. Nor would it include instructions on how to sell your daughter into sexual slavery. It wouldn't dictate that rape victims marry their attacker, nor would it demand that brides be stoned to death if they're discovered to not be virgins. There a lot more, but the point is that when it comes to the search for the "perfect list of morals", the bible fails and gets tossed in the garbage can.

 

[joe1776]

Not according to Hitler. He thought what he was doing was the the right, moral thing to do.

Who cares? Are you saying that the perpetrators of an act ought to be allowed to judge the morality of their acts? If not, what are you saying?

 

[DavidFirth]

Who cares? Are you saying that the perpetrators of an act ought to be allowed to judge the morality of their acts? If not, what are you saying?

I am questioning the reasoning of the posts I quoted. Not everyone sees morality the same way. So who's morality should we go by and why?

 

[joe1776]

I am questioning the reasoning of the posts I quoted. Not everyone sees morality the same way. So who's morality should we go by and why?

When all the facts of a moral case are available, judgment by the collective conscience of a group of people (a jury for example), unbiased on the specific case, is the one and only moral authority humanity has.

Hitler's actions were not only judged at Nuremberg. They were shown to be immoral when 55 nations, many not under attack from Germany, formed an alliance to defeat him and his Axis collaborators.

 

[DavidFirth]

When all the facts of a moral case are available, judgment by the collective conscience of a group of people (a jury for example), unbiased on the specific case, is the one and only moral authority humanity has.

Hitler's actions were not only judged at Nuremberg. They were shown to be immoral when 55 nations, many not under attack from Germany, formed an alliance to defeat him and his Axis collaborators.

The "collective conscience of a group of people (a jury for example)" is frequently wrong. Is that acceptable?

 

[joe1776]

The "collective conscience of a group of people (a jury for example)" is frequently wrong. Is that acceptable?

Give me an example of an unbiased jury that was wrong and tell me how you determined it was wrong.

You might be confusing questions of reason and questions of conscience. Juries are often misled on the facts. That's a problem with reason.

 

[DavidFirth]

Give me an example of an unbiased jury that was wrong and tell me how you determined it was wrong.

You might be confusing questions of reason and questions of conscience. Juries are often misled on the facts. That's a problem with reason.

First, you give me an example of an unbiased jury.

 

[joe1776]

First, you give me an example of an unbiased jury.

No, I'll pass. We're done. You aren't here to debate or discuss. Your only aim is to annoy the posters you disagree with.

 

[DavidFirth]

No, I'll pass. We're done. You aren't here to debate or discuss. Your only aim is to annoy the posters you disagree with.

I asked you an honest question. The truth is that there is no such thing as an unbiased jury. It simply isn't possible.

 

[joe1776]

I asked you an honest question. The truth is that there is no such thing as an unbiased jury. It simply isn't possible.

Then reading comprehension compounds your problems. In post 24, I underlined the key words so that I wouldn't have to be faced with this silly objection. Here it is again:

When all the facts of a moral case are available, judgment by the collective conscience of a group of people (a jury for example), unbiased on the specific case, is the one and only moral authority humanity has.

Do you understand now or do you need me to define words for you?

 

[DavidFirth]

Then reading comprehension compounds your problems. In post 24, I underlined the key words so that I wouldn't have to be faced with this silly objection. Here it is again:

When all the facts of a moral case are available, judgment by the collective conscience of a group of people (a jury for example), unbiased on the specific case, is the one and only moral authority humanity has.

Do you understand now or do you need me to define words for you?

I don't buy that there exists a jury that is "unbiased on the specific case," though I get what you are saying. Juries are too easily fooled and swayed. No thanks, I don't want a trial in front of a jury.

 

[joe1776]

I don't buy that there exists a jury that is "unbiased on the specific case," though I get what you are saying. Juries are too easily fooled and swayed. No thanks, I don't want a trial in front of a jury.

If you are accused of a crime that you didn't commit, you should want a trial by a highly intelligent, trained, professional jury because you want them capable of discovering the true facts. You want them making the right decision.

If you're guilty, then you want a slick lawyer and an amateur jury of your peers picked off a list of ordinary citizens because there's more chance they'll get it wrong.

But none of that is relevant to our topic.

 

[DavidFirth]

If you are accused of a crime that you didn't commit, you should want a trial by a highly intelligent, trained, professional jury because you want them capable of discovering the true facts. You want them making the right decision.

If I have a choice and I know I'm innocent I would rather be tried by God Himself. He knows everything and He is never wrong.

Juries can be swayed easily. In America the winner is usually who has the best lawyer, not who is the best at discovering and presenting the truth.