blog (coffee shop)
by Last week at the end of CSI, the character of Gil Grissom had this line:
"A moral compass can only point you in the right direction. It can't make you go there."
I agree with that line. The compass will only point out the direction, but without the compass, how do you know which direction to go? With all of the problems in today's society, many critics are faulting the way society makes everyone blameless. To me, it seems pretty simple; we've removed any reference to any moral compass during the education process and substituted it with moral relativism. Morality is clear-cut in my life; you don't steal, you don't lie, you don't kill, etc. But, with the teaching of moral relativism in school, coupled with the 'belief' that we are all just the product of random chance (evolution), I feel that the majority of our problems stem from not having a moral compass reinforced in our children when the walk out of the door to our homes and enter the Halls of Learning. What else would explain the behavior of society? We have become numb to the thought of suffering and death, because if I'm just a compilation of random events, then I truly do not matter at all.
How do we get back on track and align our future generations with a good moral compass to show them the right direction?
Add a Comment (164)
Email This
Message Author
Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 18 October 2006
That's a lie propagated by religious groups, and it's based on their standard "if you're not with us, you're against us" mindset.
The fact is, schools teach very little of any kind of morality. And this is as it must be in today's world. If the religious among us can't recognize that morality exists outside the context of theism, then the only form of moral teaching they'll recognize as being anything other than "moral relativism" is theism.
On the other hand, anyone with a half a lick of sense can see that theistic "morality" doesn't really represent morality. "Thou shalt not kill" is easy to get to in almost any moral system. But "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy" is religious bullshit and is ethically meaningless in anything but a theistic system.
Furthermore, there's ample evidence that religious "ethics" is no such thing. People are routinely slaughtered in the name of various theisms - and they're often considered "ethical" acts by their fellow theists.
There are various attempts at formulating a non-religious ethical system. Personally, I think ethical hedonism is the right model - if you can avoid oversimplifying things, which almost everyone does if they haven't gotten the idea on their own. However, every theist I've ever met immediately dismisses the idea as meaning "do whatever you want".
How do we get back on track? First, let's overthrow the stranglehold that theism holds on discussions of ethics.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 18 October 2006
Nice post. I think I'm mostly with you. To be much more simplistic, the biggest problem I have with religious morals is that the people who promote them tend to dismiss two key things: they could be wrong, and others who don't believe in their religion see them as somewhat crazy (i.e., not much different than believing in fairies and unicorns). If they intend to push such black and white concepts, they ought to reconsider the ideals upon with nations like the USA are founded and realize that "God said so" can't be the force behind a law, or even a school lesson.
I personally don't care how people decide not to murder, etc. I think it's obviously wrong. I do care when people force their how on me.
(Side note: Not sure if you're new, or an anon veteran, but anon posts can't score higher than 2. I'd recommend registering if you plan to submit more thoughtful content as it makes it more visible to other when you get higher scores.)
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 25 October 2006
I personally don't care how people decide not to murder, etc. I think it's obviously wrong. I do care when people force their how on me.
You think it is obviously wrong, but some people do not. I think a systematic investigation of why you would decide thus and someone else may decide the opposite would be of paramount importance to anyone who doesn't want to get murdered.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 October 2006
morality exists outside the context of theism
We've discussed this issue before on the site, but I still have yet to hear a good explanation of how this is possible. The problem is that without something "bigger" than the individual, there is no way for one's morality to apply to anyone but themselves. Some try to use law as what defines morality, but they must admit there are "immoral laws." If that's the case, there must be some other, greater reference by which a law can be compared to determine if it is moral or not.
It's obvious how theism provides such a reference. Of course, you have also identified a big con of such a system (or the abuse of it, at least) in that people seek to justify all sorts of horrible things by claiming divine command - but this doesn't change my previous reasoning.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 19 October 2006
To be fair, you must admit that neither religion nor reason provide sufficient grounds for morality. Religion is seldom black and white. The very fact that you a member of a church that is but one of many offshoots of "Christianity" makes this point more than clear. While you state that reason cannot get past the individual, you fail to mention that religion often has the same restrictions. At best, religion makes it to the group level. But soon enough that group gets too big and splits. So, much like relativism, churches reason on their interpretations of encounters with their higher source.
So, while I agree with your statements about reasoning morality, I disagree that religion is any better. Your religion is only a source of morality because you say it is, not because your god told me. Until your god removes the doubt, I must assume that you are statistically likely to be incorrect about your god, simply given the total number of interpretations by various groups and individuals of what their god deems moral.
In the end, both systems of defining morality are hindered by the same thing: human perceptions.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 October 2006
I'm speaking theoretically concerning the existence of morality, while you seem to be approaching it from an application perspective. Because of that, I agree with you while still holding my original point. Morality cannot theoretically exist on anything but a relativistic scale without something "greater" than the individual - and personal revelation is needed to completely remove doubt concerning the selection of a particular moral system.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 19 October 2006
Agreed.
I think the trick is to make society accept this fact and move on with what most groups feel is right most of the time. Most drivers for morality come to similar conclusions, and laws can be agreed upon. Where there is great deviation is where moral relativism seems to make more sense though, from a societal standpoint. Religion tends to lose in political debates these days, unless of course all of your politician are of the same religion.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by PatternsOfChaos :: NR4 :: on 20 August 2007
Reason CAN lead you to morality - a part of 'reason' is accepting the strictures of the society in which you live. It would be unreasonable to do otherwise.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 22 August 2007
What if the particular society you keep or live amongst has become immoral? An example could be violent gangs, certain prison societies and perhaps various religious cults. Though not mainstream, many of those immersed in these subcultures think of them as their whole world. So if you happened, by birth or another reason to find yourself inside one of these societies, would "accepting the strictures" of that society in which you now live lead you to morality?
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 19 October 2006
It's obvious how theism provides such a reference. Of course, you have also identified a big con of such a system (or the abuse of it, at least) in that people seek to justify all sorts of horrible things by claiming divine command
Even though I am a devout Christian (Just a sinner saved by Grace!), I was very careful to avoid any sort of theism in my comment, save perhaps my commentary on evolution. I agree with you about the 'abuse of the system', and I will tell you right now that abuse of the 'system' still goes on. Case in point: Fred Phelps. Using him as an example, he has forgotten that God loves us all, he hates Sin..but loves us all. We can all cite many examples, from the KKK, to Radical Islam, etc. The abuse still happens. There are theological reasons why, but that's off topic.
As to Moral Relativism not being taught in the public school system, I beg to differ. My son (5th grade) was in a teacher-led discussion based on a story they read in class. The class discussion concluded it was ok for the child in the story to steal food because he was hungry and the police were wrong for arresting him. The apalling fact is that the teacher actually told my son his thinking was backward when he stood his ground and said stealing of any kind is wrong. Her words to him were merely that there are exceptions to every law.
I now have a very confused 11 year old, who I (and my ex-wife) are trying to raise to at least have some idea of right and wrong. He has an idea that things aren't so black and white. We're both trying to ensure that he understands that things *are* clear-cut, and there are systems set up to handle the misfortunate. In this affair, unfortunately, my ex- won't stand up to the school system and rebut the teacher's viewpoint. Since I'm the non-custodial parent; I have no say, so I can't get involved at the level I would like to.
I have spoken at length with many parents, and even respected (both Christian and Non-Christian alike) parenting and eductation 'experts' over the years on how schools have changed. Most feel that the schools should be doing more to enforce an idea of right and wrong. The curriculum of the system does little to teach right from wrong, and in fact quite often it teaches that certain actions are 'just fine' depending on the circumstances. Stealing is wrong--I don't care about the reason, it is still wrong. If (as in the story my child read) you are truly hungry, and ask and are denied, then the person who denies you food is committing just as heinous a wrong as you. If you want to look at it from a Christian standpoint, you look at Matthew 22:36-40:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
The person who fails to serve the one less fortunate is just as great a sinner, (for failing to act out of love) in the eyes of God.
To put it in a non-theological view: the action of failing to help those less fortunate is morally reprehensible. This does not mean doing everything for them, but rather enabling them to be self-sufficient--barring any impediments to doing so.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 22 October 2006
"The appalling fact is that the teacher actually told my son his thinking was backward when he stood his ground and said stealing of any kind is wrong."
Oftentimes it is considered a sign of intellectual maturity in children, when they consider other things than rules and consequences to evaluate the merit of an action. This is not to say that one can't legitimately say that stealing is wrong regardless of the outcome, but the critical thought that is associated with questioning rules is what the teacher was probably trying to encourage. There are non-theistic ethical systems that attempt to justify the existence of such unbreakable rules, but they tend to run into some interesting problems. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology ) The teacher wasn't necessarily looking to promote a relativist standpoint, but offer another perspective on things.
I personally think that the child was right to steal, it doesn't offer me much comfort that the person who let the child starve to death is said to be doing something wrong. Granted if there were some form of reward for the child’s behavior in some far off future seeing the child’s actions as wrong is more justifiable. However, I don't see much reason to believe that such a system of rewards has made itself known enough for it to justify such a position.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 22 October 2006
Oftentimes it is considered a sign of intellectual maturity in children, when they consider other things than rules and consequences to evaluate the merit of an action. This is not to say that one can't legitimately say that stealing is wrong regardless of the outcome, but the critical thought that is associated with questioning rules is what the teacher was probably trying to encourage.
Sorry, but unfortunately that is not the case, the story emphasized the fact that the child (teen ager actually) was stealing food because he was hungry, and rather than work for it, prefered to steal. I was able to read the short story (procured from a teacher acquaintance who also disagrees with the curriculum), and the associated discovery questions, as well as the teachers guide. The questions are 'intended to foster discussion of unfair and unjust rules in society' and 'the only correct answer to the the question of whether or not the theft was right or wrong is that it is a justifiable action, much like any other action that defies the rules.'
Stealing is *never* justifiable--nor is killing, lying, cheating, or any other action that defies the rules. There are other actions one can take that do not involve stealing. Taking something of value from a shopkeeper deprives that shopkeeper of not only the item, but also of any potential income.
Critical thinking is one thing, but trying to coerce a small child into thinking that any action that goes against the rules is 'justifiable'--that's moral relativism in a nutshell. Your action may be ok, depending on the circumstances? Better that the boy in the story ask the shopkeeper if he could sweep the floor, or unload a truck, or some other action in exchange for either food or wages. THAT is being upright and responsible. That, however, isn't the correct answer.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 23 October 2006
Stealing is *never* justifiable--nor is killing, lying, cheating, or any other action that defies the rules. This standpoint takes us into a big problem. Ignoring the consequences of actions doesn't allow us to justify lying to protect others or any other action that breaks the rules but minimizes harm. For example, what if we were in an office and someone is looking to harm one of our coworkers. If that person requests that you divulge the location of your coworker, do you tell them the truth? What if lying guarantees that your coworker will not be harmed?
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 23 October 2006
The situation that came to my mind was if you were hiding a family of Jews in your attic in WWII Germany and the Nazis came knocking. Would it not be right to lie to them in that situation?
What about killing in defense of your family or your own life?
I'd like to point out, though, that lying be right in some circumstances and wrong in others doesn't constitute moral relativism, in my opinion. Morality is complicated and your situation/circumstances should have an effect - to some extent, at least. It makes sense for it to be less wrong for someone to lie to the Nazis in the situation above than it does for you to tell your teacher the dog ate your homework.
On the other hand, moral relativity involves the exact same action performed in the exact same circumstances being wrong in one case and right in another. In other words, it denies that morality must be interpersonally consistent.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 23 October 2006
The situation that came to my mind was if you were hiding a family of Jews in your attic in WWII Germany and the Nazis came knocking. Would it not be right to lie to them in that situation?
What about killing in defense of your family or your own life?
Would it be right? No, so I would not do it. But..would I lay down my life to defend them, absolutely. I wouldn't lie, but I would fight the Nazi's or an attacker to my family or co-worker(not to myself, he can kill me if they choose) to stop them, dying if I must. I would use that as an opportunity to witness to them, however. I don't fear losing my life--I know where I'm going when I die.
Therein lies the key---Love. In my belief, the second Greatest Commandment is 'Love your neighbor as you would love yourself.' Nothing says it better.
I'd like to point out, though, that lying be right in some circumstances and wrong in others doesn't constitute moral relativism, in my opinion.
In Moral Realitivism, one holds that there is no 'universal standard' by which you can assess the truth of an ethical dilemma or proposition. Moral Relativism adherents often see that moral values only apply within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. In other words, what is 'right' or 'moral' in one circumstance isn't 'right' or 'moral' in another.
To use an old adage, Moral Relativism attempts to have its' cake and eat it too.
BTW..Moral Relativism is not the 'creation' of the Religious Right. As far back as Taoist writings of Chuang Tzu, you find Moral Relativism in his writings.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 23 October 2006
I think you ignored the caveat with which I made my point. Lying can be both right and wrong depending on the situation and still not compromise the existence of a universal standard. The catch is that the standard applies at a deeper level than the simple act of saying something that isn't true. For example, killing someone because they beat you at poker is wrong, while killing someone who is about to murder your family is not.
Or would you contest that to beat them is right, but to kill them is wrong? In that case, isn't hitting wrong? You'd teach your children not to hit, but you wouldn't teach them to watch helplessly as their friend was assaulted, would you? Depending on the circumstances, hitting can be both right or wrong. Again, this isn't moral relativism, but it also isn't the "never means never" system you seem to be advocating.
From a biblical perspective (since that seems to be to what you identify), the law of Moses was right up until Christ came and taught the new Law. From then on, for example, it wasn't "eye for an eye," but "turn the other cheek." God provided a lesser law and then replaced it when it no longer fit the circumstances of the world.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 23 October 2006
the law of Moses was right up until Christ came and taught the new Law.
Woops..the Law of Moses is still right--Christ tells us this in Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
By the Law, I refer to the Ten Commandments. Christ did come and show the Jewish people the error of their ways concerning other things. Many Theologians now believe that much of what was written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were ways in which the descendants of Abraham could differentiate themselves from the other tribes in the area where they were led after Egypt. Things such as not wearing clothing made from two types of cloth, marking the body (tattoos or piercings), etc. We can see where this was definitely addressed concering unclean foods. Mark 7:18-19 show this thusly:
Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.”
In Matthew 22:36-40, Christ explains further that all of the Law depends on Love.
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So..back to your examples..Would it be wrong to lie to the Nazi's about the location of the Jewish family hiding in your attic? Absolutely. Is it wrong to defend them? No. Would it be wrong to lie to a criminal about your co-worker? Absolutely. Is it wrong to defend them? No. Would it be wrong to defend your family? No. How do I know this? Christ further explains this and we find this in John 15:13 .
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
If we are referring to 'An Eye for and Eye', then Matthew 5:38-42 shows us that, yes, we are to return 'insult with blessing' (paraphrased from 1 Peter 3:9):
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Attacks against the individual do no harm to one who has faith, but when innocents are involved, then God commands us to act. Christ laid down his life for me, I can do no less for any other child of God.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 23 October 2006
Again, I think you are missing my point. Perhaps if I ask it this way: Would it be wrong to kill one of the Nazis while defending the family in your attic? To kill someone attacking your family?
I also think your perception of the Law of Moses deserves another look. Check this out for a good summary.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2006
Again, I think you are missing my point. Perhaps if I ask it this way: Would it be wrong to kill one of the Nazis while defending the family in your attic? To kill someone attacking your family?
No, I'm not missing your point. I said it in a previous posting, but I will say it again. Yes, it would be wrong to kill the attacker. But--it is NOT wrong to sacrifice yourself.That means you can try to stop the attackers, as long as you don't harm or kill them deliberately.
I also think your perception of the Law of Moses deserves another look.
I believe my posting on the Law of Moses said just what this summary says. Christ said he did not come to 'abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.' The summary you point to says much the same thing:
The law of carnal commandments and much of the ceremonial law was fulfilled at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I do disagree with the statement that 'The Law of Carnal Commandments' being fulfilled. If that's true, then we can simply lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, etc. with impunity, and not worry about the consequences.
Here is why I believe the Ten (Carnal) Commandments still apply:
Going back tov Matthew 22:36-40, Love is what guides all of the commandments. If you Love the Lord your God with all of your Heart, with all of your Soul, and with all of your Mind then you will obey all of His Commandments. If you Love your Neighbor as Yourself., then you will specifically obey the Commandments on Adultery, Coveting, Lying (bearing false witness), Killing, and you will Honor your Father and your Mother.
One of the verses referenced in your summary (Romans 3:20) tell us that the Law makes us conscious of Sin.
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
God created us as Flesh and Spirit. Sin is the transgression that divides them from God. Christ is the one body to reconcile them both to God by the Cross (Eph 2:16)
Before this goes too far off topic--By saying that it's 'ok to kill the Nazi, or whichever evildoer', you then succumb to the idea that a moral behavior has exceptions. At that poing, you're simply saying there are no moral absolutes, and each of us can run about doing what we each think is Moral. This is Moral Relativism in practice, and is just what Society does today. However, we can't have it both ways, even if we think we can.
As to the story in my sons' class--I think the shopkeeper who had the boy arrested was guilty of breaking the larger Moral Absolute--that of Love (compassion). He should have offerend the teen the ability to work for what he was taking rather than send him to jail.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 24 October 2006
Before this goes too far off topic--By saying that it's 'ok to kill the Nazi, or whichever evildoer', you then succumb to the idea that a moral behavior has exceptions. At that poing, you're simply saying there are no moral absolutes, and each of us can run about doing what we each think is Moral. This is Moral Relativism in practice, and is just what Society does today. However, we can't have it both ways, even if we think we can.
False. Moral behavior does not have exceptions, it is just more complicated than a list of ten rules. It is completely consistent for there to be certain cases in which it is immoral to hit (to take your anger out on someone who accidentally bumped into you in the hallway) while it is moral in other cases (to get an assaulter off of your wife). There is no contradiction in this and it most certainly does not imply everyone can do whatever they want.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Will you please restrict your reply to only explaining how the above is inconsistent?
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 24 October 2006
... while it is moral in other cases (to get an assaulter off of your wife).
I completely disagree. Let's say you are removing an assaulter from your wife; here are some ways of doing it:
I would venture to say that while the act of defending your wife is noble, it is not necessarily a moral obligation. The only manner in which morals play into the scenario you offered is how you perform the action. Now, with this point of reference - at which bullet is defending your wife no longer a moral and why?
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2006
Well..I know where I would draw the line--at step 5. My assumption is the 'violently removing' means use of possibly deadly force, and therein you get back to the moral issue of possibly killing another human, which is wrong.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 24 October 2006
My point is that the morality comes in the intentions/motivations. To the extent that your motivation is anger, hate, revenge, etc, your actions are immoral. To the extent that they are motivated by protection, necessity, safety, love, etc, they are moral.
I think the move The Village provides a good example of this. Noah, mentally handicapped, stabs Lucius because Lucius is to marry Ivy, a good friend to Noah. Was this wrong? I'd say yes - to an extent. It's obvious his actions were motivated at least partly by jealousy. However, shouldn't his ability to make rational decisions be included?
To some extent, every one of us is more or less able to make rational decisions based on our biology/environment. The other, greater factor is agency, the use of which determines morality, in my opinion. It's what you do with what you have.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2006
False. Moral behavior does not have exceptions, it is just more complicated than a list of ten rules.
Ok, I'm going to make this as simple as I can. Moral Behavior is not complicated, moral behavior is an absolute. If you subscribe to the belief 'You will not kill.', then there can be no exceptions. Killing another human in self-defense is as morally reprehensible as is killing another human for fun. Why? Killing a human is killing a human--period. It is the deliberate taking of human life--regardless of the situation that precipitates the event. In other words, there is 'no good reason to lie, or kill, or steal or cheat, or commit adultery, etc.
If you believe otherwise, then you subscribe to 'Moral Relativism' and you believe that the ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally/situationally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. At its' core, moral relativism is the belief that anything goes; that life is ultimately without meaning. Concepts like "ought" and "should" are meaningless, and therefore discarded.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 24 October 2006
There is no need to repeat yourself. Instead, I wish you would respond to my point.
I'll try this again.
Do you equate the morality of the following two situations?
If your answer is yes, then I think you're crazy and I won't bother continuing this conversation.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2006
Do you equate the morality of the following two situations?
While driving to work at the local soup kitchen, my hubcap to flies loose, pops the curb and kills a pedestrian.
I hate Canadians, so I take a shotgun across the border and kill the first person I hear say 'eh.'
I wish you would take the time to actually READ what I wrote. I've answered you at least three times. But, I will put this as succinctly as I can.
The DELIBERATE act taking of a human life (not an accident, as in your FIRST example here--the hubcap); regardless of whether you are defending yourself (Nazi's or Attackers to your family), or motivated by agitation, emotion or other reasoning (as in your second example, the hatred of Canadians) is morally wrong. I've said this at *least* in at least three other postings. Defending a friend/family with your body, but by NOT causing death of another is the acceptable course of action.
By the same token: Deliberate Lies, Deliberate Theft, Deliberate Cheating--regardless of the motivation is wrong. To justify any of those by saying 'it's for the greater good', is Moral Relativism in Practice. Morals are absolute, or all you have is the chaos we have in the world today.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 24 October 2006
If it must be deliberate, is that not a condition? And does that not specify the motivation?
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2006
The simplified version of what I said to mikeforbes must be what you need.
Jump in front of the bullet/knife/sword/baseball bat/whatever is being used to attack you/your family/your friends. Do not attack back and attempt deliberate harm. Love your enemies; bless them do not curse them.
'nuff on this topic.. You cannot convince me there is any situation that justifies killing/stealing/lying/cheating/adultery/etc. All of those actions are morally reprehensible.
It's taken me a long time to figure this out--like many of you I am ex-military and I thought somewhat differntly then. After my transformation into a follower of Christ (It not Religion, it's a Relationship), I learned differently.
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 24 October 2006
like many of you I am ex-military and I thought somewhat differntly then.
So what is your opinion of soldiers who claim to be Christians? What about chaplains?
Chaplains, Killing and Strawberry Shortcake ... Oh My! by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 24 October 2006
So what is your opinion of soldiers who claim to be Christians? What about chaplains?
My opinion of soldiers that seek moral justification for killing is well, sorry fellow military members here, but you're deluding yourselves. Killing is killing. Whether you want to believe it was for saving a fellow soldier, saving yourself or saving a way of life - you still killed somebody. I believe that some people can't handle that fact and need to surround it in all sorts of justifications in order to live with their actions.
Chaplains? Well, they're not supposed to carry weapons and merely serve as spiritual guides for the soldiers. Aren't they actually protected by the Geneva Convention if they abide by that policy?
RE: Chaplains, Killing and Strawberry Shortcake ... Oh My! by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 25 October 2006
I see your point about Christians who are soldiers, and killing, and you have a point. Christianity is a very pacifist religion at its core, and generally many think that it's up to God to deliver justice at the end. However, we also have a moral imperitive to protect, help and defend the innocent and make this world a better place. I think this is where Islamic extremists have missed the boat with their faith. I think they should have a performance clause in their loophole to heaven. Look at many Muslim countries today and you see a lot of corrupt government officials who feign faith, but their actions do not live up to their professed faith by the way they steal from their country and fail to serve their people effectively through good stewardship of their resources. Look at suicide bombers running around blowing themselves up, in some cases, to outweigh the sins of their past to guarantee their way to heaven. God helps those who help themselves--and others, and we can be God's instrument here--if we get off our @$$es and do what we know is right and good. In my case, I want to give some Afghani girls a chance to go to school and get educated and break the cycle of poverty there that makes that place a stinking pit of misery. The same for Iraq, who has far fewer excuses than the Afghans for not getting their crap together and prospering as a people. Tell me, is it more courageous to DIE for a cause, or to struggle and LIVE for your cause (ala Mother Theresa) every single day?
In short, there is a lot more to being a soldier, and even the fighting aspect of it than merely the killing part you highlight. This is especially true in a counter-insurgency fight, where the FEWER people you kill, often the more effective you are. Sometimes you have to kill because there is no other way. Unlike the stereotype of the "Western crusader" US/Christian/soldier, these people are also God's children and human beings too, so fighting should be done with the ultimate greater good in mind.
RE: Chaplains, Killing and Strawberry Shortcake ... Oh My! by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 25 October 2006
Everything you said is correct - but at the end of the day, for the combat operation (which is the context I was focusing) you still had to kill people to do it. Don't take my statement the wrong way, I'm not judging anybody. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I would have shot/killed the enemy, too, had the need/opportunity arose.
I think the difference is, some people need to justify the actions to themselves - to be comfortable with the fact they killed another human. I find that interesting. That behavior to me, reinforces my belief that the ones that justify themselves the most, are the ones that recognize what they have done the most.
I think if somebody can't handle killing people without powder coating it, they don't belong in that line of work. In some lines of work, as I wrote in my essay - immorality is necessity.
RE: Chaplains, Killing and Strawberry Shortcake ... Oh My! by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 25 October 2006
Another point I failed to make in either of my responses to your original post is that it is the chain of command's responsibility to justify and control violence, not the Chaplain's. We are the leaders, and it is our responsibility to give them that imperitive. Chaplains have no command authority.
As far as the need to justify it and your claim that they shouldn't be in this line of work if they have to "powder coat it", I disagree. Killing is wrong, but depending on what moral and ethical construct you subscribe to, you generally have to believe there are worse consequenses, higher virtues at stake or whatever in order to do it. You DON'T want soldiers to suddenly decide that killing is ok just for the hell of it; it must remain an immoral act outside the proper context. This is one of the major differences between soldiers and others who employ violence as part of their profession--restraint and use only in the proper context.
Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 25 October 2006
Again - you're saying the same thing as me, but missing the meat from my original point. The original question was posed by someone anonymous:
So what is your opinion of soldiers who claim to be Christians? What about chaplains?
I agree that killing has to happen to achieve various ends. I agree that killing is immoral no matter how many bows your wrap around it or piles of sugar you pour on it. I agree with you that the purpose of our leadership is to temper the actual deed itself to avoid wanton sprees.
The difference is about how the justifications are used. I've been rethinking this for awhile and unfortunately I can't think of a better way to describe it.
Both soldiers recognize that it is immoral to kill somebody. Both soldiers do it. But one of them finds a need to convince himself that that case was not immoral. The other recognizes it was immoral - but a lesser of two evils. I am guy number two.
I am not making any associations between those actions and the chaplain; two answers for two questions. After all the chaplain was my roommate for a year in the desert. There are definitely times when it's rough being separated from the chaplain by nothing more than a hanging poncho! Of course, I pulled enough pranks on him that I'm sure he wanted more than a poncho liner between us, too! But the point was to delineate them [chaplains] from "standard soldiers" for the anonymous questioner.
RE: Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by mikeforbes :: NR6 :: on 26 October 2006
That original question was posted by me (stupid non-persistent login!), but I have yet to hear an answer from ldsudduth. Your and PPS's answers are about what I would expect, but I'm curious to hear if ldsudduth thinks that all soldiers are condemned, or willfully living in sin, or something else.
I think you (VnutZ) described the options pretty well, and when it comes to me ... well, I'm not sure if I'm "Soldier A" or "Soldier B" -- but in the end, it doesn't matter. I'm going to do it anyway, whether it's "morally justified" or "immoral, but just a necessary business move."
And as Brandon pointed out, God Himself regularly condoned killing in the context of warfare. Also, what about when God killed Lot's wife by turning her into a pillar of salt? And Ananias and Sapphira from Acts 5? Whether it was God through Peter, or God directly, those two were dropped dead on the spot for lying. I've yet to hear a counterpoint that explains how all those examples don't mean there are sometimes exceptions or conditions to "Thou shalt not kill."
Killing for God vs Killing for Allah by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 26 October 2006
You know what I find interesting ...
Brandon has recently brought to light some Bible passages supporting killing in the name of God. Haven't many posters discussed Islam being one of the most dangerous religions today because of the condonement of killing for Allah?
Now the knee-jerk response to what I've just said is that modern Christianity pushes a more peaceful agenda. However, I had an earlier discussion with ldsudduth about the usage of the Bible as evidence - you had to either accept ALL OF IT as true or NONE OF IT, picking and choosing what's valid cannot be accepted. Likewise, I contend that interpretations of the Bible will change over time, but nonetheless, its contents are [supposed to be] the same. Therefore, taken in the context of the holy literature, has this example just shot a hole in the premise that Islam is a threat to the world while Christianity is not?
RE: Killing for God vs Killing for Allah by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 26 October 2006
you had to either accept ALL OF IT as true or NONE OF IT
Dude, that's a deontological view, and not necessarilly true. Also, there are many parts of the Bible where the author or the speaker being quoted was clearly using a metaphor (or parable, or whatever). Jesus in particular was fond of these. I don't know the verse number, but a really good example was when David was confronted about sending one of his officers off to get killed in battle (on purpose) so he could have his wife (Bathsheba). The story used was about a rich man who killed a poor man to get his prize lamb (which was all the poor guy owned).
As for killing in the name of God or Allah, it's true, a lot of people find justifications from both perviews for killing. If there were no Koran or Bible, they would find another justification. Hence I don't condemn Islam for this. I condemn people who manipulate others in such a way. I don't know if the Imams spewing that rhetoric are sincere any more than I know if the Popes who incited the Crusades were sincere or if it was a political move, but they should keep in mind that making such justifications, sincere or not can be considered blasphemy (in that you are speaking for God, or knowingly/unknowingly corrupting the word of God and using this to mislead people).
I also can relate to some of these so-called fanatics, because to them, globalization/commercialization and our way of life are a threat to their world, and we are incessently and relentlessly encroaching on every corner of the Earth with 24/7 porn and Madonna and there is no place on Earth to get away from it. These people see no way to compete in our world, even with an education (like Mohammad Atta and his college educated hijackers). Rather than "go Amish", they are standing their ground and fighting for their way of life and their beliefs. Would you do differently if, say, Islam were blanketing the world and you didn't buy in to their worldview?
RE: Killing for God vs Killing for Allah by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 26 October 2006
Dude, that's a deontological view, and not necessarilly true.
Why should I respect a religion whose human followers "pick and choose" which passages of the holy book they deem worth following? You either believe in it or you don't. If you believe parts of it, then you must not claim to be a member of particular religion ... rather, simply someone slightly more pious than an agnostic.
As I see it, regardless of the appropriateness of the times, it is not man's place to define the parameters of a religion. It is man's duty to conform to the norms of his faith. If he cannot abide by those norms, he either needs to find a different religion or quit deluding himself that he truly believes.
RE: Killing for God vs Killing for Allah by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 26 October 2006
You are missing the point here. There are many ways of looking at ethical problems, one is the deontological view, or strict adherance to the letter of the law, no matter what. There is teleological, which mainly judges morality based on the consequenses of the action for the most people (or for yourself). Utilitarianism fits here. Areteology looks at a problem from the aspect of what best upholds your virtues, especially those intended in the spirit of the law.
You can easily dream up a scenario where two or more of your values or laws are in conflict with each other. For example, the prohibition against killing versus, say, allowing someone else to be killed by your inaction. What is the deontological--letter of the law--answer to that?
It's not a matter of picking and chosing what parts you believe, it's about how you use what you believe and how you act upon that.
Moreover, it's God I follow, not the Holy Book per se (although the Bible is to be true to the same). Here is where you also get people in one camp who say that the Bible is an infallible recording of God's word. You get others who say that because it is transcribed by people, and passed on down through the generations, it's possible WE have introduced errors. This is why it is blasphemy in Islam to translate the Koran into any other language--because translation is faulty and would generate faulty understanding. Others will say the only completely (or more) reliable path is through spiritual experience. It's not my place to say who is right here, but I know where I stand, which I have the moral courage to follow with or without your respect on the matter.
RE: Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 26 October 2006
I actually overlooked your postings, but I'm here to answer them now.
This is the toughest part, are soldiers willfully in sin? My answer has to be 'Yes, they are'. Why do I say that? I don't believe our wars were decreed by God, but by Man. In all instances where God approved killing, the Israelites were acting as direct agents of His judgement upon the Enemies of Israel. Recall that at this time, God dwelt with the Isrealites in the Holy of Holies and spoke directly to the Levites who where the Priests. The Priests were the intercessors to God, but the Veil between the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies was rent upon the Crucifixtion. This meant God now dwelt with us, and all things are to be tested by the Holy Spirit to determine if they are from God or not.
Let's look at your example of Saul:
When Saul was commanded to killl the Amalekites, this was a Judgement from God for their waylaying of the Isrealites.
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
Your other examples are examples of God's Judgement:
When Lots' wife was turned into a pillar of salt, this was done so as a Judgement for disobeying God. (Genesis 19:17, 26)
As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!” But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
When Ananias and Sapphira both dropped dead; it was because they were confronted by thier disobedience to God, and He passed His Judgement upon them. They made a vow to pay the Lord, and since they tried to hide part of the money out of greed, they were judged for it. Peter knew both were lying, and they were lying to God. God passed His judgement upon them for their Sin.
Being disobidient (sinful) to God leads to death. While his is confirmed in many verses, but Galatians 6:8 comes to mind as the best example:
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Pleasing the Spirit means pleasing God.
RE: Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by scottb :: NR7 :: on 14 November 2006
More modern revisionism in biblical exigesis.
It's pretty obvious from the old testament that killing ones enemies - whether god declared the war or not - isn't wrong. A direct reading of the text suggests that "thou shalt not murder" means "don't kill your fellow Jews" (presumably now redacted to mean fellow Christians, for that branch of theism).
After all, if it really was intended to mean "don't kill anyone", then it's a little confusing how to interpret lots of other parts:
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
And let's not forget some New Testament bloodthirstiness...
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
RE: Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 November 2006
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.
I have agreed with your stances and the inconsistency of religion right up until this last line. This is not a commandment to Christians. It isn't Jesus commanding anything. It is a story he is telling. Have you never used hyperbole to make a point clearer? Do you think that it's impossible that Jesus could have mastered hyperbole? I mean you don't even have to be divine to do that. That line means those who don't accept me will lose their eternal life not their physical life. And that really shouldn't bother you since eternal life is life with God, and you have a problem with the concept of God anyway. So no loss to you right? Indeed.
RE: Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 14 November 2006
scottb never said that line was a commandment. Now therein lies the rub.
Do you think that it's impossible that Jesus could have mastered hyperbole?
You've noted that line is probably hyperbole. Okay, and that is ENTIRELY one of his points. That the judgement to use that context as hyperbole versus some sort of divine law is a decision of man. Hence, the moral code does not come direct, verbatim from the bible, rather, man makes a judgement that "in this case, it's okay, in this case, it's not okay." Thus, the moral code is (like scottb is arguing) ultimately a decision made by a man's interpretation, not a thous shalt ... dictum.
RE: Killing - Nothing Personal, Just Business by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 November 2006
If everyone agrees that this isn't a commandment then I don't see a problem with the passage and don't understand why it would be brought up. If you are talking about the internal consistency of the Bible as a source of morality, then you should be talking about the things it COMMANDS one to do. If the discussed passage is not a commandment then it lies