or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Why you should be proud to send your kids to Berkeley...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why you should be proud to send your kids to Berkeley... - Page 2

post #41 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I said no such thing. I said it should make you proud to have your children attending there if you beleive morals are relative, which you ost certainly do.

Berkeley is a wonderful place to learn if you don't get all caught up in the hippie culture that thrives there. And as for any good things that came out of that class, if I taught math and I was able to make anyone understand basic math priciples and learn how to do long multiplication in their heads but I taught that 2+2=5 and 2x2=6 but I was consistant about it. They would get the "right" answer consistantly. Does that make my class good? Doesn't stand up in the real worl. In my opinion any good that may have been done in the class on paper is destroyed by the teacher taking the class on a field trip to watch him have sex with a woman and to participate in an orgy. (Extra credit, anyone want to go? *entire class with raging hormines* YEAH!!!) Who is to say what they even really taught in this class. Just because the syllabus says that was what was taught does not mean it was. His entire course is suspect to me. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

1. There is really no "hippy culture" in Berkeley. It's a grouping of college students, and is fairly liberal, as most colleges are.

2. I didn't quote the syllabus. I quoted the same anecdotal students comments that you did. The classroom part of the class has a lot of real world applicability.

3. Just because I say morals are relative doesn't mean I don't have any.

4. What have I been assimilated into?

5. I edited my earlier post because I realized the inappropriateness of what I said. I'm just annoyed by people who are afraid to question the underlying assumptions.
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #42 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>OK Scott - can you prove this? Can you prove what is wrong and what isn't? Where do the morals come from? I have my own ideas about this, but I'm curious where you think they come from.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Me shooting you in the head for no reason would be wrong. I rest my case.
post #43 of 63
I for one never meant to question that rape is wrong and rape of innocent youth would in particular be very bad, sthese are awfull things.

I'm just wondering where the talk of rape came in in this discussion exactly? Who mentioned anything about rape?

As for Greece, well we now find that model of thought to be abhorent and perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. the reasons why it might not be abhorent is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between now, our attitutes towards sex, and the attitudes back then in which the adult youth relationship is said to be one of nurturing and learning.

Clearly from our sex obsessed cultural perspective: where we love sex but deny it due its 'inherently' prurient and 'immoral' nature, we create an ugly thing out of it, to the point that many people in our culture 'lust only after the forbidden... and turn healthy sexuality into the 'dirtiness of forbiddeness'. It is impossible, from the perspective of our culture, where sex is ubiquitous yet made into a commodity and a monster, to see how another culture may have treated the act otherwise. From what I have read of Plato, the reverence and care for the body and for beauty and teh stewardship of youth into adulthood was in a very different frame of mind and relationship than we have to these ideas:

where we can only see the idea of rape they may have seen something else: not at all violent, abusive, dirty or coercive.

It would be untenable for us to have youth--adult relationships in our culture because the way we treat sex we make of it an act of power or shameful activity to be denied and kept hidden in the confessional.

True that psychologically there is a natural sense of shock in relationship to sexuality: a shock, in par,t due to sex's power in relationship to the Ego: namely that the Ego's sovereignty is a sham in the face of the power of sex, and the Ego feels this like it feels the fear of death. But, perhaps if our culture had a different relationship to the body and the sex act, the manner in which we deal with that natural shock to the psych might not be so painful and might not result in so many screwed up people in relation to sex.

Once again, think about the grounding of the sexual relationship that predominated in the culture that fostered the Terorists: screwed up for sure.

And besides, Berkeley is one of he best schools in the country and has virtually nothing to do with the Berkeley of the sixties mentality.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #44 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

Me shooting you in the head for no reason would be wrong. I rest my case.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That doesn't at all answer BRussell's question.
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #45 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>I for one never meant to question that rape is wrong and rape of innocent youth would in particular be very bad, sthese are awfull things.

I'm just wondering where the talk of rape came in in this discussion exactly? Who mentioned anything about rape?

As for Greece, well we now find that model of thought to be abhorent and perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. the reasons why it might not be abhorent is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between now, our attitutes towards sex, and the attitudes back then in which the adult youth relationship is said to be one of nurturing and learning.

Clearly from our sex obsessed cultural perspective: where we love sex but deny it due its 'inherently' prurient and 'immoral' nature, we create an ugly thing out of it, to the point that many people in our culture 'lust only after the forbidden... and turn healthy sexuality into the 'dirtiness of forbiddeness'. It is impossible, from the perspective of our culture, where sex is ubiquitous yet made into a commodity and a monster, to see how another culture may have treated the act otherwise. From what I have read of Plato, the reverence and care for the body and for beauty and teh stewardship of youth into adulthood was in a very different frame of mind and relationship than we have to these ideas:

where we can only see the idea of rape they may have seen something else: not at all violent, abusive, dirty or coercive.

It would be untenable for us to have youth--adult relationships in our culture because the way we treat sex we make of it an act of power or shameful activity to be denied and kept hidden in the confessional.

True that psychologically there is a natural sense of shock in relationship to sexuality: a shock, in par,t due to sex's power in relationship to the Ego: namely that the Ego's sovereignty is a sham in the face of the power of sex, and the Ego feels this like it feels the fear of death. But, perhaps if our culture had a different relationship to the body and the sex act, the manner in which we deal with that natural shock to the psych might not be so painful and might not result in so many screwed up people in relation to sex.

Once again, think about the grounding of the sexual relationship that predominated in the culture that fostered the Terorists: screwed up for sure.

And besides, Berkeley is one of he best schools in the country and has virtually nothing to do with the Berkeley of the sixties mentality.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That was a very enlightening post. Thank you!
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #46 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>1. There is really no "hippy culture" in Berkeley. It's a grouping of college students, and is fairly liberal, as most colleges are.

2. I didn't quote the syllabus. I quoted the same anecdotal students comments that you did. The classroom part of the class has a lot of real world applicability.

3. Just because I say morals are relative doesn't mean I don't have any.

4. What have I been assimilated into?

5. I edited my earlier post because I realized the inappropriateness of what I said. I'm just annoyed by people who are afraid to question the underlying assumptions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) Just like most other colleges? Mmmk. Next question. (Berkeley is hardly just like any other college.)

2) Well good, so maybe they actually learned a few things other than it is ok to have sex in front of your students and to particiapate in an orgy in public.

3) I have never said you don't have any morals.

4) Moral relatavism is all the rage. "If society says it is ok, it is. So long as nobody cares who am I to say what is wrong?" And you just go along with it, following the crowd. Assimilated.

5) See my previous post. Questioning? I bet you are coming up with your next response to write of my opinion already as we speak. It is much harder to swim against the moral drift that to float along placidly in it. I have to "question the underlying assumptions" almost daily. It is not easy, in fact is was much easier before I decided that there are moral absolutes. Much easier.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #47 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>
4) Moral relatavism is all the rage. "If society says it is ok, it is. So long as nobody cares who am I to say what is wrong?" And you just go along with it, following the crowd. Assimilated.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's news to me. I came up with that while reading Machiavelli, not the New York Times.
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #48 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>

That's news to me. I came up with that while reading Machiavelli, not the New York Times.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And this proves what? So Machiavelli wrote it down a while ago. That does not change what is going on in society around you. You just found something written that backs up your opinion that shows that morality is what you make it. There are no absolutes. Still BS, and you are still just foating along with the rest of society, you just have a fancy name to point to as to why you beleive what you do. Most others just beleive it because it is human nature. Congratualtions.

[edit] Oh, and as for the rest of my post???

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #49 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

And this proves what? So Machiavelli wrote it down a while ago. That does not change what is going on in society around you. You just found something written that backs up your opinion that shows that morality is what you make it. There are no absolutes. Still BS, and you are still just foating along with the rest of society, you just have a fancy name to point to as to why you beleive what you do. Most others just beleive it because it is human nature. Congratualtions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just because others agree with me doesn't make me a fish following the current. I truly believe (and think I understand) that everything is relative. I accept somethings as absolute (like that murder is bad) for the sake of maintaining a social order. Don't criticize my argument because "everyone else is doing it". Tell me, if there are absolutes, where do they come from? God? Are they just there, existing outside the bounds of time?
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #50 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>
[edit] Oh, and as for the rest of my post???
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

As for the rest of your post:
1. Berkeley is like other universities. I go to another UC school, a lot of my friends go to Cal, we both have similar educational experiences.

2. My point here is that the class is good, it just needs structure.

3. Fair enough
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #51 of 63
[quote] It is much harder to swim against the moral drift that to float along placidly in it. <hr></blockquote>

NoahJ, you are playing the moral martyr card, Except that you don't recognize that your moral-castle is that of the majority.

We have argued about this in other threads, and I have seen where your moral grounding comes from: we know that you believe they are grounded in the absolute reading of scripture.

and you know that my morals, and I do have them, are grounded in the pragmatism of daily life and born out of Compassion for the Other.

The main difference here is that my Ethics is dynamic, and, in principle deals with real people in real situations and yours is rigidified in (what is impossible, in my mind) an absolute reading of a text, as if interpretation were merely an illusion.

I am glad that our legal system has a structure that mirrors the understanding that judgements are dynamic and based on interpretation, jurisprudence is dynamic.

I'm not making excuses for these classes. But mainly my objection to them is that it reveals just how trite the instructors thoughts about sexuality probably were, and just how blunt and clumsy they were: like a dumptruck on an ice rink. What occured outside of the class room sounds pretty inappropriate for a class room, and should probably not be given the legitimation of the institution, it sounds more appropriate for an extra curricular seminar or group.

But, I think that the manner in which the story is told most probably distorts what happened to make it sound like a debauch when it probably really was not much.

I know this from personal experience: in Iowa, where I went to graduate school, a Graduate student did a work of art that entailed moments where naked men, while dancing had bodily contact: a student was a fundamentalist and protested that the event was a blatant promotion of immoral homosexaul activity, and was a sex act . . . this interpretation carried the day as far as the interface with the public was concerned. . . . .obviously it was a misreading of what hapened in order to serve the interests of the "moral majority" --the people who would have us live under the Christian Taliban if they could

I can't help but think that this is what's happening here. . . it serves the 'morally indignant' in two ways:

1. They are interested in controlling others in the name of their absolutist morallity

and
2. They re interested in stories of lurid sex but have to deny that they are: but its clearly the luridness that they love

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #52 of 63
come on... where are you?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #53 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
[QB]

NoahJ, you are playing the moral martyr card, Except that you don't recognize that your moral-castle is that of the majority.<hr></blockquote>

I can see how you would think that. But I am not asking for sympathy. I am telling those who think it is so easy to be a Christian and to believe that right is right and wrong in wrong that they are living a pipe dream. IT is hard. Very Hard. Even in this forum I am told how stupid I am to believe what I beleive and how I should just give it up and realize that there are only Societal morals and no absolute moral authority.

[quote]We have argued about this in other threads, and I have seen where your moral grounding comes from: we know that you believe they are grounded in the absolute reading of scripture.

and you know that my morals, and I do have them, are grounded in the pragmatism of daily life and born out of Compassion for the Other.

The main difference here is that my Ethics is dynamic, and, in principle deals with real people in real situations and yours is rigidified in (what is impossible, in my mind) an absolute reading of a text, as if interpretation were merely an illusion.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, we have had discussion about this before. And I still appreciate that people have, for the most part managed to keep the tone civil. Makes it easier to put a point across without having to wade through personal attacks.

You say that your ethics are dynamic. Seems like a big word to say they change over time. If you read my last post in the other thread I explained how my interpretation of scripture is not rigid when it comes to what is intended for my edification and my relationship with God. But when it comes to base moral right and wrong. That part DOES NOT change. It is always wrong if it is wrong, no matter what society says.

[quote]I am glad that our legal system has a structure that mirrors the understanding that judgements are dynamic and based on interpretation, jurisprudence is dynamic.<hr></blockquote>

But those laws are man made, and judged by man. Therefore they can be fundamentally flawed sometimes, thus the need for interpretation. The 10 commandments are not.

[quote]I'm not making excuses for these classes. But mainly my objection to them is that it reveals just how trite the instructors thoughts about sexuality probably were, and just how blunt and clumsy they were: like a dumptruck on an ice rink. What occured outside of the class room sounds pretty inappropriate for a class room, and should probably not be given the legitimation of the institution, it sounds more appropriate for an extra curricular seminar or group.

But, I think that the manner in which the story is told most probably distorts what happened to make it sound like a debauch when it probably really was not much. <hr></blockquote>

So they made the story up for sensationalism? Maybe. But they don't quote any students as saying that is not what happened either. Most just said that it was accepted by all and so it should be no big deal.

[quote]I know this from personal experience: in Iowa, where I went to graduate school, a Graduate student did a work of art that entailed moments where naked men, while dancing had bodily contact: a student was a fundamentalist and protested that the event was a blatant promotion of immoral homosexaul activity, and was a sex act . . . this interpretation carried the day as far as the interface with the public was concerned. . . . .obviously it was a misreading of what hapened in order to serve the interests of the "moral majority" --the people who would have us live under the Christian Taliban if they could<hr></blockquote>

Couldn't resist comparing to the Taliban could you. Sigh. Now it is I who am disappointed.

[quote]I can't help but think that this is what's happening here. . . it serves teh morally indignant in two ways:
1. They are interested in controlling others in the name of their absolutist morallity
and
2. They re interested in stories of lurid sex but have to deny that they are: but its clearly the luridness that they love<hr></blockquote>

This is not a very helpful analysis. First you are asking for a snide response, begging actually. This is very broad brushed remark that makes me wish I had a moral martyr card to play.

As far as the interest in lurid sex, once gain, that is human nature, it is not like people can just turn off a switch and not be interested in sex or sexual behavior anymore. But then again, that does not stop that behavior from being wrong in certain circumstances. Such as outside of marriage, with a minor child, or in an orgy.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #54 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>come on... where are you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Impatient are we?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #55 of 63
Hate to take this off topic, but Noah, I believe that the 10 commandments are somewhat open to interpretation.

For example, "thou shalt not kill".

Now, how do you interpret that? Or is every war America has fought been based on Sin?

I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just questioning your statement that scriptual laws aren't open to some amount of interpretation. As can be seen by the variety of Christ based religions i.e. protestants, catholics, lutherans, etc.
post #56 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>Hate to take this off topic, but Noah, I believe that the 10 commandments are somewhat open to interpretation.

For example, "thou shalt not kill".

Now, how do you interpret that? Or is every war America has fought been based on Sin?

I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just questioning your statement that scriptual laws aren't open to some amount of interpretation. As can be seen by the variety of Christ based religions i.e. protestants, catholics, lutherans, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Every war is based on sin. Without sin there would be no need for war. Sin brought death to earth, before sin there was no death. So yes, every war that is fought by America, by European nations, or by anyone is based on some degree of sin. War is usually a retribution for a crime committed against a nation. God gave the leaders of those nations authority over the people in them and has told us that we mus obey their rule. If they decide that retribution for the wrong is to go to war, then that is what we are obligated to do scripturally. It is not my job as a man to judge the heart of my enemies or to condemn any of you. My job is to deal with myself and to answer questions you may have about my beleifs. My only hope is that along the way some will see what I beleive and come to beleive the same thing.

So, is it ok in time of war to kill? Yes, and no. I fyou are a soldier and that is what those who have authority over you have ordered, you are scripturally bound to obey that order. If you are a citzen with no ties to the war, no, I do not beleive it is OK to kill even during times of war. Too vauge? It does make one think.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #57 of 63
It does make one think.

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

- <a href="http://lone-star.net/mall/literature/warpray.htm" target="_blank">The War Prayer</a>
Mark Twain
post #58 of 63
I think the replies here have provied good examples for NoahJ point.
post #59 of 63
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=100001700" target="_blank">Great Moments in Non-Western Civilization</a>
A Saudi man who had sex with his sister-in-law has been sentenced to six years in prison and 4,750 lashes. The sister-in-law, who says she was raped, gets only six months in jail and 65 lashes--still an awfully stiff sentence, given that, as the Associated Press puts it, "the court found she had not consented to the relationship."
post #60 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>
So, is it ok in time of war to kill? Yes, and no. I fyou are a soldier and that is what those who have authority over you have ordered, you are scripturally bound to obey that order. If you are a citzen with no ties to the war, no, I do not beleive it is OK to kill even during times of war. Too vauge? It does make one think.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, I would have asked this in the other thread, but the party seems to have moved to this one.


How about an example a little closer to home? Killing is wrong, but what if you were faced with the choice killing in order to protect a loved one, say, a family member from an attacker? Or, what if the choice were between the lives of two strangers (one stranger is attacking a bystander, neither of whom you know. Your choice is to interveine by killing the attacker, or to do nothing and let the bystander die.)

The answer to the first, I think should be obvious, but what about the second? To what do you look to guide your decisions? The Bible? Does the Bible have something to cover this situation?

Or, more on point, what if you were faced with a situation that the Bible does not cover in which to act would violate one of your core beliefs, yet to not act would bring imminent harm to you, a stranger, or a loved one?

You mentioned in the other thread that the "core values" don't change. I think that's true for most people, barring some major idealogical crisis. But things aren't always as black and white as we'd like them to be. Sooner or later, everyone will need to make decisions based a relative situation. Even Christians. Hopefully, though, they will not be as extreme as the ones above, but they will still have to be made nonetheless, and the choices you are faced with may violate your beliefs. To say that you would not make decisions based on a relative morality or relative circumstances is, I think too much of a simplification.
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #61 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>Sin brought death to earth, before sin there was no death.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I presume by this that you are referring to the parable of the Garden of Eden (correct me if I'm wrong), and I have a problem with you stating this as fact. The idea that man ever was or could be immortal is stretching it a bit. The nature of life is that it is intertwined with death. All things die, man, animals, plants, even rocks are withered away by the wind. Every rabbi who I've ever talked to views the Eden tale as a metaphor, not a fact. It was a way for the Israelites to come to terms with the nature of their existence. Anyhow, I would always trade immortality for knowledge, because an existence without knowledge is a meaningless one.

(Noah, if you meant something completely different, just let me know so that this post will sound like babble )
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #62 of 63
NoahJ, I didn't mean to put you in the camp of the "moral Majority" that would be likened to the Taliban. You are thoughtfull and willing to see a discussin through. But there are those people out there and they are often the kind that would distort a simple story, or incident such as happened in Iowa to get all righteous and bent out of shape:

which is always funny in the light of Chist's words "not one is righteous"

anyway, if you look at my moral definition you will notice that I base my morals on the notion of Compassion in the face of the Other: its easy to see this as a principle that can be understood as nearly being thoelogical if you can see that Otherness is that which, because it is beyond us, escapes all catagorization and deserves absolute respect. Also you can see that from such a premise REAL ethical guidelines can be deduced which fall into doing what is right and not doing what is wrong with regards to the actuality of others and Otherness.

Much of what I consider ethical is very influenced by both Buddhist thought and the thought of teh Jewish religious philosopher Emmanuel Levinas.

But sexuality is not such a big moral deal in my view: it is only our twisted denial of the body that makes us equate open sexuality with immorality. The life force is good and should not be denied: as it often is in the name of religion when that religion mistakes the world and the body for evilness. . . and you know that historically many forms of Christianity have done just that. There are many religious forms that are not in denial of the body or life energy (see my post in the masturbation thread) and yet still have discernable moral guidlines

and 'dynamic' does mean change with time, but more appropriately it means change with the apropriateness of what is RIGHT for that time in question.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #63 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by jesperas:
<strong>

OK, I would have asked this in the other thread, but the party seems to have moved to this one.


How about an example a little closer to home? Killing is wrong, but what if you were faced with the choice killing in order to protect a loved one, say, a family member from an attacker? Or, what if the choice were between the lives of two strangers (one stranger is attacking a bystander, neither of whom you know. Your choice is to interveine by killing the attacker, or to do nothing and let the bystander die.)

The answer to the first, I think should be obvious, but what about the second? To what do you look to guide your decisions? The Bible? Does the Bible have something to cover this situation?

Or, more on point, what if you were faced with a situation that the Bible does not cover in which to act would violate one of your core beliefs, yet to not act would bring imminent harm to you, a stranger, or a loved one?

You mentioned in the other thread that the "core values" don't change. I think that's true for most people, barring some major idealogical crisis. But things aren't always as black and white as we'd like them to be. Sooner or later, everyone will need to make decisions based a relative situation. Even Christians. Hopefully, though, they will not be as extreme as the ones above, but they will still have to be made nonetheless, and the choices you are faced with may violate your beliefs. To say that you would not make decisions based on a relative morality or relative circumstances is, I think too much of a simplification.</strong><hr></blockquote>

WHen the time comes I will tell you what the answer is to any of these situations. FOr now it is all an exercise in speculation and nothing more. What is to say that you could not merely render unconscious the man attacking the other for example? Your rule of the questions says that one must die, but it is a false choice. The situation will likely effect the outcome, but in the end, whatever is done, I will have to live with the consequences of the choice I made. Will it be the right choice? Maybe, maybe not. I am not perfect. But In the situations given sometimes the right choice can be hidden in the heat of the moment. It does not change the fact that it is wrong to kill, or steal, or bear false witness. The end does not always justify the means.

[edit] And yes, the bible has something to cover all situations. The basic moral principles are pretty much universal. It can be difficult however to know when to apply what. That only comes with maturity, and much study.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Why you should be proud to send your kids to Berkeley...