Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

to imply that there is "more than one" for society is antithetical to the idea of a moral fabric....the euphemism being for a "shared standard"...if there is one distinct fabric over there and another distinct fabric over here...then quite obviously they are not "shared".
It is a contradictory concept to state that "more than one" moral fabric exists within society, for it is a defining and singular attribute of "a society".

Which society? It's a subjective term. One can belong to several societies. LDS have their own society, but they would also belong to a state society in which they live. How about an ethnic society.

it is actually not a subjective term...your nuderstanding of the term is subjective, but for the sake of coherence most people rely on the actual concept.
"a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification and/or dominance patterns in subgroups."

so, while i understand that it simplifies the matter for you if you rely on multiple societies as opposed to an actual society with "sub-groups", however, since your argument vacillates between terms as a convenience i must admit that your argument comes across as muddy and not cohesive. You are trying to argue that two people, strangers, who share small talk about the weather while waiting on the bus suddenly have formed a new society...that, as you have done above, is just an absurd abstraction of what the term means and what is implied the use of the term.
But perhaps you are correct, there seems to be a society of common sense and then there are atheists.

For example, a society is not cohesive if it considers stealing a virtue and not-stealing a virtue...what you actually have is two different societies.

The US is a multicultural society made up of many societies based on religion, culture, etc. You will find more cohesion in societies with less diversity in culture and religion or other ideologies. Some you may not want to live in. Stealing being wrong is a fairly universal moral for all societies. Sex though can have much wider moral of what is wrong or right. Particularly in diverse societies. Peace is better achieved if people stop trying to force others to live their religious values.

again your argument is confused about sub-groups composing a society...not societies making a society...conceptually they are not the same. For example, let us say that society is to animal as sub-group is to snake.

In the context of "fabric", this virtue of "not stealing" is a thread...common to the entire fabric, but woven with others....remove the thread and the fabric weakens, etc...replace the thread with a different thread and the fabric becomes a different fabric.
simple concept really, made obvious by the concept when using the term "fabric" to describe it.

Sure we can change the fabric or replace it, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This is why laws can change. Some things that were considered good in the past no longer are. Slavery is a good example.

laws and morality are not often in harmony so i am not sure why you consider that one must be a manifestation of the other.
Nevertheless, your argument for slavery is not, as usual, cohesive.
Slavery as once being good but no longer being good...by some people, renders the concept of good and bad beyond your reach. You can only reference things a beneficial and not beneficial within the confines of a temporal framework. You can not incorporate the ability to choose otherwise.
The moral concept of good and bad can not exist subjectively. If slavery was once good, then is bad, and therefore may become good again - then it is actually neither...for as you are arguing these "values" are subjectively imposed...and slavery has no intrinsic quality of being good or bad...just being convenient or not...just being beneficial by coincidence or being detrimental by coincidence...and coincidence to random actions which have merely been the product of natural phenomena or individual survival - this is the only way an atheist can escape admitting the presence of an objective morality.

So, again...the idea of "good and bad" can not be presented in a cohesive and subjective manner by an atheist, which was my premise to begin with, thank you.

[_subgenius]

quick follow up for THEMIS,

how exactly do you provide an argument with cohesiveness and subjectivity for the situation involving Amanda Berry, Michele Knight, and Gina DeJesus?
Your argument is that it was possible, and could be again possible, that their kidnappings and subsequent treatment are "good".
That there is no way that what has happened to these three women could ever be viewed as intrinsically"bad"...that one can only consider this situation as being good or bad as a matter of opinion and taste.
Can you explain how that is?

[_Molok]

quick follow up for THEMIS,

how exactly do you provide an argument with cohesiveness and subjectivity for the situation involving Amanda Berry, Michele Knight, and Gina DeJesus?
Your argument is that it was possible, and could be again possible, that their kidnappings and subsequent treatment are "good".

Ever heard of the Vikings? In their culture, this kind of action was encouraged. In fact, they were rather famous for it.

[_Themis]

it is actually not a subjective term...your nuderstanding of the term is subjective, but for the sake of coherence most people rely on the actual concept.
"a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification and/or dominance patterns in subgroups."

so, while i understand that it simplifies the matter for you if you rely on multiple societies as opposed to an actual society with "sub-groups", however, since your argument vacillates between terms as a convenience i must admit that your argument comes across as muddy and not cohesive.

I really suggest when you copy and paste from wiki that you should read it first. I highlighted the part which rips you argument apart. Here is a link for others. It goes on to talk about societies existing in a larger society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

You are trying to argue that two people, strangers, who share small talk about the weather while waiting on the bus suddenly have formed a new society...that, as you have done above, is just an absurd abstraction of what the term means and what is implied the use of the term.

Here again you make up what no one is arguing. You obviously don't understand what the term based on the above.

laws and morality are not often in harmony so i am not sure why you consider that one must be a manifestation of the other.

We have already shown morality is not some absolute on what is good and bad. Laws certainly can be out of harmony with current values or morality of a group. Groups even now are trying to change laws to reflect their morality.

Nevertheless, your argument for slavery is not, as usual, cohesive.

I'm not arguing for slavery. Only trying to educate you on the facts about how people and groups have viewed slavery.

Slavery as once being good but no longer being good...by some people, renders the concept of good and bad beyond your reach. You can only reference things a beneficial and not beneficial within the confines of a temporal framework. You can not incorporate the ability to choose otherwise.

Good and bad are only based on what people and groups think. You have failed to show otherwise, and people have already shown you wrong with many examples.

The moral concept of good and bad can not exist subjectively. If slavery was once good, then is bad, and therefore may become good again - then it is actually neither...for as you are arguing these "values" are subjectively imposed...and slavery has no intrinsic quality of being good or bad...just being convenient or not...just being beneficial by coincidence or being detrimental by coincidence...and coincidence to random actions which have merely been the product of natural phenomena or individual survival - this is the only way an atheist can escape admitting the presence of an objective morality.

We are waiting for you to show an objective morality. It shouldn't be hard if it really is objective. Slavery could be seen as good in the future. I hope not.

So, again...the idea of "good and bad" can not be presented in a cohesive and subjective manner by an atheist, which was my premise to begin with, thank you.

I'm not following what you mean by cohesive. I did mention that the more diverse a society the less cohesive it will be. It can still work fine if the group is more tolerant of different views. I know some ares of the world that have very cohesive societies, and have well defined morals and laws. I doubt you would want to live there.

[_Themis]

quick follow up for THEMIS,

how exactly do you provide an argument with cohesiveness and subjectivity for the situation involving Amanda Berry, Michele Knight, and Gina DeJesus?
Your argument is that it was possible, and could be again possible, that their kidnappings and subsequent treatment are "good".
That there is no way that what has happened to these three women could ever be viewed as intrinsically"bad"...that one can only consider this situation as being good or bad as a matter of opinion and taste.
Can you explain how that is?

What happened to these women was very bad, and very horrific. In no way did I argue that I view it as good in any way. It's terrible from my POV that some would view it as good, or give into some desire to harm another. The topic was started by someone who gave one of the best ways for determining good and bad, which is based on do no harm. As molok has shown some groups in the past have viewed doing things we consider bad as good. Why they considered it good can be complex. It's obvious what is good or bad is not really some eternal absolute. It varies and if it works for the survival of a group then it will probably persist. I may not like that some things that work. Some of those things worked for the hun's, vikings, etc.

[Guest]

quick follow up for THEMIS,

how exactly do you provide an argument with cohesiveness and subjectivity for the situation involving Amanda Berry, Michele Knight, and Gina DeJesus?
Your argument is that it was possible, and could be again possible, that their kidnappings and subsequent treatment are "good".

Ever heard of the Vikings? In their culture, this kind of action was encouraged. In fact, they were rather famous for it.

There may have been exceptions...

[image deleted]

[_Bazooka]

quick follow up for THEMIS,

how exactly do you provide an argument with cohesiveness and subjectivity for the situation involving Amanda Berry, Michele Knight, and Gina DeJesus?
Your argument is that it was possible, and could be again possible, that their kidnappings and subsequent treatment are "good".
That there is no way that what has happened to these three women could ever be viewed as intrinsically"bad"...that one can only consider this situation as being good or bad as a matter of opinion and taste.
Can you explain how that is?

What happened to these women was very bad, and very horrific. In no way did I argue that I view it as good in any way. It's terrible from my POV that some would view it as good, or give into some desire to harm another. The topic was started by someone who gave one of the best ways for determining good and bad, which is based on do no harm. As molok has shown some groups in the past have viewed doing things we consider bad as good. Why they considered it good can be complex. It's obvious what is good or bad is not really some eternal absolute. It varies and if it works for the survival of a group then it will probably persist. I may not like that some things that work. Some of those things worked for the hun's, vikings, etc.

Hmmm....that's quite a thought provoking little sentence.

It leads me to think that, in trying to determine what is "good" and what is "bad" it should be based on the natural instinct, either of individuals or groups, to survive.

Native Americans probably saw killing off the settlers as "good" because they were a threat to their survival.
Settlers probably saw the killings by Native Americans as "bad" because they were threatening their survival.

I think killing is bad, but if my kids were in mortal danger I wouldn't hesitate to rip the predators throat out and stamp them to a bloody pulp.

So good and bad isn't the intrinsic, universal moral standard, survival is. And what one needs to do to survive is good, and whatever threatens that survival is bad.
This survival instinct is observable in every form of nature, every living thing/group is striving to survive, even if that is at the expense of other living things.

[_subgenius]

quick follow up for THEMIS,

how exactly do you provide an argument with cohesiveness and subjectivity for the situation involving Amanda Berry, Michele Knight, and Gina DeJesus?
Your argument is that it was possible, and could be again possible, that their kidnappings and subsequent treatment are "good".

Ever heard of the Vikings? In their culture, this kind of action was encouraged. In fact, they were rather famous for it.

CFR
obviously Ariel Castro considers the situation to have been "good" as well...but that was not my question...i was not asking for examples...i was asking for the cohesive moral argument that he claims exists in support of those "examples".

[_subgenius]

What happened to these women was very bad, and very horrific. In no way did I argue that I view it as good in any way.

sure you did...just like slavery...just because it is bad today means that it was good on another day. It is impossible, according to you, for this experience to ever be objectively, or universally, bad.

It's terrible from my POV that some would view it as good, or give into some desire to harm another. The topic was started by someone who gave one of the best ways for determining good and bad, which is based on do no harm.

according to you, "harm" is subjective...Castro could easily take the position that he saw no harm in the way he was treating these women. And you have no cohesive argument to support your claim that he was doing "harm" without relying on something objective...otherwise,you would have to argue that it could be "good in any way".

As molok has shown some groups in the past have viewed doing things we consider bad as good. Why they considered it good can be complex. It's obvious what is good or bad is not really some eternal absolute. It varies and if it works for the survival of a group then it will probably persist. I may not like that some things that work. Some of those things worked for the hun's, vikings, etc.

like i said before....no cohesive argument can be proposed by your position

[_subgenius]

a larger society often evinces stratification and/or dominance patterns in subgroups."[/i]

You are trying to argue that two people, strangers, who share small talk about the weather while waiting on the bus suddenly have formed a new society...that, as you have done above, is just an absurd abstraction of what the term means and what is implied the use of the term.

Here again you make up what no one is arguing. You obviously don't understand what the term based on the above.

huh?...i underlined in your statement what i actually do not understand

laws and morality are not often in harmony so i am not sure why you consider that one must be a manifestation of the other.

We have already shown morality is not some absolute on what is good and bad. Laws certainly can be out of harmony with current values or morality of a group. Groups even now are trying to change laws to reflect their morality.

you have not shown that at all...just making the claim that they are not is not the same as actually proving they are not. For example, slavery has always been bad and always will be bad...just because an individual or a group chooses to behave badly does not make slavery "good" on any level. Slavery is intrinsically bad....never has captor and slave been in agreement on that matter.

Nevertheless, your argument for slavery is not, as usual, cohesive.

I'm not arguing for slavery. Only trying to educate you on the facts about how people and groups have viewed slavery.

you have argued for slavery...and against it...ergo the lack of cohesion. You are incapable of providing an argument that attributes any value to slavery because that value is contradictory throughout history...because that value is not intrinsic it is actually non-existent according to your argument...by your own admission, the value of good/bad for slavery is rather arbitrary, coincidental, or just a matter of convenience...so it is irrelevant...considering morality as a trend or a matter of taste is an foundation error on your part.

Slavery as once being good but no longer being good...by some people, renders the concept of good and bad beyond your reach. You can only reference things a beneficial and not beneficial within the confines of a temporal framework. You can not incorporate the ability to choose otherwise.

Good and bad are only based on what people and groups think. You have failed to show otherwise, and people have already shown you wrong with many examples.

i have provided examples...i noted that there are transcendent human behaviors and feelings...and that these transcendent qualities are the foundation of morality. On the other hand you have made the claim that good and bad are only based on what people think...and have provided no proof for that claim.

The moral concept of good and bad can not exist subjectively. If slavery was once good, then is bad, and therefore may become good again - then it is actually neither...for as you are arguing these "values" are subjectively imposed...and slavery has no intrinsic quality of being good or bad...just being convenient or not...just being beneficial by coincidence or being detrimental by coincidence...and coincidence to random actions which have merely been the product of natural phenomena or individual survival - this is the only way an atheist can escape admitting the presence of an objective morality.

We are waiting for you to show an objective morality. It shouldn't be hard if it really is objective. Slavery could be seen as good in the future. I hope not.

see above and previous posts.
why would you possibly care if slavery was "good" in the future? according to your own argument, if this were to occur then it would actually be "good"....so you are effectively stating that you wish good things would not occur in the future.

So, again...the idea of "good and bad" can not be presented in a cohesive and subjective manner by an atheist, which was my premise to begin with, thank you.

I'm not following what you mean by cohesive. I did mention that the more diverse a society the less cohesive it will be. It can still work fine if the group is more tolerant of different views. I know some ares of the world that have very cohesive societies, and have well defined morals and laws. I doubt you would want to live there.

the more diverse then the less cohesive?...thanks for that.....so the poster was correct about the detriment to moral fabric.
These statements like "it will still work fine" is an interesting sign of "hope and faith" form you...considering you have no evidence to base that claim on...nevertheless, by definition, every society is cohesive - so i am still not convinced that you are familiar enough with the concepts involved here.