guy sajer wrote:
Ok, I’m tired of trying to do the cut and paste quote thing. So let me just finish here.
Now you have provided answers. And I find your answers deplorable. I find you moral philosophy (or what of it than can be gleaned) abohorrent.
Just like the other posters: that's a wonderful thesis, now where's the body of your argument? [/quote]
Guy: I don’t have time to type out a structured body of argument. I have a job and family that require my time and I cannot spend 2 hours a day composing and typing out lengthy dissertations.
I’m writing an off the cuff and very hurried response. I’ve stated my basic argument, I think, fairly clearly, for some reason that I cannot identify (although I have my hypotheses), you say you cannot see it. That is not my problem; that is yours.
guy sajer wrote:
You are a true apologist in that you defend the otherwise immoral.
And you have utterly failed to show that you at all comprehend ancient morality or modern perceptions of it.
Guy: I think I have made it clear that I don’t consider this as relevant to the debate to the debate as you do. You want to argue the relative morality of ancient societies as your standard of behavior; I want to argue the absolute morality of God; which I think is wholly relevant to how he conducts his affairs with humanity. You see this as a distraction to the debate; I see it as central. I claim no expertise in ancient morality; but I claim 40 + years of life experience, and years of thinking and writing on morality and moral frameworks; including a number of peer reviewed publications developing moral frameworks for understanding administrative ethics. You don’t need to lecture me about how to construct an argument: I’ve published nigh three dozen papers in peer-reviewed journals; which I think demonstrates I know my way around an argument. I understand the argument you are making; I just fundamentally disagree with the premise. We cannot find common ground because we operate from a totally different set of assumptions.
If you were as skilled in argumentation as you say you are; you’d recognize this instead of making bogus claims that I have not stated and articulated an argument.
guy sajer wrote:
You then attempt to shift the burden by trying to portray those taking moral positions as unreasonable. If you tried to take this argument outside the comfy confines of Mormon apologetics (or more broadly outside the realm of Christian fundamentalism), your moral philosophy would be widely acknowledged as the barbarity that it is.
You already made this comment and I responded to it with a non-religious book by non-Mormons who say the exact same thing as me. You failed to respond to my evidence.
Guy: I should clarify. My point of reference is not “scholarly” writing, but society in general. I think that were you to take an argument into a public forum of non-scholars (decent people who think in more intuitive, less formally structured ways in a cross-section of society, and not religious fanatics) in liberal society, an argument that attempts to justify religiously based killing would not go over very well. People would, I think, perceive your moral framework as, well, immoral. But this is an empirical question, and I could be wrong; but I do not think so. I think you would be perceived as a bit of a religious whack job. Neither has your argument garnered much support on this board with most responses (if I recall) making points not too dissimilar to the one’s I’m making. Don’t go making the mistake that scholars or other “experts” represent the moral sense of society. They are quite frequently far outside the mainstream.
guy sajer wrote:
I don’t need to spend a lifetime studying the ancient Near East (and I doubt you are the expert your portray yourself to be—you are probably somebody whose read a few things and is now posturing on an anonymous board as an expert) to reach the conclusion that wanton killing is wrong; it is wrong now, it was wrong yesterday, and it was wrong thousands of years ago.
Great thesis, but no argument.
Guy: You are correct this time. Why no rebuttal? I continue to assert that you are not the expert you portray yourself to be. That is fine; most of us are not experts in the topics we debate; no one has the time to be, but at least we should have the humility to acknowledge it. But you are portraying yourself as all-knowing on Ancient Near East cultures and attempting to beat down anyone who fails to demonstrate the same level of “expertise.” This kind of posturing makes debate impossible, particularly in a forum such as this where few people have expertise in arcane scholarly topics, as you use your presumed expertise as a cudgel to beat down anyone who disagrees with you. You have a lot to learn about writing and constructing arguments. When you’ve attempted to get your ideas published in a real peer-reviewed journal (which excludes FARMS good-ol-boy network), and you get your ass handed to you by a reviewer (as you will), perhaps you’ll learn a bit more humility. (Not to worry, I’ve had my ass handed to me many times, but in the process, I learned how to construct an argument, particularly when I have the time to develop it. If you want to PM me, I am happy to share with you what I’ve published. You can read it and decide on basis of more information if I’m really so incapable of constructing argument.)
I may not be an expert on moral frameworks, but I have several peer reviewed publications to my credit in the area; and in my opinion, your moral framework is sorely lacking. Not lacking in the sense that you do not articulate your arguments clearly (again, I understand your points well), but lacking in the sense that it is a lousy moral framework. I understand what you’re saying; I just think it sucks.
guy sajer wrote:
Perhaps not wrong by the cultural mores of society (and I am skeptical or your argument that wanton slaughter was as universally accepted as you claim it was),
Then investigate it instead of just a priori dismissing it as false because it challenges your current passive world view.
Guy: I do not have the time to investigate it; I have a life outside of arguing on BB’s. Note, I did not dismiss it, but said “I’m skeptical.” In my experience having researched, written, and published on many topics, there is rarely 100% consensus on issues as you seem to imply there is, particularly in the humanities and social sciences (I have less experience in the physical sciences). Thus the basis for my skepticism. It strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis.
guy sajer wrote:
but from an absolute standard of morality—a standard I fully and reasonably expect any God I worship to uphold. I don’t give a flying f*** that some in the Ancient Near East felt that killing men, women, and children wholesale was hunky dory.
And that has absolutely no bearing on anything.
Guy: In your opinion. In my opinion it does. Note, as you accuse me of ad nauseum, where’s your argument. This is an assertion. Where’s your argument? See, I can play the game too.
guy sajer wrote:
A God that commands his servants to kill wholesale so that his servants can seize their land;
A God that kills commits genocide (and this is true genocide, not attempted);
A supposedly all powerful God that uses the base morals of morally primitive societies to achieve his ends; instead of instructing his servants in his higher morals and holding them accountable for them;
A God who treats people as instruments for his and others’ means, and thereby denies them their humanity;
A God that kills wholesale for no other reason than people don’t show him the obsequiousness he demands;
This God is a psychopathic bastard. This is the God of the Old Testament. This God does not merit my devotion, rather he merits my moral scorn; as does your pathetic argument to morally justify wanton killing.
You've restated your assertion several times now without so much as a single axiom to back it up.
Guy: What the hell does this mean? You come across as a pretentious prick who is inventing rules of debate on the fly.
My argument is founded on my overriding moral belief in the inviolable worth of the individual.
I believe further that the basis for human morality is empathy, which is made possible by the human’s ability for abstract moral reasoning (the primary characteristic that differentiates humans from animals, in my opinion).
The most influential moral framework I’ve ever read along these lines is John Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance,” which is found in his book “A Theory of Justice.” Here’s a link. This link addresses to a minor degree your argument that “morality” is culturally bound.
http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm
If you want to understand the framework that underpins my moral thinking, this is probably the best source. I don’t have time to write it out for you.
For me to believe in a God, he/she would have to embody the moral virtues consistent with this framework. I do not see this in the Old Testament God; in fact; he is quite the opposite; one without any fixed moral philosophy except that of convenience and power.
guy sajer wrote:
One other thing you forget. All through history, there have been people in culture who have stood up and courageously challenged the cultural mores of society; who recognize the limitations of culturally bound beliefs and traditions; who have urged society to higher levels of moral nobility. Where was God, and where were God’s servants in taking on this role?
They would have been killed if they tried that.
Guy: And that is the price one pays at times for “standing for something.” This is, by the way, celebrated in Mormon Scripture as the examples of Abinidi and the believers who were tossed into the fire by non-believers, as well as in other religious traditions. The notion of heroically sacrificing for higher principles; of standing up for what is right, is widely recognized as one of the highest expressions of human morality and nobility. Plus, I might add; social change only occurs when people are willing to stand up to power and speak to our higher moral instincts. Other people all throughout time have stood up, and make the sacrifice; why can’t God’s emissaries or his people?
In societies that use killing as a policy tool, how will this ever change unless people begin to “stand for something?” Remember the story of the, I think, anti-Nephi-Lehites in the Book of Mormon? Rather than break their vow to not take up arms, they willingly laid down and sacrificed their lives. The result was mass conversion of their killers. Compare this morality tale to the morality tale where God (through I think Samuel or was it Nathan?) commands Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and best in the city Saul just sacked. Doesn’t this seem the least bit incongruous to you?
As for morality being culturally bond, have you ever read or watched “To Kill A Mockingbird?” Atticus Finch, the protagonist in this story was recently voted as the #1 or #2 literary hero in a poll of (not sure who—I heard this on the radio). This is one of the great morality tales of all time in Western Literature. Why is Finch such a moral hero?
Precisely because he was able to transcend his cultural conditioning and the ignorant, petty, prejudices of his culture to “stand for something;” he recognized the inherent immorality of racism, and he stood up to it; at great personal risk to himself. If the Atticus Finch’s of the world can “stand for something,” why can’t God?
If God were all powerful; could he not bring about his ends without violating his own laws or asking his servants to do so? Why must he accomplish his means through killing; through barbarity; by violating the humanity of those he claims to love?
guy sajer wrote:
If there was any role for a prophet of God, would not this be THE role; to instruct society in God’s higher law, to urge society to aspire to greater moral nobility. Instead, we consistently find God’s servants acting according to the basest morals of contemporary society. And we find God himself adopting those base morals. You may have no problem with this, but I do.
You're wrong, they're not acting according to it, they're acting in defense of it. God's not saying those morals are right, he's saying you have to deal with them, so you better be equipped.
Guy: No, I think I’m right.
guy sajer wrote:
You ask what moral framework I’d like to judge God by? How about God’s own moral law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Oh yeah, that was the same God who was gleefully drowning all of humanity when he was not ordering his servants to kill on his behalf.)
Please point that scripture out in the Bible.
Guy: Gladly, Mathew 7:12
guy sajer wrote:
You say, “Turning the question to address the morality of God's personal actions does not address the issue of the morality of God's children killing others. You've managed to not engage that issue at all.”
No, my friend, you have it completely wrong. Turning the question in this way goes to the very heart of addressing the morality of God’s children killing others. I cannot help it that you, in your blind quest to justify the unjustifiable, are too obtuse to see the connection.
Way to assert a position without backing it up.
Guy: Yes, it is an assertion. I have made an inference based on what I’ve read from you and based on talking with several people who think and argue similarly to you. When you learned your wonderful argumentation skills, did you not also learn what it means to make an inference?
guy sajer wrote:
The easiest and best answer for your question is that God doesn’t kill and that he doesn’t allow his followers to kill. Instead, the Old Testament is a collection of myths written by men, for men, and reflecting the cultural traditions of the time. This answer explains away all the anomalous results in one fell swoop and it is infinitely more attractive as an answer than the tortured, abhorrent moral framework you are trying to create.
If this is really how you view the moral universe, one can only hope that you won’t find a position of power in a theocracy government anywhere.
Wow. A lengthy post with a dozen theses and not a single axiom or piece of logic to back them up. You're doing a good job of maintaining the reputation of posters here of not engaging evidence or providing any of it for their own conclusions. Keep up the good work.
Guy: I’m confident that my arguments and logic are sound.
Here’s another assertion, based on inference. You are a pretentious would-be know-it-all with an over inflated sense of your knowledge and argumentation skills. You remind me of me years ago. Full of confidence, full of knowledge, but in fact; knowing almost nothing about life outside the narrow theoretic framework instilled in me as a result of decades of religious indoctrination; woefully deficient in real life experience; and sadly lacking in empathy.
Now, I’ll make you a bet. Ten-20 years from now, when you’ve accumulated more real world experience and met many intelligent, decent, good people who think very differently than you; after you’ve had the opportunity to observe the human condition more carefully; after you’ve developed your capacity for critical self-reflection; you’ll realize that your fellow human beings (now and in any age of history) are not theoretical abstractions, but real people like you; that you’ll look back on the arguments you have made on this board, and in this thread in particularly, and you’ll feel an acute sense of shame; shame that you were so willing to deny people their humanity; shame that you viewed them as instruments for someone else’s ends; and shame that you actually believed that mass murder is in anyway, shape, or form moral.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."