JAK wrote:
Yes. I think you paraphrase relatively well.
Thanks! Just wanted to make sure I got it!
I said: “we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance.”
Oh, well I would agree with that! Sorry I misquoted you. I don't think it really matters though, does it?
Consider this comparison. As fully informed as was possible 200 years ago would not have been equal to that same level today.
Sure. I understand that.
barrelomonkeys stated:
The original topic asked us to consider whether it is unchristlike to condone a system that leeches off the poor.
JAK:
I missed that as “the original topic.”
The first post by Roger concluded with this:
What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (inconsistency) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life? Warm regards, Roger
Yet the topic began with this:
Are CEOs worth 364 times more than the average Joe/Jane? I choose to dwell on that question.
barrelomonkeys stated:
You said that people needed to be fully informed before making a judgment as to whether anything is moral or immoral.
JAK:
Please re-read my posts. I didn’t say this.
Again:
I said: “we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance.”
It was not my position that any individual can necessarily be “fully informed” on a complex, multifaceted problem.
Well of course not! My bad! As well informed as possible. But either way, people make judgments of morality with various levels of understanding of the complexities of an issue. In an ideal world most people would try to be as informed as possible, but that's not the world we live in!
JAK:
One way “collective” judgment tends to occur is in law. To be sure, law and laws over time undergo change. Circumstances do not remain static. As circumstances change and new information emerges, considerations regarding “decisions regarding morality” also change.
Of course! We do have collective judgments as a society (and other societies have their own) of morality. So why can't we assume that Christians also should have these same collective judgments of morality?
Women in the USA were not permitted to vote prior to the 1920s. It was the law, and it was regarded by many as morally correct. In Tehran, women today ride in the back of the busses, must cover their heads if not all their body except for the face or eyes. It’s regarded as “morally correct” in Tehran. It’s also changing. But in that culture many things which are moral issues are not in the slightest moral issues in the USA.
Yep. Segregation. Slavery. Etc...
Notions of “moral” correctness are subjective. In India, cows are sacred as part of the Hindu religion's story of creation.
Yep! I get it! :)
So how are “decisions” made? They are made by general consensus in a given culture/civilization. They are made within the context of sub-cultures within a civilization as well.
YES! So why then can't we say that a Christian (that would follow Christ's teachings) should believe that social darwinism is immoral?
That, of course, is American capitalism. So we can have a debate about the morality of such marketing practices. If you work for the tobacco industry, you may have a different view than if you work for a health-care service.
Absolutely! Although one would assume that if you work for one or the other you would have some sort of morality scale on the issue that would be somewhat similiar to those that work beside you. Your subculture in other words. ;)
The first post by Roger concluded with this:
What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (sp) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life? Warm regards, Roger
Confession time: When I see Joseph Smith, "Mammon" and LDS my brain goes a bit fuzzy. :) I was looking at the thread in the light of this question:
Are CEOs worth 364 times more than the average Joe/Jane? Then related that question to the Christian perspective.
JAK:
Clearly, there is “inconsistency” in the USA. Clearly, the USA has changed its view (consensus) over time. We could debate rightly if the USA was ever “THE Christian Country.” I don’t think that has been established.
Well I agree with you there! Although I would think that Christ's disciples would have some sort of view on this that would stay within the teachings of Christ.
barrelomonkeys stated:
I would think that anyone that is a disciple of Christ would have some beliefs of morality that contained his teachings.
JAK:
You might. But Christians do not agree on issues of “morality.” They claim to believe different things as evidenced by the more than 1,000 groups which disagree with one another.
Well I understand that. But on this point; the economic system that would allow a few wealthy to gain more wealth while those at the bottom remain stagnant is not something that I see much wiggle room on. Perhaps I've not been directed to the teachings of Christ that support this system! I'm not so familiar with the Bible, it could be there!
I also previously addressed the issue of wealth transfer with which Christian groups are very committed.
Well I missed it! It's the colors!!
I'd like to see where you addressed this.
JAK:
It’s their opinion that they are “moral absolutists.”
Objectively speaking, how they regard themselves is subjective in this regard.
If we can demonstrate that others who also view themselves as “moral absolutists” hold different views on morality, we have a difference of opinion on the matter.
Okay JAK. The point was that some do consider themselves moral absolutists. That's all.
If you got through all this, you should receive some award :-)
You better believe I expect one!
*color coded violet for JAK's benefit*