tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15840532.post112735949581306840..comments2023-12-28T20:28:45.631-05:00Comments on Petty Larseny: Unholy TrinityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15840532.post-1127784181350649532005-09-26T20:23:00.000-05:002005-09-26T20:23:00.000-05:00Jason said:"What I'm saying is from a standpoint o...Jason said:<BR/><BR/>"What I'm saying is from a standpoint of religion, not ethics... those sins I mentioned are sins because you are feeling a certain way, which this particular religion claims is wrong. It claims that you shouldn't even WANT to take something from your neighbor, and you shouldn't WANT his or her spouse, and you shouldn't have impure thoughts. They get you before an ethicist even has a chance to say that you are unethical."<BR/><BR/>Maybe, but so what? The original discussion was about the fact that religion gets it WRONG when it tries to identify what's immoral and what's not. You're just agreeing with me. For which I thank you!<BR/><BR/>"My thought process is not deficient. Sure, if you bring in ethics from out of nowhere, you might call my thought process deficient, but this argument didn't have anything to do with ethics. Only religion."<BR/><BR/>Jason, that's factually not true. The discussion began with my posting about the distinction between what the church considers wrong and what's really wrong. It was, therefore, always about both ethics and religion.<BR/><BR/>"Looking at it from a religious perspective only will help you form better arguments. Saying masturbation is a sin because God doesn't like it is not the most convincing way to get your point across, but if God really doesn't like it, and you believe in that religion, then masturbation is a sin, until you hear otherwise from God Himself."<BR/><BR/>Exactly! And of course it's not the most convincing argument -- because it's WRONG! So why would they still trot it out after millennia of refining their theology? Because it's all they've got.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03322566412308789676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15840532.post-1127700352196774362005-09-25T21:05:00.000-05:002005-09-25T21:05:00.000-05:00I did take courses, but I majored in computer scie...I did take courses, but I majored in computer science. What I'm saying is from a standpoint of religion, not ethics... those sins I mentioned are sins because you are feeling a certain way, which this particular religion claims is wrong. It claims that you shouldn't even WANT to take something from your neighbor, and you shouldn't WANT his or her spouse, and you shouldn't have impure thoughts. They get you before an ethicist even has a chance to say that you are unethical.<BR/><BR/>My thought process is not deficient. Sure, if you bring in ethics from <B>out of nowhere</B>, you might call my thought process deficient, but this argument didn't have anything to do with ethics. Only religion.<BR/><BR/>Looking at it from a religious perspective only will help you form better arguments. Saying masturbation is a sin because God doesn't like it is not the most convincing way to get your point across, but if God really doesn't like it, and you believe in that religion, then masturbation is a sin, until you hear otherwise from God Himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15840532.post-1127691467916363572005-09-25T18:37:00.000-05:002005-09-25T18:37:00.000-05:00Jason,I apologize for the nasty tone of my previou...Jason,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for the nasty tone of my previous responses to you. That said, your philosophical thought process (particularly when it comes to logic and ethics) are unquestionably deficient (I say this as a philosophy major who took courses in both). I urge you to take (a) course(s), as you seem to have a genuine interest in both and a willingness to engage good-naturedly in debate. Here are my responses to your latest shots:<BR/><BR/>"just because of a misuse, you can't say it's a sin, but you can't say it's not a sin, either. It's up to the case... my statement didn't come to any clear conclusion, only that misuse doesn't define sin or righteousness."<BR/><BR/>That's right, it is up to the case. And misuse DOESN'T define sin or morality. Which is the entire point I was making: That the church's argument of masturbation's immorality rested on it being a misuse of god's gift. Which, as you've concurred, isn't relevant to morality.<BR/><BR/>"Theft is morally wrong because you are looking to take something that belongs to someone else, not because that person will then be without it."<BR/><BR/>Jason, taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong BECAUSE that person will then be without it. <BR/><BR/>"Another commandment is coveting your neighbor's posessions. Covet just means to wish for. How about one of the 7 deadly sins... Lust. A strong sexual desire. These are not actions that have consequences."<BR/><BR/>Exactly -- which is why they are SINS (i.e. immoral in the eyes of religions) but are not actually considered immoral in the eyes of, say, ethicists. That's why we don't consider it wrong to want something that other people have.<BR/><BR/>"how about this new sin that was just conceived on Friday, Giving a gift! Because, if I give someone a baseball bat and it COULD lead to bad consequences, like you say constitutes a sin, then I have committed a sin. Which also makes my drunk driving example not a bad example. See my logic and not lack thereof, yet?"<BR/><BR/>Nope. Because giving a gift is only immoral not if it COULD lead to bad consequences (having a child would therefore be wrong if you were Mr. and Mrs. Hitler) but if reasonably foreseeable bad consquences are likely. The element of probability is what makes it okay to give an aspiring young baseball player a bat, but less okay to give that bat to a Mafia hoodlum who's just voiced his wish for a weapon to keep his restaurant free of black patrons. Why? Because the latter has likely and reasonably foreseeable bad consquences.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03322566412308789676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15840532.post-1127645090865293672005-09-25T05:44:00.000-05:002005-09-25T05:44:00.000-05:00Or, if those sins don't do it for you, how about t...Or, if those sins don't do it for you, how about this new sin that was just conceived on Friday, Giving a gift! Because, if I give someone a baseball bat and it COULD lead to bad consequences, like you say constitutes a sin, then I have committed a sin. Which also makes my drunk driving example not a bad example. See my logic and not lack thereof, yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15840532.post-1127591116834530812005-09-24T14:45:00.000-05:002005-09-24T14:45:00.000-05:00From Blinq:"Jason, what's the salient aspect of th...From Blinq:<BR/><BR/>"Jason, what's the salient aspect of the sin you've described? Is it the misuse of the bat, or the homicide committed with it?"<BR/><BR/>The homicide committed with it.. just because of a misuse, you can't say it's a sin, but you can't say it's not a sin, either. It's up to the case... my statement didn't come to any clear conclusion, only that misuse doesn't define sin or righteousness.<BR/><BR/>"To review: Drunk driving with no potentially bad consequences: Okay. Drunk driving with foreseeable bad consequences: Not okay. Defining issue - consequences."<BR/><BR/>Ok, bad example... but you used theft. Theft is morally wrong because you are looking to take something that belongs to someone else, not because that person will then be without it. Another commandment is coveting your neighbor's posessions. Covet just means to wish for. How about one of the 7 deadly sins... Lust. A strong sexual desire. These are not actions that have consequences.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to more discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com