| The_vagabond7 said:
I think that's why fundementally you are speaking a different language. From the hardcore christian mindset morality defines social freedom, there is no plurality. For you, if you dislike something you would not restrict some one else from doing it as long as it doesn't harm another and to you this is right. To a hardcore christian if somebody is doing something that they disagree with they must be stopped or else hell is a consequence. But why am I playing devils advocate so much? Especially when the figurative devil is present to speak for himself. @ apolose I know you're not saying he's wrong because your belief in christianity is right. I'm saying you're using reductio ad absudum to conclude that there is a contradiction and thusly the premise is incorrect. I'm saying there is no contradiction because he isn't against moral objectivity. Just because he doesn't believe in the bible doesn't mean he's a nihilist that thinks there is no such thing as right and wrong. And so my using nihilism to show why you're stance is incorrect would be just as misplaced as your attempt to do so with him is. For you Murder is absolutely wrong because the bible says so. For him Murder is wrong because it infringes on someone's right to...live I guess. He's as morally objective as you are, he's just using a different dogma as it were. There is no hypocrisy involved...unless of course you're a nihilist. |
Not to mention you will be hard pressed to find any belief system that doesn't have quite a few inherent contradictions in its moral ethos.
I take the Nietzschean attitude towards contradictions, that contradictions are an inherent part of the human existence because life is too complex for it to not be contradictory.
Just because something contradicts itself doesn't mean it is wrong. A moral ethos is not a logical argument, so who in the hell expects it to conform to the confines of a logical argument to begin with? Assuming that contradictions invalidate a moral ethos would invalidate more or less every moral ethos known to man.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
