11 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt did get him killed. The Jewish priests denounced him to the Romans for infringing on their prerogatives.
It would have, but it would have either got him killed, or at a minimum lost him most of his followers. Then as now, directly criticizing the scriptures was just not on.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusNo, it isn't what I mean. He didn't directly speak out against Old Testament laws and practices even though he apparently disagreed with them. He skirted around them because he knew that speaking out directly against them would result in his death or other bad things. If you say that he expected to die anyway then there is no excuse for skirting around the issues, he could quite easily have said outright what was wrong about the Old Testament laws.
He tended to speak in parables, if that's what you mean by "skirting around issues".
In that regard he was rather similar to you and your careful avoidance of openly saying anything meaningful about morality.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusAnd yet more careful avoidance of openly saying anything meaningful about morality.
"...rather similar to you and your careful avoidance of openly saying anything meaningful about morality."
Reality is complicated and morality more so, since it adds a layer of evaluation on top of what is. Anyone who thinks it can be reduced to simple slogan is a simpleton.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you would judge some other culture or civilization and pronounce what they do to be immoral--which was the premise of this thread--then you must accept that they, or others, may make the same pronouncement against you.
And yet more careful avoidance of openly saying anything meaningful about morality.
I take the position that this is not so; rather, that moral judgements apply only within a specific culture with its moral system, not to a culture. This is not to say that anything anyone thinks is moral is moral. This position is neither meaningless nor inconsistent, though I grant that it requires care and attention to implement.
13 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusSo, when MLK Jr. criticized prevailing racist norms in the U.S. as immoral, was he making a conceptual error? When these prevailing norms changed, did it not constitute moral progress?
If you would judge some other culture or civilization and pronounce what they do to be immoral--which was the premise of this thread--then you must accept that they, or others, may make the same pronouncement against you.
I take the position that this is not so; rather, that moral judgements apply only within a specific culture with its moral system, not ...[text shortened]... r meaningless nor inconsistent, though I grant that it requires care and attention to implement.
Originally posted by moonbusI fully accept that they may make similar judgments about me, but that doesn't make them right, nor does it make my judgements meaningless.
If you would judge some other culture or civilization and pronounce what they do to be immoral--which was the premise of this thread--then you must accept that they, or others, may make the same pronouncement against you.
I take the position that this is not so; rather, that moral judgements apply only within a specific culture with its moral system, not to a culture. This is not to say that anything anyone thinks is moral is moral. This position is neither meaningless nor inconsistent, though I grant that it requires care and attention to implement.
From what I can tell, what you call 'morality' is actually what most of us call 'a legal system'. I agree that in many cases a legal system codifies the prevailing understanding of morality, but it is not what most of us mean by the term.
You also do not seem to have any actual sense of morality yourself but rather prefer to rely entirely on the legal system to tell you what is right or wrong. I would put it to you that this doesn't just 'require care and attention to implement', but will tend to lead to difficult questions such as the one bbarr asks.
13 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusWhat other laws were rendered unenforceable by the meaning behind this injunction of his?
... but there is nothing 'parabolic' about his injunction 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' It is quite clear: we should not judge others.
13 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrIt certainly did constitute moral progress, MLK was right to criticize the institutionalized racism of the society in which he lived, and I never maintained otherwise. What I maintain is that cross-cultural or cross-civilizational moral judgments are not valid. Claiming that some practice--such as execution for adultery-- was immoral within a civilization which has been dead for three thousand years, is like comparing apples and oranges. There is no ground for claiming that our morality, or our moral understanding, is superior to theirs.
So, when MLK Jr. criticized prevailing racist norms in the U.S. as immoral, was he making a conceptual error? When these prevailing norms changed, did it not constitute moral progress?
13 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me ask you this: do you believe that there is only one right morality, and that anything which diverges from that is either wrong (false, satanic) morality or no morality at all?
I fully accept that they may make similar judgments about me, but that doesn't make them right, nor does it make my judgements meaningless.
[b]From what I can tell, what you call 'morality' is actually what most of us call 'a legal system'. I agree that in many cases a legal system codifies the prevailing understanding of morality, but it is not what m ...[text shortened]... ttention to implement', but will tend to lead to difficult questions such as the one bbarr asks.