Should Privilege Always be Addressed?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Should privilege always be addressed?

Or does it matter how said people came by their privilege?

For example, if one group of people enjoys the lingering aftereffects of slavery, and another group benefits from the fact that their ancestors actually worked harder, is the first example of privilege an injustice while the second example is not?

To me this tracks well with the divide between how white privilege is addressed, and how Jewish or Asian privilege is addressed. If it's about whether that privilege was earned fairly, then it's fine for it to be addressed differently.

Everyone wants the best for their children and the sum of everyone pursuing that is privilege.

[Mae von H]

Question for Debate: Should privilege always be addressed?

Or does it matter how said people came by their privilege?

For example, if one group of people enjoys the lingering aftereffects of slavery, and another group benefits from the fact that their ancestors actually worked harder, is the first example of privilege an injustice while the second example is not?

To me this tracks well with the divide between how white privilege is addressed, and how Jewish or Asian privilege is addressed. If it's about whether that privilege was earned fairly, then it's fine for it to be addressed differently.

Everyone wants the best for their children and the sum of everyone pursuing that is privilege.

What is the privilege caucasians enjoy? I watched a clip of a young woman weeping because she’s white and dirt poor and yet told she’s privileged. There are endless clips of caucasians (like other races) living in tents or in cars or under the bridges enjoying no privileges at all and yet are told their race gives them privileges. They wished they had one.

I remember watching a clip of an African American enjoying the prestige of occupying a high seat in the government telling a lowly white male that he has privileges because of his race. Such blindness is astounding.

So for those who espouse whites have privileges solely because of race, I’d like to know what these are and where on earth I can go to get one of these merely because my ancestors came from the Caucus mountains.

If no one can name any that all caucasians enjoy, it means there aren’t any, which is what I expect. It’s a trick to teach people to hate each other. And we’re seeing the fruit of that campaign in society.

[Purple Knight]

What is the privilege caucasians enjoy? I watched a clip of a young woman weeping because she’s white and dirt poor and yet told she’s privileged. There are endless clips of caucasians (like other races) living in tents or in cars or under the bridges enjoying no privileges at all and yet are told their race gives them privileges. They wished they had one.

I remember watching a clip of an African American enjoying the prestige of occupying a high seat in the government telling a lowly white male that he has privileges because of his race. Such blindness is astounding.

So for those who espouse whites have privileges solely because of race, I’d like to know what these are and where on earth I can go to get one of these merely because my ancestors came from the Caucus mountains.

If no one can name any that all caucasians enjoy, it means there aren’t any, which is what I expect. It’s a trick to teach people to hate each other. And we’re seeing the fruit of that campaign in society.

I don't think you have to enjoy privilege to have it. Nor do I think you have to, personally, suffer racial injustice to be within your rights to demand justice for it.

Let's say a Nazi steals a painting from the house of a Jew. The painting passes to the son of the Nazi, then the grandson, who doesn't even know about his grandfather.

The grandson of the Jew appears. The grandson of the Nazi is shocked; he thought his grandfather painted that painting. But this turns out to be false.

Most of us would say that the painting should be given back. Yes, even though neither of these two grandsons wronged one another.

However, it gets trickier when the son of the Nazi took to drinking and sold the painting. The son of the Jew ended up with it, because he worked hard instead of drinking, and he bought it.

Now, when the poor Nazi grandson is confronted by the rich grandson, it seems to us much more of a travesty for the rich grandson to say, "You owe me this painting." Not only does the poor grandson not have the painting to give, the rich one, who is wanting reparations, does have it!

But it's just math and the poor grandson simply owes the rich one the value of the painting. If he should give it in the first scenario, then he should give the value of it in the second.

Now, this is not a perfect analogy for privilege. But if you see privilege as a placeholder for the value of the painting that is owed to its rightful inheritor, you'll see how I arrive at this conclusion.

It seems silly but I don't see why the situation changes just because of what the sons did. It's between the grandsons.

[Mae von H]

What is the privilege caucasians enjoy? I watched a clip of a young woman weeping because she’s white and dirt poor and yet told she’s privileged. There are endless clips of caucasians (like other races) living in tents or in cars or under the bridges enjoying no privileges at all and yet are told their race gives them privileges. They wished they had one.

I remember watching a clip of an African American enjoying the prestige of occupying a high seat in the government telling a lowly white male that he has privileges because of his race. Such blindness is astounding.

So for those who espouse whites have privileges solely because of race, I’d like to know what these are and where on earth I can go to get one of these merely because my ancestors came from the Caucus mountains.

If no one can name any that all caucasians enjoy, it means there aren’t any, which is what I expect. It’s a trick to teach people to hate each other. And we’re seeing the fruit of that campaign in society.

I don't think you have to enjoy privilege to have it. Nor do I think you have to, personally, suffer racial injustice to be within your rights to demand justice for it.

So privilege and suffering don’t have to be real? Is this your position? They why can’t we decide which camp we are in if none of it is real? I’d like to be in the suffering camp so I can claim compensation I can actually enjoy.

Let's say a Nazi steals a painting from the house of a Jew. The painting passes to the son of the Nazi, then the grandson, who doesn't even know about his grandfather.

The grandson of the Jew appears. The grandson of the Nazi is shocked; he thought his grandfather painted that painting. But this turns out to be false.

Most of us would say that the painting should be given back. Yes, even though neither of these two grandsons wronged one another.

However, it gets trickier when the son of the Nazi took to drinking and sold the painting. The son of the Jew ended up with it, because he worked hard instead of drinking, and he bought it.

Now, when the poor Nazi grandson is confronted by the rich grandson, it seems to us much more of a travesty for the rich grandson to say, "You owe me this painting." Not only does the poor grandson not have the painting to give, the rich one, who is wanting reparations, does have it!

We’ll you can make it politically correct and demand US soil be given back to the native population. Ben and Jerry’s demanded this until a local native population said that they can start by giving them their headquarters building as it sits in land their great grandfather way back had. B and J withdrew the idea. Anti-privilege only goes do far.

But it's just math and the poor grandson simply owes the rich one the value of the painting. If he should give it in the first scenario, then he should give the value of it in the second.

Now, this is not a perfect analogy for privilege. But if you see privilege as a placeholder for the value of the painting that is owed to its rightful inheritor, you'll see how I arrive at this conclusion.

The while ideology isn’t mainly about material things owned by offspring. And proof would have to be supplied in those cases. The ideology is about claims of suffering from actions of ancestors.

[Purple Knight]

So privilege and suffering don’t have to be real? Is this your position? They why can’t we decide which camp we are in if none of it is real? I’d like to be in the suffering camp so I can claim compensation I can actually enjoy.

Privilege doesn't have to cause personal gain, no. Just like how having rights doesn't have to benefit you. You can have a right not to be killed and be already dead, or presently getting killed in a way that does not violate that right (like blacklisted from all food stores). This is the only position that makes any sense. Now you're free to say, well, then it's obvious that side is crazy, but they get a lot of respect for that. All I know is, I personally do not get to decide what morality is. Someone else does. I don't know who. It seems to be consensus. And however that consensus is achieved, it's on me to make it make sense if I want it to make sense.

Morality, inherently, does not have to make any sense. If you tell me killing is immoral, and I disagree, I'm just wrong and you're just right and there's no logic involved and that's the end of it. It seems to be thus with privilege.

We’ll you can make it politically correct and demand US soil be given back to the native population. Ben and Jerry’s demanded this until a local native population said that they can start by giving them their headquarters building as it sits in land their great grandfather way back had. B and J withdrew the idea. Anti-privilege only goes do far.

I agree. Nobody elite espouses it when it would hurt them to do so. But they always demand it when it would hurt others. Thus I conclude that being elite, owning a very successful business for example, makes you more worthy of pronouncing moral duties on others. People don't seem to see this, and they will tell you Ben and Jerry's was somehow exposed, they will say, see here the hypocrisy, as if that invalidates the position, but how they act is different. What if Ben and Jerry's never had to back down and could have always either simply championed their right to make moral pronouncements and not follow them, or made up some shaky justification that allowed them to maintain their stance?

Humans are social animals, ruled by dominance. We're programmed by hierarchy. It must be that the dominant (in capitalism, this means the rich) can make moral pronouncements, and others cannot. This is why they have consensus and everybody scorns those who point out their inconsistency.

Otherwise morality would not exist. If everyone's pronouncements were equal, nobody's would apply to anyone else, and it would be as though morality did not exist. Someone could make a valid pronouncement on himself and not follow it, but it would not be different than not having made one and in this situation I can't see how you could say that he can't just renege. If people are sovereign in morality he could invent the right to renege then and there.

The while ideology isn’t mainly about material things owned by offspring. And proof would have to be supplied in those cases. The ideology is about claims of suffering from actions of ancestors.

I agree, it's not a perfect analogy. But it at least shows that you don't have to personally benefit from some injustice your ancestor committed, to owe justice to the descendant your ancestor committed it against. The grandson of the Nazi having to give the painting to the grandson of the Jew, establishes the principle that personally doing something wrong is not a necessary criterion for being morally obligated to make up for that wrong.

It teaches a harsh lesson that individuality is not a shield we can use, to commit wrongs and then die, leaving our children to inherit the benefits of our misdeeds. Instead, those children will suffer for it.

[Mae von H]

So privilege and suffering don’t have to be real? Is this your position? They why can’t we decide which camp we are in if none of it is real? I’d like to be in the suffering camp so I can claim compensation I can actually enjoy.

Privilege doesn't have to cause personal gain, no. Just like how having rights doesn't have to benefit you. You can have a right not to be killed and be already dead, or presently getting killed in a way that does not violate that right (like blacklisted from all food stores). This is the only position that makes any sense. Now you're free to say, well, then it's obvious that side is crazy, but they get a lot of respect for that. All I know is, I personally do not get to decide what morality is. Someone else does. I don't know who. It seems to be consensus. And however that consensus is achieved, it's on me to make it make sense if I want it to make sense.

Morality, inherently, does not have to make any sense. If you tell me killing is immoral, and I disagree, I'm just wrong and you're just right and there's no logic involved and that's the end of it. It seems to be thus with privilege.

We’ll you can make it politically correct and demand US soil be given back to the native population. Ben and Jerry’s demanded this until a local native population said that they can start by giving them their headquarters building as it sits in land their great grandfather way back had. B and J withdrew the idea. Anti-privilege only goes do far.

I agree. Nobody elite espouses it when it would hurt them to do so. But they always demand it when it would hurt others. Thus I conclude that being elite, owning a very successful business for example, makes you more worthy of pronouncing moral duties on others. People don't seem to see this, and they will tell you Ben and Jerry's was somehow exposed, they will say, see here the hypocrisy, as if that invalidates the position, but how they act is different. What if Ben and Jerry's never had to back down and could have always either simply championed their right to make moral pronouncements and not follow them, or made up some shaky justification that allowed them to maintain their stance?

Humans are social animals, ruled by dominance. We're programmed by hierarchy. It must be that the dominant (in capitalism, this means the rich) can make moral pronouncements, and others cannot. This is why they have consensus and everybody scorns those who point out their inconsistency.

Otherwise morality would not exist. If everyone's pronouncements were equal, nobody's would apply to anyone else, and it would be as though morality did not exist. Someone could make a valid pronouncement on himself and not follow it, but it would not be different than not having made one and in this situation I can't see how you could say that he can't just renege. If people are sovereign in morality he could invent the right to renege then and there.

The while ideology isn’t mainly about material things owned by offspring. And proof would have to be supplied in those cases. The ideology is about claims of suffering from actions of ancestors.

I agree, it's not a perfect analogy. But it at least shows that you don't have to personally benefit from some injustice your ancestor committed, to owe justice to the descendant your ancestor committed it against. The grandson of the Nazi having to give the painting to the grandson of the Jew, establishes the principle that personally doing something wrong is not a necessary criterion for being morally obligated to make up for that wrong.

It teaches a harsh lesson that individuality is not a shield we can use, to commit wrongs and then die, leaving our children to inherit the benefits of our misdeeds. Instead, those children will suffer for it.

I read the above and literally said out “amazing.” You are a rare atheist (I surmise) who sees this problem quite clearly and are able to verbalize it concisely and comprehensively. Now I’m going to offer you my view on this matter which is different than your take. A wise man knows what he believes and why and what he does not believe and why. I think you have the wherewithal to accept this challenge.That is, endeavoring to understand a position you don’t (likely) believe.

You rightly surmise that someone determines morality and you don’t know who. Now I’m a follower of Christ so I know who. “Ah,” you say, “so the biggest kid on the block gets to tell the rest of us what is right? How is this different than one of us doing it?”

The difference is each of us has a built-in moral monitor. So we actually know what right and wrong behavior is including our own behavior. The animals have only survival (their own) as the sole moral good except for a brief period where protection of offspring overrules one’s own survival by and large. We, on the other hand, have an internal judge who disapproves of wrong choices we make even if they benefit us and the whole society. We can kill this conscience in us, but those guys are really scary, more akin to animals.

So the things God chooses as right actually match what we know as right inside of us.

Let’s take a simple example. You’re watching atypical murder mystery where the bad guy seems to be getting away with the wrong done. Then evidence emerges thanks to a diligent detective and he’s caught. We feel satisfied. Why? Doesn’t affect us. Society doesn’t suffer either. It’s a movie. But something in us recognizes justice and is glad. That’s the moral code in us that matches (imperfectly) God’s. “Instant karma” clips are very popular. Why? Because justice that we all know is done. So when one sees the moral God has and understands them, the moral code within us rises in satisfaction.

That’s why God is good. It’s not because whatever He does is automatically good cause He has the power. It’s not a Mafia or Communistic style government. It’s because His judgements match what we know is good. I know some dispute this but that’s because they don’t see the whole picture. A human judge sentencing the criminal to jail for life might seem cruel until we learn the nature of the crime.

I will address your first paragraph is a second post.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

This is addressing your points on rights needn’t benefit one. You probably have never been to a communistic or mafia run country. I have. If any of your circle came from one, ask them what life was like living under a government where no rights are granted. It’s hard to imagine what it is to live where careless negative words can land you in jail or worse. The right to free speech is probably only prized by those who know what it is not to have that right.

That the government declares the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t mean they supply it. It means they cannot take it away just cause they’re in power.

[Purple Knight]

I read the above and literally said out “amazing.” You are a rare atheist (I surmise) who sees this problem quite clearly and are able to verbalize it concisely and comprehensively. Now I’m going to offer you my view on this matter which is different than your take. A wise man knows what he believes and why and what he does not believe and why. I think you have the wherewithal to accept this challenge.That is, endeavoring to understand a position you don’t (likely) believe.

You rightly surmise that someone determines morality and you don’t know who. Now I’m a follower of Christ so I know who.

I would agree that this is true in a system where people are largely Christian, because that is who has the consensus. God doesn't even have to exist. In some ways it's better if he doesn't. And it's observable, too. America in particular has Puritan roots which is why you can't walk around naked regardless of it not hurting anybody in the slightest. And the thing that really clinches it is that those who are not Christians will follow and even defend this consensus.

The difference is each of us has a built-in moral monitor.

This actually quite disproves a kind and fair god existing, because people's moral compasses often conflict... unless all of the people conflicting actually know the true morality by nature, and are just lying. As one of them, I can tell you honestly that I am not lying. I just don't see things the "right" way, and I have to ignore what I think is right and wrong, and go with the consensus. It hurts, but sometimes humility - knowing that I do not have all the answers - is necessary. That doesn't mean blind trust of someone just because he says he's god, or because he has power. Someone very powerful, even omnipotent, who goes against the consensus is a tyrant. I sincerely hope that if I had powers and started throwing my weight around, thinking that because I can treat people like toys that what I say has more morality behind it, you'd rightly think of me as a supervillain and not a deity.

It's not just the biggest kid gets to push others around. There can be bullies, tyrants, and if we assume supernatural powers there can be supervillains. The difference can only be consensus. Everything else has been ruled out.

So the things God chooses as right actually match what we know as right inside of us.

For me they don't. And this is me giving maximum charity. Repeatedly the Chosen People are allowed to do what others may not, including genocide their enemies. I'll be the first one to admit that individualism doesn't cover everything and sometimes harsh actions are necessary, but that doesn't make them right.

For me, I put myself in that place and imagine what people would say if I did those actions. And I imagine what I would think of it, myself. Do I expect people to understand? I do not. I genuinely believe that if it was really me and my family that had to die, or some other guy and his family, I would be expected to, at very most, seek individualistic justice even if that wasn't enough for me to live. Let's say I have a People of two dozen; a little tribe. Some Amalekite comes in and kills two of my kids. We punish him, make it so he can't do it again, and another Amalekite does the same. If we just punish individually my People will be soon gone. But that is absolutely what I would be expected to do, both by everyone in the world and myself. If I go and kill a single personally innocent Amalekite I am in the wrong. And it might well be that this is the only way my family can continue to exist. But that doesn't justify it or make it moral. Morality sometimes entails big sacrifices and this one is so nasty people will do all the mental gymnastics in the world to prevent admitting that this might be the choice you have to make: Defend yourself in an evil way (in this case killing the personally innocent) or sacrifice yourself and even your kind.

Let’s take a simple example. You’re watching atypical murder mystery where the bad guy seems to be getting away with the wrong done. Then evidence emerges thanks to a diligent detective and he’s caught. We feel satisfied. Why? Doesn’t affect us. Society doesn’t suffer either. It’s a movie. But something in us recognizes justice and is glad. That’s the moral code in us that matches (imperfectly) God’s. “Instant karma” clips are very popular. Why? Because justice that we all know is done. So when one sees the moral God has and understands them, the moral code within us rises in satisfaction.

This desire for justice is something Jesus seems to understand as evil. I feel like a devout Christian would say, "Oh I'm so glad he wasn't punished poor fellow oh I mustn't judge him let's let God do that." It gets a bit complicated because in fiction we can just say he was really wrong if the writer wrote him that way, though, and it doesn't require any judgment but the assumption that the author is not lying or trying to trick us... which, sometimes, they are. But the worst that'll happen is you'll feel like a fool, since the aggressor in the crime drama isn't a real person you can wrong.

That’s why God is good. It’s not because whatever He does is automatically good cause He has the power. It’s not a Mafia or Communistic style government. It’s because His judgements match what we know is good. I know some dispute this but that’s because they don’t see the whole picture. A human judge sentencing the criminal to jail for life might seem cruel until we learn the nature of the crime.

If that's what you see, then trust has been earned and there's no reason you shouldn't follow his will. But it is the same between people. And let's assume I concede God exists. I don't think it's relevant actually. God has not earned that trust from me. He's done a ton of things I feel are wrong, and I can't change how I feel. It might be the case that he's right, but if so he should be the one changing how I feel about it.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

This is addressing your points on rights needn’t benefit one. You probably have never been to a communistic or mafia run country. I have. If any of your circle came from one, ask them what life was like living under a government where no rights are granted. It’s hard to imagine what it is to live where careless negative words can land you in jail or worse. The right to free speech is probably only prized by those who know what it is not to have that right.

But it's the same with rights indeed granted, but carefully crafted not to benefit those they are granted to. For example, you have the right to free speech but not freedom from consequences. So saying the wrong thing could get you blacklisted from everywhere. China has become a big fat boogeyman and people in the West don't even consider that they live under, in practice, the same system. They just have to please the businesses and not the government. Arguably having many masters is worse than just having one.

It's just because of this that you say, oh, rights are wonderful, it's so great we have rights, because you recognise that you can have a right that does not benefit you, such as the right to speak freely. Yes you technically have that right, but your life will be over if you use it. So it's not weird that I think you don't have to enjoy privilege to have it.

[Mae von H]

I read the above and literally said out “amazing.” You are a rare atheist (I surmise) who sees this problem quite clearly and are able to verbalize it concisely and comprehensively. Now I’m going to offer you my view on this matter which is different than your take. A wise man knows what he believes and why and what he does not believe and why. I think you have the wherewithal to accept this challenge.That is, endeavoring to understand a position you don’t (likely) believe.

You rightly surmise that someone determines morality and you don’t know who. Now I’m a follower of Christ so I know who.

I would agree that this is true in a system where people are largely Christian, because that is who has the consensus. God doesn't even have to exist. In some ways it's better if he doesn't. And it's observable, too. America in particular has Puritan roots which is why you can't walk around naked regardless of it not hurting anybody in the slightest. And the thing that really clinches it is that those who are not Christians will follow and even defend this consensus.

If there is no God, then there’s no where from which the Christian consensus comes. What you’re missing is the very real
relationship believers have with who personally teaches them the right moral
code. But I can ask you, where do you think the Protestants got their code? (Walking around naked IS harming others.)

The difference is each of us has a built-in moral monitor.

This actually quite disproves a kind and fair god existing, because people's moral compasses often conflict... unless all of the people conflicting actually know the true morality by nature, and are just lying. As one of them, I can tell you honestly that I am not lying. I just don't see things the "right" way, and I have to ignore what I think is right and wrong, and go with the consensus. It hurts, but sometimes humility - knowing that I do not have all the answers - is necessary. That doesn't mean blind trust of someone just because he says he's god, or because he has power. Someone very powerful, even omnipotent, who goes against the consensus is a tyrant. I sincerely hope that if I had powers and started throwing my weight around, thinking that because I can treat people like toys that what I say has more morality behind it, you'd rightly think of me as a supervillain and not a deity.

Very interesting thoughts and way of describing them. The problem you describe is complex. The inner moral compass conflicts with our strong desire to please the self. This might be why the christians, by and large, have been the ones who stood against the consensus, all alone if needs be. Again, I’m sharing a perspective I acknowledge you don’t have. Isn’t exchanging with those who don’t think like you more interesting than the ones who do?

Anyway, I can see that when one has no infinite moral reference point, the consequence becomes the reference point. I’m not making up the phrase, “the tyranny of the majority.” You see tyranny cannot be defined by only one in charge. There are examples in history where the majority terrorized the minority. That too is tyranny. Who can know then what is just by all? Those talking to the Infinite Reference point who has justice for all on His mind.

It's not just the biggest kid gets to push others around. There can be bullies, tyrants, and if we assume supernatural powers there can be supervillains. The difference can only be consensus. Everything else has been ruled out.

Do you mean you’ve ruled out the God of the Bible? There even are bullies and tyrants among those spiritual beings superior to us. I don’t see how consensus is the difference. Can you please expand on that one?

So the things God chooses as right actually match what we know as right inside of us.

For me they don't. And this is me giving maximum charity. Repeatedly the Chosen People are allowed to do what others may not, including genocide their enemies. I'll be the first one to admit that individualism doesn't cover everything and sometimes harsh actions are necessary, but that doesn't make them right.

Are you referring to the conflict in Gaza? You realize that those supposedly undergoing genocide are receiving aim from the Chosen People, right? And we need to keep in mind that the militarily weaker committed war crimes and boldly proclaim that the entire region needs to be freed from the any of the Chosen. They boldly tell all that the Chosen need to entirely wiped out. Which side proposes genocide?

For me, I put myself in that place and imagine what people would say if I did those actions. And I imagine what I would think of it, myself. Do I expect people to understand? I do not. I genuinely believe that if it was really me and my family that had to die, or some other guy and his family, I would be expected to, at very most, seek individualistic justice even if that wasn't enough for me to live. Let's say I have a People of two dozen; a little tribe. Some Amalekite comes in and kills two of my kids. We punish him, make it so he can't do it again, and another Amalekite does the same. If we just punish individually my People will be soon gone. But that is absolutely what I would be expected to do, both by everyone in the world and myself. If I go and kill a single personally innocent Amalekite I am in the wrong. And it might well be that this is the only way my family can continue to exist. But that doesn't justify it or make it moral. Morality sometimes entails big sacrifices and this one is so nasty people will do all the mental gymnastics in the world to prevent admitting that this might be the choice you have to make: Defend yourself in an evil way (in this case killing the personally innocent) or sacrifice yourself and even your kind.

What you’re describing is personal vengeance. We Christians and the Jews are forbidden to engage in personal vengeance. The whole senecio above is wrong for us. We not only don’t expect the above, we dislike it.

Let’s take a simple example. You’re watching atypical murder mystery where the bad guy seems to be getting away with the wrong done. Then evidence emerges thanks to a diligent detective and he’s caught. We feel satisfied. Why? Doesn’t affect us. Society doesn’t suffer either. It’s a movie. But something in us recognizes justice and is glad. That’s the moral code in us that matches (imperfectly) God’s. “Instant karma” clips are very popular. Why? Because justice that we all know is done. So when one sees the moral God has and understands them, the moral code within us rises in satisfaction.

This desire for justice is something Jesus seems to understand as evil. I feel like a devout Christian would say, "Oh I'm so glad he wasn't punished poor fellow oh I mustn't judge him let's let God do that." It gets a bit complicated because in fiction we can just say he was really wrong if the writer wrote him that way, though, and it doesn't require any judgment but the assumption that the author is not lying or trying to trick us... which, sometimes, they are. But the worst that'll happen is you'll feel like a fool, since the aggressor in the crime drama isn't a real person you can wrong.

Its probably difficult to understand how a christian thinks for those who aren’t. No devout Christian would say the above. We have learned and are learning right and wrong. That’s how ML King judged segregation as wrong, how a British Noble judged slavery wrong, the list is long. This is why communist persecutes christians. They have the moral fiber to judge its wrongs. Jesus drove out the money changers who were cheating people. He doesn’t think justice is wrong.

That’s why God is good. It’s not because whatever He does is automatically good cause He has the power. It’s not a Mafia or Communistic style government. It’s because His judgements match what we know is good. I know some dispute this but that’s because they don’t see the whole picture. A human judge sentencing the criminal to jail for life might seem cruel until we learn the nature of the crime.

If that's what you see, then trust has been earned and there's no reason you shouldn't follow his will. But it is the same between people. And let's assume I concede God exists. I don't think it's relevant actually. God has not earned that trust from me. He's done a ton of things I feel are wrong, and I can't change how I feel. It might be the case that he's right, but if so he should be the one changing how I feel about it.

Like what? What have you observed God doing wrong in?

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

This is addressing your points on rights needn’t benefit one. You probably have never been to a communistic or mafia run country. I have. If any of your circle came from one, ask them what life was like living under a government where no rights are granted. It’s hard to imagine what it is to live where careless negative words can land you in jail or worse. The right to free speech is probably only prized by those who know what it is not to have that right.

But it's the same with rights indeed granted, but carefully crafted not to benefit those they are granted to. For example, you have the right to free speech but not freedom from consequences. So saying the wrong thing could get you blacklisted from everywhere. China has become a big fat boogeyman and people in the West don't even consider that they live under, in practice, the same system. They just have to please the businesses and not the government. Arguably having many masters is worse than just having one.

What you’re describing is a state of no freedom of speech.

It's just because of this that you say, oh, rights are wonderful, it's so great we have rights, because you recognise that you can have a right that does not benefit you, such as the right to speak freely. Yes you technically have that right, but your life will be over if you use it. So it's not weird that I think you don't have to enjoy privilege to have it.

Again, that’s a nation where there is NO freedom of speech right. If your life is over when you speak your mind, that’s a nation where speech is not a right (anymore.)

[Purple Knight]

If there is no God, then there’s no where from which the Christian consensus comes.

I don't agree with that. I can worship Mother Goose if I want to. If a bunch of people do it with me, they get a consensus. And it doesn't matter in the slightest whether Mother Goose exists. Even you've said, people can tell right from wrong. People see the message and know it's good. They can still do all that if it's a fable.

Very interesting thoughts and way of describing them. The problem you describe is complex. The inner moral compass conflicts with our strong desire to please the self. This might be why the christians, by and large, have been the ones who stood against the consensus, all alone if needs be. Again, I’m sharing a perspective I acknowledge you don’t have. Isn’t exchanging with those who don’t think like you more interesting than the ones who do?

I would say so. That's why I'm here. But it's not just that the moral compass conflicts with selfishness. There's no benefit to me in seeing an attacker punished. There's no benefit to me in seeing him forgiven. The moral compass can conflict with the moral compass of others. The morally elite will say, do not punish him, then you are just as bad as he is. The morally regressive will say, punish him, he deserves it. Nobody gets a benefit out of it either way. This is a case where it's pure moral conflict and it's not morality versus self-interest.

Anyway, I can see that when one has no infinite moral reference point, the consequence becomes the reference point. I’m not making up the phrase, “the tyranny of the majority.” You see tyranny cannot be defined by only one in charge. There are examples in history where the majority terrorized the minority. That too is tyranny. Who can know then what is just by all? Those talking to the Infinite Reference point who has justice for all on His mind.

No, morality is not defined by the one in charge. It is not about power. It seems to be about minds. So those with wealth, who leverage that into consensus, are legitimate deciders of morality. The only other alternative is that some random entity decides. Now, what if I became omnipotent and God lost his omnipotence? I hope you would see me as a tyrant and still worship your God. And I think you would do this (you've said) because you agree with his morality. See? It's consensus. If you didn't agree, and lots of other people didn't, God can exist all he wants and he'd still be a tyrant.

We don't call it "the tyranny of the majority" when criminals are placed in jail, even though we are many, they are few, and they would like to be free. The difference is, the majority, when it becomes tyrannical, knows what it's doing. And in this case it legitimately thinks it is right. With slavery, though, people knew what they were doing. They knew from the start. So they acted for their own benefit, they were many, but they did not have consensus because enough of them knew that what they were doing was wrong.

Do you mean you’ve ruled out the God of the Bible? There even are bullies and tyrants among those spiritual beings superior to us. I don’t see how consensus is the difference. Can you please expand on that one?

I have not ruled out the God of the Bible existing, but I think if he does, he's a bully and a supervillain.

Are you referring to the conflict in Gaza? You realize that those supposedly undergoing genocide are receiving aim from the Chosen People, right? And we need to keep in mind that the militarily weaker committed war crimes and boldly proclaim that the entire region needs to be freed from the any of the Chosen. They boldly tell all that the Chosen need to entirely wiped out. Which side proposes genocide?

Both sides want genocide. Yet one is considered moral, the other, not.

What you’re describing is personal vengeance. We Christians and the Jews are forbidden to engage in personal vengeance. The whole senecio above is wrong for us. We not only don’t expect the above, we dislike it.

Then why not fall over and die instead of killing Palestinians? That's what would be expected of me. Imagine some random white guy in a really bad neighbourhood that is all-Black, except him. They don't like him, because he's white. He suffers attacks constantly. His child is beaten repeatedly, eventually killed? Is he allowed to strike back, even if only to protect himself? Of course not. But are the Chosen People allowed to protect themselves? Of course they are and it's not vengeance.

Its probably difficult to understand how a christian thinks for those who aren’t. No devout Christian would say the above. We have learned and are learning right and wrong. That’s how ML King judged segregation as wrong, how a British Noble judged slavery wrong, the list is long. This is why communist persecutes christians. They have the moral fiber to judge its wrongs. Jesus drove out the money changers who were cheating people. He doesn’t think justice is wrong.

He doesn't think it's wrong when he's dishing it out, arguably because he's God. Justice requires judgment, and non-meekness. I think Jesus opposes these things.

Like what? What have you observed God doing wrong in?

Whenever he kills a bunch of people. I even acknowledge that it might not be wrong for him to turn people into salt for looking in the wrong direction, genocide Amalekites, or flood the world and kill everyone but his precious favourite. But even if it isn't wrong, a being that has such great morality that it is incomprehensible to me, cannot help me be moral. I must treat it as if it is immoral, because that's what I see when I look.

Again, that’s a nation where there is NO freedom of speech right. If your life is over when you speak your mind, that’s a nation where speech is not a right (anymore.)

That's not what the supporters of corporate speech quashing (it's technically only censorship when the government does it) say. They say you have the right to speak freely, just not freedom from consequences.