Maybe I’m just over analyzing it, but this feels like such a great analogy for the Christian denying themselves the desires of the flesh
A fox looking away from chickens, while clutching at the Cross. Likewise, the Christian sees worldly desires and turns to Christ for guidance
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 Its been on my list for awhile, but my priority of history and plato has kept me busy. I may have to bump it up and make it my next read
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 Im not really sure how it works honestly. Stoicism held both to be true and as far as I know they had a hard time justifying or explaining it either, but these systems still held that moral upstanding was a requirement of society, even when ones actions and end are fated
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 Youd have to abandon morals that only derive from religious principles but as a culture you can agree upon foundational oughts and noughts that drive ones moral and legal framework. I believe in a god but there are lots of "morals" that I see no divine reason to hold
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 That sounds like the many cultures that had fate as a core tenant to how one should live. When ones life is fated is matters not what you do as your actions will always lead to the same outcome. These cultures still had what they considered objective morals
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 You keep saying "treat morality as Objective" as a defense but I dont see how that in anyway actually proves anything. We treat many things as Objective when they aren't, its human nature to view one's perspective as object reality when its deeply colored by subjective experience
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 There are lots of cultures that view it as a good action and fully in their moral framework. While I disagree, I cannot say that its not for subjective moral reasons (I would say it is on Objective Health concerns but these are not the same)
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 your points of a subjective view of morality requiring one to "see murder and non murder as equally bad" completely ignores the idea that in a subjective system you can still agree to moral points. As a cultural collective you can come to agreed upon morals
@Graecopithix@gaytard1488@CelticTrinity14 Im confused to your point, If moral debates exsists goes to prove that morality is subjective. If it was Objective it would be self evident and any objection could be disproven using common points, but its subjectivity means it requires basis in faith