Objective morality

[1robin]

My morality is such to not cause others unnecessary harm or allows others to be cause unnecessary harm. Preventing the Nazis from causing others harm is well within my paradigm. I don't need a valid reason for that. It's inherent to my nature.

So you would go to the U.N. and say lets take Hitler out. They would say what justifies this action. Your actually going to say my nature. Your nature was produced by arbitrary events in your evolutionary past. If those events were different as in the case of Stalin, Hitler, cannibals, serial killers, etc.... then your morality (nature) would be different. That kind of sytem is inadiquite to justify our fighting in WW2, etc...... We could still have fought but we could not justify our actions. If you read some of the words by leaders that resisted tyrany throughout history, you will notice they don't justify it by saying their nature is the reason, or their philosophy of least harm is the reason, they appeal to moral absolutes like evil and goodness. Those can only be derived or validated by an objective standard which evolution can not produce.

What about you? Would you start a nuclear war that would kill most of the life on the planet? There are hundreds of individuals I'm sure you can site that had no problem causing others unnecessary harm, but that is not you and I. I'm I to be accountable for those that would, even if it is not my nature?

This point was made by me for a specific purpose. It was to illustrate that morality over time has not really changed. There are men now as well as 4000yrs ago that would kill millions. We have not really evolved so to speak a more ethical society today than they had back then.

I just don't see any guarantee that your transcendent experience or mine is absolute. Or anyone's. You trust what? An understanding provided to you through the Holy Spirit? If I, or someone else, trusts or claims to trust the same yet we disagree? I don't see a resolution among believers who claim a different theology.

I trust in hundreds of different lines of evidence or reason that have led me to conclude that the transendant is necessary and the most likely candidate is Christianity. This also lines up with my personal experience. Taken individually or in small groups then no they are not sufficient but the totality is more than sufficient.

You're welcome, but I like people. I don't see a benefit in alienating others because of their beliefs. I don't always like their actions and sometimes I have to deal with them in a manner that seems appropriate in the moment. However I don't have any ill will towards others.

Very well

It's not pride. It's concern for the suffering of others. I don't think it is fair that others are accountable and suffer if I do not. I'd rather suffer along side my fellow man justly. I'll accept whatever suffering is due me because I am not anymore special then the next person. The least I can do is share in the suffering that is due us.

If God has indeed loved us so much that he was willing to suffer to provide a way out of this mess of our own creation, then don't you see what a dishonorable and disrespectful act it would be to refuse it. I am not saying you see it that way. I am saying it is the only way to see it if the bible is true. You are choosing to believe a lie (in this case it is one that seems honorable) instead of the bible. Once again God has anticipated this and points it out.

14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even though our intentions may look honorable it is still incorrect and destructive if the truth of God is replaced by our own. A childs actions seem perfectly logical to him, without the father to correct this the Child would wind in trouble or worse continuously.

I extend love to all beings, even God. If that is not enough then it is not enough. I cannot be other then what I am.

Once again while sounding noble you are in fact substituting your truth over God's truth. God says it is nothing for him to change a man into a better one, and billions are a testament to that. Can't you see that if God is real then you are basically calling him a liar.

I intended no insult. I completely sympathize with the fact that since you do not share my belief that my accusations don't seem fair. While I am very concerned for people my ultimate allegence is to the truth. I am sorry if anything I wrote was found offensive.

I see man as having two natures. A material one and a spiritual one. We can allow our material nature to overpower our spiritual nature. Natural man is one who concerns themselves with material things. However I see in man the evolution of his spirit. There are men of great spirit in the world and they are not all Christian. I would not judge them simply for the label of Christian or lack of it.

The bible staes that man is born spiritually dead, and has to be reborn to become spiritually alive. This is consistent with my experience and logic to a great degree. Me or you may not judge a man by this standard but God has said he would. It's not a label a man claims that make the difference. It is his adoption as a son of God based on faith in God and his sacrifice that makes a man a true Christian. Once again God anticipated your thoughts.
John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is not one path of many. He states he is the only one, and that others are false paths that decieve. This may not appeal to a natural unspiritual mind but it is either true or the biggest lie in history. Jesus hates and criticises faith in other paths because they lead that which he loves to destruction. Like all the false Gods made by men that they prayed to and hoped in. God said we are condemned by placing faith in wooden or stone false Gods that neither speak nor have any power and in our vanity have been chosen over the true God that does have power.

Yes we will die and if judged, I am content to be judged according to the life I lived. I'm not asking for anything else. If my life was not sufficient then I will accept whatever fate deemed necessary.

It would be a shame for such an intelligent person to resign himself to oblivion when the truth was so accessable. Please keep in mind I intend no disrespect but my duty is to the truth.

 

[1robin]

Why are many religious people seemingly incapable of understanding right from wrong to such an extent that they need a deity to tell them? What is wrong with them?

This is inaccurate Christians at least have been responsible for some of the worlds greatest benevolent movements. What we require is a valid justification for an objective standard. Atheists don't have nor seem to desire any absolute standard. If you lived in North Korea you might change your mind about the need for objective absolutes.

Yes it can. You simply keep ignoring the facts. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. Do you think that this behavior was actually hard-wired into their brains by God as He made them?

Last night I watched over two hours of Dinesh Disouza destroying Dan Barker's position and it is the same as yours. Just as Thomas Jefferson realised it is not suffecient to justify objective standards which are necessary. I am getting burned out on this so I will stop here.

There doesn't appear to be much respect for human life in the OT either... Are you describing the manner in which God in the OT commanded the killing off of the competition to His chosen people? Survival of the strongest, the strongest in this case being the ones with God on their side? Just as long as you think you have a good reason for genocide then I guess you have no problem with it? Hitler thought he had good reasons too...

This is a reasonable point if you are an atheist. I disagree but can see the logic behind it. If taken in context it is not as simple as you make it out to be. God did not destroy groups around Israel because he was protecting a resource. He destroyed them because the bible states they were corrupt beyond redemption. The Cananites in particular walled up live children in new construction for luck. God even tried to get them to repent. They were finally illiminated or partially so because he was trying to keep his group isolated from the corruption found in these other groups. He wanted his group to be an example of rightousness so that when Jesus was introduced and proclaimed people would take notice. They were at times noted by other groups for their magnificent virtue, culture, and faith. Unfortunatly they disobeyed God and mingled with other groups and became very little different from them at other times. Being that their message was given to save mankind the loss of effectiveness of that message because of their disobedience caused vastly more harm in the long run than the destruction of the surrounding groups would have/did cause initially. This conversation is an example. If Israel had obeyed God and destroyed these groups instead of mingling with them and maintained an unbroken example of Godliness then eveyone might have believed and you wouldn't be asking this. Of course that is a big if, and I understand your point of view but it is inconsistent with the biblical narrative.

Just a question... where would your objective morality actually come from? It couldn't come from a deity of course, because obviously different deities have different moralities...

That was a strange claim. You are assuming there are more than one deity. The three major religions of the world emphatically deny that and it is inconsistent with atheism as well.

 

[Nakosis]

So you would go to the U.N. and say lets take Hitler out. They would say what justifies this action.

Actually I would justify it on human compassion. I think that is sufficient and hopefully sufficient to convince others. Maybe not but you go forth with what you deem to be right. That's all I'd ask of anybody. If they decide it is not right then they have to live with that decision as I would mine.

This point was made by me for a specific purpose. It was to illustrate that morality over time has not really changed. There are men now as well as 4000yrs ago that would kill millions. We have not really evolved so to speak a more ethical society today than they had back then.

My point is I can't fix the world. I can't make someone else a good guy. I don't think the world is getting any better but I see diamonds in the chaos. I see individuals of unique spirit. I think the chaos creates them. I believe the chaos is a necessary catalyst for man's spirit to develop. There are wondrous individuals that rise up out of the "filth" that deserve recognition regardless of their religious beliefs.

I trust in hundreds of different lines of evidence or reason that have led me to conclude that the transendant is necessary and the most likely candidate is Christianity. This also lines up with my personal experience. Taken individually or in small groups then no they are not sufficient but the totality is more than sufficient.

I think I understand. It'd be difficult to piece together all the pieces of information which led to my current view/understanding. However I have my reasons for it as I am sure you do for yours.

If God has indeed loved us so much that he was willing to suffer to provide a way out of this mess of our own creation, then don't you see what a dishonorable and disrespectful act it would be to refuse it. I am not saying you see it that way. I am saying it is the only way to see it if the bible is true. You are choosing to believe a lie (in this case it is one that seems honorable) instead of the bible. Once again God has anticipated this and points it out.

14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Even though our intentions may look honorable it is still incorrect and destructive if the truth of God is replaced by our own. A childs actions seem perfectly logical to him, without the father to correct this the Child would wind in trouble or worse continuously.

And, it seems right to you to be a Christian? Honorable? Perfectly logical?
Are you not choosing what seems right to you?

Once again while sounding noble you are in fact substituting your truth over God's truth. God says it is nothing for him to change a man into a better one, and billions are a testament to that. Can't you see that if God is real then you are basically calling him a liar.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. Everything claimed about God in the Bible can be perfectly true. Still I have to go forth with what seems right to me. I don't see how anyone can do otherwise. You have your reasons it seems right and necessary for you to be a Christian. It's not my place to say you are wrong. It's right for you.

I intended no insult. I completely sympathize with the fact that since you do not share my belief that my accusations don't seem fair. While I am very concerned for people my ultimate allegence is to the truth. I am sorry if anything I wrote was found offensive.

I'm pretty hard to offend so don't worry too much.
My allegiance is also to the truth as best as I can determine it to be. I've no problem with you staying with what you find to be true. My wish is that everyone be as committed to the truth.

The bible staes that man is born spiritually dead, and has to be reborn to become spiritually alive. This is consistent with my experience and logic to a great degree. Me or you may not judge a man by this standard but God has said he would. It's not a label a man claims that make the difference. It is his adoption as a son of God based on faith in God and his sacrifice that makes a man a true Christian. Once again God anticipated your thoughts.
John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is not one path of many. He states he is the only one, and that others are false paths that decieve. This may not appeal to a natural unspiritual mind but it is either true or the biggest lie in history. Jesus hates and criticises faith in other paths because they lead that which he loves to destruction. Like all the false Gods made by men that they prayed to and hoped in. God said we are condemned by placing faith in wooden or stone false Gods that neither speak nor have any power and in our vanity have been chosen over the true God that does have power.

I read this differently. One who comes to the Father came through the Son. It's not for us to judge how that coming came about. Only accept that person who has come to the Father did so through the grace of the Son. Even if such grace is not readily apparent to us.
Before you think otherwise, this comment has nothing to do with being Christian.

It would be a shame for such an intelligent person to resign himself to oblivion when the truth was so accessable. Please keep in mind I intend no disrespect but my duty is to the truth.

I resign myself to the next moment, and doing the best I can with it. Then whatever happens I won't have any regrets.

 

[ArtieE]

This is inaccurate Christians at least have been responsible for some of the worlds greatest benevolent movements. What we require is a valid justification for an objective standard.

What I see are valid justifications are logic, reason and common sense and compassion and love and altruism and the Golden Rule etc etc

Atheists don't have nor seem to desire any absolute standard.

Personally I use logic, reason and common sense and therefore I understand that an absolute or objective standard is of course impossible. A Christian might say that God sets the absolute and objective standard but of course He doesn't. He only sets His own subjective standard where on the one hand He says you shall not murder and on the other hand murder practically all humans on the planet in a flood. Obviously God doesn't have an objective standard either applicable in all situations so how in the world can possibly Christians require one?

Last night I watched over two hours of Dinesh Disouza destroying Dan Barker's position and it is the same as yours. Just as Thomas Jefferson realised it is not suffecient to justify objective standards which are necessary. I am getting burned out on this so I will stop here.

So you won't answer why vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked? And why a whole lot of other animals display altruistic and moral behavior? Did God hard-wire this behavior into their brains when He created them or do they behave morally or altruistic because they are religious?

This is a reasonable point if you are an atheist. I disagree but can see the logic behind it. If taken in context it is not as simple as you make it out to be. God did not destroy groups around Israel because he was protecting a resource. He destroyed them because the bible states they were corrupt beyond redemption. The Cananites in particular walled up live children in new construction for luck. God even tried to get them to repent. They were finally illiminated or partially so because he was trying to keep his group isolated from the corruption found in these other groups. He wanted his group to be an example of rightousness so that when Jesus was introduced and proclaimed people would take notice. They were at times noted by other groups for their magnificent virtue, culture, and faith. Unfortunatly they disobeyed God and mingled with other groups and became very little different from them at other times. Being that their message was given to save mankind the loss of effectiveness of that message because of their disobedience caused vastly more harm in the long run than the destruction of the surrounding groups would have/did cause initially.

You are now using logic and reason to explain why genocide was necessary for God to achieve His objectives. In short you are saying that genocide isn't objectively wrong, it just depends on the situation and your objectives. What happened to your objective standard?

That was a strange claim. You are assuming there are more than one deity.

There are thousands of deities. Here's a list: List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The three major religions of the world emphatically deny that

Of course they do. They have their own gods. The Jewish god, the Christian god and Allah.

and it is inconsistent with atheism as well.

Inconsistent how? The very definition of atheism is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. "Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs and alternatively the disbelief in the existence of deities." Atheism - Definition | WordIQ.com Note the plural.

 

[vepurusg]

The problem with your theory is that you do not point out who gets to make the rules and who's perspective is right.

That is addressed. Please read more carefully. You may also see my thread on why rejection of science is evil.

Who gets to create the test by which moral action is judged ?

I've covered this issue.

At some point social contract theory must come into play yet you negate this theory.

No, I don't negate it- I confirm it. I merely deny it as a source of morality. It is certainly a relevant factor in application.

There is no intelligent adaptive information system that does not have rules. Like any model, the initial assumptions rule the outcome.

There must be a goal by which actions are measured; I provide the objective moral goal.

The decision on what rules and assumptions such a system would operate under will involve agreement among individuals to a "social contract" of sorts.

Not at all, the goal is provided by logic; its consequences by reason. This surpasses social contract, but only applies to those who have a sincere desire to be moral and the capacity to use logic.

Utilitarianism in practice ends up in a horrible nightmare of dull utopianism. Who gets to decide what is best for the masses ? Utilitarianism ignores individual rights and freedoms such that individual rights and freedoms get trampled on the basis of the most inane justifications.

Pure logic in utilitarianism can eventually lead to a place where can not get out of bed in the morning because "statistics show that folks who get out of bed have a higher probability of falling down the stairs".

This is a straw man fallacy.

Your logical fallacy is strawman

Utilitarianism does nothing of the sort. I encourage you to read some books on the subject. I won't be following this thread long enough for you to do so, but feel free to send me a note after you have gained an understanding of Utilitarianism, if you wish to discuss it further.

 

[1robin]

Actually I would justify it on human compassion. I think that is sufficient and hopefully sufficient to convince others. Maybe not but you go forth with what you deem to be right. That's all I'd ask of anybody. If they decide it is not right then they have to live with that decision as I would mine.

Wouldn't hitler have the same validity, and without a standard either real or invented the decision could not be made honestly between the two. The overwhelming majority of real appeals similar to this always invoke an objective moral standard. Without it there is no basis for good, or evil, or a clear and universally justified basis for actions that limit anyone elses freedom.

My point is I can't fix the world. I can't make someone else a good guy. I don't think the world is getting any better but I see diamonds in the chaos. I see individuals of unique spirit. I think the chaos creates them. I believe the chaos is a necessary catalyst for man's spirit to develop. There are wondrous individuals that rise up out of the "filth" that deserve recognition regardless of their religious beliefs.

Somewhat agree. I was pointing out that atheistic morals have not solved the problems. They have tried to form many religion free utopias only to cause more unjustice in the process.

I think I understand. It'd be difficult to piece together all the pieces of information which led to my current view/understanding. However I have my reasons for it as I am sure you do for yours.

Agreed

And, it seems right to you to be a Christian? Honorable? Perfectly logical?
Are you not choosing what seems right to you?

Of course I am, but it is also is objectively justified faith.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. Everything claimed about God in the Bible can be perfectly true. Still I have to go forth with what seems right to me. I don't see how anyone can do otherwise. You have your reasons it seems right and necessary for you to be a Christian. It's not my place to say you are wrong. It's right for you.

You made a statement that is the opposite of what God stated. That is your right of course but it is what it is.

I'm pretty hard to offend so don't worry too much.
My allegiance is also to the truth as best as I can determine it to be. I've no problem with you staying with what you find to be true. My wish is that everyone be as committed to the truth.

Very well

I read this differently. One who comes to the Father came through the Son. It's not for us to judge how that coming came about. Only accept that person who has come to the Father did so through the grace of the Son. Even if such grace is not readily apparent to us.
Before you think otherwise, this comment has nothing to do with being Christian.

I can state emphatically that your view disagrees with all prevelant theological views on the subject by new testament scholars. Maybe this will clear it up some. New Living Translation (©2007)
There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved." That means no Buddah, Krishna, Dali Lama, Allah, Jim Jones etc.......
I am not saying that is proof that Christianity is true but that's what Christianity means.

I resign myself to the next moment, and doing the best I can with it. Then whatever happens I won't have any regrets.

I prefer proactivism.

 

[1robin]

What I see are valid justifications are logic, reason and common sense and compassion and love and altruism and the Golden Rule etc

Those are subjective and insuffecient for our need as people derive different conclusions from the same methods and each is equally valid in your system.

Personally I use logic, reason and common sense and therefore I understand that an absolute or objective standard is of course impossible. A Christian might say that God sets the absolute and objective standard but of course He doesn't. He only sets His own subjective standard where on the one hand He says you shall not murder and on the other hand murder practically all humans on the planet in a flood. Obviously God doesn't have an objective standard either applicable in all situations so how in the world can possibly Christians require one?

I have covered the problems with your flood senario exhaustively in another thread. It takes forever and I am too lazy to do it again. I think it was the right religion thread.

So you won't answer why vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked? And why a whole lot of other animals display altruistic and moral behavior? Did God hard-wire this behavior into their brains when He created them or do they behave morally or altruistic because they are religious?

I wasn't asked about any velvet monkey's (just kidding). I did not say that even in an atheistic/evolutionary system that altruism didn't exist (personally I don't think it can justify altruism suffeciently though). However it is reasonable to believe that since we have a concience given by God that animals have a version of this same thing.

You are now using logic and reason to explain why genocide was necessary for God to achieve His objectives. In short you are saying that genocide isn't objectively wrong, it just depends on the situation and your objectives. What happened to your objective standard?

Since God isn't subject to the rules established for humans that have a very limited knowledge base compared to his infinate knowledge then his haveing suffecient moral grounds for his actions is a reasonable position. Why do you think God would be restricted by systems made necessary by our limitations that he doesn't have?

There are thousands of deities. Here's a list: List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Of course they do. They have their own gods. The Jewish god, the Christian god and Allah.Inconsistent how? The very definition of atheism is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. "Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs and alternatively the disbelief in the existence of deities." Atheism - Definition | WordIQ.com Note the plural.

Wrong there are millions. India alone has 350 million. In your original post I thought you addressed your question to me specifically not in general, so I understand the confusion. That there are many deities believed in by people is no reason to believe there are more than one. It suggests the universal need for religion but that is all. I am not sure why the reference to the defenition of atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Since God isn't subject to the rules established for humans that have a very limited knowledge base compared to his infinate knowledge then his haveing suffecient moral grounds for his actions is a reasonable position. Why do you think God would be restricted by systems made necessary by our limitations that he doesn't have?

Because however much infinite knowledge or no matter how many sufficient moral grounds for His actions He might think He has they are still His subjective morals. Where would God get His objective morals from? Please name one example of an objective moral standard.

 

[1robin]

Because however much infinite knowledge or no matter how many sufficient moral grounds for His actions He might think He has they are still His subjective morals. Where would God get His objective morals from? Please name one example of an objective moral standard.

You take some really strange positions. Not necessarily bad ones just unusual ones. God's morals are objective from our prespective, which is all that is needed (a universal standard). They are objective because they are not subjected to our individual takes on logic, experience, etc......They are a non-subjective standard. I am hoping you don't cause it's boring but if you make an argument that God's moral framework is subjective besides being wrong it is still an effectively objective standard as far as we are concerned. The source or the method he establishes for his moral decisions unlike most people, I will admit my inability to comprehend or judge.

How about the torture of an infant for an objective moral value?

 

[Nakosis]

Wouldn't hitler have the same validity, and without a standard either real or invented the decision could not be made honestly between the two. The overwhelming majority of real appeals similar to this always invoke an objective moral standard. Without it there is no basis for good, or evil, or a clear and universally justified basis for actions that limit anyone elses freedom.

Yes, Hitler could rule the world and set the civil standard. It wouldn't change my morality any but I along with everyone else would left to deal with the with the imposed civil authority. Same as we are now. As with most secular nations like the US the laws of the Bible have no legal force. The US would be as it is now with or without the Bible. You may see that as bad however the point being the Bible is not necessary for our legal system. However I know there is a group of Jews in Israel who feel they need no other laws then those of the Hebrew Bible.

Somewhat agree. I was pointing out that atheistic morals have not solved the problems. They have tried to form many religion free utopias only to cause more unjustice in the process.

I can't say for sure the source of my morality. It's not me trying to meet any standard. I do have my judgement of right and wrong. That is the basis of my morality. I don't see a need for anything else. Civil laws which is an agreement of group morality keeps us all in check well enough it seems.

Of course I am, but it is also is objectively justified faith.

Many non-religious folks seek the same objectivity. If they find it fine. It won't affect my morality. I determine what is right and wrong for me. Not anyone else. I don't see that I need to nor could I or anyone else actually do that. Not even God. Not because I object to God's authority. As in the Bible God could tell me to sacrifice my son to prove my faith. I would refuse. Such action is not right (according to my morals) regardless of what God says.

You made a statement that is the opposite of what God stated. That is your right of course but it is what it is.

That I can't be other then I am? I meant at this moment. Tomorrow I'll be who I am at that moment. If God changes me then I'll still be the person that I am at that moment. I consider myself a continually changing process. I mean when I make a choice or decision I don't see a reason to pretend I am someone who I am not. As in a person meeting the standards set by someone else.

I can state emphatically that your view disagrees with all prevelant theological views on the subject by new testament scholars. Maybe this will clear it up some. New Living Translation (©2007)
There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved." That means no Buddah, Krishna, Dali Lama, Allah, Jim Jones etc.......
I am not saying that is proof that Christianity is true but that's what Christianity means.

Yes, I suspect they don't truly understand the Son. However there are a few other sources so I know I'm not alone.

I prefer proactivism.

So you want to take charge of your salvation? I don't want to pretend to know enough for that. I'd like to think I do but I am constantly shown I'm not as in charge as I'd like to think. I mean I can make my own choices but the rest of the world I don't have a lot of control over their choices. So I got to learn to roll with the "punches" that life doles out.

 

[Oryonder]

That is addressed. Please read more carefully. You may also see my thread on why rejection of science is evil.



I've covered this issue.



No, I don't negate it- I confirm it. I merely deny it as a source of morality. It is certainly a relevant factor in application.



There must be a goal by which actions are measured; I provide the objective moral goal.



Not at all, the goal is provided by logic; its consequences by reason. This surpasses social contract, but only applies to those who have a sincere desire to be moral and the capacity to use logic.



This is a straw man fallacy.

Your logical fallacy is strawman

Utilitarianism does nothing of the sort. I encourage you to read some books on the subject. I won't be following this thread long enough for you to do so, but feel free to send me a note after you have gained an understanding of Utilitarianism, if you wish to discuss it further.

Spare me .. I have taken classes "Philosophy of Law" from a Jewish fellow who got his Ph.D from Oxford.

I know exactly what utilitarianism is and can argue it from both sides.

You completely missed my point about logic .. and you did negate social contract theory

You have provided no "objective moral goal" and no measuring stick.

You have not outlined how a measuring stick can be created using logic or specified any parameters by which logic could be used.

You have not addressed individual rights and freedoms not have you stated who gets to make the rules.

When given an example "using ultilitarian logic" you claim logical fallacy and drift into ad hom rather than address the valid points made.

 

[ArtieE]

You take some really strange positions. Not necessarily bad ones just unusual ones. God's morals are objective from our prespective, which is all that is needed (a universal standard). They are objective because they are not subjected to our individual takes on logic, experience, etc......

They are subjected to His individual takes on logic, experience, etc which makes them per definition subjective not objective.

They are a non-subjective standard.

No they are not. You have made someone elses subjective standard your own. No offense but you are a sheep who desperately needs to follow a shepherd and you have picked your shepherd. When the need of the sheep to follow the shepherd outweighs the immorality of the shepherd the only way the sheep can justify following the shepherd is to claim that whatever immoral acts the shepherd commits can be justified by simply claiming that the sheep cannot know everything the shepherd knows. This is how people justify following immoral leaders here on Earth too, like Hitler.

How about the torture of an infant for an objective moral value?

How do you know this is an objective moral valuè?

 

[vepurusg]

Spare me .. I have taken classes "Philosophy of Law" from a Jewish fellow who got his Ph.D from Oxford.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

I know exactly what utilitarianism is and can argue it from both sides.

Your post proved otherwise. You have clearly been mis-educated on the topic.

Forget what you thought you knew, and try again.

Utilitarianism has a key logical flaw (which is why I am not a Utilitarian), but you did not correctly identify it.

and you did negate social contract theory

You may believe that, but it doesn't make it true. Not founding morality on social contract is not the same as negating it.

Your logical fallacy is black-or-white

I hold social contract in high regard with respect to the application of any moral framework to civil law- that is, that it must be applied with respect to social contract.

Wherein moral framework is not applied to functional law, and outside a social context (e.g. hypothetical moral value of something) social contract is irrelevant.

Social contract is crucial in certain contexts- irrelevant in others.

You have provided no "objective moral goal" and no measuring stick. [...] You have not outlined how a measuring stick can be created using logic or specified any parameters by which logic could be used.

That's simply not true. Perhaps you simply didn't read my post in which I did both (indeed, I did both several times in different posts). I'm not sure which post of mine you read, but if you would read further, you would find it.

You have not addressed individual rights and freedoms not have you stated who gets to make the rules.

That's a matter of social application- law- it is not strictly relevant to the more abstract concept of Objective morality.

The issue of incorruptible leadership is an issue with all systems of social order.

If I had talked about that, my post would have been off-topic.

That I didn't discuss something irrelevant to the immediate topic at hand does not invalidate my position.

When given an example "using ultilitarian logic" you claim logical fallacy and drift into ad hom rather than address the valid points made.

Your example was false; there were no valid points made.

Like I said, I am not a Utilitarian- I fully understand the error is encompasses- but your "example" makes it clear that you do not likewise understand Utilitarianism.

If you had made a valid point, I would have gladly addressed it.

As it stands, you need to take another crack at correctly understanding Utilitarianism before we can discuss the matter (Like I said, I'm glad to discuss it once you have a better understanding of the subject). That's not Ad hominem- I read and evaluated what you said on its own merits- that's just a matter of practical fact. We can't reliably discuss Utilitarianism until you understand it- your argument proved that you do not.

Likewise, if somebody wanted to talk about evolution, and his or her first argument was, "If man came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I would ask him or her to study the subject more, and to feel free to contact me after he or she had taken a few classes in evolutionary biology if he or she had any questions or outstanding issues he or she would like to discuss.

Both evolution and ethics are complicated subject matters that can not be easily understood by novices, and for which a basic understanding is required to have a fruitful discussion.

Even for somebody who has never studied it formally, however, if the first argument was coherent and represented a thorough understanding of the subject, I would have no problem discussing it.

It's not the person- it's the demonstrated understanding, or lack thereof.

 

[Oryonder]

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority



Your post proved otherwise. You have clearly been mis-educated on the topic.

Forget what you thought you knew, and try again.

Utilitarianism has a key logical flaw (which is why I am not a Utilitarian), but you did not correctly identify it.




You may believe that, but it doesn't make it true. Not founding morality on social contract is not the same as negating it.

Your logical fallacy is black-or-white

I hold social contract in high regard with respect to the application of any moral framework to civil law- that is, that it must be applied with respect to social contract.

Wherein moral framework is not applied to functional law, and outside a social context (e.g. hypothetical moral value of something) social contract is irrelevant.

Social contract is crucial in certain contexts- irrelevant in others.





That's simply not true. Perhaps you simply didn't read my post in which I did both (indeed, I did both several times in different posts). I'm not sure which post of mine you read, but if you would read further, you would find it.





That's a matter of social application- law- it is not strictly relevant to the more abstract concept of Objective morality.

The issue of incorruptible leadership is an issue with all systems of social order.

If I had talked about that, my post would have been off-topic.

That I didn't discuss something irrelevant to the immediate topic at hand does not invalidate my position.




Your example was false; there were no valid points made.

Like I said, I am not a Utilitarian- I fully understand the error is encompasses- but your "example" makes it clear that you do not likewise understand Utilitarianism.

If you had made a valid point, I would have gladly addressed it.

As it stands, you need to take another crack at correctly understanding Utilitarianism before we can discuss the matter (Like I said, I'm glad to discuss it once you have a better understanding of the subject). That's not Ad hominem- I read and evaluated what you said on its own merits- that's just a matter of practical fact. We can't reliably discuss Utilitarianism until you understand it- your argument proved that you do not.

Likewise, if somebody wanted to talk about evolution, and his or her first argument was, "If man came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I would ask him or her to study the subject more, and to feel free to contact me after he or she had taken a few classes in evolutionary biology if he or she had any questions or outstanding issues he or she would like to discuss.

Both evolution and ethics are complicated subject matters that can not be easily understood by novices, and for which a basic understanding is required to have a fruitful discussion.

Even for somebody who has never studied it formally, however, if the first argument was coherent and represented a thorough understanding of the subject, I would have no problem discussing it.

It's not the person- it's the demonstrated understanding, or lack thereof.

Save your breath.

You claim I do not understand utilitarianism but fail to point where you think my flaw in logic is.

Support your premise.

 

[vepurusg]

You claim I do not understand utilitarianism but fail to point where you think my flaw in logic is.

I don't fail to do it; I elect not to bother, because your understanding is too far off base for you to understand my arguments from where you are (the greatest obstacle to learning is not what you don't know, but what you think you know- and you have claimed to know quite a bit which is false, which would make it quite a task to undo that dogma).

Likewise, I won't bother to explain to somebody who claims, "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is a legitimate problem for Evolution.

It's not worth my time. Your claim is not a challenge to my argument, because anybody who does have a basic grasp of Utilitarian philosophy can see that your claim is false.

Support your premise.

Learn valid Utilitarian philosophy, and then you'll easily see why your claim was a straw-man.

I'm not your personal tutor. There are books on this you can read. Please do so rather than continuing to demand that I spend my time teaching you what you should have already known coming into this conversation.

I have rather politely declined discussion with you on this subject until you learn more about it- please take that graciously.

 

[1robin]

They are subjected to His individual takes on logic, experience, etc which makes them per definition subjective not objective.No they are not. You have made someone elses subjective standard your own. No offense but you are a sheep who desperately needs to follow a shepherd and you have picked your shepherd. When the need of the sheep to follow the shepherd outweighs the immorality of the shepherd the only way the sheep can justify following the shepherd is to claim that whatever immoral acts the shepherd commits can be justified by simply claiming that the sheep cannot know everything the shepherd knows. This is how people justify following immoral leaders here on Earth too, like Hitler.How do you know this is an objective moral valuè?

This is a pointless point. Being that God would make the correct decision everytime, or he is not God, his method of arriving at that decision (isn't accessable to us to begin with) is irrelevant. Being that a correct action in everycase exists and God simply executes that choice then it is objective. It surely is objective from our perspective. Since a command of God or a principle of God is absolutely correct everytime (or he would not be God) then it is objective especially from our point of view. An objective standard implies that there is an ultimate answer that is correct and is not subject to at the same time being incorrect from another point of view. That being said we are both operating in a realm beyond our jurisdiction and our viewpoints are best guesses and unverifiable. Your shepard agrguments are based on a false premise.

 

[Nakosis]

This is a pointless point. Being that God would make the correct decision everytime, or he is not God, his method of arriving at that decision (isn't accessable to us to begin with) is irrelevant. Being that a correct action in everycase exists and God simply executes that choice then it is objective. It surely is objective from our perspective. Since a command of God or a principle of God is absolutely correct everytime (or he would not be God) then it is objective especially from our point of view. An objective standard implies that there is an ultimate answer that is correct and is not subject to at the same time being incorrect from another point of view. That being said we are both operating in a realm beyond our jurisdiction and our viewpoints are best guesses and unverifiable. Your shepard agrguments are based on a false premise.

Fair enough, the idea that what is moral is so because God said it is so. It requires no further rationalization.

A decree from God doesn't change my morals. Not to say my morals are necessarily at odds with God's decree. Just my morality is not based on any such decree.

Also I'm not sure what God's moral standard is honestly. I mean working from the ten commandment for example. "Thou shall not kill." Do you see any exceptions to this decree? If so, how are such exceptions determined?

 

[1robin]

Fair enough, the idea that what is moral is so because God said it is so. It requires no further rationalization.

A decree from God doesn't change my morals. Not to say my morals are necessarily at odds with God's decree. Just my morality is not based on any such decree.

Also I'm not sure what God's moral standard is honestly. I mean working from the ten commandment for example. "Thou shall not kill." Do you see any exceptions to this decree? If so, how are such exceptions determined?

It is not as simple as whatever he says is what is right. His nature is such that he will always choose the correct action. That correct choice in a way is independant of him but is consistent with his nature and purpose. I don't think I explained that well. Maybe you can see what I am trying to say. God would never torture infants, or unjustifiably kill. Every action has a morally suffecient reason. You may not allow God to provide moral decisions for you, that is definately your right, but as morality most accurately posits a "should" instead of a "will" Then maybe we should allow God to define morality for us. A God based moral framework if it is a just God is far superior and much more effective than a subjective evolutionary one.

The "Do not kill" commandment is actually Do not murder. I found this explanation on another site I follow and it is written pretty well: I was asked recently about Exodus 20:13 at another forum and promised to consider the matter here in order to keep the other thread on topic.
Why is one preferable to the other and is it OK to translate the word involved as murder? I looked up the word in the Hebrew lexicon and it turns out that the word can be translated as murder instead of kill. Since translating it as "kill" would be nonsensical in view of God's commandments to kill those who disobeyed certain of his laws as well as to kill animals for sacrifice and wage warfare against certain Caananites, translating the word as "murder" is the correct translation. One thing to keep in mind is that writers of the Bible weren't stupid or prone to say one thing on one page and a completely opposite thing on the next. So translating word as "kill" is illogical on the part of the translator and makes one wonder what his or her motives were in translating it that way. Any comments?

Below is some info:


Translations using "murder" instead of "kill".

Exodus 20: 13

(New Living Translation)
(New International Reader's Version)
(Amplified Bible)
(English Standard Version)
(New International Version)
(New King James Version)
(Holman Christian Standard Bible)
(Contemporary English Version)
(New International Version - UK)
(The New World Translation)



The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 07523
Original Word Word Origin
Xcr a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ratsach TWOT - 2208
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
Raw-tsakh' Verb
Definition
To murder, slay, kill (Qal) to murder, slay premeditated accidental as avenger slayer (intentional) (participle) (Niphal) to be slain (Piel) to murder, assassinate murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) (Pual) to be killed
</TD

King James Word Usage - Total: 47
Slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + (0310) 1, slayeth 1, death 1

Ratsach - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

Do not Murder vs Do not kill. (by Starman)
BTW
The New KIng James Version renders the word as "murder" not "Kill" as the original King James Version does.

 

[Nakosis]

It is not as simple as whatever he says is what is right. His nature is such that he will always choose the correct action. That correct choice in a way is independant of him but is consistent with his nature and purpose. I don't think I explained that well. Maybe you can see what I am trying to say. God would never torture infants, or unjustifiably kill. Every action has a morally suffecient reason. You may not allow God to provide moral decisions for you, that is definately your right, but as morality most accurately posits a "should" instead of a "will" Then maybe we should allow God to define morality for us. A God based moral framework if it is a just God is far superior and much more effective than a subjective evolutionary one.

Like a civil code? The law doesn't change my personal sense of morality. What I determine is right and wrong depends on a lot of things mostly the specific circumstances of the moment. However not a standard code. I find life too dynamic to apply a standard of behavior to. It may not meet any particular standard. And maybe my actions aren't worthy of God, but that is the reality of who I am. I rather not pretend to possess a morality that I don't actually have. I see that as false, not acknowledging the truth. That comes from my commitment to truth including the truth of myself.

(just maybe to explain a little more. I'm not going to do something regardless if the/a law says I should if I don't feel it is right. Like I'm not into stoning, or any a death penalty of any form actually. If God asked me to sacrifice my son as he did of Abraham I'd fail that test of faith and have no regrets for that failure.)

The "Do not kill" commandment is actually Do not murder. I found this explanation on another site I follow and it is written pretty well: I was asked recently about Exodus 20:13 at another forum and promised to consider the matter here in order to keep the other thread on topic.
Why is one preferable to the other and is it OK to translate the word involved as murder? I looked up the word in the Hebrew lexicon and it turns out that the word can be translated as murder instead of kill. Since translating it as "kill" would be nonsensical in view of God's commandments to kill those who disobeyed certain of his laws as well as to kill animals for sacrifice and wage warfare against certain Caananites, translating the word as "murder" is the correct translation. One thing to keep in mind is that writers of the Bible weren't stupid or prone to say one thing on one page and a completely opposite thing on the next. So translating word as "kill" is illogical on the part of the translator and makes one wonder what his or her motives were in translating it that way. Any comments?

I'm fine with saying thou shall not murder. However then there are exceptions to killing. Are we left on our own to determine/judge what is and is not murder?

 

[1robin]

Like a civil code? The law doesn't change my personal sense of morality. What I determine is right and wrong depends on a lot of things mostly the specific circumstances of the moment. However not a standard code. I find life too dynamic to apply a standard of behavior to. It may not meet any particular standard. And maybe my actions aren't worthy of God, but that is the reality of who I am. I rather not pretend to possess a morality that I don't actually have. I see that as false, not acknowledging the truth. That comes from my commitment to truth including the truth of myself.

Well I sypathise with the logic of your statements. However you were brought up in a society somewhat based at least originally on Christian morality (assuming you live in a major western nation) you values have been devoped on a somewhat Christian framework. While we have tried to get rid of God in our ignorant zeal we seem to keep many Godly principles around. The bible is far more important when the decision is most hard and confusing. For instance abortion, going to war, euthenasia, sanctity of marriage, etc..... These are the tough areas where biblical principles will shine a light. For example..... God was all that could be used to justify our rights in the constitution. Just think if that person were a non-believer what would he have used to justify those rights, or would he have even stated them. Without biblical morality the U.S. might not have ever been the worlds greatest example of freedom and justice.

(just maybe to explain a little more. I'm not going to do something regardless if the/a law says I should if I don't feel it is right. Like I'm not into stoning, or any a death penalty of any form actually. If God asked me to sacrifice my son as he did of Abraham I'd fail that test of faith and have no regrets for that failure.)

Once again I understand the logic but there are many grey areas where your concience wouldn't be adequite to the decision. Think of some of the decisions made by our presidents. I thank God that many of our leaders did not rely on something as fickle as their subjective opinion to decide the tough ones.

I'm fine with saying thou shall not murder. However then there are exceptions to killing. Are we left on our own to determine/judge what is and is not murder?

All secular individuals and governments are. A born again Christian obedient to the Holy spirit would not be makeing that decision in a vacume as others do.