Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to provide an example of an unwarranted meaning or implication?
That evil is a force, an entity, or a special class of harm rooted in some sort of spiritual woo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
What if we were to equate "evil" with wrong doing? In your view, is anything ever objectively wrong?
Nothing is entirely objective including your or my personal view of what is wrong in a given case. The nature of morality is such that there is wide agreement, even between different cultures about the harmfulness of some behaviors / actions / failures, while other things are debatable even within a given subculture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Just one quick question here: Who gets to define "harms and benefits?"
Society.
Morality exists any time two or more people have to coexist or cooperate in some way. It is explicitly end implicitly negotiated by the relevant parties, refined and honed as required by circumstances.
At the societal level, moral conduct is conduct that supports a sustainable, stable, civil society that the members want to have together.
Who does NOT get to define harms and benefits are third parties with no skin in the game, such as invisible beings asserted by someone or by tradition.
I might contend the weapon of choice for the extermination of god is science.
And while it is an ongoing & laborious process of debunking each and every unsubstantiated proclamation, it is a necessary and worthwhile one.
Well, I'm all for science and am willing to accept all documented scientific findings. Last I knew, though, scientists had better things to do than try to disprove the existence of God.
Well, I'm all for science and am willing to accept all documented scientific findings. Last I knew, though, scientists had better things to do than try to disprove the existence of God.
Well, there are 2 sides of it.
Science cannot, nor attempts to, disprove existence. It can only confirm or prove it. For centuries there have been scientists attempting to use our collective knowledge to actually find the evidence of god, or god'so work. Darwin is a good example of one of these scientists.
But the other side of it is the religious claims, and debunking these (in my view) outdated and primitive concepts of the universe, and any possible god-like entity. This is where science can be most helpful as we attempt to truly understand how we came to be, and what might have caused us to be. Answering those questions can be important to an atheist as well...it's just got to have more evidence and credibility than what regions offer.
That evil is a force, an entity, or a special class of harm rooted in some sort of spiritual woo.
Again, understanding evil as equating with wrong doing, would it be your view that all wrong doing is the result of physical effects? ...that there is no psychological or spiritual (as in, not physical) component? If purely psychological, is the psychology merely the result of the physical?
In other words, are we all merely "dancing to our DNA?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Nothing is entirely objective including your or my personal view of what is wrong in a given case.
"Nothing?"
Why should we assume that "nothing is entirely objective?" Did I miss something? Are you implying that we have good reasons for denying the existence of God?
Also, we would of course naturally understand that personal opinions are always and automatically relative or subjective by definition. No one that I know is trying to argue that opinions can be objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
The nature of morality is such that there is wide agreement, even between different cultures about the harmfulness of some behaviors / actions / failures, while other things are debatable even within a given subculture.
Fascinating. Would you be willing to give an example of a behavior, action or failure that is beyond debate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Society.
Sorry, in my view, this just doesn't square with reality. As an example, we would logically need to accept the notion that "might makes right" or that the majority can never be wrong or "evil."
I just can't buy in to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Morality exists any time two or more people have to coexist or cooperate in some way. It is explicitly end implicitly negotiated by the relevant parties, refined and honed as required by circumstances.
You appear to be giving an apt description here of moral relativity which begs the question: Does moral relativity square with reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
At the societal level, moral conduct is conduct that supports a sustainable, stable, civil society that the members want to have together.
Agreed. Murder and theft are generally outlawed in society? Why?
I'm not asking how they become outlawed, believe it or not, I'm actually quite familiar with the various processes by which laws are enacted in various societies. My question to you is why should these societies be inclined to make murder and theft illegal in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Who does NOT get to define harms and benefits are third parties with no skin in the game, such as invisible beings asserted by someone or by tradition.
Again, you seem eager for all of us to naturally assume that which you have an obligation to demonstrate through reasoned argumentation. Namely, that there is no higher power than mankind and that we are therefore logically defaulted to a situation of moral relativity.
Again, understanding evil as equating with wrong doing, would it be your view that all wrong doing is the result of physical effects? ...that there is no psychological or spiritual (as in, not physical) component? If purely psychological, is the psychology merely the result of the physical?
In other words, are we all merely "dancing to our DNA?"
"Evil" is an assumed and rather squishy definition of, or perhaps explanation of, "wrong doing" and both terms tend to beg the question, pre-assuming that there is some kind of objective, externally bestowed right and wrong. I see no reason to insist on using loaded terms unless your are struggling to impose an up front assumption on observable reality.
People act contrary to their rational self-interest and/or contrary to empathy all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Morality is only concerned with determining what is contrary to societal objectives, and encouraging / discouraging actions accordingly. I am a materialist, which means, not that I know there is nothing immaterial, but that I see no reason to believe there is anything that is not ultimately material. As such I would say that even psychological motivations are rooted in physical processes. I disbelieve in true free will but I do believe in constrained free choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"Nothing?"
Why should we assume that "nothing is entirely objective?" Did I miss something? Are you implying that we have good reasons for denying the existence of God?
I didn't say anything about the existence of god, although one's (dis)belief in objective capital-T immutable externally bestowed truth certainly has implications concerning that.
I simply don't see any evidence that anyone's asserted morality is objective, even when this claim is made.
Biblical morality is simply an assertion like any other. It deserves no special pleading. It is subject to (mis)interpretation, manipulation, (mis)understanding like anything else. That is why professed Christians can get different moralities from the Bible depending on a variety of factors. How some Christians think abortion or homosexuality or a host of other things are grossly immoral or perfectly fine, working from the very same source document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Also, we would of course naturally understand that personal opinions are always and automatically relative or subjective by definition. No one that I know is trying to argue that opinions can be objective.
The problem of course is that at the end of the day someone's opinions have to prevail and they are still just opinions. That is just kicking the can down the road. The question is whether the opinions that win out will be based on unsubstantiated assertions or, though however imperfectly, on empirical outcomes and results.
Do we decide for example to (dis)allow marriage equality because someone claims an invisible guy in the sky has an opinion about it that's binding on us ... or do we decide it based on observable harms and benefits? God, according to some, would not allow us to even consider annoying little things like evenhanded fairness, the actual experiences and opinions of the parties effected, whatever light science can shed on the subject, or what has actually occurred when these changes to the social order have been implemented elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Fascinating. Would you be willing to give an example of a behavior, action or failure that is beyond debate?
Nothing is beyond debate, nor did I say that it was. I simply said that there is wide agreement on some matters, such as murder, pedophilia, and property theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Sorry, in my view, this just doesn't square with reality. As an example, we would logically need to accept the notion that "might makes right" or that the majority can never be wrong or "evil."
I just can't buy in to it.
Some societies, for a limited time, have bought into "might makes right" but it has not been a sustainable strategy. That is why various totalitarian regimes are no longer with us and serve rather as a cautionary tale.
Societal consensus is more nuanced than simply the tyranny of pure unrepresentative democracy (or of just pure tyranny). It has inherent checks and balances, not least of which is that when things are wrongly determined, suffering increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You appear to be giving an apt description here of moral relativity which begs the question: Does moral relativity square with reality?
Maybe not with the reality you want to promulgate, but with actual reality, yes. Morality has to reflect our evolving understanding of benefits and harms. If it didn't we would still be keeping slaves, denying the vote to women, and lynching blacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Agreed. Murder and theft are generally outlawed in society? Why?
There is absolutely nothing inherently about murder and theft that should inherently incline us to outlaw them. Indeed, we allow both in limited circumstances. You can commit mass murder with impunity if it is authorized by a military chain of command to which you are a party -- especially if that military ends up the victor. You can take what belongs to others via imminent domain, or taxation.
The reason that most societies are inclined to put the same sorts of restrictions on these actions is that failure to do so results in widespread suffering and societal collapse. Nothing more and nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, you seem eager for all of us to naturally assume that which you have an obligation to demonstrate through reasoned argumentation. Namely, that there is no higher power than mankind and that we are therefore logically defaulted to a situation of moral relativity.
I am not at all eager for anyone to assume anything. I simply see no evidence that there are any actors in human society other than humans.
Suggesting that humans are too low and mean to make sound decisions on their own behalf and require some superior power to do it for them is just a recipe for irresponsibility. It is an infantile avoidance of the tough moral considerations that go into running a complex society. It is no different than the demand of the tyrant: yours is not to reason why, yours is but to obey. There is never a valid rationale for abrogating our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other to some third party who promises they know best, whether the absolute ruler is human, or an asserted invisible deity, or an organization claiming to represent such a thing.
As far as I can see, the appeal of abrogating our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other is the short term ease of not having to ponder thorny questions. Just tell me what is right, tell me what to do, take all my moral responsibility from me, is the mentality that seeks such evasions. So in reality the tyranny comes not from society in the long run, but from authority-structures that are not accountable to reality. Religious dogma is not the only source of such authority-structures, but it is a major one.
Well now you are just muddling it all up So it isn't because he made us and can do what he wants? Because that was the argument I recall last time... If that is your rationale, then omniscience, goodness, all that, is irrelevant. If that is not your basis, then perhaps you can make clear what exactly you feel makes God qualified to be the arbiter of morality?
He made us, and he has revealed what morality is according to his nature. His commands to us reflect that. So it's both.
Quote:
You have said it isn't might, and here you argue that property ownership isn't it, that there is some other or additional factor...
It isn't might. He doesn't declare something that is immoral to be moral simply because he's big and tough and owns us. Something is moral because it's in line with his nature.
Quote:
Then you argue God is the standard for morality because he is omniscient, but you never go anywhere with that. Even according to the Bible, Adam and Eve knew more after they sinned than before. Clearly knowledge is not the same as good. Maybe you can complete this argument, why is omniscience a sufficient foundation for morality?
Morality is based on the character of God. It's not just a thing that God knows and adheres to. Morality did not simply exist as a thing apart from God that he decided to follow. So knowledge of something doesn't suggest that one is moral.
Quote:
Then you toss out the worst argument yet! God is good becasue it is his nature, which we know because he told us so. This is a totally circular argument.
God could in fact be evil, and his claim to be good was a lie, which would be consistent with being evil. It is a useless argument, becasue it assumes what is trying to be demonstrated. In addition, it presumes that there is some standard beyond God to determine good and evil, otherwise the claim that God is good is meaningless
Ok? How is that different from you arguing that God is bad because you have declared him immoral because you know what morality is? How do you know? Because you say you just know!
I'm sorry, but I'd rather trust the Creator of the universe than some dude on the internet.
Quote:
But to be honest, that is all you have as well. Your opinion of morality. That is all anyone has. You just claim that your version of morality is really God's version, but of course there is no way to test that claim.
I am curious... In what ways does your deepest most firmly held beliefs about morality conflict with God's? What behavior do you believe, do you feel, to be right and correct that you believe God condemns? What do you, at your core, feel is wrong and evil that God encourages and values? I can think of virtually no moral or legal system I would 100 agree with, I would always have points of contention, even if I chose to submit to them. Which points of God's definitions of right and wrong do not sit well with you and why?
-NoCapo
I'd like to be able to have 9 wives....or at least 1 wife and 8 girlfriends. There's a lot of behavior that would be fun for a time. But I know that God forbids it. Do I truly believe it's moral? No. Because God has declared it to be immoral.
You believe the deity, if it exists, said it was immoral, you have no proof it is so! However, the deity would have to be a total hypocrite if that was so. The Biblical 'heroes' had wives and concubines, and deity itself is reputed to have a got a young unmarried girl pregnant!
You believe the deity, if it exists, said it was immoral, you have no proof it is so!
Seeing as how he created the universe and us, and he is good.....why wouldn't I? Why does your opinion of good and bad outweigh his?
Quote:
However, the deity would have to be a total hypocrite if that was so. The Biblical 'heroes' had wives and concubines,
Can you provide a Bible verse that says that it was GOOD for any of them to have multiple wives and concubines? The Bible records the heroes of the Bible doing good and bad things, including murder, rape, and many other horrible things. There is nothing stating that they were loved by God because they behaved in a way that pleased him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it isn't because he made us and can do what he wants? Because that was the argument I recall last time... If that is your rationale, then omniscience, goodness, all that, is irrelevant. If that is not your basis, then perhaps you can make clear what exactly you feel makes God qualified to be the arbiter of morality? 
