If God asks....

[Davian]

...
I get it from the "fact" that there are two different words, facts and beliefs. The thing that seems to separate the two is that one is proven and the other is not. Without that, they seem to me to be the same thing.

(my bold)
I am asking, are you getting this from somewhere, or making it up yourself?

Show me a reference (Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc) that supports your claim that "fact" is synonymous with "proven".

 

[Skavau]

I hold that the two are not completely different. One of God's attributes, to me, is that He is worthy of obedience

That is not an attribute, that's an assertion on someone's value. To claim that someone is worthy of obedience is a judgement call on their character.

He cannot exist without that attribute. My belief in that is probably what caused our trouble. I should have stated it in my first post, and you could have told me that you did not intend for it be included.

I don't even understand this criticism. Why would you assume the necessity of unstated assumptions as being included within the hypothetical?

I believe that is a position that one cannot hold without first believing in God. To hypothetically suppose that God exists while restricting His qualities to only those that suit you is, I believe, to build the hypothetical to specifically negate the possibility that the theist is correct.

I have imposed no qualities on God. I have asked a simple question: If God ordered mass murder, would you do it? People have consistently evaded making a response to that and instead played semantics, questioned my moral judgement or outright deny the utility of hypotheticals.

I believe you would have to build the hypothetical with God possessing the qualities that the theists believe Him to possess.

That would be too easy for you. That would make the hypothetical redundant. Though, I'm not sure what qualities you think I've dis-included.

You are assuming that any of it would appear obscene or atrocious. I highly doubt that it would.

The hypothetical in the OP seems to me to appear at least atrocious. We are not talking what you think God might do but what the hypothetical asks.

If God was known to exist and if God went about commanding the killing of people, there is no reason to assume that it would appear immoral.

So you would find the killing of people entirely appropriate if God did it?

I want to believe that I would follow any order God gives, but with the orders He has already given (those I believe in), I fail to obey all the time. So the answer is, no. I would probably fail under those circumstances too.

Your mileage may vary. I would call that a success, not a failure.

I believe you have settled on "a glorified slave-master relationship" as your personal catch phrase for the topic without giving too much thought to what you are talking about.

What am I missing? Do tell.

t has nothing to do with a slave's relationship to a master, because as a Christian, I can walk away anytime. God does not hold me captive, because I do not serve Him out of fear of punishment. I serve out of love and respect.

This of course, depends upon your view in the afterlife.

At any rate your morality is akin to a slave-master. The only things you consider "good" are what God says. The only things you consider "bad" are what God says.

If you want to analogize, it is similar to a parent-child relationship. In fact, it is a parent-child relationship. He is my Father, and I am His child. I do what He says because He knows more than me. What He says is right because He says it is right. He understands what I do not.

What a gross caricature of a parent-child relationship. Parents can be and are consistently wrong and their correctness is not based solely on their authority.

I do not understand a morality apart from God. When I was without belief, I found no reason to think in moral terms, because the only good things were those things that benefited me. It was entirely subjective. So to me, morality is fundamentally tied to God. Without God, morality does not exist, at least not in an objective sense.

I fail to see how it exists in an objective sense with God. The way you describe it allows God to do anything he likes and still have it labelled as moral.

 

[Max S Cherry]

(my bold)
I am asking, are you getting this from somewhere, or making it up yourself?

Show me a reference (Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc) that supports your claim that "fact" is synonymous with "proven".

Oh I get it now. I apologize for being slow. No, I do not have any reference to support my belief that a thing must be proven in order to be a fact. The "proven" element is nothing more than my understanding of the difference between a fact and a belief.

 

[Max S Cherry]

That is not an attribute, that's an assertion on someone's value. To claim that someone is worthy of obedience is a judgement call on their character.

To me, "being worthy of obedience" is an attribute that one may or may not possess. I understand your point as well, though.

I don't even understand this criticism. Why would you assume the necessity of unstated assumptions as being included within the hypothetical?

As I said, I assumed it because I associated it as one of God's necessary qualities.

I have imposed no qualities on God. I have asked a simple question: If God ordered mass murder, would you do it? People have consistently evaded making a response to that and instead played semantics, questioned my moral judgement or outright deny the utility of hypotheticals.

As I understood the hypothetical, you were talking to a Christian (I forget who the first post was directed towards), and I inappropriately applied my own beliefs in place of his. If you were creating a hypothetical to see what a particular person would do if God (as he understands God) told him to do, you would-it seems to me-have to have God as the being that he believes in. Otherwise, you are asking him what he would do if a God that he does not believe in told him to do something. That is just how I understood it, and I have already apologize for the misunderstanding.

That would be too easy for you. That would make the hypothetical redundant. Though, I'm not sure what qualities you think I've dis-included.

The quality of being "worth of obedience." I know that you do not see that as a quality, but to me, it is a very important quality.

The hypothetical in the OP seems to me to appear at least atrocious. We are not talking what you think God might do but what the hypothetical asks.

The act seems atrocious to us now, because God is not calling for the killing of people. If it was His way of doing things now, I am saying that it might not seem atrocious.

So you would find the killing of people entirely appropriate if God did it?

I would indeed.

Your mileage may vary. I would call that a success, not a failure.

We disagree.

What am I missing? Do tell.

I do not know what you are asking for here.

At any rate your morality is akin to a slave-master. The only things you consider "good" are what God says. The only things you consider "bad" are what God says.

I am not sure that a slave is required to have his master's opinions about good and bad. I am pretty sure that the slave (most of them anyways) would consider slavery bad. I am not seeing the relation at all in your analogy.

What a gross caricature of a parent-child relationship. Parents can be and are consistently wrong and their correctness is not based solely on their authority.

I am not saying that it is a perfect analogy. I am only saying that the relationship a Christian has with God is more like that of a parent-child relationship than that of a slave and master.

I fail to see how it exists in an objective sense with God. The way you describe it allows God to do anything he likes and still have it labelled as moral.

As objective, I think we are labeling it as a morality for all people that does not vary, and this is in contrast to one labeled subjective. If the base of one's morality is that "what God does is right," anything that God does is morally right. Without God, I cannot see how an objective morality can be thought to exist.

 

[Crandaddy]

Are you arguing about the morality of mass murder?

No, I'm arguing about the epistemic circumstances of those who are supposedly under orders. You do understand what the word "epistemic" means, yes?

In which case Abraham was an idiot, yes?

Because of course that's the only possibility. It's not like he could possibly have understood, perhaps due to extraordinary noetic circumstances, that God did not really intend for him to kill his son. (He did tell Isaac that God would provide a lamb, after all.)

If you're going to fire off snarky remarks like this, at least try to display some critical thinking skills.

Your understanding could easily be wrong,

But don't forget that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If to issue an order is to intend that the recipient of that order understand what he or she is ordered to do, then I think it follows that to receive an order from God is necessarily to understand what one is ordered to do (since God cannot fail at what he intends to accomplish).

and you might either understand a command that did originate from God to be wrong.

I'm assuming as axiomatic that God does not issue direct orders to perform what the recipients of those orders understand to be morally unjustified actions.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

No, I'm arguing about the epistemic circumstances of those who are supposedly under orders. You do understand what the word "epistemic" means, yes

Well enough. You're not using it correctly.

Because of course that's the only possibility. It's not like he could possibly have understood, perhaps due to extraordinary noetic circumstances, that God did not really intend for him to kill his son.

God was quite explicit. He did not tell Abraham that he would provide a lamb, he told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Apparently you read a different bible. Could you show me the verses where it explains all these extra things you claim Abraham knew?

(He did tell Isaac that God would provide a lamb, after all.)

Yup. And God had provided one. Isaac. Apparently you're not familiar with poetic language and the dramatization of parent-child relationships. I'm sorry.

If you're going to fire off snarky remarks like this, at least try to display some critical thinking skills.

I do. I'm sorry they went right over your head. I will try to dumb them down to your level next time.

But don't forget that God is both omniscient and omnipotent.

And all good? Be careful, dilemmas are made of such stuff.

If to issue an order is to intend that the recipient of that order understand what he or she is ordered to do, then I think it follows that to receive an order from God is necessarily to understand what one is ordered to do (since God cannot fail at what he intends to accomplish).

Completely extra-biblical. Show me the verses that support that reading. No biblical scholar would agree with you.

I'm assuming as axiomatic that God does not issue direct orders to perform what the recipients of those orders understand to be morally unjustified actions.

1 Samuel 15:3. So you're claiming that genocide is morally justified? The murder of innocent women, children, and infants, is morally justified?

Do try and keep up.

 

[Skavau]

To me, "being worthy of obedience" is an attribute that one may or may not possess. I understand your point as well, though.

Of course, individuals have different opinions on whether someone is worthy of obedience. Not objective. Calls we make, not the being in question.

As I understood the hypothetical, you were talking to a Christian (I forget who the first post was directed towards), and I inappropriately applied my own beliefs in place of his. If you were creating a hypothetical to see what a particular person would do if God (as he understands God) told him to do, you would-it seems to me-have to have God as the being that he believes in. Otherwise, you are asking him what he would do if a God that he does not believe in told him to do something. That is just how I understood it, and I have already apologize for the misunderstanding.

Uh, okay.

I have nothing to add to that. I daresay that you would always consider God "worthy of worship" no matter what.

The quality of being "worth of obedience." I know that you do not see that as a quality, but to me, it is a very important quality.

I think someone's actions can disqualify them of being worthy of worship. You, presumably do not.

The act seems atrocious to us now, because God is not calling for the killing of people. If it was His way of doing things now, I am saying that it might not seem atrocious.

No, the act seems atrocious to us because it involves the taking of many people's lives. That is atrocious almost by definition. If you're ever going to speak on objective morality then an act must always be wrong and always wrong because of what it is, not permissible just because it is "God's way" . That would be, ironically subjective.

I would indeed.

What about rape? What if God ordered people to rape others?

I mean, seriously? How is your system "objective"? It comes across to me as completely amoral and nihilistic. Motives do not matter to you. Acts do not matter to you. Humanity does not matter to you. In fact, by definition nothing to you is actually right or wrong. There is only obedience and disobedience towards God. How is this morality?

I am not sure that a slave is required to have his master's opinions about good and bad. I am pretty sure that the slave (most of them anyways) would consider slavery bad. I am not seeing the relation at all in your analogy.

You would not consider slavery bad if God commanded it, would you? All of your values are by your own words completely linked towards Gods.

I am not saying that it is a perfect analogy. I am only saying that the relationship a Christian has with God is more like that of a parent-child relationship than that of a slave and master.

No it isn't a hideous analogy, it is a really bad one and an insulting one to humanity as well.

As objective, I think we are labeling it as a morality for all people that does not vary, and this is in contrast to one labeled subjective

You do not believe in a morality for all people that does not vary. You just believe in doing what you think God wants. That's just following orders.

If the base of one's morality is that "what God does is right," anything that God does is morally right.

Far better, I can say that the base of my morality is that "what causes the least amount of suffering towards others is right." That would seem to me to be at least as objective as yours and far kinder in scope.

Without God, I cannot see how an objective morality can be thought to exist.

I don't see how objective morality exists with or without God. No theist has been capable of ever explaining that link.

 

[Davian]

Oh I get it now. I apologize for being slow. No, I do not have any reference to support my belief that a thing must be proven in order to be a fact.

So this conflation of "fact" and "proven" is of your own making?

The "proven" element is nothing more than my understanding of the difference between a fact and a belief.

And this understanding, you just pulled it from thin air?

Scientists cannot prove that the Earth orbits the Sun. Do you think it is a fact, useful for doing stuff like sending space probes to other planets?

 

[Crandaddy]

God was quite explicit. He did not tell Abraham that he would provide a lamb, he told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Apparently you read a different bible. Could you show me the verses where it explains all these extra things you claim Abraham knew?

Why am I obligated to suppose that the Biblical account is complete and exhaustive of every relevant detail that transpired?

Yup. And God had provided one. Isaac. Apparently you're not familiar with poetic language and the dramatization of parent-child relationships. I'm sorry.

And apparently you're not familiar with revelatory foreshadowing and the possibility that Abraham might have (knowingly) been referring to the Messiah.

And all good? Be careful, dilemmas are made of such stuff.

God is necessarily all-good, as what I understand the term “God” to signify.

Completely extra-biblical. Show me the verses that support that reading. No biblical scholar would agree with you.

Of course it's extra-Biblical! I'm philosophizing. You do realize you're in the philosophy subforum, don't you?

I'm sorry if I don't present an easy, Bible-thumping fundy target for you to shoot down.

1 Samuel 15:3. So you're claiming that genocide is morally justified? The murder of innocent women, children, and infants, is morally justified?

Of course it's not morally justified, provided that one understands that this is indeed what one is doing. But maybe the Israelites didn't understand that they were killing innocent people. Maybe they thought they were killing a race of evil, accursed, irredeemable monsters.

And why do I have to take this passage for its literal meaning, viz., for literally communicating that God explicitly ordered the extermination of the Amalekites? Maybe the lesson we're supposed to learn here is that God's justice is perfect and that he doesn't tolerate even a trace of impurity to remain, and the literal command to slaughter the Amalekites is beside the point.

Do try and keep up.

Another word to add to your vocabulary.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Why am I obligated to suppose that the Biblical account is complete and exhaustive of every relevant detail that transpired?

You're not. But you can't use invented details that you can't support from the text.

And apparently you're not familiar with revelatory foreshadowing and the possibility that Abraham might have (knowingly) been referring to the Messiah.

No evidence in the bible. Nice try.

God is necessarily all-good, as what I understand the term “God” to signify.

Excellent. Euthyphro dilemma, anyone?

Of course it's extra-Biblical! I'm philosophizing. You do realize you're in the philosophy subforum, don't you?

Actually no, what you're doing is charitably known as "making stuff up." Not quite the same. Until you can supply support for your fiction, your interpretation of what went on with Abraham and Isaac is no more valid than mine.

I'm sorry if I don't present an easy, Bible-thumping fundy target for you to shoot down.

Don't sell yourself short - you're doing pretty well so far.

Of course it's not morally justified, provided that one understands that this is indeed what one is doing. But maybe the Israelites didn't understand that they were killing innocent people. Maybe they thought they were killing a race of evil, accursed, irredeemable monsters.

Right. All those women they raped, all those little children they murdered, all those little infants they skewered. Such monsters. Are you assuming the Israelites had no sense of morals? Wow.

And why do I have to take this passage for its literal meaning, viz., for literally communicating that God explicitly ordered the extermination of the Amalekites?

Where is any evidence that it should be taken any other way?

Maybe the lesson we're supposed to learn here is that God's justice is perfect and that he doesn't tolerate even a trace of impurity to remain, and the literal command to slaughter the Amalekites is beside the point.

Great. So god orders the genocide of the Amalekites just to make a point? Murdering all those little infants to make a point?

I mean, I'm perfectly happy that you've decided to abandon the bible as a reliable guide to, well, pretty much anything, if you can just decide arbitrarily that any story in it is just a lesson. I love that one about the resurrection. What's that a lesson for?

Another word to add to your vocabulary.

Your google-fu...underwhelms.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Of course, individuals have different opinions on whether someone is worthy of obedience. Not objective. Calls we make, not the being in question.

We will just have to disagree on this point. To me, it is a quality.

Uh, okay.

I have nothing to add to that. I daresay that you would always consider God "worthy of worship" no matter what.

As long as God has the quality of being worthy of obedience, you are correct.

I think someone's actions can disqualify them of being worthy of worship. You, presumably do not.

No, I actually agree. People do not have the quality of being worthy of obedience.

No, the act seems atrocious to us because it involves the taking of many people's lives. That is atrocious almost by definition. If you're ever going to speak on objective morality then an act must always be wrong and always wrong because of what it is, not permissible just because it is "God's way" . That would be, ironically subjective.

To address objective morality, we must have a standard from which to judge, and if that standard is that God's actions are right, individual acts do not matter. The standard is upheld, and it is objective.

What about rape? What if God ordered people to rape others?

How is this different?

I mean, seriously? How is your system "objective"? It comes across to me as completely amoral and nihilistic. Motives do not matter to you. Acts do not matter to you. Humanity does not matter to you. In fact, by definition nothing to you is actually right or wrong. There is only obedience and disobedience towards God. How is this morality?

There is what God does. If (and these are ifs) God chooses to order the killing of millions, it is what God does. That is as objective as one can get. I do not see rights and wrongs? I am clearly giving you the right: what God does, wills, commands...

You would not consider slavery bad if God commanded it, would you? All of your values are by your own words completely linked towards Gods.

No, I would not. It would be good in that situation, but your analogy did not suppose a slave-master relationship under that situation. It seemed to me that you were using the slave-master relationship in the way we view it nowadays. If I was wrong about that, I apologize.

No it isn't a hideous analogy, it is a really bad one and an insulting one to humanity as well.

I fail to see the insult.

You do not believe in a morality for all people that does not vary. You just believe in doing what you think God wants. That's just following orders.

I certainly do believe in an objective morality, and it does not vary. All people may act morally in precisely the same manner: by doing that which God wills. All morality is based on following orders. The only difference is the source of the orders.

Far better, I can say that the base of my morality is that "what causes the least amount of suffering towards others is right." That would seem to me to be at least as objective as yours and far kinder in scope.

That is extremely subjective for you, and if universalized, it is almost wholly subjective. First, you have to perceive an unspecified amount of suffering in another. Second, you have to determine what actually counts as suffering to others. Third, the others involved have to agree with you. If that is not subjective, I do not think subjectivity can be obtained.

I don't see how objective morality exists with or without God. No theist has been capable of ever explaining that link.

Without God, I agree wholeheartedly. With God, it is easy to obtain objectivity. What God does or says is right. That, to me, seems objective.

 

[Max S Cherry]

So this conflation of "fact" and "proven" is of your own making?

It is.

And this understanding, you just pulled it from thin air?

If you understand that to be the source of all definitions, I did indeed.

Scientists cannot prove that the Earth orbits the Sun. Do you think it is a fact, useful for doing stuff like sending space probes to other planets?

No, I do not think it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun, but I fully agree that it cannot be proven. I do think that the notion is useful for sending space probes to other planets.

Just because I see facts as proven tidbits and doubt our ability to achieve that level of certainty does not mean that I fail to see the utility of acting as if they are proven or as if they may be accurate. I am fully aware of the state of life for one who must live without certainty, and it is a useless state.

 

[Skavau]

As long as God has the quality of being worthy of obedience, you are correct.

How does one have the quality of being worthy of obedience?

No, I actually agree. People do not have the quality of being worthy of obedience.

That's not agreement with what I said. I said that someone's actions could disqualify them from being worthy of worship. You do not think, I presume that God could do anything that would disallow him from being worthy of worshiped.

To address objective morality, we must have a standard from which to judge, and if that standard is that God's actions are right, individual acts do not matter. The standard is upheld, and it is objective.

You just assert that standard to be true. I might just as well assert that the objective moral standard is to minimise as much as possible suffering and oppression towards people. That has just as much objectivity as your claim.

How is this different?

Cool, so you'd be a serial rapist if God told you to.

Such a nice guy.

There is what God does. If (and these are ifs) God chooses to order the killing of millions, it is what God does. That is as objective as one can get.

How?

What do you think objective even means?

I do not see rights and wrongs? I am clearly giving you the right: what God does, wills, commands...

No, you don't. Your argument is about power and not what is right.

You detach morality from action. You turn it into nothing more than obedience.

No, I would not. It would be good in that situation, but your analogy did not suppose a slave-master relationship under that situation. It seemed to me that you were using the slave-master relationship in the way we view it nowadays. If I was wrong about that, I apologize.

You were correct originally. I was using the slave-master relationship to describe your relationship with God.

I fail to see the insult.

Viewing humanity as permanent infants. You infantilise humanity.

I certainly do believe in an objective morality, and it does not vary.

That of course, would depend on God. It could vary if he likes.

All people may act morally in precisely the same manner: by doing that which God wills. All morality is based on following orders. The only difference is the source of the orders.

Morality is not based on following orders. Morality is about what we ought or ought not do in the context of considering others. If you detach it from that and define it as purely following the word of God then you are not talking even slightly about morality.

That is extremely subjective for you, and if universalized, it is almost wholly subjective.

No, it isn't. People can decide for themselves as individuals when they do not consent towards an action imposed upon them. It is all founded in common ground as well: None of us would like to have inflicted upon us pain or oppression.

First, you have to perceive an unspecified amount of suffering in another. Second, you have to determine what actually counts as suffering to others.

That which inflicts upon their liberty or person against their consent.

Third, the others involved have to agree with you. If that is not subjective, I do not think subjectivity can be obtained.

By this reasoning, your morality is subjective. My dissent towards obeying God would constitute disagreement thus rendering your system necessarily subjective.

The only objective morality that can exist is one that is based on common ground. None of us wish to suffer and/or have our liberty inflicted upon. That is enough.

Without God, I agree wholeheartedly. With God, it is easy to obtain objectivity. What God does or says is right. That, to me, seems objective.

So you keep saying. You have yet to demonstrate it. You just insist it and that seems to be the entire extent of your argument.

I don't even see obedience towards God as morality at all.

 

[Max S Cherry]

How does one have the quality of being worthy of obedience?

Is a human worthy of respect? I think the answer is yes. Humans possess the quality of being worthy of respect. Even if they do things that we may not like, things that we find atrocious, and things that land them in jail, they are still worthy of respect. This is not a universally agreed upon proposition, but I hope it helps you to understand how I can say that being worthy of obedience is a quality.

That's not agreement with what I said. I said that someone's actions could disqualify them from being worthy of worship. You do not think, I presume that God could do anything that would disallow him from being worthy of worshiped.

I also do not think that either of us presumes God to be a "someone." He is not one of us.

You just assert that standard to be true. I might just as well assert that the objective moral standard is to minimise as much as possible suffering and oppression towards people. That has just as much objectivity as your claim.

My claim, if false, is false, and I have no problems with that admission. It is objective because it is the same; it applies to all and in equal measures. Your standard cannot apply to all in even measures simply because not all people will agree on what is and is not suffering and oppression. Mine may be false, but it is not subjective.

Cool, so you'd be a serial rapist if God told you to.

Such a nice guy.

Is that worse than a mass murderer?

How?

How is it objective? It is objective because it is universal. It is the same for you, for me, and for every other person, and there is no interpretation or subjective feelings required for its operation. It is what it is no matter how anyone feels about it.

What do you think objective even means?

I think I answered that above.

No, you don't. Your argument is about power and not what is right.

I agree in part, but I insist that it is about what is right. I am suggesting that because God is who He is that He is right, and that is a way of saying that might makes right. Complain because you disagree if you feel you must, but I am clearly saying that it is "right."

You detach morality from action. You turn it into nothing more than obedience.

I do not detach morality from action. I am saying that I, hypothetically, could detach morality from action. Our discussion requires that God be different from what I believe Him to be, and it is only in that case that I would be able to make the detachment. I do not believe that God commands killing. In fact, I believe that God has commanded His children to not kill anyone. It is obedience. Presently, I believe it is obedience to a loving God, but if it were obedience to a vengeful, warring God, I would still be obedient.

You were correct originally. I was using the slave-master relationship to describe your relationship with God.

Thanks for the clarification.

Viewing humanity as permanent infants. You infantilise humanity.

I do not see that as an insult. I see it as a relative issue. If we were being compared to children, we would not be infants, but if we are being compared to God, we are infants. I see your point now though.

That of course, would depend on God. It could vary if he likes.

I do not think you are appreciating the basis of the morality. It is that God's will is right, so even if His will varied, the objectivity of the morality would not.

Morality is not based on following orders. Morality is about what we ought or ought not do in the context of considering others. If you detach it from that and define it as purely following the word of God then you are not talking even slightly about morality.

Morality is the following of orders, be they subjective or objective. It does not matter where your notion of what we ought or ought not do originates. They issue a mandate that you follow them. In other words, they order you to following them. It is the nature of an ought. It can be your own conscience, it can be nature, or as in my case, it can be God.

No, it isn't. People can decide for themselves as individuals when they do not consent towards an action imposed upon them. It is all founded in common ground as well: None of us would like to have inflicted upon us pain or oppression.

I do not think that is accurate. People do not fall into a nice neat little mold. What is pain and oppression to some is pleasure and freedom to others. Your suggested morality requires each agent to presume to know how other people view these things. People deciding for themselves what is right and wrong is precisely the definition of a subjective morality.

That which inflicts upon their liberty or person against their consent.

And my point is that you have no way of knowing what another person will count as an infliction upon their liberty or person. You have no way of knowing what they do and do not consent to until after it is done.

By this reasoning, your morality is subjective. My dissent towards obeying God would constitute disagreement thus rendering your system necessarily subjective.

My morality does not depend on your consent towards God's actions. Your morality depends on the consent of others. The reason my morality is objective is that it is independent of you, me, and any other than God. You are feel to disagree, but your disagreement only shows immorality in you. In your system, if one disagrees with your assessment, your actions are immoral, because you inflicted pain, suffering, and/or oppression. The fact that you were trying not to does not erase the fact that you did.

The only objective morality that can exist is one that is based on common ground. None of us wish to suffer and/or have our liberty inflicted upon. That is enough.

It is enough for you to say that, and it should be clear that you are not talking about common ground. You are trying to say it as though it were common, but you are not accounting for the differences in people. There are no common understandings as to what suffering is, and there are no common understandings of liberty. I am suggesting a universally common ground: that which God wills.

So you keep saying. You have yet to demonstrate it. You just insist it and that seems to be the entire extent of your argument.

If I am repeating myself, it is because I am responding to the repeated assertions that you have made. I have demonstrated it. I do not know how else to say it. If the basis of a morality is "that which God wills is right," it is objective, and it does not matter what God wills. It does not change from person to person. It is constant.

I don't even see obedience towards God as morality at all.

That is obvious, but your reasoning for the lack of sight is not so obvious. You fail to see obedience towards God as a basis for morality, but you have no difficulty seeing obedience to the principle of "that which causes the least suffering" as a basis for morality. I do not agree with your basis, but I can see it.

 

[Skavau]

Is a human worthy of respect?

In some ways, yes. This is not an inherent quality though. The word 'respect' derives meaning from us and it is subjective. It is a value we individually assign to others based on our evaluation of their character. I might find person X worthy of a lot of respect whereas you might find them worthy of only a small amount of respect or vice versa.

It can also be enhanced or lost through action.

I think the answer is yes. Humans possess the quality of being worthy of respect. Even if they do things that we may not like, things that we find atrocious, and things that land them in jail, they are still worthy of respect.

No. They then lose respect.

This is not a universally agreed upon proposition, but I hope it helps you to understand how I can say that being worthy of obedience is a quality.

All it tells me is that you view God as worthy of obedience inherently. It does not tell me why you view him worthy of this or why certain actions cannot make him lose the title.

I also do not think that either of us presumes God to be a "someone." He is not one of us.

Does not matter to me. Shouldn't matter to anyone. He is still a sentient being. He can still make decisions that we can judge.

My claim, if false, is false, and I have no problems with that admission. It is objective because it is the same; it applies to all and in equal measures. Your standard cannot apply to all in even measures simply because not all people will agree on what is and is not suffering and oppression. Mine may be false, but it is not subjective.

By this reasoning the statement "Murder is wrong" is just as objective because it applies to all and in equal measures. Murder is wrong leaves no room for interpretation or differing culture. It would apply to all in even measures.

You might very well be consistent all of the time if you say "Whatever God does is right and we should follow him" but there's no argument there that makes that moral. We only have your assertion that it is.

Is that worse than a mass murderer?

No.

A mass murdering rapist is though. Frightening to know you're merely one delusion away from being one.

How is it objective? It is objective because it is universal.

This is a circular argument.

How is it universal?

It is the same for you, for me, and for every other person, and there is no interpretation or subjective feelings required for its operation.

I could assert anything that would be the same for everyone but that would not make it objective.

I agree in part, but I insist that it is about what is right. I am suggesting that because God is who He is that He is right, and that is a way of saying that might makes right.

Yes, so you are basically all about power. You just incorrectly conflate it with morality.

Complain because you disagree if you feel you must, but I am clearly saying that it is "right."

Yes, that is the poison of theistic pseudo-morality. It makes otherwise normal people say wicked things and worse it makes them proud of their own vileness. I mean, honestly, you with complete nonchalance declared you'd be a mass murderer if God told you to.

I do not detach morality from action.

Yes you do. According to you nothing is wrong because of the consequences of the action but because God has forbidden it. Nothing is right because of the action either but only because God endorses it. That is nothing if not directly saying that the consequences of your actions don't at all matter.

I am saying that I, hypothetically, could detach morality from action.

You're not just saying it hypothetically. You've spent the last several pages telling me you outright do that.

Our discussion requires that God be different from what I believe Him to be, and it is only in that case that I would be able to make the detachment.

How fortunate for all of us that he is currently benign to you. I am genuinely scared for others if you begin to hear a voice you interpret as God.

I do not believe that God commands killing. In fact, I believe that God has commanded His children to not kill anyone. It is obedience. Presently, I believe it is obedience to a loving God, but if it were obedience to a vengeful, warring God, I would still be obedient.

Do I need to add to this? It speaks for itself.

Might equals right.

I do not think you are appreciating the basis of the morality. It is that God's will is right, so even if His will varied, the objectivity of the morality would not.

Simply asserting that because something is consistent that it is objective is just ridiculous. That would mean if someone universalised anything it would be objective.

Morality is the following of orders, be they subjective or objective. It does not matter where your notion of what we ought or ought not do originates. They issue a mandate that you follow them.

No they don't. Not all morality is prescribed by law. Many forms of behaviour deemed unethical is entirely legal. People have their own self-restraints as well that derive from their own conscience.

Additionally there are substantial differences between you and me regarding why we follow moral ideals. I follow them because I accept them. You follow them just because you're told to.

I do not think that is accurate. People do not fall into a nice neat little mold.

It is completely accurate. No-one alive has ever or will ever wish for an act to be inflicted upon them without their consent, or suffer harm upon themselves without their consent.

What is pain and oppression to some is pleasure and freedom to others.

Yes, that is why the operative word is consent. A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] may enjoy certain fetishes but that's fine, that is his or her prerogative.

Your suggested morality requires each agent to presume to know how other people view these things.

No, it requires people to understand when someone else asks them to stop doing X to them because it is inflicting against their personal freedom.

Also it is of note that your presumed morality is one that requires each agent to know what God wills. In the 1970's the UK was blighted by a serial killer named Peter Sutcliffe. He killed thirteen women and in his defense claimed God ordered him to do it. What do you say to that? That he was wrong? How would you know? How would he know? This is also not the only time historically this kind of thing has happened.

People deciding for themselves what is right and wrong is precisely the definition of a subjective morality.

I call that freedom. People deciding for themselves what paths are for them and what paths are not. That is superior in every way to the hateful idea that we should always just follow God.

And my point is that you have no way of knowing what another person will count as an infliction upon their liberty or person.

Yes I will.

For a start, they can tell me.

Some obvious answers would be attempting to have sex with them without their consent. I may not have known prior they were not interested but I would do soon afterwards.

You have no way of knowing what they do and do not consent to until after it is done.

This might be true sometimes but certainly not always. Additionally even if partially true it is nothing that cannot be rectified. You will need to give examples.

My morality does not depend on your consent towards God's actions. Your morality depends on the consent of others.

All morality depends on the consent of others. It is a communal phenomena.

The reason my morality is objective is that it is independent of you, me, and any other than God.

Your "morality" cannot be held to be under any sensible definition as moral.

You are feel to disagree, but your disagreement only shows immorality in you.

[citation needed]

What a load of nonsense.

According to you in the event of God ordering mass murder my disagreement would make me immoral. Up is down, left is right and murder is righteous in your world.

In your system, if one disagrees with your assessment, your actions are immoral, because you inflicted pain, suffering, and/or oppression.

Someone disagreeing with me on an issue does not constitute an infliction of pain, suffering or oppression from me. If I attempted by force to compel them to do something then that would be an infliction.

The fact that you were trying not to does not erase the fact that you did.

Only of course if you think pain, suffering and oppression have no meaningful definition. Of course given that you think morality is nothing but a singular self-obsessed obedience towards God I would not be surprised on that.

It is enough for you to say that, and it should be clear that you are not talking about common ground.

Yes, I am. I am appealing to everyone's instincts.

You are trying to say it as though it were common, but you are not accounting for the differences in people.

Uh, yes I am. That is exactly what respecting people's right to run their own affairs and not have their liberty controlled by another is. I could do little more intellectually to account for individual differences.

There are no common understandings as to what suffering is, and there are no common understandings of liberty.

Yes, there are. Sorry. If you think suffering is equivalent to disagreement, you are wrong. If you think liberty involves totalitarianism, you are wrong.

I am suggesting a universally common ground: that which God wills.

That's not a common ground. It is only, at best (if true) reference to the fact that God exists and demands our attention. Do you even know what common ground means?

If I am repeating myself, it is because I am responding to the repeated assertions that you have made. I have demonstrated it. I do not know how else to say it.

You have claimed it and made a parody of objective morality. I do not know what else to say.

If the basis of a morality is "that which God wills is right," it is objective, and it does not matter what God wills. It does not change from person to person. It is constant.

No, it is assertive. The consistency is irrelevant.

I could declare that the colour blue is evil. It is a consistent claim. It does not change. Does not make it objective.

That is obvious, but your reasoning for the lack of sight is not so obvious. You fail to see obedience towards God as a basis for morality, but you have no difficulty seeing obedience to the principle of "that which causes the least suffering" as a basis for morality. I do not agree with your basis, but I can see it.

Why do you not agree with my proposed basis for morality?

 

[Elioenai26]

In some ways, yes. This is not an inherent quality though. The word 'respect' derives meaning from us and it is subjective. It is a value we individually assign to others based on our evaluation of their character. I might find person X worthy of a lot of respect whereas you might find them worthy of only a small amount of respect or vice versa.

It can also be enhanced or lost through action.


No. They then lose respect.

You have just rendered all of your moral denouncements against the God of the Bible meaningless.

You say respect derives meaning from us, and is therefore subjective. Do you know what this means? It means, that if this is truly the view you hold, then you cannot accuse God of disrespecting the people who He ordered to be killed, because if another persons worthiness of respect is determined by their actions, then God was justified in commanding the raping, murderous, and thieving Amalekites to be destroyed; men women and children. Because you see, you have just said that a person's worthiness of respect is subjective to the one making the judgment on whether said person should be respected. You have completely done away with any ground for accusing anyone of doing anything objectively wrong.

Your views also make disrespect justifiable. According to you, people can be disrespected if they are disrespectful to you. So according to you, since you have blasphemed God repeatedly here, I would be justified in disrespecting you repeatedly.

See why your views would be destructive to society if everyone were to adopt them?

 

[Skavau]

You have just rendered all of your moral denouncements against the God of the Bible meaningless.

You say respect derives meaning from us, and is therefore subjective. Do you know what this means? It means, that if this is truly the view you hold, then you cannot accuse God of disrespecting the people who He ordered to be killed, because if another persons worthiness of respect is determined by their actions, then God was justified in commanding the raping, murderous, and thieving Amalekites to be destroyed; men women and children. Because you see, you have just said that a person's worthiness of respect is subjective to the one making the judgment on whether said person should be respected. You have completely done away with any ground for accusing anyone of doing anything objectively wrong.

Um

Someone deciding you aren't worthy of respect does not give them right or moral right to just murder you or act how they like towards you. You would still have rights.

 

[Elioenai26]

Um

Someone deciding you aren't worthy of respect does not give them right or moral right to just murder you or act how they like towards you. You would still have rights.

Of course, but under your view, disrespect would still be justifiable.

 

[Skavau]

Of course, but under your view, disrespect would still be justifiable.

Sure. You can disrespect someone you think is worthy of it. It can backfire on you professionally or personally.

So what was your point seeing as you seemed to misunderstand what I meant by respect?

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure. You can disrespect someone you think is worthy of it. It can backfire on you professionally or personally.

May I quote you on that?