Why does God not stop the evil?

[Tiberius]

That is not the correct understanding of objective moral duties.

Since your understanding of objective moral duties is incorrect, the rest of your argument is incorrect or based on a strawman.

Can I assume that you think it is false because there are many different circumstances to which this logic can be applied?

For example, there are many different times when you may be tempted to hurt someone. You may be tempted to hurt them so you can get the last DVD of the movie you want instead of them. You may be tempted to hurt them because you've had a hard day and they are annoying you and they won't stop. You may be tempted to hurt them to stop them from mugging an old lady. Lots of different cases. And to say that it's okay to hurt someone in one of these cases means you can therefore hurt them in ALL of the cases is obviously ludicrous. You might decide to hurt the mugger so he'll stop mugging the little old lady. But that doesn't mean you can hurt people in all of the other situations. Each situation is different.

You can't even say that it is right to always hurt a mugger to protect little old ladies. If you see that the mugger has a gun and will use it on you if you try to hurt him, then it is much better to have a little old lady with some stolen cash and a bruise then a dead hero.

So you must judge EVERY SINGLE CASE on its own. Would you agree with that?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Right now I want you to answer the question I asked you. It was quite simple I think.

Is genocide objectively wrong?

If by objective you mean there's some grand cosmic law that determines genocide is wrong, then due to the fact I don't believe a grand cosmic law exists, the answer is no.

However, we can use reason, empathy and experience to see the effects of genocide on people, and societies. We can then use that reason to determine genocide is a horrible action in all circumstances and must not be tolerated.

Subjectively, we can show why genocide is immoral.... Objectively, we cannot.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is genocide objectively wrong?

Seeing as how some Biblical cultures embraced it, I'd have to say the evidence points to no. Of course the answer to your question has little to nothing to do with whether or not any particular person in this thread considers it wrong in their subjective opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you saying people should be empathetic?

I am saying that normal human beings are empathetic. It is an ability that we all have (except those who are mentally handicapped). We are able to put ourselves in other people's shoes using empathy. Along with our ability to use logic and reason, this allows us to determine which of our actions will cause pain or distress in others. We know from our own experiences what causes us pain and disress. This forms the basis of morality, and nowhere is a god needed.

 

[seeking Christ]

I do see a reason to go further. You want us to agree to the premise that objective moral values exist. Yet your own moral evaluations are hardly objective at all. You can't even consistently affirm that genocide is wrong. That sort of inconsistency calls into the question the 'objectivity' of the morality you insist we adhere to.

Can you see the problem with your black and white thinking here?

 

[seeking Christ]

Unless you advocate honor killings, and slavery, then your morals are relative also. You can't have it both ways, tiger.

You can see I brought this up early in the thread. I forget exactly how he got around it, but I bet you'd find it interesting.

 

[seeking Christ]

Is genocide objectively wrong?

According to your god, no.

This is a very interesting and challenging notion to ponder. Unfortunately, this forum doesn't seem conducive to discussing it; very emotional subject material, with all sorts of shoot-from-the-hip injected everywhere. Even so, the person who can get past that might find enrichment from exposure to perspectives they might not otherwise encounter.

First in trying to see what in the world God could've been thinking with some of these gory things, is the realization that many from any given tribe would have fled rather than fought. A very interesting judgment takes place (by God) in separating these two groups, and that angle exposes one purpose. (Not saying there's only one purpose, just pointing out this is one of them)

Those who stay and fight are bloodthirsty and proud. The converse is obviously true. Asking ourselves if there is any connection between these characteristics and the goings on of this time period in Scripture as we read it, we find there indeed can be. Nephilim are of grave (pun intended) concern to God, as an evil and corrupt mutation He did not create nor intend. They are not really human at all and must be eradicated. Doing so early is merciful, as it avoids needing to wipe out all life as the flood depicts.

The underlying purpose of that approach pertains to the NT believer in Christ, as a model of how to approach our own inner struggles with purity. Beyond that, the Christian doesn't need to be alarmed (or even concerned) that history so far shows none of these events ever happened.

1 Corinthians 10:11 "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition"

 

[seeking Christ]

God is consciously allowing suffering to take place, because if he didn't want to allow it, he would stop it.

This much is obvious. Why do you feel the need to establish that?

Okay, while I feel sorry for the poor guy, I don't see what his cancer has to do with anything. What has he gained through cancer that he couldn't have gotten from God just giving it to him?

You have missed the point of the little anecdote. You might try reading it again? A gift is not automatically received: ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you.

Are you actually saying that the decades I spent learning and becoming good at playi9ng a musical instrument are the same type of suffering as someone being eaten alive by cancer, with no hope of anything but a long painful death?

"Same type" is your red herring; suffering is suffering. You indeed have the right to ignore its value - yet it still stares you in the face.

How in the world is anything I said being selfish?

Selfish and immature. "I don't have to suffer, God's just a meanie who should do everything MY way." This is merely an echo of satan's original sin. He didn't want to overthrow God as is so often mis-stated, he merely wanted to be like God, sharing His power. This is what your selfish cry is doing, mistakenly thinking you get to re-arrange things to your wish. It is challenging God's power, and it wouldn't help a thing.

My goodness, are you really defending your god with this argument? You're claiming that God's okay because he never asked anyone to kill an entire race, but you're perfectly fine with him ordering people to kill all the Babylonians?

REALLY?

Apart from hiding behind childish wordplay, that's just sick.

How 'bout you try reading what was written instead of going on a knee-jerk tirade? (HINT: people weren't killed because of their Nationality)

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a very interesting and challenging notion to ponder. Unfortunately, this forum doesn't seem conducive to discussing it; very emotional subject material, with all sorts of shoot-from-the-hip injected everywhere. Even so, the person who can get past that might find enrichment from exposure to perspectives they might not otherwise encounter.

First in trying to see what in the world God could've been thinking with some of these gory things, is the realization that many from any given tribe would have fled rather than fought. A very interesting judgment takes place (by God) in separating these two groups, and that angle exposes one purpose. (Not saying there's only one purpose, just pointing out this is one of them)

Those who stay and fight are bloodthirsty and proud. The converse is obviously true. Asking ourselves if there is any connection between these characteristics and the goings on of this time period in Scripture as we read it, we find there indeed can be. Nephilim are of grave (pun intended) concern to God, as an evil and corrupt mutation He did not create nor intend. They are not really human at all and must be eradicated. Doing so early is merciful, as it avoids needing to wipe out all life as the flood depicts.

The underlying purpose of that approach pertains to the NT believer in Christ, as a model of how to approach our own inner struggles with purity. Beyond that, the Christian doesn't need to be alarmed (or even concerned) that history so far shows none of these events ever happened.

1 Corinthians 10:11 "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition"

It amazes me that christians will use such twisted logic to justify genocide.

 

[Tiberius]

This much is obvious. Why do you feel the need to establish that?

To make it clear to you that God knows that this is a world with people suffering horribly, and that he could stop that horrible suffering if he wanted to, and yet he doesn't.

You have missed the point of the little anecdote. You might try reading it again? A gift is not automatically received: ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you.

You say to your friends and loved ones, "Gee, I really hope you're going to buy me birthday presents this year!" And they reply, "Wow, it's lucky you asked! We weren't going to gt you anything!"

"Same type" is your red herring; suffering is suffering. You indeed have the right to ignore its value - yet it still stares you in the face.

This absolutist nonsense is very damaging. You really telling me that someone working hard to learn an instrument is the same in your eyes as someone fighting a losing battle with cancer?

Selfish and immature. "I don't have to suffer, God's just a meanie who should do everything MY way." This is merely an echo of satan's original sin. He didn't want to overthrow God as is so often mis-stated, he merely wanted to be like God, sharing His power. This is what your selfish cry is doing, mistakenly thinking you get to re-arrange things to your wish. It is challenging God's power, and it wouldn't help a thing.

Hey, if we weren't talking about people dying horribly here, I might agree with you.

But when you start telling me that there are millions of people around the world who will die today in horrible ways and that God could do something about it and yet doesn't, then I think that is sick.

How 'bout you try reading what was written instead of going on a knee-jerk tirade? (HINT: people weren't killed because of their Nationality)

Why don't you explain it more clearly?

 

[Elioenai26]

Moral subjectivists can still make moral claims, and they still do.

Oh of course they can. I have never said they could not.

But if you say that genocide is objectively wrong, then you are a moral objectivist. Not a relativist.

So which are you?

Are you a moral objectivist that maintains that genocide is objectively wrong, or are you a moral relativist who maintains that it is your opinion that genocide is wrong?

 

[Elioenai26]

So you demand that I answer your question on what I consider objectively wrong prior to you explaining what you mean by objectively wrong? Brilliant.

I have explained what I mean by objectively wrong several times Davian.

As I cannot do that, I would ask you, did I not make make myself clear on matters of this sort here?

You made it clear that Sam Harris was not referring to God as his basis for affirming the existence of objective moral values and duties. So are you saying that you, like Sam Harris, affirm objective moral values and duties? I just want to be clear.

So, what is objectively wrong with genocide, if it is not going to preclude one from entering this hypothetical heaven of yours?

It is my position that every person whose moral faculties are functioning so as to give them the capacity for correctly apprehending moral concepts, intuitively knows that killing people because ther are say, Jews for example, is wrong and it is wrong independently of the opinions of anyone. That is the main reason why I say genocide is objectively wrong.

To answer the second part of your question, according to the Christian worldview, committing a sin such as murder, does not preclude one from entering heaven. Rejecting Christ's offer of salvation is what precludes one from entering heaven. This is what is referred to as the unpardonable sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit i.e the continual, persistance, and ultimate rejection of Christ's finished work on the cross. For Christ Himself said:

31“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.32“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 12:31,32

 

[Elioenai26]

Another of your unsubstantiated quips, as you call them.

It is actually substantiated for the following reason:

Many critics of moral relativism, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically speaking, such critics will argue that meta-ethical relativism may amount to Moral nihilism, or else incoherence. *Wikipedia*

For the atheist, a better move than accepting what can be called "pseudo-relativism" which is an incoherent belief one might try to espouse in order to say that right and wrong do exist, and yet still retain a relativistic view, would be to simply become a moral nihilist.

For example: Bob thinks its morally right for him torture babies and Tim thinks it is morally wrong for Bob to torture babies. The pseudo relativist would have have them both be right. However, Pseudo-relativism cannot give a coherent answer to question “Should Bob torture babies?” It might be able to reiterate the beliefs of people about whether Bob should torture babies, but it cannot answer the question. Pseudo-relativism is not a coherent ethical system, so it would not be a good way to reject moral objectivism while maintaining the moral wrongness of torturing babies.

In fact, the best option an atheist has would be to reject moral oughtness altogether, but then this would lead to moral nihilism (a view that denies the existence of moral properties like rightness and wrongness), since an action is morally wrong for subject S only if S ought not to do it. Accepting moral nihilism allows the atheist to reject moral objectivism, and avoid the incoherency of pseudo-relativism,

Moral nihilists can still say they dont like things like torturing babies, but if moral nihilists are to be consistent, they would have to believe that their distaste for torturing babies is no different than me disliking chocolate ice cream in that it’s just a matter of personal taste and nothing’s really wrong with it. However, although moral nihilism may be the best atheist position with respect to the moral argument, the intellectual price is high: the consistent moral nihilist would also have to believe that nothing at all is morally wrong, not even torturing babies.

"Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but does not assign any static truth-values to moral statements, and of course moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false."

Moral nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral nihilism is indeed distinct from moral relativism in the sense that they are two different meta-ethical views. This is not in dispute and I agree with you. The thing you are not understanding is that with regards to NORMATIVE moral discussion, a relativist's views lead to the same restrictive conclusions that a moral nihilist encounters.

 

[Elioenai26]

According to your god, no.

I am asking you is genocide objectively wrong.

Not whether or not God says it is.

Can you answer that simple question?

 

[Davian]

Remember when first he came here and kept asserting that atheists don´t exist?
Defining positions he doesn´t like out of existence seems to be habitual with him.
But what can we say? I´m sure such behaviour is permissible by standards of the objective morality elioenai-style.

Yes, his "A treatise on atheism in several parts".

I guess if you have morals that allow for genocide to be okay, then just about anything goes (as long as you believe!).

 

[Elioenai26]

How cute!

So what is the correct understanding of objective morals? Do your objective morals prevent you from explaining?

I am not talking generically about objective morals. Your generalization has prevented you from comprehending what I have been talking about.

I have been talking about objective duties which falls within the subset of normative morality. Duties deal with obligation. Words like should, and ought are used in these contexts.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, actually I'm not sure.

How can I determine if something is objectively wrong?

Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. Moral objectivism - Psychology Wiki

Due to this, most philosophers consider them to be "moral facts". In the same way we apprehend facts about the physical world in which we live via our five senses, so each person apprehends facts about morality. Philosophers maintain that these facts are apprehended via moral intuition. Intuition here is used in the philosophical sense, as opposed to e.g. a guess based on a hunch.

In philosophy, intuition refers to what the consciousness immediately apprehends and what is directly present one’s consciousness. Examples of intuition include sensory experiences and various intuitive perceptions like a person mentally “seeing” that 2 + 1 = 3.

Another example is the intuition that the external world is real, as opposed to (for example) being merely a lifelong dream. It is logically possible (in the sense of not being self-contradictory) that our intuitions about morality existing are wrong, but it’s also logically possible that the external world you perceive is a computer-generated illusion and that you are really just a brain in a vat of chemicals hooked up to a supercomputer. At the end of the day we have no more reason to doubt the reality of objective moral properties than we do to doubt our intuition of the external world existing.

So Tiberius, most call it "conscience". The philosphical term is intuition. We know that things like rape are objectively wrong intuitively and we do not need to be told that things like rape and torturing babies is wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. Moral objectivism - Psychology Wiki

This does not explain how I can determine if something is objectively wrong or simply subjectively wrong.

Due to this, most philosophers consider them to be "moral facts". In the same way we apprehend facts about the physical world in which we live via our five senses, so each person apprehends facts about morality. Philosophers maintain that these facts are apprehended via moral intuition. Intuition here is used in the philosophical sense, as opposed to e.g. a guess based on a hunch.

This don't make sense.

It's saying that Moral objectivism is the idea that there is an objective morality, hence most philosophers consider it to be objective morality.

In philosophy, intuition refers to what the consciousness immediately apprehends and what is directly present one’s consciousness. Examples of intuition include sensory experiences and various intuitive perceptions like a person mentally “seeing” that 2 + 1 = 3.

2 + 1 = 3 is externally testable. How can I test externally if it is wrong to smack a disobedient child?

Another example is the intuition that the external world is real, as opposed to (for example) being merely a lifelong dream. It is logically possible (in the sense of not being self-contradictory) that our intuitions about morality existing are wrong, but it’s also logically possible that the external world you perceive is a computer-generated illusion and that you are really just a brain in a vat of chemicals hooked up to a supercomputer. At the end of the day we have no more reason to doubt the reality of objective moral properties than we do to doubt our intuition of the external world existing.

if it is possible that our ideas about morality are wrong, how can we claim it is objective?

So Tiberius, most call it "conscience". The philosphical term is intuition. We know that things like rape are objectively wrong intuitively and we do not need to be told that things like rape and torturing babies is wrong.

None of this answered my question.

By what testing procedure can I determine if something is OBJECTIVELY wrong?

All you have been able to say is that I should use my own conscience, but that would seem to indicate a SUBJECTIVE, not objective morality.

 

[Elioenai26]

Can I assume that you think it is false because there are many different circumstances to which this logic can be applied?

For example, there are many different times when you may be tempted to hurt someone. You may be tempted to hurt them so you can get the last DVD of the movie you want instead of them. You may be tempted to hurt them because you've had a hard day and they are annoying you and they won't stop. You may be tempted to hurt them to stop them from mugging an old lady. Lots of different cases. And to say that it's okay to hurt someone in one of these cases means you can therefore hurt them in ALL of the cases is obviously ludicrous. You might decide to hurt the mugger so he'll stop mugging the little old lady. But that doesn't mean you can hurt people in all of the other situations. Each situation is different.

This is a good question. You must differentiate between moral absolutism and moral universalism. Moral objectivism is moral universalism and I will show you the fundamental differences between universalism and absolutism. I am not an absolutist, but an objectivist.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism.

Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[1]


“

• Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
• Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

You can't even say that it is right to always hurt a mugger to protect little old ladies. If you see that the mugger has a gun and will use it on you if you try to hurt him, then it is much better to have a little old lady with some stolen cash and a bruise then a dead hero.

Bingo! You and I agree completely here.

The absolutist would say that it is always wrong to hurt someone regardless of context. I do not feel that way. I believe there are many instances in which we should hurt people. Police do it all the time when apprehending a drunken out of control beligerent. They apprehend him and put him on the ground, hands behind his back and cuff him. This hurts, no doubt, but it is necessary. Also tackling a woman who is has a gun pointed at a bank teller might not be the best thing to do. The gun could go off.

In every situation however, there is an underlying objective duty, and that is that life is precious and should be protected. Police tackle the drunk to keep him from hurting himself and others, and you REFRAIN from hurting the woman wielding a gun in order to increase the probability of life being protected.

We all know that the drunk could hurt himself and others while drunk, so we hurt him temporarily to help him and keep him safe. His life is valuble. The bank teller's life is valuble. Her life must be protected. She is precious. The same objective moral duty, i.e it is right to respect, cherish, and protect life, underlies both of these actions i.e to hurt, and to refrain from hurting.

See?

The objective duty does not change. The means we go about fulfilling that duty change according to context. Understand now?

The fact that life is valuble is not just our opinion Tiberius, its a fact. Life is valuble even if a murderer is of the opinion that his victim is simply a means to an end, i.e killing the man driving a ferrari is the means by which he can have a nice car.

We would say the car jacker and murderer is wrong even though he thought he was right in doing what he did. We would all say that the man did something objectively wrong.

But a relativist cannot say that that act was objectively wrong.

See?

 

[Davian]

I have explained what I mean by objectively wrong several times Davian.

No, you have not. You have just promoted consensus of opinion.

You made it clear that Sam Harris was not referring to God as his basis for affirming the existence of objective moral values and duties. So are you saying that you, like Sam Harris, affirm objective moral values and duties? I just want to be clear.

I think that, based on human wellness and empathy, an argument for objective values can be made.

It is my position that every person whose moral faculties are functioning so as to give them the capacity for correctly apprehending moral concepts, intuitively knows that killing people because ther are say, Jews for example, is wrong and it is wrong independently of the opinions of anyone. That is the main reason why I say genocide is objectively wrong.

(my bold)
With that bolded qualifier in your statement you have just lost your objectivity.

Should not "objective morals" apply to every person (no qualifiers)?

To answer the second part of your question, according to the Christian worldview, committing a sin such as murder, does not preclude one from entering heaven. Rejecting Christ's offer of salvation is what precludes one from entering heaven. This is what is referred to as the unpardonable sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit i.e the continual, persistance, and ultimate rejection of Christ's finished work on the cross. For Christ Himself said:

31“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.32“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 12:31,32

Let's try again. If I exceed the speed limit, get caught, I get a ticket. Rob a bank, and get caught, I go to jail. If I commit blasphemy, I don't go to heaven. Slaughter a large population, I can still go to heaven.

Based on human wellness, that last one would be a bad thing. But I am asking about your morals. Allow me to slightly change the phrasing.

If one can commit genocide, and still qualify for this hypothetical heaven of yours, why consider it wrong?