Why does God not stop the evil?

[Dave Ellis]

Hmm... you say you appeal to your own standard.

This is the same as appealing to your own preferences or opinions about a moral matter correct?

I disagree with it being equal to preferences, as I stated sometimes my moral standard goes against my preferences.

For example, if someone left an envelope with $10,000 sitting on a table unguarded, my preference would be to take the $10,000 for myself. My moral standard disagrees with my preferences.

As for opinion, sure. It is my opinion that murder is wrong, but in the same sense, that opinion is based on my moral standard, so I don't think it's quite correct to label my moral standard as opinion either.

I suppose the closest word would be it's a philosophy. And most people have very similar philosophies about how you should go about living life from a moral standpoint.

 

[quatona]

If all views on morality are equally valid, then there are some things you cannot do.

How did you get to "equally valid"? "Equally valid" to whom? Certainly not to me.

One thing you cannot do is criticize someone for doing something you think they should not do.

Yes, I can.

For the moment you act on what you think someone should or should not do, you are acting as if they should think and act they way you do.

No, I can just act to defend my subjective ethical convictions, just like they do.

But if the person should act or think the way you do, you are acting from a position that says not all views on morality are equally valid but "my view is the only one that is valid".

False dichotomy.
I would be acting as if my view on morality is more important to me than that of others that I don´t share.

But if your view is the only one that is valid and the other person's is not, then you are saying that your view is the only right view.

This is not my view.
Unless you qualify "valid" with a "to..." when you put words in the subjectivist´s mouth you haven´t even understood the subjectivist worldview.

But if you maintain your view is the only right view then you are maintaining that the other person's view is wrong.

Well, I don´t. You don´t get to make up positions for me.

And if you maintain that the other person's view is wrong and that your view is right, then you maintain that you are the standard by which the other person's views should be measured.

All I am maintaining is that my standard is what I measure the other person´s behaviour by.

But if you are the standard by which other people's views should be measured,

Corrected above.

And you are wrong even if you think you are right because your view is not valid because it does not adhere to my standard.

What??

Which means you cannot use the words: Should, or ought in moral discussions.

Yes, I can - as an expression of my personal subjective opinion - exactly what they are meant to refer to from the subjectivist´s standards.

And I have done so when it came to your dishonesty.

You can talk descriptively all you want to about morality,

Yes, making statements like "morality is subjective".

but normative moral discussions, you can have no substantial part in.

And why would I? I am a moral subjectivist after all.
Don´t know about you - but my life doesn´t primarily consist of discussions where I come from.
The fact that he can not refer to an allegedly objective source of morality is not exactly a loss to a moral subjectivist. It´s fully consistent with his view.
Plus: even if I had the guts to declare my subjective opinion objective, people who disagree with me would still ask me to substantiate that claim. And rest assured, by no means I would want to embarrass myself by standing there as empty-handed as you when it comes to this request.

But again you merely responded by telling me what I can say or can not say
(and the things I cannot say are things I don´t even want to say, as a moral subjectivist).
Your claim, however, was that I can not live moral subjectivism. I even explicitly asked you not to tell me what I can not say but what I can not do (because any time we got to this point - which must have been ten or so times - you ended up merely telling me that I can´t say stuff that I wouldn´t intend to say and don´t need to say, anyway).
Now, stop beating around the bush already, and start explaining to me what my moral subjectivism prevents me from doing.
I have asked you this very question numerous times (without ever getting a response): What is it that a moral subjectivist would want to be able to do but can not do without being inconsistent with his moral subjectivism?

 

[Elioenai26]

I disagree with it being equal to preferences, as I stated sometimes my moral standard goes against my preferences.

For example, if someone left an envelope with $10,000 sitting on a table unguarded, my preference would be to take the $10,000 for myself. My moral standard disagrees with my preferences.

As for opinion, sure. It is my opinion that murder is wrong, but in the same sense, that opinion is based on my moral standard, so I don't think it's quite correct to label my moral standard as opinion either.

I suppose the closest word would be it's a philosophy. And most people have very similar philosophies about how you should go about living life from a moral standpoint.

So your moral standard is whatever you think is right or good? Correct?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So your moral standard is whatever you think is right or good? Correct?

Sure

 

[Elioenai26]

I have asked you this very question numerous times (without ever getting a response): What is it that a moral subjectivist would want to be able to do but can not do without being inconsistent with his moral subjectivism?

Moral subjectivists are people.

People want justice to be granted to them in courts of law when they have been wronged. For example, if you had a daughter who was the apple of your eye and your very heart, and this daughter of yours was brutally raped and beaten and left paralyzed for the rest of her life, you as a person, would want justice.

But if everyone thought like a moral subjectivist does (which you no doubt think is the only viable view because, as you say, there are no objective moral facts, which by the way is something you cannot prove because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, but I digress) then you would not be granted justice for no one could arbitrate between the rapist and you and your daughter.

In fact, if everyone were a moral subjectivist like you, the man would not have even been arrested and brought to trial. There would be no police to arrest him. For law enforcement exists to enforce laws. Maybe you have heard of laws before? They are things you break and are punished for...you know like rape, murder etc. etc.

But in your fantasy world where everyone determines for themselves what is, then the very idea or concept of law enforcement would not exist. For law enforcement carries with it inherently the idea of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. Of what ought to be done or thought and what ought not to be done or thought. Police exist to make sure people conduct their lives accordingly. But in your fantasy world, there would be no objective basis for determining what laws should be enforced.

In fact, the idea of right and wrong behavior would be non-existent. You would only have men's unbridled lusts and passions and preferences and desires. This is the world that Dostoyevksy and Nietzsche envisioned without an objective basis for morality.

If there is no objective basis for morality, everything is permitted.

We should judge an ethical system by the character it produces in its adherents. What kind of man would a man be who had no one or nothing to hold him accountable except his own will?

That man would be you. For you have said, among other things, that it is a fantasy of mine to be witness to two men brutally raping and ravaging a helpless woman as she screams and cries for help.

You say this flippantly and yet you want me to believe you are this virtuous pacifist. Your very words reek of violence and betray your heart's true condition. Even if you do not resort to physical violence, you are a violent, heart hearted man. You are a product of atheism and you my friend are one example of what atheism produces.

I am glad that police officers and judges do not live like you think. The world would be a very ugly, messed up place.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure

So lets say I see you on the street one day and think you are ugly and knock your teeth out.

Now lets say everyone thinks like you do....

Since I, just like you and everyone else in this fantasy world, base my standard on what I think is right or good, and I think it would be good for you to have no teeth because they are big and yellow and dirty, and therefore knock them out, you do understand that all you could do would either be to run away, stand there and look shocked, or fight me. You could also say: "Hey, you're wrong for that!"

Guess what I would say????

I would laugh and say....who says? You??? I would then laugh some more and maybe walk away, or give you another good smack. Walking away and looking back as you stand bleeding, I would laugh and say: "I think it was pretty neat to see that blood on your face."

You stand there....dumbfounded....no cops come to your aid....because there are none because in this world none exist, some people may feel compassion for you, some might laugh, but you just eventually hobble on home and lay in bed and say: "Gosh, I wish that man had not done that."

 

[Dave Ellis]

In fact, if everyone were a moral subjectivist like you, the man would not have even been arrested and brought to trial. There would be no police to arrest him. For law enforcement exists to enforce laws. Maybe you have heard of laws before? They are things you break and are punished for...you know like rape, murder etc. etc.

But in your fantasy world where everyone determines for themselves what is, then the very idea or concept of law enforcement would not exist. For law enforcement carries with it inherently the idea of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. Of what ought to be done or thought and what ought not to be done or thought. Police exist to make sure people conduct their lives accordingly. But in your fantasy world, there would be no objective basis for determining what laws should be enforced.

In fact, the idea of right and wrong behavior would be non-existent. You would only have men's unbridled lusts and passions and preferences and desires. This is the world that Dostoyevksy and Nietzsche envisioned without an objective basis for morality.

Have you not paid attention to anything that's been written in this thread? If so, you would know that this is laughably misguided.

Subjective morals can and are widely held. Police are hired to enforce the laws that society agree on, not based on some objective standard.

Can you name a law that is enforced by police, that wasn't passed (subjectively i may add), by a legislative body of some sort?

If there is no objective basis for morality, everything is permitted.

This is simply false, and you should know that by now.

We should judge an ethical system by the character it produces in its adherents. What kind of man would a man be who had no one or nothing to hold him accountable except his own will?

We are held accountable by society, and by our own consciences.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So lets say I see you on the street one day and think you are ugly and knock your teeth out.

Now lets say everyone thinks like you do....

Since I, just like you and everyone else in this fantasy world, base my standard on what I think is right or good, and I think it would be good for you to have no teeth because they are big and yellow and dirty, and therefore knock them out, you do understand that all you could do would either be to run away, stand there and look shocked, or fight me. You could also say: "Hey, you're wrong for that!"

Guess what I would say????

I would laugh and say....who says? You??? I would then laugh some more and maybe walk away, or give you another good smack. Walking away and looking back as you stand bleeding, I would laugh and say: "I think it was pretty neat to see that blood on your face."

And I would call you a sociopath..... And I would be correct.

You stand there....dumbfounded....no cops come to your aid....because there are none because in this world none exist, some people may feel compassion for you, some might laugh, but you just eventually hobble on home and lay in bed and say: "Gosh, I wish that man had not done that."

Actually, the police would come to my aid, as laws are passed based on subjective debate by governing bodies. Our legal system is not an objective institution. The Police are tasked with enforcing the laws imposed by our free SELF GOVERNING society.

Also, all the people who aren't sociopaths would recognize I was attacked by you without provocation. They would also run to my aid and either chase you off, or hold you until the Police arrive.


I mean seriously, where do you get off spewing your nonsense. Your scenarios are patently absurd.

 

[Davian]

Moral subjectivists are people.

People want justice to be granted to them in courts of law when they have been wronged. For example, if you had a daughter who was the apple of your eye and your very heart, and this daughter of yours was brutally raped and beaten and left paralyzed for the rest of her life, you as a person, would want justice.

But if everyone thought like a moral subjectivist does (which you no doubt think is the only viable view because, as you say, there are no objective moral facts, which by the way is something you cannot prove because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, but I digress) then you would not be granted justice for no one could arbitrate between the rapist and you and your daughter.

In fact, if everyone were a moral subjectivist like you, the man would not have even been arrested and brought to trial. There would be no police to arrest him. For law enforcement exists to enforce laws. Maybe you have heard of laws before? They are things you break and are punished for...you know like rape, murder etc. etc.

But in your fantasy world where everyone determines for themselves what is, then the very idea or concept of law enforcement would not exist. For law enforcement carries with it inherently the idea of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. Of what ought to be done or thought and what ought not to be done or thought. Police exist to make sure people conduct their lives accordingly. But in your fantasy world, there would be no objective basis for determining what laws should be enforced.

In fact, the idea of right and wrong behavior would be non-existent. You would only have men's unbridled lusts and passions and preferences and desires. This is the world that Dostoyevksy and Nietzsche envisioned without an objective basis for morality.

If there is no objective basis for morality, everything is permitted.

We should judge an ethical system by the character it produces in its adherents. What kind of man would a man be who had no one or nothing to hold him accountable except his own will?

That man would be you. For you have said, among other things, that it is a fantasy of mine to be witness to two men brutally raping and ravaging a helpless woman as she screams and cries for help.

You say this flippantly and yet you want me to believe you are this virtuous pacifist. Your very words reek of violence and betray your heart's true condition. Even if you do not resort to physical violence, you are a violent, heart hearted man. You are a product of atheism and you my friend are one example of what atheism produces.

I am glad that police officers and judges do not live like you think. The world would be a very ugly, messed up place.

Presenting a strawman of [an] argument, then attacking it, is not good argumentation.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Ranting against nihilism does not make your case.

"The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted,"[1]:63 suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. Greg M. Epstein notes a similar theme in reverse. Famous apologies by Christians who have "sinned" (such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Swaggart) "must embolden some who take enormous risks for the thrill of a little immoral behavior: their Lord will forgive them, if they only ask nicely enough when—or if—they are eventually caught. If you're going to do something naughty, you're going to do it, and all the theology in the world isn't going to stop you."[1]:115–116 Some survey and sociological literature suggests that theists do no better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity)."

Secular morality - Religion is a poor moral guide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If all views on morality are equally valid, then there are some things you cannot do.

I don't think the subjectivist is required to hold to the position that, if morality is subjective, then all views on it are equally valid. Recall Tim Dean's explanation for why subjectivism doesn't necessarily imply relativism, which I posted in one of the threads on morality.

Hmm... you say you appeal to your own standard.

This is the same as appealing to your own preferences or opinions about a moral matter correct?

Don't you appeal to your own standard? Sure, you will say that you appeal to God's standard. But so will every other theist who thinks as you do. In the end you are appealing to your own religious opinions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You misunderstood my question.

I said how do you determine what is moral or immoral. I then made it clear what I was asking. I asked you what standard are you appealing to to distinguish between a moral and an immoral act.

Logic and reason are the collective processes of cognition. Empathy is an emotion. Experience refers to what we have endured in our lives as persons.

None of the above can be used as a standard of determining what is moral or immoral, for to say something is moral or immoral is to make an evaluative judgment as to whether said act measures up to or fails to measure up to the standard to which it is being compared. Unless you want your judgment to be arbitrary, it must appeal to something objective to both parties in question. If not, it is simply an opinion against an opinion. And if there is nothing to arbitrate between the two opinions, then the two opinions actually have no objective truth value. In this view, saying that God was wrong in ordering certain people to be killed is the same as saying chocolate is nasty.

Which brings us back to my question regarding the clash of your religious opinion with the Muslim apologist's religious opinion. How are we to arbitrate between these two religious opinions and the conflicting moral claims derived from those opinions?

 

[Elioenai26]

And I would call you a sociopath..... And I would be correct.




Actually, the police would come to my aid, as laws are passed based on subjective debate by governing bodies. Our legal system is not an objective institution. The Police are tasked with enforcing the laws imposed by our free SELF GOVERNING society.

Also, all the people who aren't sociopaths would recognize I was attacked by you without provocation. They would also run to my aid and either chase you off, or hold you until the Police arrive.


I mean seriously, where do you get off spewing your nonsense. Your scenarios are patently absurd.

If EVERYONE were moral subjectivists there would be no law to enforce. Thank goodness most people in the world actually believe hitting people in the face just because the way they look is wrong regardless of the opinion of the one doing the hitting.

 

[Elioenai26]

Which brings us back to my question regarding the clash of your religious opinion with the Muslim apologist's religious opinion. How are we to arbitrate between these two religious opinions and the conflicting moral claims derived from those opinions?

I can arbitrate on them real easy. I can say it is objectively wrong to fly planes into building so you can kill the maximum number of people who do not share your religious beliefs.

The subjectivist cant say that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is justified in judging sinners. He is not subject to man made moral standards or laws. You, however, whether you recognize it or not, are subject to Gods moral laws and you like myself and everyone else fall short of the standard. Gods law holds that the penalty for sin is death. God would be justified in killing every man, woman, and child He created on this earth. If you recall, He did it once already with the flood.

Yes, that story speaks to the malevolence of this supposedly morally perfect deity.

Where do these standards come from and what gives them authority by which we should accept them?

Quit pretending that I had not already addressed your question.

But you haven't addressed this question: Is it absolutely wrong to kill children?

Perhaps it would be better to ask you the same question I asked Elioenai26:

Tell me, if you were there when your God commanded the slaughter of men, women, children, what would you do? Suppose that you come across a child who had been hiding. Your sword still glows red from the blood of her parents who you had just butchered in loving obedience to your 'morally perfect' God. The command is that you are to kill this child who is, by now, terrified and begging you to spare her life. What do you do?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can arbitrate on them real easy. I can say it is objectively wrong to fly planes into building so you can kill the maximum number of people who do not share your religious beliefs.

And he can say that it is objectively wrong to not do such a thing because it is commanded by God, and you are not obeying the commands of morally perfect God.

What then?

The subjectivist cant say that.

Are you being dishonest with yourself now? Earlier you said that you recognised that a subjectivist could make such moral claims. Now he can't?

 

[Elioenai26]

Subjective morals can and are widely held. Police are hired to enforce the laws that society agree on, not based on some objective standard.

This is an argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties, not an argument against it.

Why is it wrong in every society to unjustifiably kill people? Because it is just like saying 2+2=5 is wrong in every society. It is an objective fact. It is not based on people's subjective opinion.

If i were to say it is my subjective opinion that 2+2=5, you would say I was wrong. I would be wrong even if i thought i was right or even if my society said it was 5.

Likewise, if i say it is good to rape helpless women so i can have pleasure, you would say I was wrong, even if it was my opinion i was right.

Duh!

Even if is referring to an objective reality. This is elementary.

We are held accountable by society, and by our own consciences.

Exactly. Societies whose moral laws are based on unchanging objective moral values and duties.

To prove this, every criminal court in every society in the world will judge the unjustifiable taking of a person's life as objectively wrong. Its called murder.

THAT MEANS THAT IT IS WRONG EVEN IF THE MURDERER THINKS IT IS RIGHT.

What is so hard to understand?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If EVERYONE were moral subjectivists there would be no law to enforce. Thank goodness most people in the world actually believe hitting people in the face just because the way they look is wrong regardless of the opinion of the one doing the hitting.

Why Moral Subjectivism Doesn’t Imply Moral Relativism « Ockham's Beard

 

[Elioenai26]

And he can say that it is objectively wrong to not do such a thing because it is commanded by God, and you are not obeying the commands of morally perfect God.

What then?

Of course he can say that, but it would be no different than a blind man saying that the sun is not shining.

A person who says that God commanded him to fly a plane into a building so that the maximum number of unbelievers can be killed is morally impaired or sociopathic like the blind man is visually impaired and cannot see. Does the blind man's subjective opinion change the objective fact that the sun is shining?

The sun shines even if the blind man cannot see it. Likewise, flying planes into buildings to kill infidels is wrong even if the terrorist thinks its right.

What is difficult about all of this?

Are you being dishonest with yourself now? Earlier you said that you recognised that a subjectivist could make such moral claims. Now he can't?

A person who says they are a moral subjectivist can make moral claims all the time. He just cannot say that anything (like flying planes into buildings) is objectively wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course he can say that, but it would be no different than a blind man saying that the sun is not shining.

A person who says that God commanded him to fly a plane into a building so that the maximum number of unbelievers can be killed is sociopathic and morally bankrupt.

The Muslim apologist says to you: "You are no different to a blind man saying the sun is not shining. A person who denies God's commands is sociopathic and morally bankrupt."

What then?

A person who says they are a moral subjectivist can make moral claims all the time. He just cannot say that anything (like flying planes into buildings) is objectively wrong.

But he can still say that it is wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

The Muslim apologist says to you: "You are no different to a blind man saying the sun is not shining. A person who denies God's commands is sociopathic and morally bankrupt."

What then?

Are you saying the Muslim has a good argument? LOL ROFL

He can say what he wants, I assure you, men like Osama Bin Laden who funded such terrorist acts would be seen as being wrong and evil regardless of their arguments about God's commands.

He was wrong. Period.

And I know you agree, even though you may not admit it on this forum.