"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

[bhsmte]

Moral Absolutism asserts that there are certain moral laws which are absolute, objective, and transcendent: Moral Relativism asserts that all moral rules are subjective, temporal and personal (either individual or social or cultural in their origin).

I get that.

IMO, one does not require absolute morality to be a moral person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you do so, are you making a claim that something is absolutely morally wrong, or that it is simply something that you desire to oppose?

If by "absolutely" you mean always in all instances, then no...I'm not. I'm simply stating my opinion about a particular action. I don't judge all actions simultaneously...I judge them each according to their circumstances.

 

[Inkfingers]

This is just poor argumentation.

......

Perhaps what you need to realize is that authority without enforcement is no authority at all...and to that end, even your god's morality carries no authority.

And perhaps what you need to realise is that those morals are not necessarily enforced in the manner in which you may expect (lightning bolts from the blue).

 

[bhsmte]

And perhaps what you need to realise is that those morals are not necessarily enforced in the manner in which you may expect (lightning bolts from the blue).

What should we expect then?

 

[Inkfingers]

I'm simply stating my opinion about a particular action.

What weight can that ever carry? The rapist could say the same, and like a twisted evangelist point to all the pleasure he gets out of it as an enticement for others to take that path. By your argument, neither has any real greater weight - its just two opinions.

For something to be meaningfully considered moral you must at least believe and act as if it is absolute, otherwise it carries no more weight than any other opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, to paraphrase a much earlier conversation:
In some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of their opinions. Do you have any preference?

I presume by your statement that if one's opinion is that something is moral, then it is? So when Slavery was in full swing in the US, those men were of the opinion that Slavery was not immoral: your position is that they were right? The opinion of the Japanese during WWII was that non-Japanese were not human, and therefore killing them and subjugating them was morally right. So your position is that they were correct?

My opinion would be that they think they were "right". Morals are opinions... not facts. You (nor anyone else I know) has ever been able to demonstrate that a moral is factually correct or false the way that say...2+2=4. If you could you would have a pretty strong basis for absolute morality... but I'm fairly certain that you can't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What weight can that ever carry? The rapist could say the same, and like a twisted evangelist point to all the pleasure he gets out of it as an enticement for others to take that path. By your argument, neither has any real greater weight - its just two opinions.

For something to be meaningfully considered moral you must at least believe and act as if it is absolute, otherwise it carries no more weight than any other opinion.

Lol it has weight with me! Just like any other opinion...it only carries the same regard for it that you give the person who owns it.

If, for example, I held you in very high esteem and you told me that abortion is morally wrong...I might have to reconsider my opinion that it's morally right. Since I don't (and don't take this personally...it's only because we don't really know each other) your moral opinions don't carry any weight with me at all. Surely you realize this is how the world works?

Did you think that since you believe something to be absolutely morally wrong...for some reason others give that opinion weight?

 

[Inkfingers]

Lol it has weight with me! Just like any other opinion...it only carries the same regard for it that you give the person who owns it.

But if you don't believe it to be absolute, you recognise it as an invention and thus no more weighty than that of the rapist?

If, for example, I held you in very high esteem and you told me that abortion is morally wrong...I might have to reconsider my opinion that it's morally right. Since I don't (and don't take this personally...it's only because we don't really know each other) your moral opinions don't carry any weight with me at all. Surely you realize this is how the world works?

Oh I can understand that, yes. The problem is that "in my own opinion" is not a particularly impressive (and thus esteem-worthy) argument.

Did you think that since you believe something to be absolutely morally wrong...for some reason others give that opinion weight?

If I hold something to be absolutely wrong, that intrinsically carries more weight in a conversation than if I am just of the opinion that it is wrong. Wishy-washy isn't impressive.

 

[Inkfingers]

What should we expect then?

Nothing in particular. But that does not mean nothing at all - I'm not privy to the total workings of God

Could I ask you to read the post at the bottom of page 2 and respond to that?

 

[quatona]

Well, to paraphrase a much earlier conversation:
In some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of their opinions. Do you have any preference?

I presume by your statement that if one's opinion is that something is moral, then it is? So when Slavery was in full swing in the US, those men were of the opinion that Slavery was not immoral: your position is that they were right? The opinion of the Japanese during WWII was that non-Japanese were not human, and therefore killing them and subjugating them was morally right. So your position is that they were correct?

No, my position is not that they were correct.

Is your position that in the absence of an absolute moral authority they are correct?

Is your position that if God said rape, genocide and torture are correct, they would be correct?

 

[hankroberts]

"I get that"

Apparently not, from the following statement.

"IMO, one does not require absolute morality to be a moral person."

But if there is no Standard, then how would one know they were "a moral person'? "Moral" according to whom? Compared to what standard?

 

[bhsmte]

Our practical judgement will always have a subjective element, but the question is whether there is an absolute morality against which all is measured.....or is everything just a matter of opinion (which basically means that there is no morality, because without authority the concept of morality is meaningless).

Sure, which is why Christians disagree on what is moral and what isn't and so do atheists and this supports that moral judgments are indeed subjective. If you want to claim there is some absolute morality floating out there somewhere, it would be up to you to support that claim.

Personally, I wonder if it is better to speak of a scale of inferior to superior, rather than a black and white good/evil. That isn't to deny that some things are utterly evil (its barbeque-a-baby night at B L Zeebub's bar and grill) but that it isn't a purely digital phenomenon. Just a thought.[/QUOTE]

It is my opinion, if you were to give a morality test with a series of situations to atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims and various other religions, they would agree on what is moral and what is not moral on the vast majority of the questions. Why, because we all have to live in a manner to be accepted in society and we all have a need to be accepted and don't want to be outcast. We all have a conscious, that we have to deal with in our actions and although there can be differences of opinion of what is moral and what is not moral, that difference is driven by; religious beliefs, culture and how our psyches developed over time.

 

[bhsmte]

"I get that"

Apparently not, from the following statement.

"IMO, one does not require absolute morality to be a moral person."

But if there is no Standard, then how would one know they were "a moral person'? "Moral" according to whom? Compared to what standard?

Each person sets their own standard, based on what they can reconcile with their conscious and being able to function properly in society.

Unless one if a sociopath of course, then we are talking a different ballgame.

 

[hankroberts]

My opinion would be that they think they were "right". Morals are opinions... not facts. You (nor anyone else I know) has ever been able to demonstrate that a moral is factually correct or false the way that say...2+2=4. If you could you would have a pretty strong basis for absolute morality... but I'm fairly certain that you can't.

Ah, there is the problem; you have misdefined "morals". Morality is conformance with a standard (either relative or absolute). It is necessary that an absolute standard exists, or there is no way to objectively determine "Good" and "Evil". Try it.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, there is the problem; you have misdefined "morals". Morality is conformance with a standard (either relative or absolute). It is necessary that an absolute standard exists, or there is no way to objectively determine "Good" and "Evil". Try it.

What is the process you follow to "objectively" determine good from evil?

 

[hankroberts]

My opinion would be that they think they were "right". Morals are opinions... not facts. You (nor anyone else I know) has ever been able to demonstrate that a moral is factually correct or false the way that say...2+2=4. If you could you would have a pretty strong basis for absolute morality... but I'm fairly certain that you can't.

So, then, if one merely thinks their actions are moral, then they are? Are you sure you want to take that view?

 

[quatona]

"I get that"

Apparently not, from the following statement.

"IMO, one does not require absolute morality to be a moral person."

But if there is no Standard, then how would one know they were "a moral person'? "Moral" according to whom? Compared to what standard?

When God is described as "omnibenevolent" - is that supposed to be a meaningful statement (and if so, what exactly does it mean? And who or what set the absolute standard for "omnibenevolence"?), or is it just supposed to be noise?

 

[hankroberts]

What is the process you follow to "objectively" determine good from evil?

Well my position is that there is an absolute standard which we use to measure actions and thoughts. Yours seems to be that there is not any absolute standard.

That leaves us with relativism, and relativists are divided into one of three groups: Individual Relativists, Cultural Relativists, or Societal Relativists, depending on where they believe the relative moral values are grounded. Actually, in my experience, relativists have not thought that through well enough to clearly state and defend their view: they usually merely want to reject Absolutism.

 

[hankroberts]

When God is described as "omnibenevolent" - is that supposed to be a meaningful statement (and if so, what exactly does it mean? And who or what set the absolute standard for "omnibenevolence"?), or is it just supposed to be noise?

I have no idea, honestly: never used that term. Ever, in over thirty years of studying Theology.

 

[bhsmte]

Well my position is that there is an absolute standard which we use to measure actions and thoughts. Yours seems to be that there is not any absolute standard.

That leaves us with relativism, and relativists are divided into one of three groups: Individual Relativists, Cultural Relativists, or Societal Relativists, depending on where they believe the relative moral values are grounded. Actually, in my experience, relativists have not thought that through well enough to clearly state and defend their view: they usually merely want to reject Absolutism.

To be absolute and for it to be objective, one would need reliable methods to confirm this objectivity.

So, what are they?