The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then sin is not the only thing that is a fabrication.

Morality, meaning, purpose, just to name a few, can fit into the category of things that are by-products of particular collocations of atoms moving through space for a brief interval.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

@anonymous person, I thought you left?

 

[Moral Orel]

Interestingly enough, it wasn't all the Canaanite group as you and others seem to think.

Actually, my point was that these far off cities were not part of the Canaanite group that you keep mentioning as sacrificing their children. The point was that we have no idea who these people were or what they were doing because they aren't named. You have nothing to go on as a justification for killing and enslaving these people other than the conquest of taking land that God promised the Israelites even though there were already people living there.

Are women incapable of compassion if they abort (stabbing or suctioning out a baby) are doctors?

We're not talking about abortion. If we were then we would have to argue over at what point a woman is carrying a separate human being, and we do not agree on that point (I am sure). If I wanted to talk about abortion I would have brought up Hosea 13:16. What we are talking about is what you are imagining about how soldiers will act in a certain situation. And your imaginings are irrelevant.

What is relevant, is that based on your verses that you quoted, if a soldier does keep a captive, chooses to marry her against her will, and then rapes her repeatedly (as his wife), he is fully morally justified in doing so.

Some members would be put up as servants and this would last seven years.

Not girls. For girls it was permanent. Exodus 21:7.

I believe that if one was to honor a women with marriage rather than just some sex slave, it would seem improbable that they would actually force her against her will to marry. They would most likely put them to work in the household. Why not just make them all sex slaves and save themselves to marry from their own community?

What? Women were property purchased by a man from her father in their community. We're talking about just Israelites right now. Where did you read that they asked the girl if she wanted to marry her husband? Girls were raised from birth to believe that men are in charge and they don't have a say in the matter. Genesis 3:16.

And why have just a sex slave when you can have her cook and clean for you too?

So do you believe that it is objectively immoral for toddlers and babies to be killed anytime, anywhere no matter, no matter what period of time it happens in?

No. Is it immoral if you get into a car accident by slipping on black ice and crash into someone who happens to have a baby or toddler in the car and they die? Of course not.

 

[quatona]

Oh, perhaps that is the problem.


Your statements are more in line with objective morality than subjective morality. You seem to think there is something objectively immoral about my position. Is that not true?


This is how it appears to me, it appears that you have a strong moral stance against the actions presented in the Bible. You believe that the position you hold is the right one. Now that says to me that if there is a right and wrong in morality there must be a standard that determines that. You don't hold that you are the arbitrator of morality, I most certainly am not so who decides who is right and wrong? We know that some things are wrong and objectively wrong which appears to be where you are coming from. It would seem to me if you really believed that morality is subjective you would not really have anything to say about my position being wrong. You could say, well I disagree but you have the right to your opinion. You don't do that. You have judged me immoral.

You are addressing your own assumptions instead of what I actually said or claimed. Have fun talking to yourself.
The strength with which a conviction is held and the question whether it´s held as an "objective" stance are two entirely different things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, because we do not have necessary information to determine their future.

If it makes you feel better, I can also claim that Jawhe commanded me to kill their women and children.

You are misrepresenting what I have said and using an appeal to emotion. I am not the judge against the Canaanites nor anyone else. I am claiming that God is the arbitrator of life and death. He has the necessary information to make a moral decision in regard to evil and judgement against it.

But it wasn't this god that killed all those women and children.
It were humans claiming to act on behalf of their god.

Which, incidently, is exactly what ISIS is doing today.

Clearly you are misinterpreting what my position is and trying to pass judgement on me.

No. I'm simply following your exact logic.

YOU said literally "even if they wouldn't grow up to do evil, they still went to heaven".

Meaning, literally, that killing toddlers and babies isn't an injustice to those toddlers and babies, since they go to heaven anyway.

Let me remind you of your exact words:

A short life here or an eternity where they will know no sorrow or pain. No tears will come from their eyes.

This is YOUR argument.


Like I said, I do not have the necessary information to pass judgement on any people and only God possesses this information. God is the arbitrator of life and has this necessary information to make a moral judgement against evil.

So do I understand you correctly that you believe abortion is equally horrifying and immoral?

No, you were asking me about toddlers and babies.
Did you forget what your own question was? Or are you trying to play dirty games here?

This isn't about abortion.
This is about brutally killing children, toddlers and babies.
And you defending the practice.

Do I understand you correctly that you believe that these acts are objectively immoral no matter who does it, no matter where it is done, and no matter what time period it happens in?

Yes, I would say that murdering toddlers and babies is quite repugnant.
You don't? Apparantly not......

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not saying that.

It would seem as if that is EXACTLY what you are saying though.
After all, if a 2-week old baby gets adopted by a jewish family, I'ld guess that it won't grow up to be a savage pagan that engages in human sacrifice, right?

But yet, there you are, seemingly claiming exactly that.

If that isn't what you meant, then what DID you mean?

That would fit best in a naturalistic view

No, not at all.

but what I am saying is that God knows what these children would do in the future.

So, you ARE claiming that all those 2-week old babies would grow up to be human sacrificing savages, no matter by whom or where they would be raised?

We are not the arbitrators of life and death.

Again, it were humans that carried out these genocides, claiming it to be on behalf of a god. This wasn't god doing it, like with the flood for example.

We have no knowledge of what a child when grown will become. God does.

So much for free will, I guess.

Perhaps, but if God were to interfere with free will in everyone at all times, free will would not exist at all.

Good job on missing the point.

If the Jews did this without the command of God it would be wrong and immoral because they did not know the future of these children and they are not the arbitrators of life. Yet, it seems that you find this morally wrong. Everyone is claiming this is morally wrong, so do you believe that this action is objectively immoral?

I say murdering toddlers and 2-week old babies is immoral. No matter what a god says or doesn't say.

If a god commands to murder toddlers and 2-week old babies, then that god is handing out immoral commands.

I'm morally superior to that god.

Not according to my logic.

Yes, according to your logic.
Let me remind you again of "your logic":

A short life here or an eternity where they will know no sorrow or pain. No tears will come from their eyes

I am telling you that we do not have the right to take life other than in self defense.

Except, apparantly, when we claim to do it on behalf of a god.
Just like ISIS.

Let's hypothesise that Israel today starts doing exactly that with all their muslim neighbours... Massive genocide. And they claim to do it because Jawhe commanded them to. Exactly as in the bible story.

You'ld be okay with it?

 

[Hieronymus]

If metaphysical naturalism is true,

Can it be?
Can metaphysical naturalism even exist?
I think it's a contradiction in terms.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can metaphysical naturalism even exist?
I think it's a contradiction in terms.

Oh? What is the contradiction?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hieronymus]

Meh, it depends on what you would call metaphysical.
Usually it means beyond the laws of nature, so then it's difficult to have it be naturalism...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Meh, it depends on what you would call metaphysical.
Usually it means beyond the laws of nature, so then it's difficult to have it be naturalism...

Wouldn't everything that exists, both in and beyond the observable universe, be part of "reality", aka "nature"?

Whatever "to exist beyond the universe" means, off course.

 

[anonymous person]

DogmaHunter hit it right on the head.

The word metaphysical when used in concert with naturalism simply refers to ontology. It is usually specified as ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism or commonly, just naturalism.

It is the belief that the universe is a closed system akin to a box. Nature just is that box. There is nothing outside of the box. All that is, is in the box. There exists nothing that is not in the box. Everything that is, is ultimately explainable by appealing to the contents of the box. Matter, energy, space and time. Nature just is, and human beings, like any other thing in the box, exist as a result of an unbroken chain of cause and effect. The universe in one form or another is eternal, so most naturalists say. Men like Dan Dennet claim the universe is not past eternal and that it caused itself to come into being which I think is absurd.

The implications for morality on such a view are significant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, my point was that these far off cities were not part of the Canaanite group that you keep mentioning as sacrificing their children. The point was that we have no idea who these people were or what they were doing because they aren't named. You have nothing to go on as a justification for killing and enslaving these people other than the conquest of taking land that God promised the Israelites even though there were already people living there.

Ok, you need to provide contrary evidence that shows that those that the Israelites attacked the Canaanite group that did not sacrifice their children. This argument is one from the Bible's account of actions taken and why. If you have counter evidence that the Canaanite group that was attacked was not sacrificing their children then you need to provide it. I don't know what you mean we don't know who they were it says who in the passages. I know that you are going from a priori assumptions that God doesn't exist and so God was not in control and God didn't give any land. However, God does exist and He created the universe and any piece of land actually belongs to Him. While I understand your position, you don't seem to be open to looking at it from a Biblical view. One that presupposes God's existence and bring all the actions being described with that framework. I'm not asking you to believe it, just view it from that context.


We're not talking about abortion. If we were then we would have to argue over at what point a woman is carrying a separate human being, and we do not agree on that point (I am sure). If I wanted to talk about abortion I would have brought up Hosea 13:16. What we are talking about is what you are imagining about how soldiers will act in a certain situation. And your imaginings are irrelevant.

What is relevant, is that based on your verses that you quoted, if a soldier does keep a captive, chooses to marry her against her will, and then rapes her repeatedly (as his wife), he is fully morally justified in doing so.

Not girls. For girls it was permanent. Exodus 21:7.

I stand corrected.

What? Women were property purchased by a man from her father in their community. We're talking about just Israelites right now. Where did you read that they asked the girl if she wanted to marry her husband? Girls were raised from birth to believe that men are in charge and they don't have a say in the matter. Genesis 3:16.

I will even give you this one, because in reality the girl didn't have much to say in the matter but:
As a rule, the fathers arranged the match. The girl was consulted, but the “calling of the damsel and inquiring at her mouth” after the conclusion of all negotiations was merely a formality.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
So I'll concede that point too.

And why have just a sex slave when you can have her cook and clean for you too?

So this is coming from you and not any confirmation and based solely on you. Is this how you personally see this?

No. Is it immoral if you get into a car accident by slipping on black ice and crash into someone who happens to have a baby or toddler in the car and they die? Of course not.

I should have been more specific, I am not talking about accidental death.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Got to run out for a bit.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, you need to provide contrary evidence that shows that those that the Israelites attacked the Canaanite group that did not sacrifice their children. This argument is one from the Bible's account of actions taken and why. If you have counter evidence that the Canaanite group that was attacked was not sacrificing their children then you need to provide it.

So you're stating that every single city that the Israelites attacked practiced human sacrifice, and I need to offer proof you're wrong? First, just show me the verse that says every single city or every single group the Israelites attacked practiced human sacrifice and I'll concede.

I know that you are going from a priori assumptions that God doesn't exist and so God was not in control and God didn't give any land. However, God does exist and He created the universe and any piece of land actually belongs to Him.

Actually, I said this is your justification. If you want to make that justification, then fine. But you haven't so far (at least not to me). Your justifications have been self-defense and fighting evil.

So this is coming from you and not any confirmation and based solely on you. Is this how you personally see this?

No, this is in response to you claiming what is "probable". If we're just going to guess on what is "probable" then that is my guess, and you have yours.

I should have been more specific, I am not talking about accidental death.

Then what is your question and what is its point?

We're not talking about abortion. If we were then we would have to argue over at what point a woman is carrying a separate human being, and we do not agree on that point (I am sure). If I wanted to talk about abortion I would have brought up Hosea 13:16. What we are talking about is what you are imagining about how soldiers will act in a certain situation. And your imaginings are irrelevant.

What is relevant, is that based on your verses that you quoted, if a soldier does keep a captive, chooses to marry her against her will, and then rapes her repeatedly (as his wife), he is fully morally justified in doing so.

You sort of quoted me (but accidentally dropped the /QUOTE stuff) here but then didn't respond to it at all. Are you planning on responding to this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok, you need to provide contrary evidence that shows that those that the Israelites attacked the Canaanite group that did not sacrifice their children. This argument is one from the Bible's account of actions taken and why. If you have counter evidence that the Canaanite group that was attacked was not sacrificing their children then you need to provide it. I don't know what you mean we don't know who they were it says who in the passages. I know that you are going from a priori assumptions that God doesn't exist and so God was not in control and God didn't give any land. However, God does exist and He created the universe and any piece of land actually belongs to Him. While I understand your position, you don't seem to be open to looking at it from a Biblical view. One that presupposes God's existence and bring all the actions being described with that framework. I'm not asking you to believe it, just view it from that context.


We're not talking about abortion. If we were then we would have to argue over at what point a woman is carrying a separate human being, and we do not agree on that point (I am sure). If I wanted to talk about abortion I would have brought up Hosea 13:16. What we are talking about is what you are imagining about how soldiers will act in a certain situation. And your imaginings are irrelevant.

What is relevant, is that based on your verses that you quoted, if a soldier does keep a captive, chooses to marry her against her will, and then rapes her repeatedly (as his wife), he is fully morally justified in doing so.


I stand corrected.


I will even give you this one, because in reality the girl didn't have much to say in the matter but:
As a rule, the fathers arranged the match. The girl was consulted, but the “calling of the damsel and inquiring at her mouth” after the conclusion of all negotiations was merely a formality.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
So I'll concede that point too.


So this is coming from you and not any confirmation and based solely on you. Is this how you personally see this?


I should have been more specific, I am not talking about accidental death.

That reminds me:

According to the Bible, which was written by?

And Yahweh's plan to save them from that was to kill them? Is he "defending" them from these children, or are the children also the victims? You can't seem to decide.

 

[anonymous person]

On an ontological naturalistic understanding of reality, young homo sapiens which in the English language, we refer to as "children", are collocations of atoms that just so happen to be in a particular configuration. This configuration is what distinguishes them from say the rat or the mongoose or the chimpanzee.

The particular configuration of matter that we call "children" is explainable by appealing to those causal states of affairs which themselves are effects of some antecedent natural cause.

Some homo sapiens presently have a sense of revulsion regarding the act of deliberately causing a young homo sapien's biological functions to cease. But such sense exists because it is of some adaptive worth, like our sense of smell or sight.

Many homo sapiens have this sense and many don't. Having it or not having it is determined by one's physiological makeup which itself is determined by antecedent natural causes.

On ontological naturalism, the very fact that we are having these conversations is owed solely to the fact that there are some of us are so constituted in our makeup, that we have been determined to think the way we do because the thinking in some way aids in survival.

Others think differently and they do so because in so doing, it aids in survival.

Thus concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, are concepts that we have come to hold as a result of certain socio-biological pressures, not because there is some good outside of the closed box in which we exist that we are appealing to.

Since this is the case it is not unthinkable that sometime in the future of our evolution, the deliberate termination of the biological functions of a young homo sapien will be good and right if the act aids in the survival of the species.

In fact, it happens now. It is not unheard of to find in certain tribes of homo sapiens, that children are killed because the sustaining of their life costs the tribe too many resources. The weak and infirm, whether they be young or old are killed because the killing serves the end, i.e. survival.

So as long as the naturalist bears all this in mind, us theists have no problem with discussing such matters. As soon as the naturalist wants to borrow from the worldview he repudiates to say that killing children is wrong regardless of what religious folk say, we will point out this inconsistency.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are addressing your own assumptions instead of what I actually said or claimed. Have fun talking to yourself.
The strength with which a conviction is held and the question whether it´s held as an "objective" stance are two entirely different things.

How so? If one claims that morality is only subjective, it would seem reasonable to allow an opposing subjective stance as much validity as the one you are holding. That is not what you are doing.

 

[anonymous person]

How so? If one claims that morality is only subjective, it would seem reasonable to allow an opposing subjective stance as much validity as the one you are holding. That is not what you are doing.

That's because he's not being consistent. It is hard to be a consistent naturalist. All of reality screams and pushes against the naturalist's beliefs. He truly is a fish out of water.

 

[quatona]

How so? If one claims that morality is only subjective, it would seem reasonable to allow an opposing subjective stance as much validity as the one you are holding.

No. I can´t even decide about the validity of your stance. Obviously, it´s valid for you. I can´t allow nor disallow you anything.
I can´t even stop you from lieing about me or from misrepresenting my position - as this may be permissible in your subjective morality.
Which part of "I won´t discuss morality with you because you and I don´t have a minimum of common ground for doing so." did you not understand?

 

[quatona]

That's because he's not being consistent.

Being at odds with your ideas doesn´t mean I am inconsistent.

It is hard to be a consistent naturalist.

That may or may not be the case. Since I am not a naturalist, it´s completely irrelevant here.
You appear to be confused: Naturalism isn´t even part of the topic.

All of reality screams and pushes against the naturalist's beliefs. He truly is a fish out of water.

Ah, another guy who makes up stances for me.