Does Might Make Right?

[cvanwey]

What about them?

Please re-visit post #49 and 53, and answer all the parts you likely deliberately skipped.

 

[cvanwey]

Then you’re wrong.

This looks to bring us full circle back to the OP. If I disagree, I'm labelled 'wrong'. But what does Scripture assert? How does this not invoke the question, does 'might make right?' We'll return to this question shortly. But first...

Well, yes, we have 'moral norms' in Scripture, which look to be fairly agreeable among other opposing books of claimed godly assertion. So maybe they are not worth mentioning or re-enforcing? Much like if the Bible does not make a specific moral pronouncement about something like... "always breastfeed your child until the age of 8", then you likely just assume the Bible does not directly advocate for such assertions.

But then we also have the unique/varying/exclusive to that of Scripture. And/or Verses about topics, for which the Bible does decide to chime in upon. If the Bible speaks about it, then it must be somewhat important to God, and His direct Character, wouldn't you think????

God seems to express concern about topics, for which humans might not agree. And according to @Tree of Life ," if we disagree, then we are wrong."

So I now have to ask, as I touched on in post #49, if God deems salvation through belief, and then some, but I lack belief, and belief is proven not to be a choice, then how am I wrong? But MORE importantly, if I truly am wrong anyways, but I am/was a true seeker of the truth, but am genuinely mistaken, what is God going to do? Please remember, God states clearly that without belief, you are doomed.

"16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Well, this brings us back to the above. If might makes right, this means He is going to send me to hell. Why, because my genuine personal discernment lead me astray, and God will punish me eternal.

In essence, it's God's way, or the highway. You cannot force a belief. But apparently, this is of no concern to God. He will deem me 'wrong', and punish me forever.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yeah but that’s only true because no other entity is able to take control of reality. And that’s because God has the biggest metaphysical stick.

See post #4 in this thread. Basically the role of Creator and the role of Almighty can be separated in the God of deism, and it is in the Creator role where right and wrong are defined IMO.

 

[Redac]

If one does genuinely disagree with some of God's claimed moral character, and/or commands, then what?

Then I guess it would depend on how deeply you want to delve into the subject and from what angle. The very short answer would be that God is a sort of metaphysical bedrock for reality itself, and His commands are rooted in His very nature. There's more to that obviously, but the "then what" here is that you'd just be incorrect. Again, it depends on how exactly you'd want to delve into the topic.

My view is that morals cannot be based or founded in absolute. They are subjective. My objection is to the assertion made my @Tree of Life , as demonstrated in post #1.

Can you explain exactly what you mean when you say that morals are subjective? Are you speaking descriptively or normatively?

 

[cvanwey]

Then I guess it would depend on how deeply you want to delve into the subject and from what angle. The very short answer would be that God is a sort of metaphysical bedrock for reality itself, and His commands are rooted in His very nature. There's more to that obviously, but the "then what" here is that you'd just be incorrect. Again, it depends on how exactly you'd want to delve into the topic.

The idea that God's nature/character/commands are 'intrinsically good' is nothing more than circle thinking, until you can prove this... As I see it, the only way to 'justify/prove' that God is 'good', is by going outside of God's mere assertion(s) about what is good/bad. It's that whole Euthephro dilemma thingy.

And about the 'then what' question? Well, apparently, then God deems you incorrect and punishes you accordingly.

One can make a case that this is ultimately no different than civil law. But civil laws can change. God's law, apparently does not. Civil laws can be overturned, due to further evidence and argumentation. God's law cannot. Many will state God's law will not change, because it is already undisputed and correct, in no need of amendment.

But dare I bring up the many topics, which we, as a society, no longer adhere to, from Scripture? If morals are unchanging, then why does society, as a whole, abandon claimed prior 'objective moral prescriptions'? According to @Tree of Life , it's because we are WRONG Case closed. We are ether ignorant, selfish, or wicked.

What do you think about all that? Do you agree with this assessment?

Can you explain exactly what you mean when you say that morals are subjective? Are you speaking descriptively or normatively?

I mean you cannot ground them in an absolute, unlike what @Tree of Life asserts, for which he cares not to defend.

- Name an absolute moral value or duty.
- Prove it

 

[Redac]

The idea that God's nature/character/commands are 'intrinsically good' is nothing more than circle thinking, until you can prove this... As I see it, the only way to 'justify/prove' that God is 'good', is by going outside of God's mere assertion(s) about what is good/bad. It's that whole Euthephro dilemma thingy.

I'm certain I've addressed the Euthyphro dilemma before (perhaps even with you). We can go into it if you'd like, but it's honestly a bit of a slog.

And about the 'then what' question? Well, apparently, then God deems you incorrect and punishes you accordingly.

As you note below, it isn't entirely dissimilar from civil law. Ignorance of the law isn't usually an excuse.

One can make a case that this is ultimately no different than civil law. But civil laws can change. God's law, apparently does not. Civil laws can be overturned, do to further evidence and argumentation. God's law cannot. Many will state God's law will not change, because it is already undisputed and correct, in no need of amendment.

Immutability is one of the characteristics typically ascribed to God, yes.

But dare I bring up the many topics, which we, as a society, no longer adhere to, from Scripture? If morals are unchanging, then why does society, as a whole, abandon claimed prior 'objective moral prescriptions'? According to @Tree of Life , it's because we are WRONG Case closed. We are ether ignorant, selfish, or wicked.

That a society's view on question X might shift from A to B does not have any bearing on the truth value of A or B. It also would not follow to say that because society's views on something might change, that therefore neither A nor B is objectively true, and that there is no objective correct answer to question X. That's a leap that hasn't been justified.

Perhaps we have different understandings of what "objective" means in this context.

I mean you cannot ground them in an absolute, unlike what @Tree of Life asserts, for which he cares not to defend.

- Name an absolute moral value or duty.
- Prove it

So what sort of proof are you looking for?

 

[cvanwey]

That a society's view on question X might shift from A to B does not have any bearing on the truth value of A or B. It also would not follow to say that because society's views on something might change, that therefore neither A nor B is objectively true, and that there is no objective correct answer to question X. That's a leap that hasn't been justified.

Perhaps we have different understandings of what "objective" means in this context.

All I'm eluding to here, is that @Tree of Life asserts that if we move away from any Biblical moral pronouncement or prescription, we are either ignorance, selfish, or evil. Do you agree with him?

If you do, then maybe we can address one of these 'moral absolutes', for which society has abandoned?

And also, has it been abandoned because much of society is ignorant, selfish, or wicked, or is it for another "reason(s)"?

So what sort of proof are you looking for?

What'za got? Give me, what you feel, is an absolute moral action or duty, (which might include a moral pronouncement society has since abandoned), and then prove it?

I don't think you can, using any means you have available to you. Not even if you use your favorite and most seemingly obvious "agreed upon' moral action or duty

 

[QvQ]

Completely untrue. Economics is based on people and people are not rational actors.

Economics are Objective. It is goods and services that are distributed within structured systems. There are known and predictable factors, such as supply and demand, trade economies vs communal economies.
There are fundamental rules of economics. It is a system that is organized and somewhat predictable. There are even different theories.
It is not different than any other ordered system of energy or mass, and exists objectively.

 

[Larniavc]

Economics are Objective.

Incorrect

‘In terms of methodology, economists, like other social scientists, are not able to undertake controlled experiments in the way that chemists and biologists are. Hence, economists have to employ different methods, based primarily on observation and deduction and the construction of abstract models.’

What is economics

 

[Moral Orel]

Rather than "might makes right", I propose that "the creator defines what is right within that creation".

Then what is "right" is arbitrary.

 

[cloudyday2]

Then what is "right" is arbitrary.

God may have defined "right" and "wrong" arbitrarily or he may have defined them using some reasons or principles known by him and not necessarily knowable by us.

 

[Moral Orel]

God may have defined "right" and "wrong" arbitrarily or he may have defined them using some reasons or principles known by him and not necessarily knowable by us.

If there are principles, then the creator isn't defining what is right and wrong. What is right or wrong is defined by the principles.

 

[cloudyday2]

If there are principles, then the creator isn't defining what is right and wrong. What is right or wrong is defined by the principles.

I guess I don't understand what you are asking or why it is relevant. Is anything truly arbitrary? We define decisions as arbitrary only because the reasoning is not obvious. There are reasons and principles explaining even the decisions of insane people, but we might call those arbitrary simply because we don't understand the minds of the insane.

 

[cvanwey]

I guess I don't understand what you are asking or why it is relevant. Is anything truly arbitrary? We define decisions as arbitrary only because the reasoning is not obvious. There are reasons and principles explaining even the decisions of insane people, but we might call those arbitrary simply because we don't understand the minds of the insane.

Maybe I can help a little?

A: Is whatever God commands considered 'good', because God commands it?

or...

B: Does God command it because it is 'good'?

A: Leads to the discussion of 'might makes right"
B: Leads to the discussion that you do not need to appeal to God to assess your moral decisions. You appeal to outside reasons which God also needs to adhere to...

It's really a huge topic, which seems endless in it's variations, arguments, re-workings, etc...

I'll give you just one example:

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe I can help a little?

A: Is whatever God commands considered 'good', because God commands it?

or...

B: Does God command it because it is 'good'?

A: Leads to the discussion of 'might makes right"
B: Leads to the discussion that you do not need to appeal to God to assess your moral decisions. You appeal to outside reasons which God also needs to adhere to...

I imagine a meta universe where God lives and our universe that God created. (By the way, Genesis 1 does not say that the universe was created from nothing according to Hebrew scholars.)

So, God defined good when he created our universe, but he was probably at least partially inspired by a definition of good in his meta universe.

That is my guess.

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess I don't understand what you are asking or why it is relevant. Is anything truly arbitrary?

Lots of things are arbitrary. It doesn't have to be without reason completely, it just has to be based on personal whims. If something is good just because God happens to like that thing, then its goodness is arbitrary.

So, God defined good when he created our universe, but he was probably at least partially inspired by a definition of good in his meta universe.

Where does the definition of good come from in this meta-universe?

 

[Redac]

All I'm eluding to here, is that @Tree of Life asserts that if we move away from any Biblical moral pronouncement or prescription, we are either ignorance, selfish, or evil. Do you agree with him?

If you do, then maybe we can address one of these 'moral absolutes', for which society has abandoned?

And also, has it been abandoned because much of society is ignorant, selfish, or wicked, or is it for another "reason(s)"?

I'd say it happens for a combination of many different reasons, not all of which would neatly fall under the umbrella of ignorance, selfishness, or wickedness.

What'za got? Give me, what you feel, is an absolute moral action or duty, (which might include a moral pronouncement society has since abandoned), and then prove it?

I don't think you can, using any means you have available to you. Not even if you use your favorite and most seemingly obvious "agreed upon' moral action or duty

I've been talking about objectivism, not absolutism. They're related, but not actually the same thing.

That said, I asked first. What exactly are you asking for when you're asking me for proof? What is it you're looking for? You want me to somehow "prove" moral absolutism right here, right now, in a CF forum post, like it's some kind of basic math problem? I mean, one example of an absolutist moral and ethical system would be the moral theory Kant constructed around the categorical imperative. The man wrote entire books expounding upon his views on morality. (not a Kantian myself, but it works as an example) If you were actually interested in exploring those ideas and the logic behind such a position, you'd probably look into those works in some way rather than coming in here and telling people to "prove it" over and over.

And lest I be accused of a "just go read about it" cop-out, the reason I say all this is because the very next thing you said, after asking me for my argument, my proof, my thoughts, whatever, is to tell me that you don't think I actually can prove anything (without even telling me what "proof" would consist of!), regardless of the method or example I might use. That sort of thing reeks of approaching the entire discussion in bad faith. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but it certainly comes off that way.

By way of comparison, imagine you were part of a debate about evolution with a Young Earth Creationist who says to you "Oh yeah? Show an example of evolution being real and prove it. I bet you can't no matter what it is, since it's probably just evidence and theory and speculation but not actual proof. "

Would you be inclined to seriously engage with that person, or would you perhaps think that person was approaching the entire discussion in bad faith?

 

[cloudyday2]

Lots of things are arbitrary. It doesn't have to be without reason completely, it just has to be based on personal whims. If something is good just because God happens to like that thing, then its goodness is arbitrary.

I think the key to defining "arbitrary" is the outside observer rather than the decision maker. If an outside observer cannot imagine reasons and principles for a decision then that outside observer labels it arbitrary. When the decision maker is God and the outside observer is a human then almost every decision God makes will seem to be arbitrary to the human. A similar scenario would be when the decision makers is a parent and the outside observer is a child.

In other words, "arbitrary" is very subjective, and we shouldn't be concerned with that question IMO.

Where does the definition of good come from in this meta-universe?

There is no way to know. That meta universe might have some commonality with out universe or it might have very little commonality. Maybe God is a humble computer programmer in a meta universe and this universe is his a computer game? Or maybe that meta universe is so different that words don't exist for describing it and the reasoning from our universe doesn't apply. We should admit that this meta universe might exist, but it is pointless to speculate beyond that IMO.

If humans have some transcendent spirit or soul that exists outside our universe then it is possible that higher self might be able to know things about the meta universe, but that knowledge from the higher self may not be expressible or comprehensible.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Moral Orel and @cvanwey , I probably won't continue with this thread. The Christianity and World Religions sub-forum was closed, so I thought I would give this sub-forum a try. But I don't like apologetics. Carry on without me. I'm not sure what I will be doing in the future if anything LOL

 

[cvanwey]

I'd say it happens for a combination of many different reasons, not all of which would neatly fall under the umbrella of ignorance, selfishness, or wickedness.

Okay, fair enough. Would you say that if any human disagrees with any moral prescription, as given from Scripture, that human is wrong? If so, please elaborate?

I've been talking about objectivism, not absolutism. They're related, but not actually the same thing.

Agreed.

That said, I asked first. What exactly are you asking for when you're asking me for proof? What is it you're looking for? You want me to somehow "prove" moral absolutism right here, right now, in a CF forum post, like it's some kind of basic math problem? I mean, one example of an absolutist moral and ethical system would be the moral theory Kant constructed around the categorical imperative. The man wrote entire books expounding upon his views on morality. (not a Kantian myself, but it works as an example) If you were actually interested in exploring those ideas and the logic behind such a position, you'd probably look into those works in some way rather than coming in here and telling people to "prove it" over and over.

And lest I be accused of a "just go read about it" cop-out, the reason I say all this is because the very next thing you said, after asking me for my argument, my proof, my thoughts, whatever, is to tell me that you don't think I actually can prove anything (without even telling me what "proof" would consist of!), regardless of the method or example I might use. That sort of thing reeks of approaching the entire discussion in bad faith. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but it certainly comes off that way.

Well, it would be like asking an atheist, what evidence would you need to believe in the god I believe in? The atheist probably would say something to the affect of... "I'm not sure, what do you got?"

Which-is-to-say... All I 'know', thus far, is I have been presented with many lines in reason, to account for 'moral objectivity', but have yet to find that morals 'are' objective; let alone absolute. And if you present your best reason, I can tell you why I do not agree with your conclusion - (unless you feel you can present a new position, for which I'm not already aware)?

By way of comparison, imagine you were part of a debate about evolution with a Young Earth Creationist who says to you "Oh yeah? Show an example of evolution being real and prove it. I bet you can't no matter what it is, since it's probably just evidence and theory and speculation but not actual proof. "

Would you be inclined to seriously engage with that person, or would you perhaps think that person was approaching the entire discussion in bad faith?

Well, first, I would admit I'm not an evolutionary biologist. But please remember, the question, for which I present my question(s) to in the OP, claims he teaches apologetics If you do not, or do not claim expertise is in apologetics, then I might not expect you to continue. But please do, if you feel equipped.

But getting to the 'evolution' topic, I would begin by adhering to pieces of evidence which start to look compelling for me, such as...