Does Might Make Right?

[cvanwey]

There are two sources of "morals" in modern secular society.
1) One is social engineering, moral precepts formulated by quasi-governmental entities enforced by the might of the State
2) the modern concept of "conscious" or every man is the law unto himself.
Whether those are "subjective" is moot.
The moral commands of God are not subjective anymore than the law of gravity is subjective.
The moral commands of God are equivalent to the law of gravity in operation and execution, objectively

I see what you are saying. But you are assuming way more than I. I stated, 'morals are subjective, even if a God exists.'

Now, all we need to determine, is which God is the real God? There's so many. Even if I plant my flag under the Abrahamic God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), there are so many conflicting moral choices?

Gravity has one basic law/task. Morals are an endless array of seemingly boundless assertions and commands.

And even IF we were to narrow the scope, further still, to finally reveal and drill down the actual true asserted character and commands, what if one disagrees with a given command? Then what?

 

[QvQ]

I should have used a differing word choice here. I meant something to the effect of... 'it is begging the following question to be asked...'



Okay, I would agree so far...



I still agree, keep going...



Doh, and... you just lost me.

What if I do not agree with His character or some/all of his commands? And not only do I disagree with a given moral(s) or command(s), but I furnish seemingly sound reason to the contrary of His command(s)? Then what?

Morals are not derived from reason. That is the concept of social engineering. How is a secular government determining and imposing "morals" any different than a theocracy? It is the same game. And in that case, might is to make right.

 

[QvQ]

I see what you are saying. But you are assuming way more than I. I stated, 'morals are subjective, even if a God exists.'

Now, all we need to determine, is which God is the real God? There's so many. Even if I plant my flag under the Abrahamic God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), there are so many conflicting moral choices?

Gravity has one basic law/task. Morals are an endless array of seemingly boundless assertions and commands.

And even IF we were to narrow the scope, further still, to finally reveal and drill down the actual true asserted character and commands, what if one disagrees with a given command? Then what?

The rules are basically the simple Truth. Christianity is the moral code that is closest to reality.
The only "endless array of seemingly boundless assertions and commands" I have encountered is from the "man has a conscience" and is the law unto himself. (secular morality) That is the blind leading the blind and both fall in the ditch.
The commands of God are simple as Gravity and if a person disagrees with gravity, then what?

 

[cvanwey]

Morals are not derived from reason. That is the concept of social engineering. How is a secular government determining and imposing "morals" any different than a theocracy? It is the same game. And in that case, might is to make right.

The way I see it, morals can be 'grounded', using the following methodologies - (could be a mix of more than one of them):

1) Opinion, gut feeling
2) Consensus
3) Consequences
4) Appeal to a god

Which one(s) do you use, in appealing to a 'moral' action or duty?

 

[cvanwey]

The rules are basically the simple Truth. Christianity is the moral code that is closest to reality.
The only "endless array of seemingly boundless assertions and commands" I have encountered is from the "man has a conscience" and is the law unto himself. (secular morality) That is the blind leading the blind and both fall in the ditch.
The commands of God are simple as Gravity and if a person disagrees with gravity, then what?

Gravity is an amoral force. It does not encompass a moral/immoral predicate.

If morals are relative, and I assert they are, then you can say what you will about 'secular etc....'. Just like there does not appear to be 'objective economics'. And yet, we still function economically, I guess. Do not let the subjectivity scare you so much.

But you look to now be blankly shoehorning in YHWH, as THE authority. Quite interesting?

Please elaborate on:

"Christianity is the moral code that is closest to reality." ?.?.?.?.? Which parts? All of it, or just the parts you like?

 

[QvQ]

Gravity is an amoral force. It does not encompass a moral/immoral predicate.

If morals are relative, and I assert they are, then you can say what you will about 'secular etc....'. Just like there does not appear to be 'objective economics'. And yet, we still function economically, I guess. Do not let the subjectivity scare you so much.

But you look to now be blankly shoehorning in YHWH, as THE authority. Quite interesting?

Please elaborate on:

"Christianity is the moral code that is closest to reality." ?.?.?.?.? Which parts? All of it, or just the parts you like?

Economics are objective. Cat/mouse, pounce, eat. Simple rule, simple truth.
Christianity is closest to reality, simple rule, simple truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Christianity is closest to reality, simple rule, simple truth.

Now you are just making blank assertions. I will ask you again.

Please elaborate on:

"Christianity is the moral code that is closest to reality." ?.?.?.?.? Which parts? All of it, or just the parts you like?

 

[QvQ]

The way I see it, morals can be 'grounded', using the following methodologies - (could be a mix of more than one of them):

1) Opinion, gut feeling
2) Consensus
3) Consequences
4) Appeal to a god

Which one(s) do you use, in appealing to a 'moral' action or duty?

5) Morality defines a relationship between man and God. It is a Covenant.
1) Opinion: amoral, as every man is a law unto himself
2) Consensus: Social engineering, the theocracy of the State, secular or otherwise
3)Consequences: Cowardly, the opposite of moral, the actual antithesis
4) Appeal to God: Man does not bargain or negotiate with gravity or God

 

[Tree of Life]

Doh, and... you just lost me.

What if I do not agree with His character or some/all of his commands? And not only do I disagree with a given moral(s) or command(s), but I furnish seemingly sound reason to the contrary of His command(s)? Then what?

If you disagree with the righteousness of God’s commands then you are in the wrong in some way. You’re either misinformed, misunderstanding, or perhaps simply morally corrupt. There could be no truly sound reasoning against God’s commands because they are most reasonable and wise.

 

[cvanwey]

5) Morality defines a relationship between man and God. It is a Covenant.
1) Opinion: not moral, as every man is a law unto himself
2) Consensus: Social engineering, the theocracy of the State, secular or otherwise
3)Consequences: Cowardly, the opposite of moral, the actual antithesis
4) Appeal to God: Man does not bargain or negotiate with gravity or God

Okay, so you have selected #4. That's fine. This then circles us right back to, 'does might make right'?

Looks as though you would then have to answer "yes" to that question.

"Man does not bargain or negotiate with gravity or God"

You cannot negotiate with gravity, BECAUSE gravity is not a sentient agent or being. It is a law which imposes an amoral force, not a moral or immoral one. It would be completely illogical to try and strike up a conversation or relationship with gravity.

Most/all 'morals' are not hard and fast, like gravity. Take theft for instance. Is theft always 'wrong'? Depends, right? Maybe theft is okay, to save against a different 'sin'? Who knows?

 

[cvanwey]

If you disagree with the righteousness of God’s commands then you are in the wrong in some way. You’re either misinformed, misunderstanding, or perhaps simply morally corrupt. There could be no truly sound reasoning against God’s commands because they are most reasonable and wise.

Care to test this?

 

[QvQ]

Now you are just making blank assertions. I will ask you again.

Please elaborate on:

"Christianity is the moral code that is closest to reality." ?.?.?.?.? Which parts? All of it, or just the parts you like?

Asked and answered
Economics are objective. Cat/mouse, pounce, eat. Simple truth, simple rules
Christianity, simple truth simple rule.
If the purpose of morality is to define the relationship between God and man, then Christianity is The Way, The Truth and The Life.
That is objective reality.

 

[cvanwey]

Asked and answered
Economics are objective.

Then what is THE standard for economics?

Cat/mouse, pounce, eat. Simple truth, simple rules

Nouns, verbs, word descriptors

Christianity, simple truth simple rule.

According to which denomination?

If the purpose of morality is to define the relationship between God and man, then Christianity is The Way, The Truth and The Life.
That is objective reality.

Blank assertion. I say Islam is the way! Your going to need to be just a little bit more specific. We have many opposing assertions, in 'Christianity' alone

 

[QvQ]

Okay, so you have selected #4. That's fine. This then circles us right back to, 'does might make right'?

Looks as though you would then have to answer "yes" to that question.

"Man does not bargain or negotiate with gravity or God"

You cannot negotiate with gravity, BECAUSE gravity is not a sentient agent or being. It is a law which imposes an amoral force, not a moral or immoral one. It would be completely illogical to try and strike up a conversation or relationship with gravity.

Most/all 'morals' are not hard and fast, like gravity. Take theft for instance. Is theft always 'wrong'? Depends, right? Maybe theft is okay, to save against a different 'sin'? Who knows?

I chose #5
Your entire list is 1) rebel 2) serf 3) coward 4) beggars
Is that your definition and purpose of Morals? A bunch of rules for rebels, serfs, cowards and beggars,
#5 morals define man's relationship with God, in fact morality maintains man's dignity in the eyes of God.
Yes, theft is always wrong. Whether there are mitigating circumstances, that may gain mercy however, explaining to the Judge why you had to murder that guy is not a defense, it is a confession.

 

[Redac]

Why not?

It has to do with God's character, His nature. Some of your posts to others suggest you might just "disagree" with God's character or commands. Am I correct in assuming that's the sort of objection you might raise to me as well?

 

[NBB]

This one is somewhat easy, every sin makes you more dirty, more 'derpraved' spiritually, more evil.
The ideal christian is pure of heart, every sin makes a person spiritual state worse and brings spiritual death, but i can't expect atheists to undestand this.

So people spiritual health is related to sin/God laws.

 

[cvanwey]

I chose #5

I over-generalized 4 topics, for sake in brevity alone. Your newly created point is ultimately the same as #4. I'll explain, in brief, below.

Your entire list is 1) rebel 2) serf 3) coward 4) beggars

You seem to have a narrow view of the 4 given points. But you will find that, when you get down to it, it's hard to find a 'true' fifth or sixth reason to "justify" a moral action or duty

Is that your definition and purpose of Morals? A bunch of rules for rebels, serfs, cowards and beggars,

No

#5 morals define man's relationship with God, in fact morality maintains man's dignity in the eyes of God.

Great! For starters, which one? We have so many, apparently? I trust you understand that 'God's claimed moral characters and commands differ, from claimed god to claimed god, right? And like I asked you, which denomination in Christianity alone?

And after we solve this, which might be a huge epiphany for not only myself, but likely for many current believers in their opposing gods and/or atheists/agnostics/other; how do we know simply striking up a relationship and aligning your moral actions and duties to the likes of this verified god IS THE moral answer?

Thus far, your new point simply further explains, starts giving some details, and/or 're-purposes' point #4.

Yes, theft is always wrong. Whether there are mitigating circumstances, that may gain mercy however, explaining to the Judge why you had to murder that guy is not a defense, it is a confession.

According to who or what absolute standard?

 

[cvanwey]

It has to do with God's character, His nature. Some of your posts to others suggest you might just "disagree" with God's character or commands.

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

Am I correct in assuming that's the sort of objection you might raise to me as well?

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.

 

[cvanwey]

This one is somewhat easy, every sin makes you more dirty, more 'derpraved' spiritually, more evil.
The ideal christian is pure of heart, every sin makes a person spiritual state worse and brings spiritual death, but i can't expect atheists to undestand this.

So people spiritual health is related to sin/God laws.

Please define 'sin'. Please define 'evil'.

 

[Ophiolite]

“Might makes right” is not true in the realm of human interaction. But the fact that God’s character is right is not by virtue of God being the most powerful. Goodness is related to God’s character in a tautological sense.

So you are arguing that God's might and his determination of what is right are independent. Do you support this argument with faith, personal revelation, Scripture, or some other means?