Evil

[Wiccan_Child]

OK almost, but the absolute agreement of everyone is not required for something to be evil or not. If we all agreed it was good to torture babies to hear them scream, it would still be evil.

Why? Prove to me that torturing babies to hear them scream is always evil.

Another evil act.

Says you. Some would argue that the ends justify the means.

And I am arguing there are some actions that are absolutely immoral.

Then demonstrate as much. Simply citing examples of what you personally consider to be absolutely immoral is insufficient.

If it is not right, irrespective of subjectivity, there is absolute morality.

Indeed. However, the burden is on you to prove that something is not right irrespective of subjectivity.

 

[quatona]

Evil is not based on majority vote. It is not about everyone agreeing.

Fine. Makes me wonder why you brought up and insisted on the "everyone agrees..." thing, in the first place.
Now that we know how not to determine evil, maybe you can also tell us your suggestion how to determine it? On minority vote, or by elman´s vote?

Two plus two is four and it matters not that you can find someone who disagrees with that.

That´s because and why nobody disagrees with it. 2+2=4 is not a subjective value call, hence the comparison doesn´t fly.

The murder of innocent people is evil and bad and not subject to wheather people have done that throughout history or not.

Yes, even Hitler or Bush would have wholeheartedly agreed right away that murder of innocent people is evil and bad.
IOW: whilst people indeed agree that "murder" is a negative value call, and "innocent" is a positive one (just like everyone agrees that delicious food tastes good), there is often great disagreement as to what action is murder, who is innocent and which food is delicious.

People have been evil throughout history and that is the way they have been evil.

Which brings us back to the question whether there are other methods to discern an action as evil, other than following my subjective view or going by elman´s subjective verdict as to what is objectively evil.

 

[daniel777]

Yes, even Hitler or Bush would have wholeheartedly agreed right away that murder of innocent people is evil and bad.

lets not define whose innoscent until we decide what's evil.

just like everyone agrees that delicious food tastes good), there is often great disagreement as to what action is murder, who is innocent and which food is delicious

hittler was ready to whipe out an entire race because he saw the jews as less than people (which food is delicious/which catagory of people deserve life) . if how we value different people and things falls back to morality it would be best to have objective morality, which can be seen in different cultures no matter how far apart, yet still declining overtime.

when we look 50 years into the past, whats considered bad is now good but there's little change in what is considered good, and accepted by society.

this suggests not only a simple balanced change, but a deterioration of culture and morality.


through time and in secluded distances morality has experienced its up and downs, but astonishingly through these changes people have always considered the same basic principals either right or wrong.

you don't compare individuals subjective beliefs in one instance in one time in one place to define morality. if people defined morality/if morality had its roots in the mind of man then there would be no reason to follow it because man would be greater than morality because it is of his design. but if you have a God whose morality is based on himself, if he is in himself the very definition and standard for morality, if the standard and personhood are joined in one being. then follow that morality. "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." he is not greater than the law the law is him. the law is not greater then him the law is him. He is bound by his words and his words are bound by him.

 

[quatona]

lets not define whose innoscent until we decide what's evil.

Well, elman used the word "innocent" in his definition of "evil". So you better get that sorted with him,.

interesting though how you condemn christians for laying moral fences,

Where did I condemn anyone at all, where did I condemn someone for laying fences specifically, and where did I condemn Christians specifically?

but in your own arguments trying to disprove evil exists you have no problem laying fences.

So far I haven´t been trying to disprove that evil exists. I am saying it is a subjective judgement call, and I am asking those who claim their opinion on it to be objective to give me a reason to accept their authority on the subject.
I am not sure I know what "laying fences" means - I guess it is a figurative colloquial for something (non-native speaker here). So would you mind to explain so that I know what you think I am doing?

hittler was ready to whipe out an entire race because he saw the jews as less than people (which food is delicious/which catagory of people deserve life) . if how we value different people and things falls back to morality it would be best to have objective morality,

It would be best to have wings, too.

which can be seen in different cultures no matter how far apart, yet still declining overtime.

...no matter whether they believed their morality to be objective or not.

when we look 50 years into the past, whats considered bad is now good but there's little change in what is considered good, and accepted by society.

That doesn´t make any logical sense.
Apart from that, there are plenty of things that used to be considered good, and are now considered bad. Oppression of minorities, unequal treatment of women - just to name the first two examples that come to mind.
Particularly in my nation, if going back 65 years, killing Jews, Communists, homosexuals, Gipsies and disabled persons by the millions was considered good, and today it is considered bad.

this suggests not only a simple balanced change, but a deterioration of culture and morality.

Even if your premise would be accurate: what your suggestion implies is that the mere amount of things considered bad is the determining factor. There more things (no matter what they are) are considered bad, the better and more stable the society.

through time and in secluded distances morality has experienced its up and downs, but astonishingly through these changes people have always considered the same basic principals either right or wrong.

You would have to establish that, other than simply claiming it. I have given you a few counterexamples already.

you don't compare individuals subjective beliefs in one instance in one time in one place to define morality. if people defined morality/if morality had its roots in the mind of man then there would be no reason to follow it because man would be greater than morality because it is of his design.

There would indeed be no reason to follow it blindly, out of mere obedience, and I don´t think there is no such reason and I don´t want anyone to follow a morality blindly and out of mere obedience.
Most of our laws are not claimed to come directly from god, yet most people do their best to follow them.
If a moral/ethical notion is reasonable, there is no need for blind obedience.

but if you have a God whose morality is based on himself, if he is in himself the very definition and standard for morality, if the standard and personhood are joined in one being. then follow that morality. "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." he is not greater than the law the law is him. the law is not greater then him the law is him. He is bound by his words and his words are bound by him.

Well, then you are almost there. Only one minor thing that you still need to do: Convince everyone that a god exists, and convince everyone that it is the god of your concept - the god who gave out the morality you´d like to see established.

 

[elman]

=Wiccan_Child;36816191]Why? Prove to me that torturing babies to hear them scream is always evil.

It is not needed. You already do that because you are a human being and not an animal.

Says you. Some would argue that the ends justify the means.

And they would be wrong.

Then demonstrate as much. Simply citing examples of what you personally consider to be absolutely immoral is insufficient.

It is demonstrated because what I personally reconize as being unloving is also what you personally reconize as being unloving.

Indeed. However, the burden is on you to prove that something is not right irrespective of subjectivity.

And by pointing out something you also instinctivly know is not right, I have fulfilled that burden of proof.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Evil is not based on majority vote. It is not about everyone agreeing.

Fine. Makes me wonder why you brought up and insisted on the "everyone agrees..." thing, in the first place.

It is instintive knowledge among human beings. Some human beings will deny this knowledge or act in spite of it, but the knowledge is still there and part of being human.

Now that we know how not to determine evil, maybe you can also tell us your suggestion how to determine it? On minority vote, or by elman´s vote?

No not on vote but on what is loving, the action, and what is not.

Quote:
Two plus two is four and it matters not that you can find someone who disagrees with that.

That´s because and why nobody disagrees with it. 2+2=4 is not a subjective value call, hence the comparison doesn´t fly.

Yes it does fly because no human being disagrees that torturing babies to hear them scream is good---thus not a subjective value call.

Quote:
The murder of innocent people is evil and bad and not subject to wheather people have done that throughout history or not.

Yes, even Hitler or Bush would have wholeheartedly agreed right away that murder of innocent people is evil and bad.
IOW: whilst people indeed agree that "murder" is a negative value call, and "innocent" is a positive one (just like everyone agrees that delicious food tastes good), there is often great disagreement as to what action is murder, who is innocent and which food is delicious.

True but the holocaust was objectively murder, i.e. killing that was bad. There is really not that much disagreement on that. The victims of the holocaust were innocent in the sence they did not deserve to be killed in gas ovens.
Quote:
People have been evil throughout history and that is the way they have been evil.

Which brings us back to the question whether there are other methods to discern an action as evil, other than following my subjective view or going by elman´s subjective verdict as to what is objectively evil.

Your view of what is unloving and my view of what is unloving will be for the most part the same. The times that it is different does not mean those times it was the same is an accident and the times it is the same have a meaning. It means something that you can go to any culture of any time and for the most part find people that see a loving action is a good thing and helping someone in need is a loving action.

 

[quatona]

It is instintive knowledge among human beings.

Except when it isn´t.

Some human beings will deny this knowledge or act in spite of it, but the knowledge is still there and part of being human.

Yes, that´s the common argument of every group that wants to establish its moral ideas as objective. Accusing those who disagree as "denying the knowledge" that you are right, is the oldest trick of demamogics in the book.

No not on vote but on what is loving, the action, and what is not.

And who determines what is "loving"?

Yes it does fly because no human being disagrees that torturing babies to hear them scream is good---thus not a subjective value call.

So now you are back at the argument that you said has no merits, anyways? "Everyone agrees...". Make up your mind, please.

True but the holocaust was objectively murder, i.e. killing that was bad. There is really not that much disagreement on that.

Well, there was back then. Today there is a lot of disagreement whether America´s attack on Iraq constitutes murder and war criminality.

The victims of the holocaust were innocent in the sence they did not deserve to be killed in gas ovens.

And what does make this your (and my, btw.) opinion objective, praytell?

Your view of what is unloving and my view of what is unloving will be for the most part the same. The times that it is different does not mean those times it was the same is an accident and the times it is the same have a meaning. It means something that you can go to any culture of any time and for the most part find people that see a loving action is a good thing and helping someone in need is a loving action.

You just told me that not even "everyone agrees..." is a valid argument for something to be objective. Now you tell me that "most people" is already sufficient.
People have disagreed throughout history about what´s good and evil, and heavily so. Every single war witnesses of this. Opinions have be different in different regions, and opinions have changed dramatically throughout history in each region.
Slavery was perfectly acceptable and loving in your country once ("those poor stupid beings wouldn´t get along without us commanding them and taking care of them").
The fact that you can find abstract signifiers (that - practically - are wide open to interpretation) that people agree upon as having a positive connotation does not help much.

 

[daniel777]

...no matter whether they believed their morality to be objective or not.

yes

That doesn´t make any logical sense.
Apart from that, there are plenty of things that used to be considered good, and are now considered bad. Oppression of minorities, unequal treatment of women - just to name the first two examples that come to mind.
Particularly in my nation, if going back 65 years, killing Jews, Communists, homosexuals, Gipsies and disabled persons by the millions was considered good, and today it is considered bad.

like i said before , we're not talking about people having trouble deciding what delicious means/ what constitutes a life, but that when something is defined as alive and equal to themselves most people would say over history and over distance that killing someone equal to yourself is wrong. we aren't talking about devaluing a life. and even this devaluing of life in order to feel "good" about killing is a common trend in history. pointing to an objective moral law.


and i am sorry for the beginning of my answer, i misread and answered incorectly, then edited immediately, sorry for the inconvenience.

Well, then you are almost there. Only one minor thing that you still need to do: Convince everyone that a god exists, and convince everyone that it is the god of your concept - the god who gave out the morality you´d like to see established.

first off if God does exist, what people think of him and his law really doesn't matter. My ability to convince people has nothing to do with it being true or not. and you want proof for God . . . objective morality.

here's my attempt to get back on topic:
good is more powerful than evil.
someone can do something good for the sake of good but someone can't do something bad for the sake of badness. while doing something bad he is doing something that he THINKS will bring his or another persons well being. c.s. Lewis though probably not in that exact phrasing.

You can't define what's good and bad by what we think is benificial to ourselves because, ultamately, we do everything to benefit ourselves. by this i mean we do everything to please our strongest desire. when we desire to do something and it's at competition with another desire we have to build up one desire and take down another before we can make a choice. what we most desire, we choose.

yet doing good for the sake of good isn't enough to motivate most people. and without God that's all they have to motivate them. but even after all this without God there is no morality, why should we follow anything.

obviously if we do everything ultimately for our benefit we aren't very good at knowing whats good for us. that's easy to tell by looking at the world today. the bible says that one reason God created the law was to benefit people by showing them what's best to choose. It doesn't say he makes us choose, we still have free will, but if we don't choose him the consequences of our choices can be dreadful. not because he is bad but because he is good and justice always follows goodness.

 

[quatona]

yes

like i said before , we're not talking about people having trouble deciding what delicious means/ what constitutes a life, but that when something is defined as alive and equal to themselves most people would say over history and over distance that killing someone equal to yourself is wrong. we aren't talking about devaluing a life. and even this devaluing of life in order to feel "good" about killing is a common trend in history. pointing to an objective moral law.

Personally I do not see how calling someone inferiour and then killing him makes a practical difference to killing him right away.
I don´t seem to understand the argument. If calling the other inferiour makes my killing him any more acceptable, then ok. I will call him inferiour.

and i am sorry for the beginning of my answer, i misread and answered incorectly, then edited immediately, sorry for the inconvenience.

No problem, I answered quickly. Unfortunately, now I find myself unable to tell what exactly you have edited or added. If there is something important that I should know, please feel free to point me to it.

first off if God does exist, what people think of him and his law really doesn't matter.

Practically it´s all that matters. If you appeal to the desirability of an objective morality, this objective morality must be discernable and agreed upon.
Remember: You do believe there is an objective morality, and at the same time you keep talking of the advantages of an objective morality existing. If the mere existence of an objective morality is all that is needed to have these advantages, we must already be fully enjoying those advantages. Thus, apparently, your complaints and postulations aim for something else: For the acceptance and agreement of the existence of an objective morality (and the objective morality you believe in, on top).

My ability to convince people has nothing to do with it being true or not.

Of course not. But previously you were advertising the benefits of an objective morality, and as far as I can see those benefits are exactly dependent on its universal acceptance.

and you want proof for God . . . objective morality.

No, that gives a bit a wrong picture. Actually and if left to myself, I don´t want anything like that. Not until someone wants me to adopt his idea that a god and an objective morality exist (and even more if a person claims to know which god is the "true" one and which morality he has given out) it is that I am asking for a good reason to assume that this person of all has the unique and unheard of ability to bypass his subjectivity.

here's my attempt to get back on topic:
good is more powerful than evil.

Doesn´t sound plausible, to me. Not even if looking at the history of mankind, as Christianity would me believe in: A perfect world with perfect people and all, in a short time span developing to a mess of 100% depraved, inherently sinful immoral 6 billion people. And all that because of the thoroughly corrupting apple incident. Sounds like evil is pretty powerful to me.

someone can do something good for the sake of good but someone can't do something bad for the sake of badness.

Doesn´t seem to follow.

while doing something bad he is doing something that he THINKS will bring his or another persons well being. c.s. Lewis though probably not in that exact phrasing.

In a more abstract and global way the same happens when people pick their gods they believe in: those of which they think they are most credible in commanding a beneficial moral code.

You can't define what's good and bad by what we think is benificial to ourselves because, ultamately, we do everything to benefit ourselves. by this i mean we do everything to please our strongest desire.

Agreed. So far I see no problem with this method. Unless you use "strongest desire" for our deep down desires and trivial spontaneous urges interchangeably, in which case my "equivocation" alarm bells would ring.

when we desire to do something and it's at competition with another desire we have to build up one desire and take down another before we can make a choice. what we most desire, we choose.

Yes, you are accurately describing that ethical questions are complex and composed of many different, partly even unreconcilable, aspects, weighing up and determining of priorities of competing needs while resources are limited - something that already shows that simple cut in stone rules are utterly unusable for decisions as we practically face them.

yet doing good for the sake of good isn't enough to motivate most people. and without God that's all they have to motivate them.

And what would be the additional motivation as provided by the existence of a god? They wouldn´t do it for the sake of good, but for the sake of god. Where´s the practical difference in motivation?

but even after all this without God there is no morality, why should we follow anything.

"Without god there is no morality" is a non-sequitur, and so far you haven´t succeeded in establishing this idea. "Without god there would be no morality that comes from god." - that´s all we have so far.
Then again, with a morality that comes from god - why should we follow it?

In reference to what you above said: I understand that believing in a god (your god and his alleged morality) fulfills your strongest desires. I hope you don´t exempt this choice of yours from the basic rules you have put up.

obviously if we do everything ultimately for our benefit we aren't very good at knowing whats good for us. that's easy to tell by looking at the world today. the bible says that one reason God created the law was to benefit people by showing them what's best to choose. It doesn't say he makes us choose, we still have free will, but if we don't choose him the consequences of our choices can be dreadful. not because he is bad but because he is good and justice always follows goodness.

Ok, that´s what the bible says. So?

 

[daniel777]

Practically it´s all that matters. If you appeal to the desirability of an objective morality, this objective morality must be discernable and agreed upon.

no not if it's foundation is in God apart from and above human will. yet, even so it's still desirable over subjective morality.

If the mere existence of an objective morality is all that is needed to have these advantages, we must already be fully enjoying those advantages.

no, don't forget about free will and choice. we each understand the simple differences between right and wrong but it's our responsibility to choose good. could you elaborate on what you mean by "advantages"? and for people who don't choose good it's actually less advantages.

No, that gives a bit a wrong picture. Actually and if left to myself, I don´t want anything like that. Not until someone wants me to adopt his idea that a god and an objective morality exist (and even more if a person claims to know which god is the "true" one and which morality he has given out) it is that I am asking for a good reason to assume that this person of all has the unique and unheard of ability to bypass his subjectivity.

do you mind rephrasing this?

Doesn´t sound plausible, to me. Not even if looking at the history of mankind, as Christianity would me believe in: A perfect world with perfect people and all, in a short time span developing to a mess of 100% depraved, inherently sinful immoral 6 billion people. And all that because of the thoroughly corrupting apple incident. Sounds like evil is pretty powerful to me.

(next time i quote someone could you please keep it intact?) yes but what defines depravity. goodness and justice define it. (why does everione think it's an apple. . . ) what i'm saying is it wasn't evil that declared "man is evil" it was the good the justice it was God.

Doesn´t seem to follow.

i know. read it slower and together next time.

Agreed. So far I see no problem with this method. Unless you use "strongest desire" for our deep down desires and trivial spontaneous urges interchangeably, in which case my "equivocation" alarm bells would ring.

good we agree on something. . . this is what the quote was basically implying by the way.

Yes, you are accurately describing that ethical questions are complex and composed of many different, partly even unreconcilable, aspects, weighing up and determining of priorities of competing needs while resources are limited - something that already shows that simple cut in stone rules are utterly unusable for decisions as we practically face them.

no if you read on i said that because of the way people choose their strongest desire to most benefit themselves, looking at the world today and what people have chosen and observing the consequences, people honestly don't know what's best for them. they need clear cut rules.

And what would be the additional motivation as provided by the existence of a god? They wouldn´t do it for the sake of good, but for the sake of god. Where´s the practical difference in motivation?

they would do it for a number of reasons, love, fear of judgement, they no longer have that desire because they know what's truely benificial for them.
when we become christians we put our trust in Christ alone, leaving our well being in his hands. we trust him above what we think is best for us. this changes our desires, this changes our choices and who we are. still (aside from the point) there is something much deeper that infiltrates us and changes our desires (i'm not arguing this so don't bother. by it's very nature it is something only christians can understand.)

"Without god there is no morality" is a non-sequitur, and so far you haven´t succeeded in establishing this idea. "Without god there would be no morality that comes from god." - that´s all we have so far.
Then again, with a morality that comes from god - why should we follow it?

In reference to what you above said: I understand that believing in a god (your god and his alleged morality) fulfills your strongest desires. I hope you don´t exempt this choice of yours from the basic rules you have put up.

what good is morality if it is not objective. can you name how objective morality could come to be without some force (God) over us who ordane it.

as to the second statement, if you are refering to the alledged rules "people can choose bad hoping to benefit themselves" extremely basic logic: if God exists the morality he sets forth cannot be bad

Ok, that´s what the bible says. So?

so. . it works in symetry with what i've said. if the bible is true it's the most important thing on the face of the earth. if you believed that how often would you quote it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is not needed.

On the contrary, you have made a claim, and a bold one at that. I am simply asking for your justification. If you cannot present it, then I will take that as a retraction.

You already do that because you are a human being and not an animal.

On the contrary, I would very much like to hear the screams of babies. I do not consider it an evil act, nor do I consider myself evil.
Prove me wrong.

And they would be wrong.

Justification?

It is demonstrated because what I personally reconize as being unloving is also what you personally reconize as being unloving.

Nonsense. Do you have the same moral view as me on everything? Bestiality? Pornography? Abortion? Homosexuality? The death penalty?

And by pointing out something you also instinctivly know is not right, I have fulfilled that burden of proof.

Instinct is not knowledge. A simple proof of this is that instinct can be wrong. If my instinct tells me that someone is hiding in my closet, does that mean that someone is hiding in my closet?

I say again: the burden is on you to prove that some things are not right irrespective of subjectivity.

 

[quatona]

no not if it's foundation is in God apart from and above human will. yet, even so it's still desirable over subjective morality.

Why do you find it desirable, what makes it desirable for you?

no, don't forget about free will and choice.

I don´t believe in „freewill“ and „choice“.

we each understand the simple differences between right and wrong but it's our responsibility to choose good.

So the existence of objective morality does not necessarily make the world any better.

you elaborate on what you mean by "advantages"?

You are the one who keeps telling me that an objective morality is a nice thing to have. The resons why you think it is a nice thing I have called „advantages“. I still have no clue what these advantages might be, and I doubt that there are such.
Actually, I was under the impression that one of your intention in this conversation was to convince me that having an objective morality is advantageous. I still don´t understand where you see them.


Quote:
No, that gives a bit a wrong picture. Actually and if left to myself, I don´t want anything like that. Not until someone wants me to adopt his idea that a god and an objective morality exist (and even more if a person claims to know which god is the "true" one and which morality he has given out) it is that I am asking for a good reason to assume that this person of all has the unique and unheard of ability to bypass his subjectivity.
do you mind rephrasing this?

Not at all. You said that I wanted proof for god and objective morality. I answered that – let alone that „proof“ is a big word and I would never ask for such – I don´t want it. Yet, as soon as a person – which might be you, for example – wants to convince me that he has such objective knowledge as to what god exists and which morality this god has given out, I need a good reason to swallow the implicit claim that – as opposed to everybody else – this person can bypass his subjectivity and arrive at objective knowledge.

(next time i quote someone could you please keep it intact?)

I´m not aware I scrambled anything. If so, it wasn´t my intention and I apologize.

yes but what defines depravity. goodness and justice define it. (why does everione think it's an apple. . . ) what i'm saying is it wasn't evil that declared "man is evil" it was the good the justice it was God.

Don´t know how this adresses my point. The fact that, according to Christian doctrine, there once was paradise and now we have a messed up, totally depraved, evil world suggest that „evil“ is extremely powerful. I don´t know how „good is more powerful than evil“ is reconcilable with these observations and valuation.

i know. read it slower and together next time.

So what was your line of reasoning? What did I miss? What did your claim
someone can do something good for the sake of good but someone can't do something bad for the sake of badness
follow from?

Quote:
Agreed. So far I see no problem with this method. Unless you use "strongest desire" for our deep down desires and trivial spontaneous urges interchangeably, in which case my "equivocation" alarm bells would ring.
good we agree on something. . . this is what the quote was basically implying by the way.

Sorry, I´m not sure I understand. What exactly was it that which quote implied?

no if you read on i said that because of the way people choose their strongest desire to most benefit themselves, looking at the world today and what people have chosen and observing the consequences, people honestly don't know what's best for them. they need clear cut rules.

Well, that´s your subjective judgement call. In order to arrive at this judgement call you must have applied a certain set of moral notions already. Doing that in order to substantiate the view that these moral notions are objective is circular reasoning.
If, for example, I claimed that pornograpy is a great thing by standards of objectivity, we would have to conclude that the world has gotten much better since the availability of porn has increased.

People do have clear cut rules by the hundreds, btw.

they would do it for a number of reasons, love, fear of judgement, they no longer have that desire because they know what's truely benificial for them.

- Love:
you are telling me that people are unable to act lovingly just for the sake of it. Now you are telling me that they would be able to love a god just for the sake of it.
- Fear of punishment:

• You are presupposing that the objective morality would come with threat of punishment.
• Fear of punishment doesn´t go well with love. You don´t enforce love by threat of punishment. This would be obedience.

-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]„they no longer have the desire...“:
Again I have to wonder. According to you there is objective morality out there. Yet, you keep complaining that people do have the desire to do evil.

when we become christians we put our trust in Christ alone, leaving our well being in his hands. we trust him above what we think is best for us. this changes our desires, this changes our choices and who we are. still (aside from the point) there is something much deeper that infiltrates us and changes our desires (i'm not arguing this so don't bother. by it's very nature it is something only christians can understand.)

I am not assuming that you want to bother me. Nonetheless, I would kindly ask you to do the preaching in church.
If, however, that which you are trying to explain to me, cannot be explained to me anyways (as your last sentence suggests), I propose that we both stop wasting our time here.

what good is morality if it is not objective.

What good is it if it is objective?
Morality can be judged good or bad only if we have agreed upon a purpose of morality. We can then tell whether a certain morality serves this purpose (then this is the good of this morality) or not. The source or whether it is subjective or objective is irrelevant for that.

can you name how objective morality could come to be without some force (God) over us who ordane it.

Why would I? I am not the one who says that objective morality is a desirable thing to have, and I am not the one who claims that there is such or could be such.

as to the second statement, if you are refering to the alledged rules "people can choose bad hoping to benefit themselves" extremely basic logic: if God exists the morality he sets forth cannot be bad

This makes the question „Does god exist“ and „does objective morality exist“ practically the same question.

so. . it works in symetry with what i've said. if the bible is true it's the most important thing on the face of the earth.

It´s not so much symetrical as it is circular. Your „if“ is the very big „if“ that we disagee upon.

How did Christianity come into the play, btw.? So far we were discussing the existence and desirability about objective morality in general, given out by some god.

if you believed that how often would you quote it?

Depends on whether I were in a situation where I preached to the choir or in a controversial discussion. In the latter case I would avoid quoting it altogether, because I would be aware that it doesn´t make an argument.

 

[daniel777]

I don´t believe in „freewill“ and „choice“.

no, you're the one with the circular argument
can you please explain to me how a person without free will can have a subjective morality.
for morality to be subjective people must have free will or else morality would come from the situations that shape a person rather then from themselves. this leaves two possibilities either morality is objective and extremely complex. or it doesn't exist at all. i believe you would fall into the catagory that says it doesn't exist at all. but this leaves a question: if it doesn't exist at all then where does the desire for it come from. this leads to the answer of another one of your questions the "advantages". if objective morality exists life isn't a swirling abis where people have desires that are never met. if it exists fulfillment for our basic human desires exist. this begs another question why do people have these desires in the first place, how did they get them. if there is no God then desires are just evolutionary (or whatever else you believe. . . ) sidafects that mean absolutely nothing.

So the existence of objective morality does not necessarily make the world any better

no, with objective morality comes meaning and purpose.

You are the one who keeps telling me that an objective morality is a nice thing to have. The resons why you think it is a nice thing I have called „advantages“. I still have no clue what these advantages might be, and I doubt that there are such.
Actually, I was under the impression that one of your intention in this conversation was to convince me that having an objective morality is advantageous. I still don´t understand where you see them.

you need to read up on your atheist philosophers, even they can't refute advantages in objectivity. . . like meaning. . . purpose. . . fulfilment of basic human desires. . . to name a few.

I am not assuming that you want to bother me. Nonetheless, I would kindly ask you to do the preaching in church.
If, however, that which you are trying to explain to me, cannot be explained to me anyways (as your last sentence suggests), I propose that we both stop wasting our time here.

it cannot be explained to you but it's there to help you understand us. you don't always have to explain the makeup of something to know it's simple nature and function.

Depends on whether I were in a situation where I preached to the choir or in a controversial discussion. In the latter case I would avoid quoting it altogether, because I would be aware that it doesn´t make an argument.

here's something else you need to understand about us, we put God's will above our own, we know we aren't god and we know he's much smarter than us because every time we test him, he proves true.

This makes the question „Does god exist“ and „does objective morality exist“ practically the same question.

yes

does this answer your questions, if not please ask them.

 

[daniel777]

Love:
you are telling me that people are unable to act lovingly just for the sake of it.
Now you are telling me that they would be able to love a god just for the sake of it.

aghhh again with the needless repetition. . . like i said he changes our desires for us. . . but to better answer the question, congradulatons you've just sumarized the christian walk.

- Fear of punishment:

• You are presupposing that the objective morality would come with threat of punishment.
• Fear of punishment doesn´t go well with love. You don´t enforce love by threat of punishment. This would be obedience.

(first dot) yes, how and why else would it exist if it's not enforcable.
(second dot)you are right. . . chrisitans don't have to be afraid, everyone else should be. it's not "love me or i'll mutalate you" it's "i'm taking your place so you don't have to endure what you deserve, change your ways, i'll help you, trust me."

Again I have to wonder. According to you there is objective morality out there. Yet, you keep complaining that people do have the desire to do evil.

complaining. . . chill out man.
like i said. . . people desire to do evil because they think it will benefit them. go back and read what all i said if you want to know, i'm not going to retype it all, i'm not trying to be rude. i just don't have the time.

are you trying to understand or just trying to win a debate?

 

[quatona]

no, you're the one with the circular argument

Then go ahead and point the circularity out. So far I have not even made that many claims, I am mainly asking you questions.

can you please explain to me how a person without free will can have a subjective morality.

The same way a person without freewill can have a particular haircolour. I don´t understand the problem, I don´t see what needs to be explained.

for morality to be subjective people must have free will or else morality would come from the situations that shape a person rather then from themselves. this leaves two possibilities either morality is objective and extremely complex. or it doesn't exist at all.

I´m sorry, Daniel, but I fail to see how anything in this paragraph follows from anything. Could you, maybe, explain the conclusion more in detail?

i believe you would fall into the catagory that says it doesn't exist at all.

Each person have their ideas as to what they would like the world to be like and what helps making it that way. These ideas I call morality/ethics. These ideas exist - as ideas.

but this leaves a question: if it doesn't exist at all then where does the desire for it come from.

I have problems understanding your questions, Daniel. The mere fact that we suffer and feel joy downright hardpresses us to develop ideas as to how joy can be enhanced and suffering can be reduced. What´s mysterious about it, what needs to be explained?

this leads to the answer of another one of your questions the "advantages". if objective morality exists life isn't a swirling abis where people have desires that are never met. if it exists fulfillment for our basic human desires exist.

I don´t seem to understand how objective morality and fulfillment of our desires are linked in your opinion.

this begs another question why do people have these desires in the first place, how did they get them. if there is no God then desires are just evolutionary (or whatever else you believe. . . ) sidafects that mean absolutely nothing.

What do you mean when saying "mean absolutely nothing". My desires and the desires of others mean a lot to me.

no, with objective morality comes meaning and purpose.

Which purpose does objective morality generate?

you need to read up on your atheist philosophers, even they can't refute advantages in objectivity. . . like meaning. . . purpose. . . fulfilment of basic human desires. . . to name a few.

They are not "my" atheist philosophers. If you want to discuss with me, I would kindly ask you adress my statements.
There are objectist and subjectivist philosphers, and last time I checked there hadn´t been an objective verdict on who has it right.

it cannot be explained to you but it's there to help you understand us. you don't always have to explain the makeup of something to know it's simple nature and function.

Well, for me to understand you would have to explain it.

here's something else you need to understand about us, we put God's will above our own, we know we aren't god and we know he's much smarter than us because every time we test him, he proves true.[7quote]
I´m glad you´ve found an idea that matched your needs.

does this answer your questions, if not please ask them.

No, it doesn´t answer them, but given the course of the conversation so far I have the impression that you and I communicate pretty unsuccessfully. So I guess it might be a good idea if we searched for persons with whom conversation is more promising. Sometimes it just doesn´t work or flow.
Thanks for your efforts, Daniel!

 

[daniel777]

No, it doesn´t answer them, but given the course of the conversation so far I have the impression that you and I communicate pretty unsuccessfully. So I guess it might be a good idea if we searched for persons with whom conversation is more promising. Sometimes it just doesn´t work or flow.
Thanks for your efforts, Daniel!

yep, getting pretty off topic anyway. it's difficult to have 7 different intertwining arguments going on at the same time. once we each start answering each other with the same answers over and over it starts getting ridiculous.However you never answerd my last question. i just want to know, i wasn't trying to be rude.

 

[quatona]

yep, getting pretty off topic anyway. it's difficult to have 7 different intertwining arguments going on at the same time. once we each start answering each other with the same answers over and over it starts getting ridiculous.However you never answerd my last question. i just want to know, i wasn't trying to be rude.

This one?

are you trying to understand or just trying to win a debate?

I am not a great fan of debating. I like discussions. First requirement for a fruitful discussion is to understand the arguments of the discussion partner. That´s why I kept asking.
Rest assured, that if I just tried to win a debate my posts would read entirely differently.

So, how about you? Are you trying to understand or just trying to win a debate?

Am I right in assuming that you ask this question because you are frustrated with the discussion and feel that your efforts and points were not adequately appreciated and honoured?
I know this feeling - it doesn´t feel good. Here´s a thought that usually helps me deal with it: The person opposite has spent about as much time and effort in the discussion as I did. This in itself is evidence that he found my thoughts worthy of addressing them, which is a privilege he has given me and more appreciation than I actually can ask for.

 

[daniel777]

So, how about you? Are you trying to understand or just trying to win a debate?

i'm trying to understand. like i said, i question my beliefs all the time, He always proves true. it's easy to blame God for everything that happens. when i understand the logic behind an action better, its application makes much better sense. sometimes there is as much wrong with the question itself and the assumptions it makes than with the "problem/problems" it adresses.

Am I right in assuming that you ask this question because you are frustrated with the discussion and feel that your efforts and points were not adequately appreciated and honoured?
I know this feeling - it doesn´t feel good. Here´s a thought that usually helps me deal with it: The person opposite has spent about as much time and effort in the discussion as I did. This in itself is evidence that he found my thoughts worthy of addressing them, which is a privilege he has given me and more appreciation than I actually can ask for.

and sometimes it's hard to express such complex truths(ideas; whatever you want to call it) without being complicating. the person that comes to mind when i say this is C.S. Lewis. there's not many others like him. if you're interested, you should read his books. he does a much better job than i could ever do.

 

[quatona]

i'm trying to understand. like i said, i question my beliefs all the time, He always proves true.

I thought we were talking about your and my conversation, specifically.

it's easy to blame God for everything that happens.

Only if you believe in god. For me that´s not an option.

and sometimes it's hard to express such complex truths(ideas; whatever you want to call it) without being complicating. the person that comes to mind when i say this is C.S. Lewis. there's not many others like him. if you're interested, you should read his books. he does a much better job than i could ever do.

I have read some of his stuff. I think I better abstain from a comment, ok?

 

[daniel777]

I thought we were talking about your and my conversation, specifically.

i didn't mean i'm trying to understand myself, i meant you. and that's easier to do when i put what you say up against my beliefs. anyway that's what i meant.

I have read some of his stuff. I think I better abstain from a comment, ok?

sounds like a great discussion for another forum. why don't you post it? Think you could handle it? are you afraid every christian on cf would jump on you? bom bom buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum.