Evil

[Huntun]

Even if a book expressed a divinely revealed objective standard of morality (say the words used perfectly correspond to some absolute objective standard out in the world**) the human appropriation and understanding of the said book would still bring in the element of subjectivity. I don't see how humans could bypass that even if the perfect book existed.


** If the map truly equaled the territory in every single detail so to speak.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Given evidence that mine are wrong.

I'm sure, like me, you think that raping children is wrong.

I could never be convinced otherwise. Don't you agree?

My morality is based upon my observations, so different observations may very well yield a different morality.

No observation could convince me that raping children was not evil because it is objectively evil. I simply refuse to believe that anyone could show me any observation that said otherwise.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

If the Nazi's won the war and killed every person who disagreed with them, and every person alive thought the Holocuast was moral do you think it would be moral?

I certainly don't. The holocaust was evil even if every person alive thouhgt it was good. That's the point.

That depends on the course of future events and how society changes and views the past.

Then this future society would be evil.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
(Isa 5:20)

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Fair enough.

Can you answer the same question then?

Convincing someone to commit suicide...good or evil?

Evil

 

[variant]

I'm sure, like me, you think that raping children is wrong.

I could never be convinced otherwise. Don't you agree?

No observation could convince me that raping children was not evil because it is objectively evil. I simply refuse to believe that anyone could show me any observation that said otherwise.

True, I highly doubt we are ever going to disagree on this.

But, I still form this opinion on morality based upon my experiences, making this a subjective idea.

And of course there are people who thought it was OK to rape children in the past.

And again the Bible provides us with a bad example:

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Some of these women would have been young enough that I would consider them children.

 

[variant]

Then this future society would be evil.

That depends on the people in the society.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Even if a book expressed a divinely revealed objective standard of morality (say the words used perfectly correspond to some absolute objective standard out in the world**) the human appropriation and understanding of the said book would still bring in the element of subjectivity. I don't see how humans could bypass that even if the perfect book existed.


** If the map truly equaled the territory in every single detail so to speak.

I agree that human interpretation may bring in variant expressions of the morals. This does not mean that every interpretation was wrong and not inline with the preexisting objective standard. It simply does not follow.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

An absolute moral standard can, and does, still exist even if some people disagree with it. Just because sociopaths exist does not mean that what they believe is still not evil. IOW, An absolute standard does not require universal agreement to still be absolute.


If the Nazi's won the war and killed every person who disagreed with them, and every person alive thought the Holocuast was moral do you think it would be moral?

I certainly don't. The holocaust was evil even if every person alive thought it was good. That's the point.

That depends on the people in the society.

We already know they think it's right. The question is do you think they are right.

 

[variant]

We already know they think it's right. The question is do you think they are right.

My having strong ideas about right and wrong doesn't mean I think morality is objective. It means I strive for objective reasons to support my moral positions.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I'm sure, like me, you think that raping children is wrong.

I could never be convinced otherwise. Don't you agree?


No observation could convince me that raping children was not evil because it is objectively evil. I simply refuse to believe that anyone could show me any observation that said otherwise.

True, I highly doubt we are ever going to disagree on this.

But, I still form this opinion on morality based upon my experiences, making this a subjective idea.

I sense a case of Cognitive Dissonance

You agree that raping a child would always be evil then you contradict yourself by saying it is subjectively based on your experiences.

 

[variant]

I sense a case of Cognitive Dissonance

You agree that raping a child would always be evil then you contradict yourself by saying it is subjectively based on your experiences.

You just aren't reading what I am saying.

My thinking that it is always evil doesn't make it objectively evil, or make morality objective.

No matter how strongly I feel about something, my values do not graduate to objective facts, even if I attempt to base my values on objective facts.

Objective morality is a fine goal (even if unattainable), but we base our decisions on values on our experiences, feelings and preferences.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Evil

You know, I was going to take this further...but I really don't have to at this point. The two christians on here answered differently to the exact same moral question. Ordinary said, "Evil"...Heir said, "Depends upon circumstances".

I'll just let you two decide which one of you your god forgot to write his will upon.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You know, I was going to take this further...

It would have lead nowhere fruitful for you if you had.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It would have lead nowhere fruitful for you if you had.

You don't know that for sure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It would have lead nowhere fruitful for you if you had.

That sounds like a challenge...

So who doesn't have god's will written upon him? Yourself? Or Heir?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

That sounds like a challenge...

That you appear unwilling to accept.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That you appear unwilling to accept.

I've asked the question twice now, even though you cut it from your response both times. It's there for everyone to see, so it's not as if nobody can see you trying hard to avoid it...

Which of you two Christians has god's will guiding his morality? Yourself or Heir?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I've asked the question twice now, even though you cut it from your response both times. It's there for everyone to see, so it's not as if nobody can see you trying hard to avoid it...

Which of you two Christians has god's will guiding his morality? Yourself or Heir?

No, seem to have confused this thread with another. This is the question sequence that has led us here.

Please note, that if you say "yes" to the question...I intend to ask you a relatively easy moral question, then little by little change it's details until you reach a moral ambiguity.

Yes

Convincing someone to commit suicide...good or evil?

Evil

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, seem to have confused this thread with another. This is the question sequence that has led us here.

Oh, I have the right thread. The whole point of that line of questioning was to show how this statement of yours is terribly terribly wrong...

"Second, the Bible teaches a set of principles that will result in following God's will if we follow them. "

Both you and Heir basically spent the last 6 pages arguing this point. You both believe that by being christian, reading the bible, blah blah blah (I'm paraphrasing here)...you're both morally guided by "god's will". I said this was nonsense, and I could prove it by asking a morally ambiguous question. Here's the funny part...it only took 1 question! Just one! Remarkable right??!?

You both think you're morally guided by god's will... and that will represents some "moral standard" or something like that....yet you disagree on the same moral question. So you see...I don't need to continue that line of questioning to prove my point, you can't both be right.

So you have a couple choices now...you can say...

1. Heir is wrong, and he isn't guided by god's will. Of course, you'll need to explain how you know this and why such a wonderful system somehow failed to work. What happened to god's will on that one?
2. You're wrong and Heir is right. You'll still need to answer the questions to #1 but it will be easier since you're answering for yourself.
3. Oops, you're both wrong and while you think you're following gods will...you're actually just doing whatever you think is right, like everyone else, and there's no (objective) moral standard behind it.
4. Something else I haven't thought of.

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

I think that in following your "moral compass" (read doing what you feel is intuitively correct) and interpretation of the Bible you are a long way from either objectivity or a anything I would consider a standard.

I honestly don't believe there is much you do differently when dealing with moral questions that I do, but you've merely steeped the process in your religious beliefs.

I don't think it adds anything.

It just ties you to ridiculous positions like justifying genocide.

Maybe our definition of objective is differing here.. In objective morals and duties I mean ones that don't change and aren't influenced by people or circumstances. I'm not saying I'm perfect... I miss it sometimes just like everyone else. And I have't steeped my morals in my religion. That means that I've taken my morals and covered them with religion, but that's not true. My religion is the source of my morals, you see, so the objective morality that I believe in wouldn't be if I didn't believe what I believe. I only have these morals because of God. So no, religion doesn't add anything, because how can it when it was there all along? It is the foundation of what I believe to be objectively good and evil. And it's only genocide by your definition, so I'm not justifying genocide, I am justifying capital punishment. Which was right in those times, before Jesus paid the price with His life so I don't have to with mine.

Whatever helps you sleep at night while defending morally bankrupt actions.

It is ridiculous to say that murdering children is justified because the children are not innocent. You should stop, because it simply makes your argument look bad.

Killing isn't immoral. Murder is. Children are innocent because they don't know right from wrong, although we are all born selfish. And I believe that all of those children are in Heaven now, which is a much better life than they would have had if they had been kept by the Isrealites. It just seems that it would have turned out pretty badly for everyone involved if the children ever found out they were living with the people that killed all of their people.

Today we have moved beyond such things, and developed more organized societies where genocides seem so much less necessary than I guess it seemed then.

It probably has to do with not settling our differences by forming mobs and beating our enemies with blunt/pointy objects.

The question is why we should listen to the wisdom of people who did live in such a world.

Again, not genocide. We do still live in that world. It is still that way all over the world. Just because it's not often seen in places like the U.S. doesn't mean that it isn't rather common. And now we have more efficient weapons, so why would clubs and the like still be utilized?

I realize that it took over an eon for Christians to 'realize' this, once coming to power in society, so I am not willing to guess that the change happened around 33 ad.

You have to retcon your religion a bit to fit that in a thousand years earlier than today.

I don't think it took over an eon for Christians to realize it, because that was the message of the people who wrote the Bible under God's direction, the FIRST Christians...