God doesn't like me

[Reformationist]

I do wish you could be consistent.

Well, I imagine that I can be consistant and I do assure you that I made no attempt to be inconsistant.

If you wish to say that the only standard of morality is God then you cannot allow that morality is possible if God doesn't exist.

If on the other hand you are saying that a non-believer has to appeal to some 'other establishment' it would be necessary to ask why.

I never said that morality could exist apart from the existance of God. I also never said that it couldn't. What I will say is that it doesn't. And, what I did say was that it is, in my opinion, a moot issue as there is a God who does establish morality.

As to "why" they must appeal to some "other establishment," you must do so because without it this discussion becomes frivolous. It would be ridiculous, and not a little unrealistic, to assume that you could purport that God is not real yet morality is and then go on to deny that morality, while completely subjective, has no basis in any concrete foundation. Clearly, what is acceptable in the eyes of one person is not necessarily acceptable in the eyes of another, regardless of their moral perspective or the source from which they derive their sense of right and wrong. Shall we simply live by the rule that as long as we believe something is morally okay then it actually is?

After all, if we need to appeal to an establishment for morality, God does too.

This is simply a nonsensical statement. If God is real and who the Bible says He is, then there is no higher authority. Therefore, God appeals to no one for anything. Your reasoning that if the creation must appeal to an outside establishment for determining the morality of an action that God must as well is illogical.

So God has no standard of morality so for him a baby's death is right?

fatpie, to my knowledge, my participation in this discussion has included showing you respect. I ask the same for you. As intelligent as you seem to be, it is illogical to assume that you came to such a deduction honestly. I would ask that you refrain from such inanity. I believe in, and love, God. You do not. That has the makings of an interesting and, possibly, productive discussion. I have never stated, or intimated, that God has no standard of morality. What I've stated is that God is the standard of morality. The answer to your question is that the baby's death, while appearing a tragedy according to our finite understanding, fulfills the will of God for that child and is, therefore, a "good" thing. If the Lord made provision for the sins of that child upon the Cross, which I would believe He did, then that child is in Heaven with its Creator. And that, fatpie, is a good thing.

Why does there need to be a 'person' to set a moral standard? Surely morality is determined by the way things in the world interact?

This is escapism. Nothing less. Morality finds its basis in definition. For instance, are homosexual relations morally acceptable? How would you determine the answer using your "morality is determined by the way the world interacts?"

If I see someone in pain due to someone else's actions, how do I know it is wrong? Do I look at the person and see that they have been injured? Or do I say "what would God have to say about this?" I don't know about you, but I'd choose the former.

So would you contend that an action's morality can be determined by observing whether it causes pain? For instance, would you say that spanking a rebellious child is an immoral action?

It looks like you could do with looking into meta-ethics.

If it is in line with the things you are saying it appears to be either nonsensical or well over my head. I pray that, with your assistance, I can begin to understand where you are coming from.

I don't really know how I can dumb Railton down any more. To be honest Railton's actual work is very long and complicated so I have already simplified things a great deal.

Basically if someone gets injured we would consider that bad for the individual who gets injured. It is a 'non-moral good' for that individual not to get injured.

Railton claims that in order to work out what moral good is, it is necessary to find out what the non-moral goods for everyone are. A good moral system would include all people.

Naturally some people think it would be good to have things that will harm them (a drug addict will want drugs for example) but Railton suggests that good is judged by what someone would want if they were fully informed and rational.

There is a naturalistic moral standard - problem solved.

With all due respect, I hope that you are not so naive that you'd think that this explanation has solved any problem, much less the one at hand. It hasn't even succeeded at enlightening me as to how we would use it determine what is good and what is bad.

If I build something and I sell it to someone else does the person who built it have a right to destroy it?

Certainly, insofar as I can say based on the generic analogy.

Here you will tell me that I misplacing the analogy because God is a special case, but I need to believe in God before I can agree with that.

I doubt I would tell you that being that I see absolutely no connection betweem your analogy and God's role in the creation of humanity.

A non-theist does not believe in God and thus their standard of morality takes a 'valuing of life' as the reason not to murder rather than any 'obligation to the creator' of that life.

And when someone places little or no value on the life of another person? Is that person's lack of regard for the life of another indicative of whether taking that life is an immoral action or is it immoral regardless of the person's lack of regard for life? If the former then we must conclude that the morality of an action is determined by the individual. If the latter then, who is it that has determined that the action is immoral?

But what I am suggesting is that an atheist is no
less likely to be moral than a Christian is.

And this is the rub. You see, you submit that an athiest is no less likely to be moral than a Christian. For you and I to agree on that claim we must submit to the same standard of right and wrong for, in my eyes, the likelihood that an athiest will obey the Lord is an impossibility. A desire to please the Lord is, in my view, a prerequisite for an action to be morally upright. As the athiest has no desire to please God, for they do not believe in God, they cannot commit a morally upright action.

It is, nonetheless, the way an awful lot of Christians appear to think. I am very glad if you are not one of them

I, too, am very glad to not be one of them.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Christians love to use this phrase, don't they?

The more biblically uneducated ones do, yes.

If it's immoral to force them into a position to love, isn't it that much more immoral to force them into a position where they can't love?

The short answer to your question is that God's plan for those who never come to love Him and be saved was never that they love Him and be saved.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Fatpie, I would like to comment on a few things about which some of the other people responding to you seem to have, um, different opinions.

First, as you are probably already aware, Christians will often use circular logic when attempting to prove their position. We find absolutely nothing wrong with this tactic because we do acknowledge the veracity of the Bible. Unfortunately, in a discussion with a non-believer, such methods are generally insufficient to make a credible point. The solution to this dilemma is that the Christian should understand it is not within their power, nor their calling, to convince a person of the truth of the Gospel. We are commissioned to make the case for Christ by sharing the truth of His Word, knowing that GOD will manifest His will in a person by either giving them faith in what we have presented or not. We are tasked only with sharing the truth, not making anyone believe it.

Secondly, faith in the promises of the Gospel is not something we manufacture by virtue of simply hearing the Gospel and then intellectually submitting to. It is a gift from God, given for the express purpose of serving as a vehicle for His grace of redemption. St. Augustine clearly expressed this in his plea to God that He "command what He will and grant what He demands." Those who acknowledge man's inherent proclivity to rebel in disbelief have long since acknowledged that faith, which God gives exclusively to those He has elected unto salvation before the foundations of the world, is a gift and, as such, something external to our fallen nature.

If you have any questions about these points, please feel free to ask for clarification.

God bless

 

[Davis]

I also want to state one thing. I have never tried to convince him only give him knowledge. We plant the seed and God waters it. So I am in aggrement with you there.

 

[fatpie42]

After all, if we need to appeal to an establishment for morality, God does too.

This is simply a nonsensical statement. If God is real and who the Bible says He is, then there is no higher authority. Therefore, God appeals to no one for anything. Your reasoning that if the creation must appeal to an outside establishment for determining the morality of an action that God must as well is illogical.

It is not nonsensical at all.

I showed you the Euthyphro problem earlier.
Does God will the good because it is good or is it good because God wills it?

If God simply originates all morality by commanding it morality is arbitrary and ANYTHING can be good. If God only makes good commands then there must be some other standards which make his commands good, in which case God does not originate morality by commanding it.

fatpie, to my knowledge, my participation in this discussion has included showing you respect. I ask the same for you. As intelligent as you seem to be, it is illogical to assume that you came to such a deduction honestly. I would ask that you refrain from such inanity. I believe in, and love, God. You do not. That has the makings of an interesting and, possibly, productive discussion. I have never stated, or intimated, that God has no standard of morality. What I've stated is that God is the standard of morality.

I'm sorry but I don't see how I was being disrespectful since you followed this statement up by telling me that God considers a baby's death to be good. I'm sorry, but that simply shows me that God has an entirely different conception of morality to most normal people of a good conscience. I'm sorry, but if you think I'm going to agree with you when you claim "the deaths of children is God's will" then I would suggest, respectfully, that you have chosen a bad starting point.

The answer to your question is that the baby's death, while appearing a tragedy according to our finite understanding, fulfills the will of God for that child and is, therefore, a "good" thing. If the Lord made provision for the sins of that child upon the Cross, which I would believe He did, then that child is in Heaven with its Creator. And that, fatpie, is a good thing.

I do not see how I can possibly agree.

This is escapism. Nothing less. Morality finds its basis in definition. For instance, are homosexual relations morally acceptable? How would you determine the answer using your "morality is determined by the way the world interacts?"

Well in such a case I would say that the homsexual relation invovles a loving relationship between two consenting adults and would thus judge it as morally acceptable.

So would you contend that an action's morality can be determined by observing whether it causes pain? For instance, would you say that spanking a rebellious child is an immoral action?

Not spanking a rebellious child would probably cause a great deal of suffering in the future. We don't think that spanking a rebellious child is good because it causes pain, or even that it is good because 'God would like it'. Naturally causing pain in children is not 'good' and God probably wouldn't like pain in children either (or at least that's what I would have thought). What we consider good in the spanking of the child is the consequences for the child's future actions and relations to others (including their parents). (I happened to see a programme the other day called 'supernanny' where a family was in complete chaos because the parents refused to discipline their children.)

With all due respect, I hope that you are not so naive that you'd think that this explanation has solved any problem, much less the one at hand. It hasn't even succeeded at enlightening me as to how we would use it determine what is good and what is bad.

The fact is that people already determine what is good and what is bad and get into a great deal of argumentation about it. What meta-ethics intends to do is not to determine what is good and bad but answer the question "what is good?". Theories of meta-ethics attempting to show that 'good' is 'what God commands' have generally fallen foul of the Euthyphro problem (which I mentioned earlier).

You didn't claim that by worshipping God we can know what is good or bad. What you claimed was that without God there is no objective standard for morality. THAT is what this theory proves wrong. It shows that objective morality does not require a God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics - here's some basic info on the topic. (the theory you would wish to defend would be 'divine command theory')

I doubt I would tell you that being that I see absolutely no connection betweem your analogy and God's role in the creation of humanity.

Well it's not really MY analogy is it? I am not the one claiming that anyone or anything has an obligation to their creator or to the person that gives them life.

If I give someone something then it is a gift. I do not have the right to take my gift back.
If I create a life (a clone perhaps, or a complex intelligent robot) I do not have the right to destroy it.

And when someone places little or no value on the life of another person?

And when God places little or no value on the life of another person? You need to be consistent here.

And this is the rub. You see, you submit that an athiest is no less likely to be moral than a Christian. For you and I to agree on that claim we must submit to the same standard of right and wrong for, in my eyes, the likelihood that an athiest will obey the Lord is an impossibility. A desire to please the Lord is, in my view, a prerequisite for an action to be morally upright. As the athiest has no desire to please God, for they do not believe in God, they cannot commit a morally upright action.

That is so blatantly false I cannot believe you would even say it.

Here is an example of a humanist (and atheist) who did a great deal of moral actions in India:

For one wealthy gynaecologist and her husband living in Bombay amid the burgeoning population, it was clear that something needed to be done not only for society as a whole but particularly for the women weighed down by endless child-bearing. Modern contraceptives had existed for some time but the government was doing little to make them widely available. Indumati Parikh decided to do something about it.


She and her husband sold their house in an affluent suburb of Bombay and moved to the slums, where she set up a women’s self-help organization called Streehitakarini. The aim was primarily to provide contraceptives to the women of the slums. But as Indumati Parikh told me years later, it became immediately obvious once she started talking to the women that it was not morally possible to try to persuade them to use contraception when their babies were dying. From that moment, Streehitakarini began to address the full range of problems faced by slum women, from child survival through better hygiene and nutrition, to vaccination, literacy programmes and skills training: listening to the women’s real and immediate needs, and finding creative ways in which to meet them.

http://www.iheu.org/node/1062

 

[Davis]

Boy this is now turned into a debate of some form.
Reformanist I suggest we pray for this man and let it be.
The questions have been answered. We should not argue with people if they do not seek the truth. Its obvious that he wants to prove his way is the right way and not seek what Gods will and way is.

 

[Reformationist]

It is not nonsensical at all.

I showed you the Euthyphro problem earlier.
Does God will the good because it is good or is it good because God wills it?

If God simply originates all morality by commanding it morality is arbitrary and ANYTHING can be good. If God only makes good commands then there must be some other standards which make his commands good, in which case God does not originate morality by commanding it.

Submitting that God determines what is "good" and, likewise, what is not, doesn't make morality "arbitrary," at least not in the sense that its moral nature is determined in a capricious fashion. Now, if that isn't how you are using the word "arbitrary" then I have likely misunderstood you. Could you possibly reword, or explain how you are using the word "arbitrary?"

I'm sorry but I don't see how I was being disrespectful since you followed this statement up by telling me that God considers a baby's death to be good.

The question was, in my opinion, unnecessary because it seemed to rely on the concession that God has no standard of morality, a concession I never put forth.

I'm sorry, but that simply shows me that God has an entirely different conception of morality to most normal people of a good conscience.

The inherent problem with such a supposition is that it requires that we treat the "conception of morality" of finite man as equally valid as the establishment of morality of an infinite God. Simply put, I am in full agreement that God has a different "conception of morality" than most normal people that you consider to have a "good" conscience because everyone of those people perceive morality based on a finite amount of knowledge whereas God's knowledge is not limited. He knows every contingency but nothing contingently.

I'm sorry, but if you think I'm going to agree with you when you claim "the deaths of children is God's will" then I would suggest, respectfully, that you have chosen a bad starting point.

I am not trying to get you to agree with me so we needn't worry on that account. I will merely tell you that nothing happens apart from the divine ordination. This is not to say that God condones man's evil or that God brings it to pass by active intercession. It is simply an acknowledgement that God's rule is complete and if He did not, in some way, desire something come to pass, He would merely stop it. The Bible explicitly states that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of the Father. How much more shall I believe He reigns over the lives of His most precious creation?

I do not see how I can possibly agree.

That is certainly your perrogative.

Well in such a case I would say that the homsexual relation invovles a loving relationship between two consenting adults and would thus judge it as morally acceptable.

And a Christian would see it as the abomination that it is. Nothing less than a pronounced degredation of the nature of man. In case I'm unclear, it would not be a morally acceptable thing to a Christian. This serves as only one of many examples I could provide to show the disparity between what Christians believe is morally acceptable and what non-Christians believe on the issue. Therefore, your claim that an athiest can be just as moral as a Christian is, in my opinion, completely untenable.

Not spanking a rebellious child would probably cause a great deal of suffering in the future. We don't think that spanking a rebellious child is good because it causes pain, or even that it is good because 'God would like it'. Naturally causing pain in children is not 'good' and God probably wouldn't like pain in children either (or at least that's what I would have thought). What we consider good in the spanking of the child is the consequences for the child's future actions and relations to others (including their parents).

You stated that something is morally not good if it causes pain, right? My own children can assure you that spanking is painful. I'm simply asking if you think that it is immoral for me to spank them being that it causes them pain. Or are we, yet again, at a point where there must be clarification of your view, i.e., even though the action that brings them pain is immoral, it can be morally good because of how it can help them relate to others in the future?

(I happened to see a programme the other day called 'supernanny' where a family was in complete chaos because the parents refused to discipline their children.)

Well, as popular as that show is, and shows like it, I find it to be a ridiculously unrealistic show that puts forth parenting methods that are, most likely, dispensed with the minute the camaras go away.

The fact is that people already determine what is good and what is bad and get into a great deal of argumentation about it.

This statement is self-contradictory. If people determine what is good and what is bad then they wouldn't argue about it. What people argue about is their self defined ideas about what is good and what is bad.

What meta-ethics intends to do is not to determine what is good and bad but answer the question "what is good?". Theories of meta-ethics attempting to show that 'good' is 'what God commands' have generally fallen foul of the Euthyphro problem (which I mentioned earlier).

The question you claim meta ethics seeks to answer is an exercise in futility. To determine the answer one must start off with some bounderies within which the answers must fit. For instance, you stated that if a person's action causes someone else pain then that action is wrong, i.e., immoral. I would claim otherwise, for some pain is often a very healthy thing.

You didn't claim that by worshipping God we can know what is good or bad.

I wasn't aware that such a claim was necessary. For purposes of the discussion, I'll state it now. By worshipping God we can know what is good and bad. How's that?

What you claimed was that without God there is no objective standard for morality. THAT is what this theory proves wrong. It shows that objective morality does not require a God.

Well, you keep saying that the theory proves it but, I've yet to see how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics - here's some basic info on the topic. (the theory you would wish to defend would be 'divine command theory')

I took a look at the link and still see nothing that tells me how we would employ that system to determine whether something is morally acceptable or not. In fact, that page you link to says, "While normative ethics addresses such questions as 'Which things are good and bad?' and 'What should we do?', thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others, meta-ethics addresses the question 'What is goodness?', seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations. It does not appear that the meta-ethics approach is even intended to determine whether an action is morally upright.

Well it's not really MY analogy is it? I am not the one claiming that anyone or anything has an obligation to their creator or to the person that gives them life.

Debunking the validity of that view is the very reason you posted the inapplicable analogy.

If I give someone something then it is a gift. I do not have the right to take my gift back.
If I create a life (a clone perhaps, or a complex intelligent robot) I do not have the right to destroy it.

I fail to see how either of these claims have anything to do with the topic at hand. You are not God. Unlike you, God does have the right to take what He gives and destroy what He creates.

And when God places little or no value on the life of another person?

I'm not denying the establishment of a standard of morality so your question is immaterial.

You need to be consistent here.

You need to follow your own advice.

That is so blatantly false I cannot believe you would even say it.

I said quite a bit. Is that you disagree with my claim that an athiest would have no desire to please God or was it that you disagree that the athiests cannot commit morally upright actions? If it the former then you and I have completely different definitions of what it means to be an athiest. If it is the latter then I am not surprised you disagree. However, if you look past your anti-Christian predjudice and attempt to view the issue from my perspective, you will see that I am only being consistant. If I contend that a desire to please and obey God is foundational to an action being morally upright then it would be inconsistant for me to submit that a non-believer could commit a morally upright action.

Here is an example of a humanist (and atheist) who did a great deal of moral actions in India:

For one wealthy gynaecologist and her husband living in Bombay amid the burgeoning population, it was clear that something needed to be done not only for society as a whole but particularly for the women weighed down by endless child-bearing. Modern contraceptives had existed for some time but the government was doing little to make them widely available. Indumati Parikh decided to do something about it.


http://www.iheu.org/node/1062

Yes, yes. Most of us know non-believers who do acts of civic righteousness. Likewise, most of us know Christians who oftentimes seem very ungodly. I am not denying either. What I deny is that actions are intrinsically, morally upright and, therefore, eternally beneficial.

An action's "goodness" is derived from assessing both the action and the motivation. And, if a desire to please and obey God is not, ultimately, the reason for the moral choices we make then, they cannot be deemed morally upright.

 

[Reformationist]

Boy this is now turned into a debate of some form.
Reformanist I suggest we pray for this man and let it be.
The questions have been answered. We should not argue with people if they do not seek the truth. Its obvious that he wants to prove his way is the right way and not seek what Gods will and way is.

You may be right my brother. Pray for me as well, if you are so inclined.

God bless

 

[fatpie42]

First, as you are probably already aware, Christians will often use circular logic when attempting to prove their position. We find absolutely nothing wrong with this tactic because we do acknowledge the veracity of the Bible. Unfortunately, in a discussion with a non-believer, such methods are generally insufficient to make a credible point. The solution to this dilemma is that the Christian should understand it is not within their power, nor their calling, to convince a person of the truth of the Gospel. We are commissioned to make the case for Christ by sharing the truth of His Word, knowing that GOD will manifest His will in a person by either giving them faith in what we have presented or not. We are tasked only with sharing the truth, not making anyone believe it.

Ah. Missed this post earlier. I knew that some Christians took this line of argument, but I didn't think you would. As you might imagine I've never taken it as a particularly sensible basis for belief.

Secondly, faith in the promises of the Gospel is not something we manufacture by virtue of simply hearing the Gospel and then intellectually submitting to. It is a gift from God, given for the express purpose of serving as a vehicle for His grace of redemption. St. Augustine clearly expressed this in his plea to God that He "command what He will and grant what He demands." Those who acknowledge man's inherent proclivity to rebel in disbelief have long since acknowledged that faith, which God gives exclusively to those He has elected unto salvation before the foundations of the world, is a gift and, as such, something external to our fallen nature.

On this point, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me. Certainly I know that the promises of the gospel are meant to come from God, but I would still presume that they are meant to be understood. Augustine, of all people, would surely be one to think over and ponder the gospel message in an intellectual way?


I suspect that this next point will inform Davis more than it will yourself. The reason why I have been arguing with you in the last few posts was because I was trying to give you an answer to your question:

Umm...I'm curious about this. If non-believers, like yourself, "judge people for what they do," against whose standard of right and wrong do you judge them? Also, in what way is this system "working for you?" What does it accomplish?

Naturally you would not have asked such a question if you were going to accept any old answer. If I gave you an answer and you said "of course, that makes sense" then you probably wouldn't have really been that puzzled in the first place. As it is, obviously we are not going to agree on this issue, but perhaps you now have a better idea why non-believers do not believe this to be such a problem.

(And you could always look into meta-ethics anyway. It's a very interesting topic. Interestingly enough my lecturer on that subject was the only openly-religious (Christian) lecturer in my university's philosophy department!)

Thanks for being open and honest with me. I respect that. Stay cool!

 

[53Isaiah]

So answer, why isn't it good enough?

Because sin is passed down from Adams blood, thus you are born into sin.

Why are his standards so high for -his creation- that absolutely nobody passes?

Because God is perfectly holy, that’s the standard.

If nobody is righteous, no not one, then what happened with the Jews before Christianity?

There is a term called dispensation. It’s purpose is to define an age of how god deals with man. We are in the age of grace. In the time before Christ, people lived in accordance with the mosaic laws. The book of Leviticus describes how god dealt with iniquity and sin.

If you go back before the mosaic law, Adam was found faithful when he obeyed the word of God.

And if you don't believe that (that people who've never heard of Jesus can get into heaven), then don't say anything about it. To me, those people are completely innocent, and there's nothing you can say to make me think your god is moral for giving them eternal punishment....just for being in the wrong place, wrong time.

God created us all with a conscience, even the judge men you’ve described. This conscience convicts us of our sin. The Bible tells us that God’s creation testifies of him such that we are without excuse. How God deals with the judge people that know a god created the universe, and that they have sinned, is a mystery that we can not know.

What I can tell you is this. You have been given the gospel of Christ. If you reject him, you WILL go to hell.

 

[fatpie42]

And a Christian would see it as the abomination that it is. Nothing less than a pronounced degredation of the nature of man. In case I'm unclear, it would not be a morally acceptable thing to a Christian. This serves as only one of many examples I could provide to show the disparity between what Christians believe is morally acceptable and what non-Christians believe on the issue. Therefore, your claim that an athiest can be just as moral as a Christian is, in my opinion, completely untenable.

Many Christians would disagree with you on this point (not perhaps in terms of what makes the action right or wrong, but on the moral status of same-sex intercourse). Many Christians would claim that the understanding of homosexuality in the old testament did not distinguish pedophilia and same-sex rape from consenting relationships (I don't know if this was because there were no consenting homosexual relationships in those days, or if this was simply because they were not heard of in those communities). Naturally any inspiration from God does not change the language and culture of the people writing. Even if you don't accept this particularly summation of the issue, the general argument is that the general message of the Bible does not condemn consensual loving same-sex sexual relationships.

You stated that something is morally not good if it causes pain, right? My own children can assure you that spanking is painful. I'm simply asking if you think that it is immoral for me to spank them being that it causes them pain. Or are we, yet again, at a point where there must be clarification of your view, i.e., even though the action that brings them pain is immoral, it can be morally good because of how it can help them relate to others in the future?

What I said was that morality can be worked out through understanding the way things are in the world. Just because your morality makes absolute distinctions along the lines of "this is always wrong" I am prepared to accept that there are a variety of facts to take into account. This is not to dodge the issue since most people when working out what they consider right or wrong will need to take all sorts of facts into account if they have any emotional connection with the events whatsoever.

You cannot say coldly to the rape victim "you must give birth to that child because it is a sacred life". Instead, you need to look to the feelings of the girl, the suffering she has been through, the mental and physical strain a pregnancy involves, the suffering and danger involved in a pregnancy, and you need to work out carefully whether she can actually cope with a pregnancy.
- Who knows? Both these methods might lead you to the same conclusion. But I do not think it was truly a moral decision unless the latter method was used.

This statement is self-contradictory. If people determine what is good and what is bad then they wouldn't argue about it. What people argue about is their self defined ideas about what is good and what is bad.

You are being pedantic. I was explaining the issue that I am NOT discussing. I am not discussing arguments about ethics. When people are attempting to determine was is right and wrong in ethical debates they come to different decisions whether they are Christian or not.

What I was arguing about was meta-ethics. And meta-ethics is not about what people's ideas of good and bad are, but what the deciding factor concerning whether something is good or bad is. (Railton considers 'good' to be the state of affairs in which there is the most non-moral good for as many people as possible.)

I wasn't aware that such a claim was necessary. For purposes of the discussion, I'll state it now. By worshipping God we can know what is good and bad. How's that?

Hitler was a Christian and worshipped God. How's that for an objection?
(Oh don't tell me. He KNEW what was right, but he decided not to do it anyway - thus denying God in the process?)
The fact is that Christians argue about what is right and wrong all the time.

Well, you keep saying that the theory proves it but, I've yet to see how.

I'm sorry but I can't write out a whole summary of Railton's metaphysics here. (thinks...) ok I'll cut and paste the notes on the lecture. Then at least you'll know that I tried my best.

In fact, that page you link to says, "While normative ethics addresses such questions as 'Which things are good and bad?' and 'What should we do?', thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others, meta-ethics addresses the question 'What is goodness?', seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations. It does not appear that the meta-ethics approach is even intended to determine whether an action is morally upright.

Exactly! And that's why I said:

What meta-ethics intends to do is not to determine what is good and bad but answer the question "what is good?". Theories of meta-ethics attempting to show that 'good' is 'what God commands' have generally fallen foul of the Euthyphro problem (which I mentioned earlier).

I fail to see how either of these claims have anything to do with the topic at hand. You are not God. Unlike you, God does have the right to take what He gives and destroy what He creates.

So what gives him the right when I don't have it? As I said before, I knew you'd believe God was a 'special case' but I just like any other non-believer, I have no reason to agree with you.

Yes, yes. Most of us know non-believers who do acts of civic righteousness. Likewise, most of us know Christians who oftentimes seem very ungodly. I am not denying either. What I deny is that actions are intrinsically, morally upright and, therefore, eternally beneficial.

An action's "goodness" is derived from assessing both the action and the motivation. And, if a desire to please and obey God is not, ultimately, the reason for the moral choices we make then, they cannot be deemed morally upright.

I had a feeling you were going to say that *groan!*

 

[fatpie42]

Railton’s Moral Realism flows from his Realism about NON-Moral value.

His account of non-moral value is as follows:

An individual’s good consists in what he would want himself to want, or to pursue, were he to contemplate his present situation from a standpoint fully and vividly informed about himself and his circumstances, and entirely free of cognitive error or lapses of instrumental rationality. (1986b: 16)

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Railton’s examples of dehydrated Lonnie and accountant Beth show that this account plays the appropriate explanatory and normative role.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
NB. On the face of it this account of non-moral good looks to be a form of relativism. IT ISN’T. Railton uses the example of nutrition to show that something can be RELATIONAL but not RELATIVE.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
A REFORMING DEFINITION OF MORAL RIGHTNESS[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Moral norms reflect a certain kind of rationality, rationality not from the point of view of any particular individual, but from what might be called a SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW. (1986a: 190)
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Railton now considers an idealisation of the notion of social rationality:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]…what would be rationally approved of were the interests of all potentially affected individuals counted equally under circumstances of full and vivid information. Ibid.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, Railton states:[/FONT]

X is morally right if and only if x would be approved of by an ideally instrumentally rational and fully informed agent considering the question ‘How best to maximise the amount of non-moral goodness?’ from a social point of view in which the interests of all potentially affected individuals were counted equally. (Miller pg. 196)

What about the explanatory and normative roles?

EXPLANATORY ROLE

1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Independence condition:

Just as an individual who significantly discounts some of his interests will be liable to certain sorts of dissatisfaction, so will a social arrangement - for example, a form of production, a social or political hierarchy, etc. - that departs from social rationality by significantly discounting the interests of a particular group that have a potential for dissatisfaction and unrest. (1986a: 191)

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Discontent may arise because a society departs from social rationality, but not as a result of a belief that this is the case. Suppose that a given society is believed by all constituents to be just. This belief may help stabilise it, but if in fact the interests of certain groups are being discounted, there will be a potential for unrest that may manifest itself in various ways - in alienation, loss of morale.. And so on - well before any changes in belief about the society’s justness occurs, and that will help explain why members of certain groups come to believe it to be unjust, if in fact they do. (1986a: 192)
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The Feedback Condition[/FONT]

The potential for unrest that exists when the interests of a group are discounted is potential for pressure from that group - and its allies - to accord fuller recognition to their interests in social decision making and in the socially-instilled norms that govern individual decision-making. It therefore is pressure to push the resolution of conflicts further in the direction required by social rationality, since it is pressure to give fuller weight to the interests of more of those affected. (1986a: 193)

[FONT=&quot]Railton also discusses the feedback condition further via:[/FONT]

1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Generalization.
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Humanization
3)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Patterns of Variation

NORMATIVE ROLE.

Prelimaries.
Railton rejects Rationalism:

On the present account rational motivation is not a precondition of moral obligation. For example, it could truthfully be said I ought to be more generous even though greater generosity would not help me to promote my existing ends, or even to satisfy my objective interests. This could be so because what it would be morally right for me to do depends upon what is rational from a point of view that includes, but is not exhausted by, my own.
(1986a: 201)


Railton draws a parallel with LOGICAL oughts. He concludes that his account meets the normativity condition:

We may say that moral evaluation is not subjective or arbitrary, and that good, general grounds are available for following moral ‘oughts’, namely, that moral conduct is rational from an impartial point of view. Since in public discourse and private reflection we are often concerned with whether our conduct is justifiable from a general rather that merely personal standpoint, it therefore is far from arbitrary that we attach so much importance to morality as a standard of criticism and self-criticism. (1986a: 202).


REFERENCES
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Miller (2004) Chapter 9[/FONT]
Railton (1986a) “Moral Realism” in Darwall, Gibbard and Railton.
(1986b) “Facts and Values” Philosophical Topics 14 (2), 5-31
(1993a) “What the non-cognitivist helps us to see the naturalist must help us to
explains” Reality Representation and Projection.
(1993b) Reply to David Wiggins Reality Representation and Projection.

 

[Reformationist]

Ah. Missed this post earlier. I knew that some Christians took this line of argument, but I didn't think you would.

Which line of argument, the circular one? If so, of course I take it. I am rational enough to acknowledge that the Christian position requires that many of its tenents be taken in faith. However, that does not create an insurmountable obstacle to discussion. It simply creates a point at which further discussion becomes fruitless. As I previously stated, I cannot prove the truth of the Bible. What I can do is share the truth of the Gospel and pray that God removes the scales from your eyes that you would believe.

As you might imagine I've never taken it as a particularly sensible basis for belief.

Most non-believers do not.

On this point, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me. Certainly I know that the promises of the gospel are meant to come from God, but I would still presume that they are meant to be understood. Augustine, of all people, would surely be one to think over and ponder the gospel message in an intellectual way?

Christianity is meant to be, first and foremost, a rational attempt to understand God. And I assure you that the Scriptures are meant to be understood, but comprehending the text is much different than apprehending its meaning by faith. You could familiarize yourself with the content of the Gospel to the extent that you could repeat it back verbatim. Such knowledge, however, would not ensure that you would believe one iota of the content of the Gospel.

Thanks for being open and honest with me. I respect that. Stay cool!

And thank you for the engaging conversation and the kind words, both here an in my reputation.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Many Christians would disagree with you on this point (not perhaps in terms of what makes the action right or wrong, but on the moral status of same-sex intercourse).

Many Christians would disagree with me on many issues. What matters is, does the Bible teach what I am purporting.

Even if you don't accept this particularly summation of the issue, the general argument is that the general message of the Bible does not condemn consensual loving same-sex sexual relationships.

Don't know who's making the "general argument" to which you refer but, the Bible does condemn homosexuality, just as it condemns every other sin.

What I said was that morality can be worked out through understanding the way things are in the world.

Sorry but I don't understand this. Can you give me an example?

Just because your morality makes absolute distinctions along the lines of "this is always wrong" I am prepared to accept that there are a variety of facts to take into account.

I never stated that this is the universal approach to determining the morality of all actions. There are, however, some things to which we may apply this reasoning. OTOH, other things require that we consider the circumstances.

You cannot say coldly to the rape victim "you must give birth to that child because it is a sacred life".

Could I say that to her warmly?

Instead, you need to look to the feelings of the girl, the suffering she has been through, the mental and physical strain a pregnancy involves, the suffering and danger involved in a pregnancy, and you need to work out carefully whether she can actually cope with a pregnancy.

And if not, what then, murder the innocent baby?

You are being pedantic.

No. I'm attempting to ensure that the point you're making is valid.

I was explaining the issue that I am NOT discussing. I am not discussing arguments about ethics.

We're talking about determining right and wrong and your seeming disdain for any view of nomative ethics. If you are not discussing those issues then what, pray tell, are you talking about in a discussion of "good" and "bad?"

When people are attempting to determine was is right and wrong in ethical debates they come to different decisions whether they are Christian or not.

Never claimed otherwise. However, just because there exists a difference of opinion does not indicate that there are actually multiple truths. Bottom line, an action is either right or it is not. How you apply that reasoning depends on whose standard of morality you employ.

What I was arguing about was meta-ethics. And meta-ethics is not about what people's ideas of good and bad are, but what the deciding factor concerning whether something is good or bad is. (Railton considers 'good' to be the state of affairs in which there is the most non-moral good for as many people as possible.)

And I should consider Railton's view on anything valid why?

Hitler was a Christian and worshipped God. How's that for an objection?

Pretty poor objection as a matter of fact. Hitler was neither a Christian nor did He worship God (which, in truth, is a redundant qualifier).

The fact is that Christians argue about what is right and wrong all the time.

And this means what, that there is no real objective standard of right and wrong?

So what gives him the right when I don't have it?

God's authority to do with His creation as HE sees fit isn't "given" to Him. It is constituent to His very being as Creator of all that is created.

As I said before, I knew you'd believe God was a 'special case' but I just like any other non-believer, I have no reason to agree with you.

God isn't a "special case." He is a "case" all to Himself. And, like any other believer, I can only share with you the truth as I understand it and pray that God gives you faith.

I had a feeling you were going to say that *groan!*

Oh good.

God bless

 

[fatpie42]

Pretty poor objection as a matter of fact. Hitler was neither a Christian nor did He worship God (which, in truth, is a redundant qualifier).

Just like Ghandi wasn't a hindu and Mohammed wasn't a muslim. What kind of reasoning is that meant to be? If someone says they are Christian and worship like a Christian we normally describe them as Christian (even if it is only self-proclaimed and not 'in their heart'). Whether Hitler was a 'true' Christian in your eyes does not change the fact that he worshipped what he perceived the Christian God to be and knew of Christian theology. In fact many of his anti-semetic ideas were reinforced by the accusations amongst other Christians that the Jews had 'killed Christ'. Were all these anti-semetic Christians not REALLY worshipping God?

The fact remains that Christians do not agree on what is right or wrong, so this method of discovering right and wrong through worship obviously isn't working very well.

 

[dvd_holc]

Just like Ghandi wasn't a hindu and Mohammed wasn't a muslim. What kind of reasoning is that meant to be? If someone says they are Christian and worship like a Christian we normally describe them as Christian (even if it is only self-proclaimed and not 'in their heart'). Whether Hitler was a 'true' Christian in your eyes does not change the fact that he worshipped what he perceived the Christian God to be and knew of Christian theology. In fact many of his anti-semetic ideas were reinforced by the accusations amongst other Christians that the Jews had 'killed Christ'. Were all these anti-semetic Christians not REALLY worshipping God?

The fact remains that Christians do not agree on what is right or wrong, so this method of discovering right and wrong through worship obviously isn't working very well.

It is rare if Christians' don't agree on this:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

 

[fatpie42]

It is rare if Christians' don't agree on this:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

You cannot quote a Bible verse in order to pretend that something isn't happening. Christians all around us are arguing about moral issues, quite regardless of how obvious St. Paul may believe these issues to be.

 

[dvd_holc]

You cannot quote a Bible verse in order to pretend that something isn't happening. Christians all around us are arguing about moral issues, quite regardless of how obvious St. Paul may believe these issues to be.

Jesus himself said the same as Paul. And, what you have never fully accepted...is that it is about God and not about us. Hitler did not live a Christian life. He was a product of taking the bible out of it's historical and cultural backgrounds. They (Nazis) reshaped the bible around their ideas of how the bible was without doing an effective study. They did not submit themselves to God and what he did. Yes, I have a problem with anyone who takes the name of Christ who is not. However, it is God who has the last word. All the glory goes to him.

 

[fatpie42]

Jesus himself said the same as Paul. And, what you have never fully accepted...is that it is about God and not about us. Hitler did not live a Christian life. He was a product of taking the bible out of it's historical and cultural backgrounds. They (Nazis) reshaped the bible around their ideas of how the bible was without doing an effective study. They did not submit themselves to God and what he did. Yes, I have a problem with anyone who takes the name of Christ who is not. However, it is God who has the last word. All the glory goes to him.

Are you saying that wherever there is any argument over ethics between Christians it must be because one of the two parties is 'twisting' the Bible like the Nazis? Are you sure it isn't just because these issues are complicated?

 

[dvd_holc]

Are you saying that wherever there is any argument over ethics between Christians it must be because one of the two parties is 'twisting' the Bible like the Nazis? Are you sure it isn't just because these issues are complicated?

The complication is that we don't find it convenient to live fully in love with God and humanity at all times; it is the heart of sin. We aren't all dedicated to that degree of love. Often enough, humanity takes the wrong thing for a target...such as...a man who spends a lot of his time reading books and neglects his wife...then his wife burns the books...the guy's heart has not changed so then he is more rebellious against her for destroying his books...he finds something else to occupy his time in spite of her. The heart of the matter is sin and people thinking sin's appear is a temporary gain. But sin never replaces what love is.