The phrase "objectively better" is nonsensical, since "better" is subjective. If I say "it's objectively better that goodness end" what's your argument against that?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually, only with an immortal God does goodness last forever, which is objectively better than goodness not lasting forever.
I agree that goodness is inherently good. I'm arguing that goodness that lasts forever(always experienceable) is objectively better than goodness that ends(never to be experienced again by anyone).
Why's that? How does a temporary act become less moral or ethical than a permanent one?
A good act that's permenant is better than a good act that's not. Both acts cannot be equally good because if they were then they'd both be permanent, therefore you'd logically use the permenant act to measure/judge all other acts.
I disagree. The ethics and moral standing of something is not affected by how long it lasts.
You're missing my point. If the moral standing of something lasts forever, then it's better than a moral standing that doesn't last forever. This is quite simple logic that really shouldn't be hard to comprehend and accept, but you will accept whatever you deem worthy to accept.
No, it really isn't. I'll agree a cursory surface look at the issue it would seem that way, however it has no actual added moral standing.
How is an act that provides a perfect moral solution for 10 years less moral than an act that provides a perfect moral solution for 100?
Utility is not morality, the longer something is in effect only means it has more utility. The moral standing is unaffected. Show me how I'm wrong.
A perfect moral solution would last forever or else it's not perfect. It's important to consider whether your 'perfect moral solution' includes a solution for the problem of evil and death, if not then it's not perfect. If so, then it will last forever.
You're missing my point. If the moral standing of something lasts forever, then it's better than a moral standing that doesn't last forever.
If it is organic, my conclusion is that it is a product of evolution.
so if you will find such a watch your conclusion will be that its just evolved by a natural process. ok. but as as far as we know any kind of watch is evidence for design. so unless you have a great proof that such a watch can evolve the basic conclusion to my opinion is that this watch was designed.
do you agree that we need a great proof for such a claim and if we have no such a proof the burden of proof is in the side that claiming for a natural cause?
I am aware of only 2 possible answers to this question.
1) A random chance happening.
2) A Superior Being that had the knowledge to create.
The question is: Is there any other possible ways the universe could have come into existence besides the 2 ways that I have given above?
Thank you for your response.
That makes no sense. Morality is situational.
For example, if I share food with someone who is starving, that is a moral act. Is it less moral because some day that person will die of natural causes? The fact the person will one day die has no bearing on the morality of my action.
I still don't see how you're trying to justify your argument that the length of time matters.
Yes, that is a good moral act, but if starvation is something that can be solved for all time then it will always be better to solve the problem of starvation at that level(so no one starves ever again) than to solve it in a finite temporal sense(solve it until all forever die anyway).
Surly these concepts of everlasting effects aren't that hard to grasp.
It's similar to how it's better to teach a man to fish than to just merely give him a fish. Both are good acts, but one is obviously better than the other.
That doesn't follow. You seem to be using a standard of the good that you aren't making clear and explicit. I don't see why that should be true.
It's like saying that if an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that lasts ten minutes is good, an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that lasts ten thousand years is automatically better. Perhaps there are some hedonistic standards for which that might be true, but it is not a foregone conclusion.
eudaimonia,
Mark
It's similar to how it's better to teach a man to fish than it is to merely give him a fish. Yes, both are good acts, but one has lasting effects, the other has temporary effects.
Sure, however I am incapable of solving hunger for the rest of time. If I had the option to solve hunger for the rest of time and instead just decided to share a meal, then you may have a point. But that's not the situation in question.
In the actual real world situation the highest moral act I can do is to share my food. That is what I did. The fact I didn't solve world hunger doesn't nullify the morality of my act in any way.
Also worth noting, if he exists your god does have the power to solve world hunger, and has neglected to do so. Based on your own criteria, does that mean god doesn't live up to your idea of a perfect moral standard?
Again, teaching a man to fish has far more utility. Ethically or morally it's a non issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?