• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

I don't believe in right and wrong.

Discussion in 'Archived - Ethics & Morality' started by Zoot, Oct 24, 2004.

  1. Jane_the_Bane

    Jane_the_Bane Gaia's godchild

    +3,176
    Pagan
    Legal Union (Other)
    UK-Greens
    There was this guy who had a shrapnell embedded in his brain after WW2 - and he wasn't capable of understanding the concept of "red" any longer. He wasn't colourblind. He was perfectly capable of distinguishing colours, but he just couldn't put a name to the colour red any more.

    Eskimos know more than half a dozen words for snow - and therefore perceive it completely differently from us. That's how it works. Collectively. Not objectively.
     
  2. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    I agree. Our notions of 'right' and 'wrong' are ultimately inherited from our culture.
     
  3. an7222

    an7222 Rational morality is a must

    888
    +10
    Atheist
    Ok. I don't want here to discuss why life is a moral value. But suppose "my morality" has life as an objectively defined moral value. Do you agree that "my morality" is objective?
     
  4. Dragar

    Dragar Like the root of -1

    +213
    Atheist
    If, for the sake of argument, your moral code has an 'objective' moral value, then yes, part of it is objective.

    But that's circular. ;)

    I don't believe objective morality exists. My view is that you think you have an objective moral value though. What you're doing is:

    a) Assuming there is an objective morality
    b) For reasons you're unable to tell me, concluding that a part of that objective morality includes 'valuing life'.

    I'm disagreeing with your assumption and, even if your assumption is correct, unable to fathom how you worked out what is 'objectively moral' and what is not.
     
  5. plmarquette

    plmarquette Veteran

    +171
    Non-Denom
    US-Republican
    the moral philosophies of Nietche [ social darwinism , men and supermen ], Bentham [ pleasure = moral , ethical ] , and others always breaks down
    on the death bed .... what if ...

    doing the right thing , because it is the right thing , when no one is watching is
    basic Christianity ...
     
  6. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    It is. But rape is wrong because we've already defined 'rape' as 'sexual penetration against a person's will.' However, since no person ever wants to do something contrary to his will by definition, 'rape is wrong' is a tautology.
     
  7. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    These acts were largely caused by individuals. And, as we all should know, individuals are not obliged to adhere to an evolutionary mean.
     
  8. funyun

    funyun aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

    +140
    Atheist
    This is what I agree with. Happy?




    Tight***
     
  9. funyun

    funyun aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

    +140
    Atheist
    Incorrect. Even if there is an omnipotent god, and he has a set of laws, that set of laws is still subjective. The idea of objective morality is a complete paradox.
     
  10. bluetrinity

    bluetrinity Lost sheep

    +9
    Catholic
    Isn't the question rather why do YOU think you act the way you do. Because my answer is that God planted morals in your heart and you act accordingly.
     
  11. Zoot

    Zoot Omnis Obstat

    +524
    Buddhist
    the moral philosophies of Nietche [ social darwinism , men and supermen ], Bentham [ pleasure = moral , ethical ] , and others always breaks down
    on the death bed .... what if ...


    Even if this was true, I'd hardly think it was an argument against a philosophy that it breaks down when someone reaches a highly emotional irrational state.
     
  12. radorth

    radorth Contributor

    +162
    Non-Denom
    This thread is just proof most skeptics would not repent of one freaking thing if Jesus came back and gave them three more chances.

    Rad

    C.S. Lewis on repentance: The more you need it the less you can do it.
     
  13. The Bellman

    The Bellman Guest

    +0
    By 'skeptics', I assume you mean non-christians (since the two aren't synonymous). And no, this thead doesn't prove anything of the kind.
     
  14. radorth

    radorth Contributor

    +162
    Non-Denom
    Of course it does. That's how I know you can't tell us what you would repent of, because to you morals are also relative and not absolute. Therefore you would not know what to repent of even if Jesus did come back. We would, thanks to God, because our standard is the Sermon on the Mount, and we choose to do it now before the day comes.

    Rad
     
  15. Praxiteles

    Praxiteles PraxAce

    +268
    Agnostic
    Blessed are the meek.
     
  16. Zoot

    Zoot Omnis Obstat

    +524
    Buddhist
    This thread is just proof most skeptics would not repent of one freaking thing if Jesus came back and gave them three more chances.

    I wouldn't repent of doing things that seem good to me, no. Would you?
     
  17. Kris_J

    Kris_J Well-Known Member

    +65
    Catholic
    Married
    So your ideas of right and wrong are according to you, no "better" now than it was when you were 13?
     
  18. The Bellman

    The Bellman Guest

    +0
    No, it doesn't. We know as well as you do the things we 'should' (according to christianity) repent of. The fact that morals are relative doesn't change that in any way, because morals are independent of god (and yes, I know you don't believe that, but the OT has god performing any number of immoral acts - immoral in MY opinion, which, since morals are relative, is as good as anyone else's). If Jesus did come back, of course, non-christians could listen to him and, if they deemed it appropriate, repent of what he said to repent of.

    And christians don't have a single moral standard (certainly not the Sermon on the Mount) - which is why so many christians disagree on what is moral.
     
  19. Western Deity

    Western Deity you know how it is

    +131
    Seeker
    Well they could be, but only according to "him".
     
  20. Kris_J

    Kris_J Well-Known Member

    +65
    Catholic
    Married

    Western, time is not considered in Zoots argument. Everyone at one time or another does what seemed good, but later on with hindsight they realise that they were wrong. Doing something that seems good doesn't guarantee freedom from regret.

    Of course this is supposing that there is continuity of self from one event to another.
     
Loading...