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.
(my bold)...
I get it from the "fact" that there are two different words, facts and beliefs. The thing that seems to separate the two is that one is proven and the other is not. Without that, they seem to me to be the same thing.
That is not an attribute, that's an assertion on someone's value. To claim that someone is worthy of obedience is a judgement call on their character.Max S Cherry said:I hold that the two are not completely different. One of God's attributes, to me, is that He is worthy of obedience
I don't even understand this criticism. Why would you assume the necessity of unstated assumptions as being included within the hypothetical?He cannot exist without that attribute. My belief in that is probably what caused our trouble. I should have stated it in my first post, and you could have told me that you did not intend for it be included.
I have imposed no qualities on God. I have asked a simple question: If God ordered mass murder, would you do it? People have consistently evaded making a response to that and instead played semantics, questioned my moral judgement or outright deny the utility of hypotheticals.I believe that is a position that one cannot hold without first believing in God. To hypothetically suppose that God exists while restricting His qualities to only those that suit you is, I believe, to build the hypothetical to specifically negate the possibility that the theist is correct.
That would be too easy for you. That would make the hypothetical redundant. Though, I'm not sure what qualities you think I've dis-included.I believe you would have to build the hypothetical with God possessing the qualities that the theists believe Him to possess.
The hypothetical in the OP seems to me to appear at least atrocious. We are not talking what you think God might do but what the hypothetical asks.You are assuming that any of it would appear obscene or atrocious. I highly doubt that it would.
So you would find the killing of people entirely appropriate if God did it?If God was known to exist and if God went about commanding the killing of people, there is no reason to assume that it would appear immoral.
Your mileage may vary. I would call that a success, not a failure.I want to believe that I would follow any order God gives, but with the orders He has already given (those I believe in), I fail to obey all the time. So the answer is, no. I would probably fail under those circumstances too.
What am I missing? Do tell.I believe you have settled on "a glorified slave-master relationship" as your personal catch phrase for the topic without giving too much thought to what you are talking about.
This of course, depends upon your view in the afterlife.t has nothing to do with a slave's relationship to a master, because as a Christian, I can walk away anytime. God does not hold me captive, because I do not serve Him out of fear of punishment. I serve out of love and respect.
What a gross caricature of a parent-child relationship. Parents can be and are consistently wrong and their correctness is not based solely on their authority.If you want to analogize, it is similar to a parent-child relationship. In fact, it is a parent-child relationship. He is my Father, and I am His child. I do what He says because He knows more than me. What He says is right because He says it is right. He understands what I do not.
I fail to see how it exists in an objective sense with God. The way you describe it allows God to do anything he likes and still have it labelled as moral.I do not understand a morality apart from God. When I was without belief, I found no reason to think in moral terms, because the only good things were those things that benefited me. It was entirely subjective. So to me, morality is fundamentally tied to God. Without God, morality does not exist, at least not in an objective sense.
(my bold)
I am asking, are you getting this from somewhere, or making it up yourself?
Show me a reference (Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc) that supports your claim that "fact" is synonymous with "proven".
That is not an attribute, that's an assertion on someone's value. To claim that someone is worthy of obedience is a judgement call on their character.
I don't even understand this criticism. Why would you assume the necessity of unstated assumptions as being included within the hypothetical?
I have imposed no qualities on God. I have asked a simple question: If God ordered mass murder, would you do it? People have consistently evaded making a response to that and instead played semantics, questioned my moral judgement or outright deny the utility of hypotheticals.
That would be too easy for you. That would make the hypothetical redundant. Though, I'm not sure what qualities you think I've dis-included.
The hypothetical in the OP seems to me to appear at least atrocious. We are not talking what you think God might do but what the hypothetical asks.
So you would find the killing of people entirely appropriate if God did it?
Your mileage may vary. I would call that a success, not a failure.
What am I missing? Do tell.
At any rate your morality is akin to a slave-master. The only things you consider "good" are what God says. The only things you consider "bad" are what God says.
What a gross caricature of a parent-child relationship. Parents can be and are consistently wrong and their correctness is not based solely on their authority.
I fail to see how it exists in an objective sense with God. The way you describe it allows God to do anything he likes and still have it labelled as moral.
Are you arguing about the morality of mass murder?
In which case Abraham was an idiot, yes?
Your understanding could easily be wrong,
and you might either understand a command that did originate from God to be wrong.
Well enough. You're not using it correctly.No, I'm arguing about the epistemic circumstances of those who are supposedly under orders. You do understand what the word "epistemic" means, yes
God was quite explicit. He did not tell Abraham that he would provide a lamb, he told Abraham to sacrifice his son.Because of course that's the only possibility. It's not like he could possibly have understood, perhaps due to extraordinary noetic circumstances, that God did not really intend for him to kill his son.
Yup. And God had provided one. Isaac. Apparently you're not familiar with poetic language and the dramatization of parent-child relationships. I'm sorry.(He did tell Isaac that God would provide a lamb, after all.)
I do. I'm sorry they went right over your head. I will try to dumb them down to your level next time.If you're going to fire off snarky remarks like this, at least try to display some critical thinking skills.
And all good? Be careful, dilemmas are made of such stuff.But don't forget that God is both omniscient and omnipotent.
If to issue an order is to intend that the recipient of that order understand what he or she is ordered to do, then I think it follows that to receive an order from God is necessarily to understand what one is ordered to do (since God cannot fail at what he intends to accomplish).
I'm assuming as axiomatic that God does not issue direct orders to perform what the recipients of those orders understand to be morally unjustified actions.
Of course, individuals have different opinions on whether someone is worthy of obedience. Not objective. Calls we make, not the being in question.Max S Cherry said:To me, "being worthy of obedience" is an attribute that one may or may not possess. I understand your point as well, though.
Uh, okay.As I understood the hypothetical, you were talking to a Christian (I forget who the first post was directed towards), and I inappropriately applied my own beliefs in place of his. If you were creating a hypothetical to see what a particular person would do if God (as he understands God) told him to do, you would-it seems to me-have to have God as the being that he believes in. Otherwise, you are asking him what he would do if a God that he does not believe in told him to do something. That is just how I understood it, and I have already apologize for the misunderstanding.
I think someone's actions can disqualify them of being worthy of worship. You, presumably do not.The quality of being "worth of obedience." I know that you do not see that as a quality, but to me, it is a very important quality.
No, the act seems atrocious to us because it involves the taking of many people's lives. That is atrocious almost by definition. If you're ever going to speak on objective morality then an act must always be wrong and always wrong because of what it is, not permissible just because it is "God's way" . That would be, ironically subjective.The act seems atrocious to us now, because God is not calling for the killing of people. If it was His way of doing things now, I am saying that it might not seem atrocious.
What about rape? What if God ordered people to rape others?I would indeed.
You would not consider slavery bad if God commanded it, would you? All of your values are by your own words completely linked towards Gods.I am not sure that a slave is required to have his master's opinions about good and bad. I am pretty sure that the slave (most of them anyways) would consider slavery bad. I am not seeing the relation at all in your analogy.
No it isn't a hideous analogy, it is a really bad one and an insulting one to humanity as well.I am not saying that it is a perfect analogy. I am only saying that the relationship a Christian has with God is more like that of a parent-child relationship than that of a slave and master.
You do not believe in a morality for all people that does not vary. You just believe in doing what you think God wants. That's just following orders.As objective, I think we are labeling it as a morality for all people that does not vary, and this is in contrast to one labeled subjective
Far better, I can say that the base of my morality is that "what causes the least amount of suffering towards others is right." That would seem to me to be at least as objective as yours and far kinder in scope.If the base of one's morality is that "what God does is right," anything that God does is morally right.
I don't see how objective morality exists with or without God. No theist has been capable of ever explaining that link.Without God, I cannot see how an objective morality can be thought to exist.
So this conflation of "fact" and "proven" is of your own making?Oh I get it now. I apologize for being slow. No, I do not have any reference to support my belief that a thing must be proven in order to be a fact.
And this understanding, you just pulled it from thin air?The "proven" element is nothing more than my understanding of the difference between a fact and a belief.
God was quite explicit. He did not tell Abraham that he would provide a lamb, he told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
Apparently you read a different bible. Could you show me the verses where it explains all these extra things you claim Abraham knew?
And apparently you're not familiar with revelatory foreshadowing and the possibility that Abraham might have (knowingly) been referring to the Messiah.Yup. And God had provided one. Isaac. Apparently you're not familiar with poetic language and the dramatization of parent-child relationships. I'm sorry.
God is necessarily all-good, as what I understand the term God to signify.And all good? Be careful, dilemmas are made of such stuff.
Of course it's extra-Biblical! I'm philosophizing. You do realize you're in the philosophy subforum, don't you?Completely extra-biblical. Show me the verses that support that reading. No biblical scholar would agree with you.
Of course it's not morally justified, provided that one understands that this is indeed what one is doing. But maybe the Israelites didn't understand that they were killing innocent people. Maybe they thought they were killing a race of evil, accursed, irredeemable monsters.1 Samuel 15:3. So you're claiming that genocide is morally justified? The murder of innocent women, children, and infants, is morally justified?
Another word to add to your vocabulary.Do try and keep up.
You're not. But you can't use invented details that you can't support from the text.Why am I obligated to suppose that the Biblical account is complete and exhaustive of every relevant detail that transpired?
No evidence in the bible. Nice try.And apparently you're not familiar with revelatory foreshadowing and the possibility that Abraham might have (knowingly) been referring to the Messiah.
Excellent. Euthyphro dilemma, anyone?God is necessarily all-good, as what I understand the term God to signify.
Actually no, what you're doing is charitably known as "making stuff up." Not quite the same. Until you can supply support for your fiction, your interpretation of what went on with Abraham and Isaac is no more valid than mine.Of course it's extra-Biblical! I'm philosophizing. You do realize you're in the philosophy subforum, don't you?
Don't sell yourself short - you're doing pretty well so far.I'm sorry if I don't present an easy, Bible-thumping fundy target for you to shoot down.
Right. All those women they raped, all those little children they murdered, all those little infants they skewered. Such monsters. Are you assuming the Israelites had no sense of morals? Wow.Of course it's not morally justified, provided that one understands that this is indeed what one is doing. But maybe the Israelites didn't understand that they were killing innocent people. Maybe they thought they were killing a race of evil, accursed, irredeemable monsters.
Where is any evidence that it should be taken any other way?And why do I have to take this passage for its literal meaning, viz., for literally communicating that God explicitly ordered the extermination of the Amalekites?
Great. So god orders the genocide of the Amalekites just to make a point? Murdering all those little infants to make a point?Maybe the lesson we're supposed to learn here is that God's justice is perfect and that he doesn't tolerate even a trace of impurity to remain, and the literal command to slaughter the Amalekites is beside the point.
Your google-fu...underwhelms.Another word to add to your vocabulary.
Of course, individuals have different opinions on whether someone is worthy of obedience. Not objective. Calls we make, not the being in question.
Uh, okay.
I have nothing to add to that. I daresay that you would always consider God "worthy of worship" no matter what.
I think someone's actions can disqualify them of being worthy of worship. You, presumably do not.
No, the act seems atrocious to us because it involves the taking of many people's lives. That is atrocious almost by definition. If you're ever going to speak on objective morality then an act must always be wrong and always wrong because of what it is, not permissible just because it is "God's way" . That would be, ironically subjective.
What about rape? What if God ordered people to rape others?
I mean, seriously? How is your system "objective"? It comes across to me as completely amoral and nihilistic. Motives do not matter to you. Acts do not matter to you. Humanity does not matter to you. In fact, by definition nothing to you is actually right or wrong. There is only obedience and disobedience towards God. How is this morality?
You would not consider slavery bad if God commanded it, would you? All of your values are by your own words completely linked towards Gods.
No it isn't a hideous analogy, it is a really bad one and an insulting one to humanity as well.
You do not believe in a morality for all people that does not vary. You just believe in doing what you think God wants. That's just following orders.
Far better, I can say that the base of my morality is that "what causes the least amount of suffering towards others is right." That would seem to me to be at least as objective as yours and far kinder in scope.
I don't see how objective morality exists with or without God. No theist has been capable of ever explaining that link.
So this conflation of "fact" and "proven" is of your own making?
And this understanding, you just pulled it from thin air?
Scientists cannot prove that the Earth orbits the Sun. Do you think it is a fact, useful for doing stuff like sending space probes to other planets?
How does one have the quality of being worthy of obedience?Max S Cherry said:As long as God has the quality of being worthy of obedience, you are correct.
That's not agreement with what I said. I said that someone's actions could disqualify them from being worthy of worship. You do not think, I presume that God could do anything that would disallow him from being worthy of worshiped.No, I actually agree. People do not have the quality of being worthy of obedience.
You just assert that standard to be true. I might just as well assert that the objective moral standard is to minimise as much as possible suffering and oppression towards people. That has just as much objectivity as your claim.To address objective morality, we must have a standard from which to judge, and if that standard is that God's actions are right, individual acts do not matter. The standard is upheld, and it is objective.
Cool, so you'd be a serial rapist if God told you to.How is this different?
How?There is what God does. If (and these are ifs) God chooses to order the killing of millions, it is what God does. That is as objective as one can get.
No, you don't. Your argument is about power and not what is right.I do not see rights and wrongs? I am clearly giving you the right: what God does, wills, commands...
You were correct originally. I was using the slave-master relationship to describe your relationship with God.No, I would not. It would be good in that situation, but your analogy did not suppose a slave-master relationship under that situation. It seemed to me that you were using the slave-master relationship in the way we view it nowadays. If I was wrong about that, I apologize.
Viewing humanity as permanent infants. You infantilise humanity.I fail to see the insult.
That of course, would depend on God. It could vary if he likes.I certainly do believe in an objective morality, and it does not vary.
Morality is not based on following orders. Morality is about what we ought or ought not do in the context of considering others. If you detach it from that and define it as purely following the word of God then you are not talking even slightly about morality.All people may act morally in precisely the same manner: by doing that which God wills. All morality is based on following orders. The only difference is the source of the orders.
No, it isn't. People can decide for themselves as individuals when they do not consent towards an action imposed upon them. It is all founded in common ground as well: None of us would like to have inflicted upon us pain or oppression.That is extremely subjective for you, and if universalized, it is almost wholly subjective.
That which inflicts upon their liberty or person against their consent.First, you have to perceive an unspecified amount of suffering in another. Second, you have to determine what actually counts as suffering to others.
By this reasoning, your morality is subjective. My dissent towards obeying God would constitute disagreement thus rendering your system necessarily subjective.Third, the others involved have to agree with you. If that is not subjective, I do not think subjectivity can be obtained.
So you keep saying. You have yet to demonstrate it. You just insist it and that seems to be the entire extent of your argument.Without God, I agree wholeheartedly. With God, it is easy to obtain objectivity. What God does or says is right. That, to me, seems objective.
How does one have the quality of being worthy of obedience?
That's not agreement with what I said. I said that someone's actions could disqualify them from being worthy of worship. You do not think, I presume that God could do anything that would disallow him from being worthy of worshiped.
You just assert that standard to be true. I might just as well assert that the objective moral standard is to minimise as much as possible suffering and oppression towards people. That has just as much objectivity as your claim.
Cool, so you'd be a serial rapist if God told you to.
Such a nice guy.
How?
What do you think objective even means?
No, you don't. Your argument is about power and not what is right.
You detach morality from action. You turn it into nothing more than obedience.
You were correct originally. I was using the slave-master relationship to describe your relationship with God.
Viewing humanity as permanent infants. You infantilise humanity.
That of course, would depend on God. It could vary if he likes.
Morality is not based on following orders. Morality is about what we ought or ought not do in the context of considering others. If you detach it from that and define it as purely following the word of God then you are not talking even slightly about morality.
No, it isn't. People can decide for themselves as individuals when they do not consent towards an action imposed upon them. It is all founded in common ground as well: None of us would like to have inflicted upon us pain or oppression.
That which inflicts upon their liberty or person against their consent.
By this reasoning, your morality is subjective. My dissent towards obeying God would constitute disagreement thus rendering your system necessarily subjective.
The only objective morality that can exist is one that is based on common ground. None of us wish to suffer and/or have our liberty inflicted upon. That is enough.
So you keep saying. You have yet to demonstrate it. You just insist it and that seems to be the entire extent of your argument.
I don't even see obedience towards God as morality at all.
In some ways, yes. This is not an inherent quality though. The word 'respect' derives meaning from us and it is subjective. It is a value we individually assign to others based on our evaluation of their character. I might find person X worthy of a lot of respect whereas you might find them worthy of only a small amount of respect or vice versa.Max S Cherry said:Is a human worthy of respect?
No. They then lose respect.I think the answer is yes. Humans possess the quality of being worthy of respect. Even if they do things that we may not like, things that we find atrocious, and things that land them in jail, they are still worthy of respect.
All it tells me is that you view God as worthy of obedience inherently. It does not tell me why you view him worthy of this or why certain actions cannot make him lose the title.This is not a universally agreed upon proposition, but I hope it helps you to understand how I can say that being worthy of obedience is a quality.
Does not matter to me. Shouldn't matter to anyone. He is still a sentient being. He can still make decisions that we can judge.I also do not think that either of us presumes God to be a "someone." He is not one of us.
By this reasoning the statement "Murder is wrong" is just as objective because it applies to all and in equal measures. Murder is wrong leaves no room for interpretation or differing culture. It would apply to all in even measures.My claim, if false, is false, and I have no problems with that admission. It is objective because it is the same; it applies to all and in equal measures. Your standard cannot apply to all in even measures simply because not all people will agree on what is and is not suffering and oppression. Mine may be false, but it is not subjective.
No.Is that worse than a mass murderer?
This is a circular argument.How is it objective? It is objective because it is universal.
I could assert anything that would be the same for everyone but that would not make it objective.It is the same for you, for me, and for every other person, and there is no interpretation or subjective feelings required for its operation.
Yes, so you are basically all about power. You just incorrectly conflate it with morality.I agree in part, but I insist that it is about what is right. I am suggesting that because God is who He is that He is right, and that is a way of saying that might makes right.
Yes, that is the poison of theistic pseudo-morality. It makes otherwise normal people say wicked things and worse it makes them proud of their own vileness. I mean, honestly, you with complete nonchalance declared you'd be a mass murderer if God told you to.Complain because you disagree if you feel you must, but I am clearly saying that it is "right."
Yes you do. According to you nothing is wrong because of the consequences of the action but because God has forbidden it. Nothing is right because of the action either but only because God endorses it. That is nothing if not directly saying that the consequences of your actions don't at all matter.I do not detach morality from action.
You're not just saying it hypothetically. You've spent the last several pages telling me you outright do that.I am saying that I, hypothetically, could detach morality from action.
How fortunate for all of us that he is currently benign to you. I am genuinely scared for others if you begin to hear a voice you interpret as God.Our discussion requires that God be different from what I believe Him to be, and it is only in that case that I would be able to make the detachment.
Do I need to add to this? It speaks for itself.I do not believe that God commands killing. In fact, I believe that God has commanded His children to not kill anyone. It is obedience. Presently, I believe it is obedience to a loving God, but if it were obedience to a vengeful, warring God, I would still be obedient.
Simply asserting that because something is consistent that it is objective is just ridiculous. That would mean if someone universalised anything it would be objective.I do not think you are appreciating the basis of the morality. It is that God's will is right, so even if His will varied, the objectivity of the morality would not.
No they don't. Not all morality is prescribed by law. Many forms of behaviour deemed unethical is entirely legal. People have their own self-restraints as well that derive from their own conscience.Morality is the following of orders, be they subjective or objective. It does not matter where your notion of what we ought or ought not do originates. They issue a mandate that you follow them.
It is completely accurate. No-one alive has ever or will ever wish for an act to be inflicted upon them without their consent, or suffer harm upon themselves without their consent.I do not think that is accurate. People do not fall into a nice neat little mold.
Yes, that is why the operative word is consent. A [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] may enjoy certain fetishes but that's fine, that is his or her prerogative.What is pain and oppression to some is pleasure and freedom to others.
No, it requires people to understand when someone else asks them to stop doing X to them because it is inflicting against their personal freedom.Your suggested morality requires each agent to presume to know how other people view these things.
I call that freedom. People deciding for themselves what paths are for them and what paths are not. That is superior in every way to the hateful idea that we should always just follow God.People deciding for themselves what is right and wrong is precisely the definition of a subjective morality.
Yes I will.And my point is that you have no way of knowing what another person will count as an infliction upon their liberty or person.
This might be true sometimes but certainly not always. Additionally even if partially true it is nothing that cannot be rectified. You will need to give examples.You have no way of knowing what they do and do not consent to until after it is done.
All morality depends on the consent of others. It is a communal phenomena.My morality does not depend on your consent towards God's actions. Your morality depends on the consent of others.
Your "morality" cannot be held to be under any sensible definition as moral.The reason my morality is objective is that it is independent of you, me, and any other than God.
[citation needed]You are feel to disagree, but your disagreement only shows immorality in you.
Someone disagreeing with me on an issue does not constitute an infliction of pain, suffering or oppression from me. If I attempted by force to compel them to do something then that would be an infliction.In your system, if one disagrees with your assessment, your actions are immoral, because you inflicted pain, suffering, and/or oppression.
Only of course if you think pain, suffering and oppression have no meaningful definition. Of course given that you think morality is nothing but a singular self-obsessed obedience towards God I would not be surprised on that.The fact that you were trying not to does not erase the fact that you did.
Yes, I am. I am appealing to everyone's instincts.It is enough for you to say that, and it should be clear that you are not talking about common ground.
Uh, yes I am. That is exactly what respecting people's right to run their own affairs and not have their liberty controlled by another is. I could do little more intellectually to account for individual differences.You are trying to say it as though it were common, but you are not accounting for the differences in people.
Yes, there are. Sorry. If you think suffering is equivalent to disagreement, you are wrong. If you think liberty involves totalitarianism, you are wrong.There are no common understandings as to what suffering is, and there are no common understandings of liberty.
That's not a common ground. It is only, at best (if true) reference to the fact that God exists and demands our attention. Do you even know what common ground means?I am suggesting a universally common ground: that which God wills.
You have claimed it and made a parody of objective morality. I do not know what else to say.If I am repeating myself, it is because I am responding to the repeated assertions that you have made. I have demonstrated it. I do not know how else to say it.
No, it is assertive. The consistency is irrelevant.If the basis of a morality is "that which God wills is right," it is objective, and it does not matter what God wills. It does not change from person to person. It is constant.
Why do you not agree with my proposed basis for morality?That is obvious, but your reasoning for the lack of sight is not so obvious. You fail to see obedience towards God as a basis for morality, but you have no difficulty seeing obedience to the principle of "that which causes the least suffering" as a basis for morality. I do not agree with your basis, but I can see it.
In some ways, yes. This is not an inherent quality though. The word 'respect' derives meaning from us and it is subjective. It is a value we individually assign to others based on our evaluation of their character. I might find person X worthy of a lot of respect whereas you might find them worthy of only a small amount of respect or vice versa.
It can also be enhanced or lost through action.
No. They then lose respect.
UmYou have just rendered all of your moral denouncements against the God of the Bible meaningless.
You say respect derives meaning from us, and is therefore subjective. Do you know what this means? It means, that if this is truly the view you hold, then you cannot accuse God of disrespecting the people who He ordered to be killed, because if another persons worthiness of respect is determined by their actions, then God was justified in commanding the raping, murderous, and thieving Amalekites to be destroyed; men women and children. Because you see, you have just said that a person's worthiness of respect is subjective to the one making the judgment on whether said person should be respected. You have completely done away with any ground for accusing anyone of doing anything objectively wrong.
Um
Someone deciding you aren't worthy of respect does not give them right or moral right to just murder you or act how they like towards you. You would still have rights.
Sure. You can disrespect someone you think is worthy of it. It can backfire on you professionally or personally.Of course, but under your view, disrespect would still be justifiable.
Sure. You can disrespect someone you think is worthy of it. It can backfire on you professionally or personally.
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?