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.
I don't know anything about the Sawi or what they prized but if they like murderers for being murderers they are mentally defective as a group. A mentally defective person can have other mental capability I think. I don't think being mentally defective means one has lost all mental capability.Fledge said:Um, elman, I have to disagree with you on this point. Until quite recently, the Sawi universally prized "talented" murderers, and I doubt that their mental capabilities are the reason.
No need to apologize.This is an idea that I have not tried to defend, largely due to the fact that it is indefensible. If I have given you the idea that I personally see no reason to listen to what a subjectivist has to say about morality, then I apologize.
Well, I at least hadn´t understood it, and I still have some problems reconciling your position and your question.I tried to make it clear in an earlier post that I do think it worth my time to at least listen to what you have to say, and then judge it on its own merits. It appears that I have failed to make that clear
Firstly (and just to keep things clear): I do not see anything close to a paradox in that. Maybe it would help me greatly to understand your point in general, if you would try to explain where you see the paradox here.I asked the original question because I saw an apparent paradox. It seemed to me that subjectivists were almost deliberately marginalizing themselves by stating that their opinions have no more weight than personal preferences (favorite foods, for example).
Whilst I am not at all surprised that noone explains this „apparent paradox“ away, in view of the facts thatIn the past, when I've thought I've seen a paradox involved in a viewpoint I disagreed with, I've asked a question and found out that there is a reasonable way around that paradox.
So far, I haven't seen anyone try to explain this apparent paradox away, and that has puzzled me.
As soon as I manage to discern this paradox, I will try to adress it.Admittedly, if you think that whatever people have to say on morality carries no weight beyond personal preferences, then there is a large paradigm shift. All of a sudden, there is a group of people trying to claim special precedence for their moral opinions. However, I'm still wondering if there's any way for a subjectivist to explain this apparent paradox to this poor objectivist who still doesn't get it.
Thanks!My exact wording was "If [the subjectivist is] right, then I have absolutely nothing to gain by following his code." This statement was made in an attempt to describe this apparent paradox, and was not intended as a commentary on objectivism in anyway. That is why I said "misinterpreting" instead of "misunderstanding", but as you suggest, I will use the less accusatory form in the future.
Just so that this is not forgotten: I am not forced to play the game. I enter the game in full knowledge and acceptance of the rules. Not sure whether this is a significant difference, but I´d like to keep that in mind.The thing about learning the rules of a game is that there are two ways to do so. One way is to watch it a lot, and learn the rules that way, and the other way is to sit down and read the rule book. Assuming the rules have already been made by the time I start to play (as opposed to a game I'm inventing), then the rules are what they are, and I either abide by them or suffer the consequences. Of course, with sports, the rules will shift over time, and what was once legal may become illegal, and what was once illegal may become legal, but I'm still forced to play by the rules.
I feel that your game comparison has its weaknesses, and on the other hand might be a good means of pointing out where the differences between subjectivists and objectivists really lie.To connect the dots, I can either take my moral code solely from what I see around me, or I can find where it's all written down and read that (I know, there are multiple sources that claim to have the objective moral code). Now there are some dangers to learning my code solely from watching other people. I know that I've never seen someone learn all the rules of a game simply from watching. Usually, there is a misunderstanding or two, and sometimes some misconceptions that are exactly contrary to the truth. Ditto for morality. Even if we watch people who follow the rules perfectly, there's still plenty of room for us to misinterpret what we see. Of course, the weakness of reading the book and never taking a look at people actually playing the game is that we really need to see examples played out before we fully understand them.
1. I don´t see how falling down 20.000 feet is an attempt to violate gravity. If someone springs of a 20.000 feet cliff in order to kill himself, all we can say is: He was aware of the consequences and acted accordingly. We do not arrive at a moral judgement through gravity.After reading your description, I think that you are right that I have been reading a bit more into subjectivism than is actually there. However, I think that the gravity analogy is rather better than the hot-plate one. If I'd fallen from 20,000 feet instead of just 20, I would have had an extended period of time in which my attempt to violate the law of gravity would have absolutely no consequences.
Another problem with that (besides the ones mentioned above) is that our tried and tested means of discerning laws are their reliable, repeatable and experiencable consequences. In this case we are supposed to simply believe in particular consequences to exist.The consequences would have been there all the same, but they would have been extensively delayed. In a similiar fashion, moral laws might well be equally descriptive as physical laws like gravity, only with a larger time-delay on the consequences.
I agree, and most every subjectivist will, too.Morality is an important issue. Obviously, people act on what they believe, and so morality effectively dictates the course of human history. Hence, it is important to discuss morality, as your moral code and mine are both going to have some kind of impact (however large or small) on everyone who lives after us.
These your axioms perfectly explain the impossibility to answer your question to your satisfaction.The other major reason why I think it is important to discuss morality is because I think that there is an objective moral code, and that people will ultimately be judged according to it. I view perfect adherence to this code as an unnatainable goal, but one that I need to strive for regardless of how badly I fall short (God's grace/mercy/forgiveness is the only thing that can make up for my deficiencies). Since this final judgment dictates the eternal fate of everyone, I obviously think that it is important to discuss the code that will be used in it...
There are different opinions as to whether abortion is torturing babies, and therefore there is - practically - no agreement, although people are able to agree on the statement (but not its meaning).elman said:Your example is not an example of someone that believes it is alright to torture babies.
Well, great. Then anything that is discussed cannot be covered by OM. I´m afraid there aren´t many points in which OM is of help, and in those points where it could be of help, it is redundant, because people agree in them, anyways.The point is not that everyone agrees. The point is that everyone agrees without having to discuss it. They know it inately. They did not have to be edcated on it as children. The agreement is the evidence of the existence of objective morality. You correct in it need not be discussed because as human beings we know we should not torture babies without discussing it.
And am I right in assuming that you are the expert who can tell whether people do those things because they believe them to be OK, or whether they are aware that they violate those rules?The do exist in that moral codes are simply codes. Human violate moral codes all the time.
I would have problems with clearly discerning what can be traced back on culture pressure and what not. Things like suicide bombing have been around all the time. On the other hand I am pretty sure that a lot of things you regard implanted into us by OM, are merely "trained into us by culture pressure", either.People being willing to violate the moral codes of humans does not prove the code does not exist. I have always agreed that we can train ourselves and our children to be monsters. We can become monsters and convince ourselves it is a good thing. We can train our consciences. That does not make it a good thing and that does not mean there was no moral code before we trained ourselves out of it. Would there be any suicide bombers if there was no culture pressure in favor of it?
Sure. Objective morals are those ideas that everyone naturally agrees upon, except if people disagree upon them, in which case those that disagree with me are wrong, mentally defective, or do not count for whatever else reason.elman said:I don't know anything about the Sawi or what they prized but if they like murderers for being murderers they are mentally defective as a group.
That is pretty close. Anyone that believes it is morally right to torture babies has mental problems and I suspect most phyciatrists would agree. I don't quite understand why you do not. Oh I know why, you don't want to agree some morality is objective and you also don't want anyone to feel any guilt for what they have done. Right?quatona said:Sure. Objective morals are those ideas that everyone naturally agrees upon, except if people disagree upon them, in which case those that disagree with me are wrong, mentally defective, or do not count for whatever else reason.
Please note that the difference in opinion is not wheather torturing babies is wrong. The difference in opinion is on what constitutes torturing babies and what does not. I have never claimed there was no subjective morality. Your argument here does not prove there is no objective morality.There are different opinions as to whether abortion is torturing babies, and therefore there is - practically - no agreement, although people are able to agree on the statement (but not its meaning).
No obviously there are mentally defective people who do not agree.Well, great. Then anything that is discussed cannot be covered by OM. I´m afraid there aren´t many points in which OM is of help, and in those points where it could be of help, it is redundant, because people agree in them, anyways.
And am I right in assuming that you are the expert who can tell whether people do those things because they believe them to be OK, or whether they are aware that they violate those rules?
You don't feel qualified to look at the world around you and decide it is simply wrong to torture babies and no one needs to deveop a moral code for that to be wrong. You are also unable to decide that people who kill themselve with bombs in order to kill innocent people that happen to be in the vicinity are not acting out of natural instincts. OK but I do believe I am qualified to make those decisions.I would have problems with clearly discerning what can be traced back on culture pressure and what not. Things like suicide bombing have been around all the time. On the other hand I am pretty sure that a lot of things you regard implanted into us by OM, are merely "trained into us by culture pressure", either.
As soon as you can provide any valid means of determining the sources of certain human behavioural patterns (other than by circular reasoning), I will be all ears.
So there is merely an agreement that a certain word has a negative connotation, but no agreement upon the idea that they link to that word. This is not objective morality, but just the nature of universal signifiers. The word "beauty" also exists (with a positive connotation) and people disagree strongly on what beauty is. Does that show that an ObjectiveBeauty exist? Rather the opposite.elman said:Please note that the difference in opinion is not wheather torturing babies is wrong. The difference in opinion is on what constitutes torturing babies and what does not.
I am not out to prove that there is no objective morality. I am merely waiting for a good argument that there is.I have never claimed there was no subjective morality. Your argument here does not prove there is no objective morality.
The strategy of calling all people who disagree "mentally defective" has a fine old tradition and is a safe method to prove oneself right no matter what.No obviously there are mentally defective people who do not agree.
Then how do you know they are mentally defective?I never claimed to be an expert on mental defectiveness.
So what´s left of your OMC is an argument from popularity, or alternatively a consensus on the negative connotation of a practically meaningless universal signifier.I and most human beings are experts in knowing that tortuing babies is wrong.
Except that I haven´t said that, in fact I think it needs to be developed, and therefore is not an OMC.You don't feel qualified to look at the world around you and decide it is simply wrong to torture babies and no one needs to deveop a moral code for that to be wrong.
Sure I am able to decide that, but that would exactyl make it my subjective opinion.You are also unable to decide that people who kill themselve with bombs in order to kill innocent people that happen to be in the vicinity are not acting out of natural instincts.
Since it´s your decision, it is a product of your subjective opinions, and is in no way an argument for the existence of a OMC.OK but I do believe I am qualified to make those decisions.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but tortuing babies is not. You have not made a valid argument here. The people who would debate over the question of wheather abortion is torturing babies or not would not debate over the actual torturing of a baby already born.So there is merely an agreement that a certain word has a negative connotation, but no agreement upon the idea that they link to that word. This is not objective morality, but just the nature of universal signifiers. The word "beauty" also exists (with a positive connotation) and people disagree strongly on what beauty is. Does that show that an ObjectiveBeauty exist? Rather the opposite.
I have given it to you.I am not out to prove that there is no objective morality. I am merely waiting for a good argument that there is.
It can be misused. In the case of torturing babies it is not being misused.The strategy of calling all people who disagree "mentally defective" has a fine old tradition and is a safe method to prove oneself right no matter what.
Do you know of a Psychiatrist that would say torturing babies is normal human behavior? Is there an agreement to some extent among most Pshychiatrist and psychologists on what is abnormal human behavior? No circular reasoning there.Then how do you know they are mentally defective?
That´s a nice textbook example of circular reasoning you´ve got there:
Q: How do you know that there is an OMC?
A: People agree on morality.
Q: Actually people do not agree.
A: Those who disagree are mentally defective.
Q: How do you know they are mentally defective?
A: They don´t agree with the OMC.
No it is not decided by a vote of the majority that torturing babies is wrong. The vote is never taken because it would be silly to take it. It would be silly to take such a vote because everyone except perhaps you understand it is a given.So what´s left of your OMC is an argument from popularity, or alternatively a consensus on the negative connotation of a practically meaningless universal signifier.
Why do you think it needs to be developed that torturing babies is wrong? What would it mean to develope what we all know already?Except that I haven´t said that, in fact I think it needs to be developed, and therefore is not an OMC.
It would unless it was also every other normal persons view.Sure I am able to decide that, but that would exactyl make it my subjective opinion.
I don't know that I ever had to make a decision on that. It must therefore be an OMC.Since it´s your decision, it is a product of your subjective opinions, and is in no way an argument for the existence of a OMC.
Who are these others again who believe it is good to torture babies? Have you met them?Fine then. Others believe they are qualified to come to different judgements than you do, and there goes your OMC.
quatona said:Hi, Fledge!
No need to apologize.
I usually prefer to avoid the but you said game, but I am wondering. Maybe it´s again just a problem of language, but in the very post I had responded to, you said:
As has been stated on this thread numerous times, there is no particular reason for me to care what a subjectivist has to say about morality, other than in how it directly impacts me.
It´s possible that I am completely dense, but I fail to see the relevant difference between
I personally see no reason to listen to what a subjectivist has to say about morality (which you say is not your position), and There is no particular reason for me to care what a subjectivist has to say about morality. (which was your statement).
Whatever, I will regard the last statement as valid, and assume that you do care about what subjectivists have to say about morality.
Why do you do it? Do you have reasons for it? Doesn´t that answer your question?
Well, I at least hadn´t understood it, and I still have some problems reconciling your position and your question.
OP question: Why should I care about...?
Maybe I don´t get what you mean when saying care about (maybe you mean adopt their moral codes right away, without further consideration and without even asking or something ? ), but I am wondering whether you have ever seen a subjectivist asking more from you than to listen to his opinion (on morals or whatever) and to judge it on its own merits. For me that would fully qualify as caring for his opinion.
You care for them, you apparently have reasons for doing so so why the heck do you ask? :wondering:
Firstly (and just to keep things clear): I do not see anything close to a paradox in that. Maybe it would help me greatly to understand your point in general, if you would try to explain where you see the paradox here.
Secondly, although some subjectivists may hold this view, this certainly is not what subjectivism says. It doesn´t make any statements in regards to the weight that moral question have (compared to other questions), it even seems to put quite some weight on them, else it wouldn´t have them for a subject. What may have been misunderstood is the frequently (and I think accurate) illustration of the subjectivist viewpoint, that there doesn´t exist any more Objective Morality than there exists an, e.g. Objective Taste in Music. This doesn´t seem to make any statement about the weight, relevance or importance of either.
Thirdly, I fail to see how the statement (assuming for the sake of the argument it has been made) My opinions have no more weight than personal preferences means marginalizing oneself, particularly not if it´s not a personal statement, but a view on what opinions are in general. If no HigherMorality exists (as the subjectivists think), personal preferences and opinions are the best there is. It seems like you arrive at your conclusion "self-contradiction/paradox" by applying your personal axioms ("there exists something Higher") on the ideas of others, as if they would share them. Sure, if there were something Higher, Objective, personal opinions and preferences would be comparably marginal. But, you know, we don´t believe in these Higher, Objective things. You cannot conclude paradoxa or self-contradictions, if they are based on your own axioms. This doesn´t help showing how the ideas in question have inner self-contradictions (which actually would be necessary to constitute a paradox.)
Fourthly, and rather on a sidenote while talking about self-marginalization, I wonder what would make persons who prefer to think of themselves as filthy rags more reliable sources than people who think that their opinions have no more weight than personal preferences.
Thanks!
And I see how I saw something in your statement that was not really implied. Sorry!
Anyways, I still have problems to understand why you make your statements about a specific group, if in fact you don´t intend to imply that this is a particularity of this group (as opposed to other groups).
Just so that this is not forgotten: I am not forced to play the game. I enter the game in full knowledge and acceptance of the rules. Not sure whether this is a significant difference, but I´d like to keep that in mind.
Again (although I think that fortunately has come across by now: Subjectivism is not about having no rules.
I feel that your game comparison has its weaknesses, and on the other hand might be a good means of pointing out where the differences between subjectivists and objectivists really lie.
Objectivists are under the impression that there is something Higher (written in stone for all eternity), that they have an obligation towards. They do not play by the rules for the mere reason that they regard rules as necessary and beneficial for playing a game, but because they feel they owe playing by the rules to the higher authority (of whatever kind). Subjectivsts don´t believe such an Authority to exist, and most of them play the life-game with the same pardigms all games are played: They want it to be fun and make themselves and everybody else involved happier. Most of them acknowledge that this requires rules and the abiding of them. Since, in their view, there is no such absolute or objective rule catalogue the players (all humans)have an obligation towards, the rules are discussable a matter of agreement. To stay in the picture: If all 22 participants of a soccer match agree that they want to change the rules completely, nobody and nothing gets hurt or violated. There are still rules to play by and the benefits that come from them.
The objectivists´ problem: They assume there to be an Absolute Rule Book, but, as you have pointed out, there are many different sources that claim to describe those rules, and there are no means to discern which is the correct one (or whether one of them is correct, at all).
If anywhere, I see a paradox in assuming there Objective Rules to exist (which apparently are not obvious and not discernable by human reason and cognition, else there wouldn´t be any doubt as to which they are), but on the other hand they think their human abilities are sufficient to tell which of the claimed RuleCatalogues is the RealOne. (Since we are not discussion objectivism, consider this only a side-note).
1. I don´t see how falling down 20.000 feet is an attempt to violate gravity. If someone springs of a 20.000 feet cliff in order to kill himself, all we can say is: He was aware of the consequences and acted accordingly. We do not arrive at a moral judgement through gravity.
2. Note how you speak of an attempt of a violation, and rightly so, because, as stated before, gravity can´t be violated. Whilst OM usually is exactly about violations of moral rules.
3. Again: Subjectivism doesn´t deny there to be consequences, it doesn´t deny there to be long-term consequences, and it doesn´t even deny there to be consequences we aren´t and can´t be aware of. Just demonstrate how something has this or that consequence, and they will be all ears.
4. A difference seems to be that objectivists (or at least theistic objectivists) do not simply assume there to be consequences, but assume that these consequences are inflicted intentionally (by who- or whatever) on us to keep us in check and to be able to reckon or judge us. I wouldn´t call that consequences (things that happen because this is the way things must happen), but sanctions/punishments/rewards (intentionally inflicted with the purpose of education or betterment or judgement or whatever).
Terminology and semantics aside, I definitely see a significant difference between those two sorts of consequences.
Thus, subjectivists and theistic objectivists don´t seem to disagree in the question whether there are consequences, but merely in their idea where those consequences originate from and whether they are inflicted upon us purposefully and intentionally.
I do not really know, though, where non-theistic objectivists fit in this picture.
These your axioms perfectly explain the impossibility to answer your question to your satisfaction.
Then again, I would have thunk that it was self-suggesting that no subjectivist ever entertained the idea that you might expect him to help him with discerning this OMC you believe in and he doesn´t.
Greetings
quatona
The argument is valid: People disagree on what "torturing babies" signifies, therefore it is in the eye of the beholder.elman said:=quatona]
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but tortuing babies is not. You have not made a valid argument here. The people who would debate over the question of wheather abortion is torturing babies or not would not debate over the actual torturing of a baby already born.
According to your decree, I guess.It can be misused. In the case of torturing babies it is not being misused.
Agreements of psychiatrists, psychologists and most everyone on certain behaviours are undisputed. What is disputed is the source of this agreement. And that´s where your circular reasoning kicks in.Do you know of a Psychiatrist that would say torturing babies is normal human behavior? Is there an agreement to some extent among most Pshychiatrist and psychologists on what is abnormal human behavior? No circular reasoning there.
That would make it a majority vote (which indeed is considered an important thing in our societies, but doesn´t make it an OMC. Yes, you are right: I don´t understand it as a given by an obscure source of OMC - I understand it to be a paradigm that can easily be argumentated for, and is therefore most likely to convince everyone.No it is not decided by a vote of the majority that torturing babies is wrong. The vote is never taken because it would be silly to take it. It would be silly to take such a vote because everyone except perhaps you understand it is a given.
Well, actually it was you who claimed it needs to be developed.Why do you think it needs to be developed that torturing babies is wrong? What would it mean to develope what we all know already?
It would unless it was also every other normal persons view.[/quote[
You seem to confuse subjective vs. objective and wrong vs right here. And again, you simply take those who disagree out of the equation by calling them not normal, which in fact is an accurate term because they are different from the majority. I suspect, though, that by saying "not normal" you actually want to label them irrelevant.
Then why did you yourself say you dediced so? I merely referred to your own statement.I don't know that I ever had to make a decision on that. It must therefore be an OMC.
Well, if your OMC is merely making a statement about torturing babies, then fine. I was working from the assumption that you were attempting to establish the idea of an OMC that covers more areas. If not, I´m sorry that I have misunderstood you. Whilst if my idea was accurate, there are certainly people who disagree with you on the idea of what is right and what is wrong.Who are these others again who believe it is good to torture babies? Have you met them?
Well, they would like you to listen to their opinions merely for what they themselves think they are: their subjective opinions. They certainly don´t expect you to consider them the source of your assumed God-given OMC, simply because they don´t even believe it exists and therefore are far from considering themselves a valid source for this non-existing OMC. That would be absurd, wouldn´t it?Yes, I have my reasons for caring what a subjectivist has to say about morality. I asked this question, not because I didn't care, but because I didn't see why a subjectivist would expect me to care (perhaps naively, I expected them to at least want me to listen). So far, I've been told that they don't expect me to care, and even that they don't want me to care.
Yes, if they did, I would also see the problem you see. But they don´t say that, and I am increasingly wondering where you have taken that idea from.Back to "inexplicable". Perhaps more than in any other Western country, people in the US believe that their moral views should control (to at least some extent) the way they vote as well as the way they act. As a result, moral issues are often in the forefront of public discussion here in the States, and I find it extremely odd that such a large segement of the population would say that I can ignore what they have to say about morality. Or at least, it seems like this is what they are saying, and if so, then I find it inexplicable.
No, I won´t argue that. I do think that subjectivism is a very reasonable view, though (else I wouldn´t hold it, after allPerhaps you will argue that subjectivism is just intellecual realism, and if you want to do so, please go ahead. Since I don't have the time to discuss that particular topic, I probably would simply not respond in detail to that section of your post. Still, if that is your view, I would be interested in hearing it articulated.
Thanks for clarifying. Still I think that this marginalizes the value of human actions by comparing them to God´s righteousness. Maybe this marginalization is appropriate (according to your axioms), maybe not (according to mine), but it´s certainly not much less of a marginalization (according to mine, the person whom you have asked to explain his views).(To clarify an apparent misconception, it is not we who are "filthy rags". It is our "righteousness", or our good deeds that are "filthy rags". If we were sinless, this would not be the case, but humans cannot help but mess up, and so our attempts at acheiving God's righteousness through our actions always fall woefully short.)
Sorry, but this is not what subjectivism says. I don´t know that subjectivism makes statements about consequences in an afterlife, or the existence or non-existence of an afterlife, anyways.Let me try it this way. The statement about having nothing to gain from following the MC of a subjectivist sprung from this basic line of reasoning.
1. If subjectivists are right, then the only consequences from my actions will be in this life.
Hang on. This is merely your personal conclusion that you would draw from the lack of an afterlife and the consequences it provides. It does not automatically follow from this idea.2. Therefore, I should form my MC so as to provide the maximum amount of personal advantages for myself.
Exactly. And that´s why it´s futile to ask those pragmatic players why you should expect their rules to be the Rules published by this League you believe exists.Let's take a closer look at the soccer match. Let's say that we're discussing an important match between two excellent teams. Before playing, both teams and all the game officials get together and agree on a different set of rules to play by. They go out, and the changes make the game vastly more enjoyable for the players on the field and the people in the stands. Unfortunately, the league refuses to recognize the results of the match because the rules were no followed. Of course, if you don't accept a higher power of any sort, then this is beside the point.
Nothing else being too broad a term here, methinks. What you are talking about are specifically the Rules of this League you believe exists, and they don´t believe to exist. Thus, they quite obviously don´t matter to them. If you want to join their game, you either accept the rules they play by or you convince them that your rules warrant more fun. Whilst if you are searching for the RulesOfTheLeague, you better look elsewhere. Self-suggesting, actually.However, I think that it makes the valid point that just because everyone agrees and has fun doesn't mean that nothing else matters.
And that´s exactly why people don´t do it, and why there needn´t be a moral law against it.If I were to jump off said 20,000 foot cliff, I would be effectively challenging the law of gravity (unless I'm simply suicidal).
Sure they are apparent. You perceive yourself as falling, going to hit the ground with incredibly high speed, and from everything you know and from abstracting previous experiences you know in what that will result. You are aware of the gravity all the time.The consequences of my issuing this foolish challenge will more than likely be fatal, but there is an extended period of time in which these consequences are not very apparent.
I have said it several times, yet I feel it needs to be repeated: Laws like gravity cannot be violated. That´s the very difference, and that already shows how we are talking about two completely different concepts, unfortunately both carrying the same label law. Prescriptive and descriptive laws.Likewise, violations of moral laws do not often have immediately apparent consequences.
Well, I have to wait for that point in time then. One essential foundation of our ability to learn is to face consequences. The more immediate the consequences, the better the learning effect. That´s exactly why people don´t jump off cliffs, except for suicidal purposes. If the assumed Author of OMC shifts the consequences for my actions extremely far into the future, even into another form of existence, then I can´t help assuming that He is not interested in me learning about them.This does not change the fact that the consequences will be very grave, or that they will someday come. There is simply a much more obvious connection between the consequences of jumping off a cliff than there is between the consequences of doing something like, say, lying.
I would assume their Author has made that so for a reason.Now, I'm not trying to suggest that subjectivists don't believe that actions have consequences (although I appreciate your clarifications on the subject). However, demonstrating consequences that take place after death is rather harder than demonstrating consequences that take place before death. As a result, demonstrating the worst consequences of violating the OMC is impossible.
I´d suggest that we discuss God´s unchangability and other limitations which He is restricted by, and the way He brought the OMC about another time. It´s really too far off. Ok?I for one would not refer to the fruit of following/disobeying the OMC using any of the three words you used (sanctions, punishments, and rewards). I would instead say that God has an unchangeable nature, and this unchangeability is what dictates both the OMC and the consequences of violating it. He didn't just sit down one day and say "I want people to do this and not do that, so here's what I'm going to do for people who do this, and here's what I'm going to do to people who do that."
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?