If when we die....

[Elioenai26]

Something that all three of you seem to be overlooking is that ever since humans have been writing down and recording the events that have been of any significance, there has always been in these writings, the existence of a set of objective moral standards. The Law Code of Hammurabi, and The Ten Commandments are ones we are all familiar with.

The law codes and values and standards existing since the beginning of the human race in every part of the world where there have been humans living in a society are the undeniable evidence of the existence of this standard. Any student of sociology can tell you this. Any student of ancient history can tell you this.

 

[Gadarene]

Something that all three of you seem to be overlooking is that ever since humans have been writing down and recording the events that have been of any significance, there has always been in these writings, the existence of a set of objective moral standards. The Law Code of Hammurabi, and The Ten Commandments are ones we are all familiar with.

The law codes and values and standards existing since the beginning of the human race in every part of the world where there have been humans living in a society are the undeniable evidence of the existence of this standard. Any student of sociology can tell you this. Any student of ancient history can tell you this.

Not really overlooking it. This is the first you'd referred to them, and simply referring to a majority viewpoint doesn't have much to do with establishing an objective standard.

I'm not disagreeing with the commonality of some of these rules, but personally I think they arise from our evolved behaviour and the harm certain actions cause. To overcome these you need social rules and pressures. Eventually, once we learned writing, the most basic ones were codified.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Something that all three of you seem to be overlooking is that ever since humans have been writing down and recording the events that have been of any significance, there has always been in these writings, the existence of a set of objective moral standards. The Law Code of Hammurabi, and The Ten Commandments are ones we are all familiar with.

The law codes and values and standards existing since the beginning of the human race in every part of the world where there have been humans living in a society are the undeniable evidence of the existence of this standard. Any student of sociology can tell you this. Any student of ancient history can tell you this.

However, many items in Hammurabi's Law or the Ten Commandments are either viewed as immoral behaviour, or senseless now.

That's a demonstration that morality has shifted since the time those documents were written, which is strong evidence against an objective moral standard.

 

[Elioenai26]

I agree with your definition of an objective moral value.

Now please show evidence that such a standard exists, explain where it came from, and why we are all bound by it.

Just because many people share common values does not make those values objective in any way. You must be able to distinguish an objective moral, from a subjective moral that many people happen to agree on to be able to prove your point.... and show evidence to confirm your statement.

The existence of an objective moral standard finds its source in God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is the evidence:

1. God created man and woman in His image and in His likeness. Part of the "image bearing" quality that is unique to humans is the fact that we have an intellect (mind), emotion (feeling), will (choice), and a conscience (moral capacity).

2. This last is what makes us particularly unique because it is reflective of His very nature.

3. An aspect related to this moral capacity is the ability to recognize the existence of objective moral standards which are prescriptive, perfect, objective, and universal and are evidenced by the following:

A. the universality of basic moral beliefs
B. the unavoidability of making moral judgments
C. the inescapability of there being a perfect standard by which we measure the imperfections in the world (we can't know injustice unless we know what is just).
D. the impossibility of making judgments about the progress (or regress) of the human race unless there is an external objective moral standard by which we measure the human race.
E. the fact that we make excuses for ourselves when we break the moral law.
F. the moral guilt we suffer from breaking the moral law.
G. the fact that the moral law, like the laws of mathematics, is discovered and not invented.
H. the reality that we sometimes act from a sense of duty (e.g. to save a life), even when our strongest instinct to survive tells us not to risk our lives or safety to do so.
I. the truth that we find some things in all cultures (like genocide or rape) that we perceive are wrong and evil.
J. the fact that some things we do (such as kill, lie, steal, cheat, or be disloyal), we do not want others to do to us.

Therefore as humans, we are capable of thinking, feeling, and choosing, and also have the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver - God, the creator.

 

[Gadarene]

The existence of an objective moral standard finds its source in God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is the evidence:

1. God created man and woman in His image and in His likeness. Part of the "image bearing" quality that is unique to humans is the fact that we have an intellect (mind), emotion (feeling), will (choice), and a conscience (moral capacity).

2. This last is what makes us particularly unique because it is reflective of His very nature.

3. An aspect related to this moral capacity is the ability to recognize the existence of objective moral standards which are prescriptive, perfect, objective, and universal and are evidenced by the following:

A. the universality of basic moral beliefs
B. the unavoidability of making moral judgments
C. the inescapability of there being a perfect standard by which we measure the imperfections in the world (we can't know injustice unless we know what is just).
D. the impossibility of making judgments about the progress (or regress) of the human race unless there is an external objective moral standard by which we measure the human race.
E. the fact that we make excuses for ourselves when we break the moral law.
F. the moral guilt we suffer from breaking the moral law.
G. the fact that the moral law, like the laws of mathematics, is discovered and not invented.
H. the reality that we sometimes act from a sense of duty (e.g. to save a life), even when our strongest instinct to survive tells us not to risk our lives or safety to do so.
I. the truth that we find some things in all cultures (like genocide or rape) that we perceive are wrong and evil.
J. the fact that some things we do (such as kill, lie, steal, cheat, or be disloyal), we do not want others to do to us.

Therefore as humans, we are capable of thinking, feeling, and choosing, and also have the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver - God, the creator.

All assertion. None are evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The existence of an objective moral standard finds its source in God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

How do you determine that the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview is the source of morality? Where is your evidence to show that? So far, this is merely an assertion until you can validate it.

This is the evidence:

1. God created man and woman in His image and in His likeness. Part of the "image bearing" quality that is unique to humans is the fact that we have an intellect (mind), emotion (feeling), will (choice), and a conscience (moral capacity).

This is also an assertion. First you must prove that God Exists, then you must prove that God actually created man in his own image and likeness.

There is no dispute we have intellect, emotion, will and a conscience... however those to not depend on a God to exist. You must prove those things come from a God, or your argument is not positive evidence, or even evidence for anything.

2. This last is what makes us particularly unique because it is reflective of His very nature.

Again, until you validate point #1, this point is similarly invalid.

3. An aspect related to this moral capacity is the ability to recognize the existence of objective moral standards which are prescriptive, perfect, objective, and universal and are evidenced by the following:

I don't recognise the existence of objective moral standards, along will millions of other people. That's why I'm asking for your evidence on the topic, so if I see the evidence, I will recognise they actually do exist.

In fact, there's no reason to assume such a standard exists at all.

A. the universality of basic moral beliefs

Basic moral beliefs are not universal. Some are more commonly held than others though.

B. the unavoidability of making moral judgments

Not all judgements are moral, or morally based.

C. the inescapability of there being a perfect standard by which we measure the imperfections in the world (we can't know injustice unless we know what is just).

There's no reason there is one universal moral standard. Many moral people still have differences of opinion on moral issues. They both recognise what is just, but what they define as just may be different.

D. the impossibility of making judgments about the progress (or regress) of the human race unless there is an external objective moral standard by which we measure the human race.

You don't base your judgements on an external source, you base them on your own opinions.

E. the fact that we make excuses for ourselves when we break the moral law.

Not always... most times when I make a mistake, I apologize for making a mistake. That also doesn't demonstrate that moral law is universal, you'd still make the same excuse if you violated your own moral code.

F. the moral guilt we suffer from breaking the moral law.

You'd feel an equal, if not greater guilt for breaking your own personal moral standard. This point also proves nothing.

G. the fact that the moral law, like the laws of mathematics, is discovered and not invented.

That's not a fact, that's an assertion. Show your evidence.

Furthermore, if your universal moral law was self-evident as you claimed, then we would be in a position to recognize it, and not discover it. That's what self-evident means.

Likewise, if we can't judge what is just without understanding this moral code... then we have never been in a position to fully, accurately judge what is just and what isn't, as you are asserting we still don't understand the moral code in full.

This point contradicts everything you have said so far.

H. the reality that we sometimes act from a sense of duty (e.g. to save a life), even when our strongest instinct to survive tells us not to risk our lives or safety to do so.

That's also no evidence for an outside source, that's evidence for how someone behaves when their instincts come into conflict. Some will choose to save the persons life, some will choose to ensure their own safety first. That's evidence of subjectivity.

I. the truth that we find some things in all cultures (like genocide or rape) that we perceive are wrong and evil.

Those aren't considered wrong and evil in all cultures. For example, the Bible, a supposedly divinely inspired work has God himself (supposedly the author of your universal morality) ordering multiple genocides, and condoning the rape of the conquered women.

Are you saying the perfect author of perfect morality would willfully violate, and order others to violate his own moral code? That proves that your God is not moral, or infallible.

J. the fact that some things we do (such as kill, lie, steal, cheat, or be disloyal), we do not want others to do to us.

That also has nothing to do with objectivity. In a Subjective system, one would obviously assume people would not want those things done to them either.

Therefore as humans, we are capable of thinking, feeling, and choosing, and also have the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver - God, the creator.

Seeing as not one of your arguments has backing, or validity... I must write off your conclusion.

You have no demonstrated that an objective moral law exists. You have only stated that many humans share many values, then attributed those to some mystical universal law.

Still, I am open to hearing the evidence for your assertions if you possess any. But, until you can back them, they are still merely assertions and NOT evidence.

 

[Skavau]

The existence of an objective moral standard finds its source in God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is the evidence:

1. God created man and woman in His image and in His likeness. Part of the "image bearing" quality that is unique to humans is the fact that we have an intellect (mind), emotion (feeling), will (choice), and a conscience (moral capacity).

This is an assertion. You have yet to demonstrate that an objective moral standard exists much less that a deity is responsible for it.

2. This last is what makes us particularly unique because it is reflective of His very nature.

How do you know the existence or pervasiveness of our conscience has anything to do with God?

3. An aspect related to this moral capacity is the ability to recognize the existence of objective moral standards which are prescriptive, perfect, objective, and universal and are evidenced by the following:

A. the universality of basic moral beliefs

I don't think all moral claims are universal. I think some ought to be mandatory in all societies (prohibition of rape, theft, murder, violence etc) - but I recognise their origin as entirely human or more broadly a consideration only relevant and possible within the context of an intelligent social species.

B. the unavoidability of making moral judgments

This is so, but there's no reason to attribute such to God.

C. the inescapability of there being a perfect standard by which we measure the imperfections in the world (we can't know injustice unless we know what is just).

How does noticing the problems of the world necessitate there being a perfect standard be it hypothetical or actual?

D. the impossibility of making judgments about the progress (or regress) of the human race unless there is an external objective moral standard by which we measure the human race.[/quite]
This is untrue. Our moral judgements are actually extremely insular. We only consider the plight of our own species. It has only been in recent years that animal rights have been considered and even fewer that keeping species alive has been a concern. We measure the human race broadly by how good our health, freedom and general well-being are.

We aspire for equality, an end to poverty and oppression but these are human concerns not some ethereal "perfect standard".

E. the fact that we make excuses for ourselves when we break the moral law.

This happens sometimes. Not always. Not related to a God anyway.

F. the moral guilt we suffer from breaking the moral law.

Well, yes. Though what you and I consider the "moral law" differ. I am sure you consider not adulating God immoral and things such as fornication and homosexuality wrong yet I do not or would not feel the slightest guilt for violating any of that.

G. the fact that the moral law, like the laws of mathematics, is discovered and not invented.

This is a claim. We postulate our moral ideas and formulate ethical systems.

They don't 'exist' before we establish them. They are human made.

H. the reality that we sometimes act from a sense of duty (e.g. to save a life), even when our strongest instinct to survive tells us not to risk our lives or safety to do so.

This is true. Not sure what it has to do with God.

I. the truth that we find some things in all cultures (like genocide or rape) that we perceive are wrong and evil.

This is a reiteration of your other points. These things are wrong based on them being incompatible with a civil society and the displacement and destruction it causes to individuals.

J. the fact that some things we do (such as kill, lie, steal, cheat, or be disloyal), we do not want others to do to us.

That's out of self-interest and is also the beginning of the argument as to why murder, deception, theft and cheating are immoral. We can establish common ground to argue those things as immoral. None of us would not like to be on the receiving end of it.

Therefore as humans, we are capable of thinking, feeling, and choosing, and also have the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver - God, the creator.

Your analysis, some of which is true partially, some of which is not and some of which identifies incorrect causes to has nothing to do with God. You made no connection to God - you just assumed it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The existence of an objective moral standard finds its source in God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is the evidence:

1. God created man and woman in His image and in His likeness. Part of the "image bearing" quality that is unique to humans is the fact that we have an intellect (mind), emotion (feeling), will (choice), and a conscience (moral capacity).

2. This last is what makes us particularly unique because it is reflective of His very nature.

3. An aspect related to this moral capacity is the ability to recognize the existence of objective moral standards which are prescriptive, perfect, objective, and universal and are evidenced by the following:

A. the universality of basic moral beliefs
B. the unavoidability of making moral judgments
C. the inescapability of there being a perfect standard by which we measure the imperfections in the world (we can't know injustice unless we know what is just).
D. the impossibility of making judgments about the progress (or regress) of the human race unless there is an external objective moral standard by which we measure the human race.
E. the fact that we make excuses for ourselves when we break the moral law.
F. the moral guilt we suffer from breaking the moral law.
G. the fact that the moral law, like the laws of mathematics, is discovered and not invented.
H. the reality that we sometimes act from a sense of duty (e.g. to save a life), even when our strongest instinct to survive tells us not to risk our lives or safety to do so.
I. the truth that we find some things in all cultures (like genocide or rape) that we perceive are wrong and evil.
J. the fact that some things we do (such as kill, lie, steal, cheat, or be disloyal), we do not want others to do to us.

Therefore as humans, we are capable of thinking, feeling, and choosing, and also have the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver - God, the creator.

#1 is merely asserted, and while the rest is consistent with #1, it does not unambiguously lead to the conclusion that #1 is actually true. All it says is that we make moral judgments, that we use some standard in common to do so, and that we have a conscience. It might be an argument that there is some objective morality, but it's not any sort of argument that a God is the source of morality.

Furthermore, it absolutely does not establish that people use a perfect moral standard in making judgments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.

So why did you even bring up how broadly popular certain moral ideas are?

 

[KCfromNC]

So you do not believe in the existence of any objective moral standards. Is that what you are saying?

Yep. Seems that lots of people pretend they exist but no one can actually tell us what they are. It's probably because when people have in the past, it's been trivially easy to show entire cultures which reject part of these universal objective moral standards. That tells me that this is a faith claim, not one based on evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.

Seems a whole lot like these objective moral standards still lead to subjective morality. I don't see how the term objective applies in that case, nor any practical difference between it and subjective morality. Adding in some imaginary objective moral standards which no one follows completely doesn't really help us understand morality any better.

 

[Gadarene]

Seems a whole lot like these objective moral standards still lead to subjective morality. I don't see how the term objective applies in that case, nor any practical difference between it and subjective morality. Adding in some imaginary objective moral standards which no one follows completely doesn't really help us understand morality any better.

Perhaps one could argue that while the basis for a moral system is objective, it is always invariably interpreted subjectively? I.e we need to separate the matter of a basis for morals from the moral claims that result from it?

I seem to recall that's how I considered the Bible at one point....

 

[WonderBeat]

One thing is for certain. I was when I was a two year old. I was when I was an adolescent. I was myself three minutes ago, and I am right now. This I am has no start or finish. It is a permanent continuum..... Why suggest even for a moment that it ceases upon the destruction of the body? Or for that matter, that it didnt exist prior to this body's existence? Such claims are thoroughly unfounded....

Some say I AM is the mind. They are mistaken. The mind is merely a vehicle for awareness. In actual fact, we are all one being expressing itself as many. Thoughts are manifold, but our being, our SELF is One thing only. A perfect wholeness... So what happens after death? My take is, we return home when we are ready....

 

[Dave Ellis]

One thing is for certain. I was when I was a two year old. I was when I was an adolescent. I was myself three minutes ago, and I am right now. This I am has no start or finish. It is a permanent continuum..... Why suggest even for a moment that it ceases upon the destruction of the body? Or for that matter, that it didnt exist prior to this body's existence? Such claims are thoroughly unfounded....

Please explain how those are unfounded claims? Seeing as there's no evidence that suggests we existed before we were born, or persist after death, they are quite rational claims.

Some say I AM is the mind. They are mistaken. The mind is merely a vehicle for awareness. In actual fact, we are all one being expressing itself as many. Thoughts are manifold, but our being, our SELF is One thing only. A perfect wholeness... So what happens after death? My take is, we return home when we are ready....

And where is your evidence to back up this claim?

 

[WonderBeat]

Please explain how those are unfounded claims? Seeing as there's no evidence that suggests we existed before we were born, or persist after death, they are quite rational claims.

There is no evidence that suggests we didnt exist. See, this cuts both ways. I already explained how "I am" is a permanent fixture or continuum of awareness, why hitch it to some accidental feature of the body?

Deep within we all know ourselves to be immortal.

And where is your evidence to back up this claim?

Evidence consists of knowing the true Self....

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is no evidence that suggests we didnt exist. See, this cuts both ways. I already explained how "I am" is a permanent fixture or continuum of awareness, why hitch it to some accidental feature of the body?

Yes, but that's a logical fallacy, It's a classic argument from ignorance. Just because there's no evidence that shows we didn't exist, does not in any way give credence to the idea that we did.

You also haven't demonstrated that we are in any way permanent, or any continuum of awareness exists.

Deep within we all know ourselves to be immortal.

I'd love to be immortal, however I have no reason to assume that I am.

Evidence consists of knowing the true Self....

No, that's not evidence at all. That's personal experience.

 

[quatona]

One thing is for certain. I was when I was a two year old. I was when I was an adolescent. I was myself three minutes ago, and I am right now. This I am has no start or finish. It is a permanent continuum..... Why suggest even for a moment that it ceases upon the destruction of the body? Or for that matter, that it didnt exist prior to this body's existence? Such claims are thoroughly unfounded....

Well, they do have some foundation: none of those indications that prompt us to assume that "I was when I was a two year old. I was when I was an adolescent. I was myself three minutes ago, and I am right now" exist for this everlasting "I AM" that you postulate.

 

[WonderBeat]

Yes, but that's a logical fallacy, It's a classic argument from ignorance. Just because there's no evidence that shows we didn't exist, does not in any way give credence to the idea that we did.

Just so, simply because there's no evidence that shows we will cease to exist (or didn't used to exist) doesn't mean we magically cease upon death.

You also haven't demonstrated that we are in any way permanent, or any continuum of awareness exists.

I AM through all the years of my life.... how basic can I get?

My body has been changed, has recycled, my mind's thoughts, personality, emotions and so on have drifted and changed over many years. What remained stable throughout is my own sacred "I"- awareness.

I'd love to be immortal, however I have no reason to assume that I am.

It seems logically the default position, but then again I'm not too much into speculation but rather the truth.....

No, that's not evidence at all. That's personal experience.

Experience is evidence. I dare say you are a hypocrite if you deny this. How can you after all claim evidence without experiencing it?

Frankly, I believe you have a perverted/distorted view to the truth if you do not know the true Self..... But actually that's almost everyone, including me at times, so I'm not singling you out.....heh

 

[Eudaimonist]

Deep within we all know ourselves to be immortal.

Deep within, I know everything to be in flux. Everything changes, and nothing is permanent, not even one's existence.

I do not know my self to be immortal, and consciousness is not myself, but only a means for the experience of self. It sounds like you are identifying selfhood with consciousness as such, but why call this a self (or Self) at all? It isn't any such thing. If everything that makes you the unique individual that you are has passed out of existence, why speak of immortality?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Deep within, I know everything to be in flux. Everything changes, and nothing is permanent, not even one's existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Everything *in* existence changes. Existence itself, does not. And you are THAT!