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.
Thanks for the QED.I understand that moral anti-realism or non-cognitivism, error theory, or subjective morality reject moral facts. But thats the problem. When we apply morality to real life situations (reality) this is where relative/subjective moral systems break down.
We cannot help but find ourselves in conflict. On the one hand claiming there are no moral facts but in reality applying morality like there are moral facts. Thus confusion and conflict in trying to make moral statements. Even though we proclaim moral facts moral anti-realims says we are either deluded or in error.
So therefore if moral anti-realism is true then we live a contradiction. You say we cannot express any "Shoulds" yet we express "Shoulds" everyday because thats how we actually express morality in a normative way. You are only taking one position the Non-cognitive one. But who says thats right.
Considering that we cannot help but express moral facts I would think that sometimes those facts are actually a true representation of how things really are and not some error or delusion.
So the question has to be asked. If there are no moral facts then how do we determine right and wrong behaviour. If there are no moral facts then any the different cultural behaviours even if abhorrent are just self expressions and never factually wrong just as I pointed out and is supported below.
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.
Ethical Relativism.
Therefore there are no wrong morals at all in any universal or factual way. The US cannot say that the relative morals of another culture that demeans women is wrong in any factual way. It may be wrong for the US but its ok for the other culture.
Therefore any moral system that cannot condemn the acts of other cultures in any factual way like demeaning women including rape, genocide, and other acts we would regard as immoral is an unworkable system in reality.Thanks for the QED.
Again, as I sure can reject moral stances and as I reject objective morality you are in error.Therefore any moral system that cannot condemn the acts of other cultures in any factual way like demeaning women including rape, genocide, and other acts we would regard as immoral is an unworkable system in reality.
So by what basis can you condemn the immoral acts of other cultures.Again, as I sure can reject moral stances and as I reject objective morality you are in error.
You keep showing that you are incredibly ignorant.
By my own views.So by what basis can you condemn the immoral acts of other cultures.
Why do you think that the Bible frames morality as commands rather than facts? For instance, we dont find God saying "stealing is wrong". He say "thou shalt not steal". Or Jesus doesnt say "it is right to love your neighbor". He say "thou shalt love your neighbor..."A couple of years ago, I sent a long email to Dr. Frank Turek, the glib host of the "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" podcast (and book of the same name). One of his pet claims is that there can be no morality without God - i.e., God provides an objective standard and without God morality is just a matter of opinion. Turek used my email as fodder for three of his podcasts, mischaracterizing what I had said, repeating what he always says like a broken record, giving me no opportunity to respond, and going so far as to question whether I was even a Christian as I had claimed. Par for the course with this sort of lightweight apologetics, I guess.
My points, which still seem to me to have validity, were:
I just don't see Turek's argument that atheists "steal from God" when they speak about morality as being convincing or going anywhere. I happen to believe God is the source of morality, both in terms of His commands and the human conscience, but I don't think atheism can reasonably be dismissed on this basis.
- It at least seems rational to me for atheists to claim that evolution, with its sole objective of maximizing survival, could have genetically programmed much of what we regard as morality because it enhances survival. This isn't what I believe, but it doesn't strike me as irrational. The genetic programming would constitute the objective standard Turek regards as essential.
- It at least seems rational to me for atheists to claim that over the course of thousands of years the vast majority of humans have reached a consensus as to what constitutes moral behavior. This consensus would constitute the objective standard Turek demands, even if there are outliers and violators.
Do you understand why any form of this statement: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false?I understand that moral anti-realism or non-cognitivism, error theory, or subjective morality reject moral facts. But thats the problem. When we apply morality to real life situations (reality) this is where relative/subjective moral systems break down.
We cannot help but find ourselves in conflict. On the one hand claiming there are no moral facts but in reality applying morality like there are moral facts. Thus confusion and conflict in trying to make moral statements. Even though we proclaim moral facts moral anti-realims says we are either deluded or in error.
So therefore if moral anti-realism is true then we live a contradiction. You say we cannot express any "Shoulds" yet we express "Shoulds" everyday because thats how we actually express morality in a normative way. You are only taking one position the Non-cognitive one. But who says thats right.
Considering that we cannot help but express moral facts I would think that sometimes those facts are actually a true representation of how things really are and not some error or delusion.
So the question has to be asked. If there are no moral facts then how do we determine right and wrong behaviour. If there are no moral facts then any the different cultural behaviours even if abhorrent are just self expressions and never factually wrong just as I pointed out and is supported below.
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.
Ethical Relativism.
Therefore there are no wrong morals at all in any universal or factual way. The US cannot say that the relative morals of another culture that demeans women is wrong in any factual way. It may be wrong for the US but its ok for the other culture.
Couldn't resist when this came to mind: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should eat their children".Do you understand why any form of this statement: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false?
If I said, "I reject objective morality", I would mean that I reject all goodness in reality and embrace all badness in reality. In other words, I'm evil and proud of it.Again, as I sure can reject moral stances and as I reject objective morality you are in error.
You keep showing that you are incredibly ignorant on this subject.
Right, that statement is false. And?Couldn't resist when this came to mind: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should eat their children".
How do I know you're not lying?If I said I reject objective morality, I would mean that I reject all goodness in reality and embrace all badness in reality. In other words, I'm evil and proud of it.
It's not false since Mothers don't eat their children. In other words, there exists a Maternal instinct and a love of parents and sisters/brothers dog/cat etc...Right, that statement is false. And?
Because I don't reject honesty.How do I know you're not lying?
That doesn't follow from the statement at all.It's not false since Mothers don't eat their children. In other words, there exists a Maternal instinct and a love of parents and sisters/brothers dog/cat etc...
How do I know you're not lying about that?Because I don't reject honesty.
It does follow in that eating ones children is not a Maternal instinct. Maternal instinct exists objectively as moral.That doesn't follow from the statement at all.
How do I know you're not lying about that?
For we Christians, of course there is right and wrong in an ultimate sense. For we Christians, God's commands establish morality regardless of what we may think of them personally.Why do you think that the Bible frames morality as commands rather than facts? For instance, we dont find God saying "stealing is wrong". He say "thou shalt not steal". Or Jesus doesnt say "it is right to love your neighbor". He say "thou shalt love your neighbor..."
I come away with the sense that there is no right/wrong in some ultimate sense. There's just the will of a father-being.
Read a very basic moral philosophy book.If I said, "I reject objective morality", I would mean that I reject all goodness in reality and embrace all badness in reality. In other words, I'm evil and proud of it.
Is this what you mean? And if you say "No", how do I know you're not lying since you claim to reject objective morality, which means you reject honesty? This is why morality has to be objective, or it doesn't even exist in reality. By objective morality I mean Love/compassion and all moral virtues.
Let's be real, I don't have to read a book to know that dishonesty doesn't even exist in reality, if honesty doesn't first exist in reality.Read a very basic moral philosophy book.
Thanks for the QEDLet's be real, I don't have to read a book to know that dishonesty doesn't even exist in reality, if honesty doesn't first exist in reality.
Lets imagine we do live in a no-God world. Would you still think stealing or killing your neighbor is wrong?For we Christians, of course there is right and wrong in an ultimate sense. For we Christians, God's commands establish morality regardless of what we may think of them personally.
My point on this thread has not been that morality is subjective. My point has simply been that I don't think we can legitimately use our theistic morality as an apologetic sword to suggest (as Turek does) that atheists can claim no objective basis for their morality but must "steal from God" to make moral claims.
Glad we agree that honesty has to be an objectively moral fact of reality.Thanks for the QED
To a theist the term God is axiomatic. It's like asking "what if there were no universe, would you still think killing your neighbor is wrong?"Lets imagine we do live in a no-God world. Would you still think stealing or killing your neighbor is wrong?
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?