Is there an absolute morality?

[ISteveB]

Fair enough -- but if you insist on contexts where murder, rape, and/or stealing are good things (as you did back in post #1860), then all I have to do is direct you to the Bible when such actions were commanded, condoned, or committed by God, and and then sit back and watch the fun.

Yeah, you're clearly in another conversation.
The OP asked some pretty simple questions.
I answered the first, and then to obtain a clearer picture of what he was asking, I asked him a series of questions.

You apparently decided, unilaterally, that I'm not allowed to learn what others think. So, now you're just being rude, about something that had absolutely nothing to do with my questions to the OP.

I am quite aware of the reasons -- I simply do not believe them.

Obviously.
Otherwise you would have understood that my questions were not directed to you.
So, let's do it this way....

I had absolutely no idea you existed until you posted your comment. So there's no way I could have known anything you would think.
Which, in my world isn't a problem. In yours however, it's apparently a humongous problem.

Do yourself a favor @TLK Valentine, stop acting like you own the right to force others to fit in your own mind.

We don't, and quite frankly, have no interest whatsoever in fitting into your mind. From what little I've seen thus far, it's too crowded in there.

Now, if you're actually interested in having a conversation that you are not in control of, by all means please continue. But if you actually think you have a right to control what others think and say, please be an adult and step off.

 

[Bradskii]

This is an act ^

This is also an act ^

The act itself is immoral ^

I agree. The second act was qualified. We added more information. We can therefore determine the morality of the act. We couldn't in the first case - it might have been self defence or murder.

 

[ISteveB]

Do you think all that's verbatim?

I still have no idea what your problem with God the Father is, except that you said he's reported to have said something you have a problem with.

So, let's focus on dealing with your issues about this.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree. The second act was qualified. We added more information. We can therefore determine the morality of the act. We couldn't in the first case - it might have been self defence or murder.

So a sufficiently defined act can, in itself, be immoral.

 

[Chriliman]

What impact does my liking or disliking a thing have on that thing?

If I like something, that will cause me to seek it.
If I dislike something, that will cause me to avoid it.

Whether I like something or not doesn't tell you a single fact about the thing itself.

If murder is wrong, but it can be liked or disliked, then whether it is liked or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is wrong.

True, and the reason murder is wrong is because it causes the victim to have an intrinsically bad(opposite of enjoyment) experience and since the victim exists objectively, it’s objectively bad.

Same can be said for why it’s objectively wrong or bad for your wife to eat chocolate ice cream.

 

[Moral Orel]

True, and the reason murder is wrong is because it causes the victim to have an intrinsically bad(opposite of enjoyment) experience and since the victim exists objectively, it’s objectively bad.

No experiences are intrinsically good or bad. Maybe we like them, maybe we don't.

 

[Bradskii]

So a sufficiently defined act can, in itself, be immoral.

The 'in itself' is superfluous. I've used that term to describe an act that is not sufficiently defined. But if we remove that term to avoid confusion, then yes, I have no problem with that. If we have all the information needed then we can make a determination as to the morality of an act. Whether we agree or not is obviously a different matter.

 

[Chriliman]

No experiences are intrinsically good or bad. Maybe we like them, maybe we don't.

We like an experience because it’s enjoyable and that’s a fact.

 

[Bradskii]

I still have no idea what your problem with God the Father is, except that you said he's reported to have said something you have a problem with.

So, let's focus on dealing with your issues about this.

Yeah, I'm not much of an Old Testament guy myself. But I've taken the thread slightly off topic (although quite a few people will claim an act such as lying is contrary to God's wishes and is therefore always wrong).

 

[Moral Orel]

We like an experience because it’s enjoyable and that’s a fact.

We like an experience if we enjoy an experience. Do you see the difference between those two statements in light of my posts in the other thread?

 

[Moral Orel]

The 'in itself' is superfluous. I've used that term to describe an act that is not sufficiently defined. But if we remove that term to avoid confusion, then yes, I have no problem with that. If we have all the information needed then we can make a determination as to the morality of an act. Whether we agree or not is obviously a different matter.

Is it possible for one of us to be correct? If we have all of the information about an act.

 

[ISteveB]

Yeah, I'm not much of an Old Testament guy myself. But I've taken the thread slightly off topic (although quite a few people will claim an act such as lying is contrary to God's wishes and is therefore always wrong).

Ok.

So let's focus on what you think the "reported to have said" problem is.

I've been reading the entire bible for a long time.

My recent experience is reading each book 6 times.
I'm on Numbers right now.

So I've read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus 6 times in a row. I'm finishing up my 4th time through Numbers.

I've read the whole bible several times before, so I'm going to say let's work through it.

 

[Bradskii]

Is it possible for one of us to be correct? If we have all of the information about an act.

If we disagree then I will think that I'm the one that's right. I'm hardly going to say 'this is what I believe but I'm actually wrong'. That said, you might have an argument that will cause me to drop my position and support yours.

Are we both then right? Are we more right if everyone believes exactly as we do? That's a dangerous road to take.

 

[Moral Orel]

If we disagree then I will think that I'm the one that's right. I'm hardly going to say 'this is what I believe but I'm actually wrong'. That said, you might have an argument that will cause me to drop my position and support yours.

Are we both then right? Are we more right if everyone believes exactly as we do? That's a dangerous road to take.

Assuming we have all of the information.

It is not possible for both of us to be correct.

It is possible for both of us to be incorrect.

Is it possible for one of us to be correct and the other to be incorrect?

 

[Bradskii]

Ok.

So let's focus on what you think the "reported to have said" problem is.

I've been reading the entire bible for a long time.

My recent experience is reading each book 6 times.
I'm on Numbers right now.

So I've read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus 6 times in a row. I'm finishing up my 4th time through Numbers.

I've read the whole bible several times before, so I'm going to say let's work through it.

We're heading off topic, but if the op doesn't mind...

I say 'reported to have said' just for accuracy. I might say 'As Plato once said' but what I actually mean is 'As Plato is reported to have once said'. We don't know for sure if he actually existed. But some of what he is reported to have said makes sense, so whether he did or didn't exist doesn't really matter. We can still take it on board just as we would if a fictional character in a book says something we think is profound.

As an atheist, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. But what he is reported to have said (assuming he existed) is still worth listening to. And I use 'reported to have said' in the same way I would with Plato. Note that the chunk of text above you quoted Jesus as saying was written decades after He died. But some people take everything he said as verbatim. Whereas I take it as the gist of what someone thought he might have said.

 

[Chriliman]

We like an experience if we enjoy an experience. Do you see the difference between those two statements in light of my posts in the other thread?

I think it can be simplified to either “I like an experience” or “I enjoy an experience” they essentially have the same meaning. My question to you is do you think your enjoyment of an experience is intrinsic to you? Meaning if you take away you or the experience, then your enjoyment of that experience is impossible.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think it can be simplified to either “I like an experience” or “I enjoy an experience” they essentially have the same meaning.

Sure, I agree.

My question to you is do you think your enjoyment of an experience is intrinsic to you? Meaning if you take away you or the experience, then your enjoyment of that experience is impossible.

Huh?

 

[Bradskii]

Ok.

So let's focus on what you think the "reported to have said" problem is.

I've been reading the entire bible for a long time.

My recent experience is reading each book 6 times.
I'm on Numbers right now.

So I've read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus 6 times in a row. I'm finishing up my 4th time through Numbers.

I've read the whole bible several times before, so I'm going to say let's work through it.

And your comment reminded me of a great scene from the West Wing about reading the bible. About 1:35 if you want to skip to it. Very well written and acted.

 

[Bradskii]

Assuming we have all of the information.

It is not possible for both of us to be correct.

It is possible for both of us to be incorrect.

Is it possible for one of us to be correct and the other to be incorrect?

You're assuming that there is a correct answer. Hiroshima was mentioned upstream. There's no right answer for that unless you believe in an absolute morality. So killing innocent people is wrong. Period. There's no option to even qualify it. No discussion re overall lives saved will be entered into. If it's just one innocent life to save millions, it's always wrong.

That's a black and white view of the world. Black hats over there. White ones over here. This side of the line in the sand. Life is a little messier than that.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're assuming that there is a correct answer. Hiroshima was mentioned upstream. There's no right answer for that unless you believe in an absolute morality. So killing innocent people is wrong. Period. There's no option to even qualify it. No discussion re overall lives saved will be entered into. If it's just one innocent life to save millions, it's always wrong.

That's a black and white view of the world. Black hats over there. White ones over here. This side of the line in the sand. Life is a little messier than that.

No, that isn't absolute morality. Morality would still be relative to circumstances.

In a hypothetical scenario, where we know all of the circumstances, is it possible to make a correct determination?