I will admit to not reading the OP, however; the (enforced) law of the land is the authority of those living within the land, the individual is only the authority of his own (unenforced) subjective moral opinions.
Upvote
0
-
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.
Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative
- Thread starter Tranquil Bondservant
- Start date
Neutral Observer
Active Member
- Nov 25, 2022
- 318
- 121
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Why do you have a problem with that? We seem to be in agreement. There is no objective authority on morality. I fail to see the problem.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,047
- 15,652
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Quite right. So how to we find out the answers to moral problems?
Well, if we all disagree on any matter (and I include you as well) then we need to discuss the matter and look at the pros and conns. Let's say it's euthanasia. If Ken has a different view to mine then I'll want to know his personal arguments for his position. Likewise Walking. And you.
Now if you say that God doesn't like it because of x, y and z and you personally agree with God, then x, y and z will be your arguments, taken into consideration just as any other arguments will be. And if I consider them to be the best arguments then I will agree with them. If I don't, then I won't.
Who else can make the decision? You made yours in accepting that what God says is the correct view and me, Walking and Ken will make ours.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,423
- 28,850
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
So I've been around long enough to see how these moral authority arguments tend to play out. Which has led me to wonder what the point of such arguments are.
But something I do observe tends to be a kind of fear. For example, the fear that without an objective moral standard (e.g. God's Law) people will modify their morality and, potentially, become dangerous. On the flip side, the argument goes, there is a kind of fear that the one who relies only on an objective moral standard is only sharing int he pretense of morality.
Examples:
The Christian says that an atheist has no objective moral standard, and therefore there is nothing to stop them from engaging in horrible behavior and thus are a threat to the well-being of society.
The atheist, then, responds, that if the Christian is only subscribing to certain moral positions because God says so, but does not truly regard such things abhorrent because they are abhorrent, then what stops them from engaging in horrible behavior and thus are a threat to the well-being of society.
Now, obviously I don't think either party (usually) regards the other a genuine threat to the well-being of society. But so goes the broad strokes of the arguments.
Surely, on some level, that there is a common agreement that certain things are abhorrent and endanger the well-being of other human persons and society on the whole and thus we agree on the institution of law to curb evil and promote a common good is, itself, a good thing. The particular pathways we use to come to that position may be varied; and deeper questions can certainly be very interesting.
There seems to be a bigger danger when we start to treat other people as suspicious. When we start othering certain people we entertain dark thoughts that dehumanize our neighbors. And to dehumanize others will consistently produce woes.
-CryptoLutheran
But something I do observe tends to be a kind of fear. For example, the fear that without an objective moral standard (e.g. God's Law) people will modify their morality and, potentially, become dangerous. On the flip side, the argument goes, there is a kind of fear that the one who relies only on an objective moral standard is only sharing int he pretense of morality.
Examples:
The Christian says that an atheist has no objective moral standard, and therefore there is nothing to stop them from engaging in horrible behavior and thus are a threat to the well-being of society.
The atheist, then, responds, that if the Christian is only subscribing to certain moral positions because God says so, but does not truly regard such things abhorrent because they are abhorrent, then what stops them from engaging in horrible behavior and thus are a threat to the well-being of society.
Now, obviously I don't think either party (usually) regards the other a genuine threat to the well-being of society. But so goes the broad strokes of the arguments.
Surely, on some level, that there is a common agreement that certain things are abhorrent and endanger the well-being of other human persons and society on the whole and thus we agree on the institution of law to curb evil and promote a common good is, itself, a good thing. The particular pathways we use to come to that position may be varied; and deeper questions can certainly be very interesting.
There seems to be a bigger danger when we start to treat other people as suspicious. When we start othering certain people we entertain dark thoughts that dehumanize our neighbors. And to dehumanize others will consistently produce woes.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Similar threads
