Needing justification for morality

[DogmaHunter]

No. That is a view from one who knows very little about the Christian God.

God does not punish you. You forsake God and you suffer because God is not with you any more. God says: Do this, it is moral. You do not do it, so you suffer.

This is so backwards....

In your mythology, it IS your god that judges you. He COULD just forgive you. Without demanding blood sacrifices. But he doesn't. Instead, he judges you to be tormented.

No matter how hard you swing it, it IS your god that decides who goes to "heaven" and who doesn't.

It's the maffia boss analogy. He holds a gun to your head and asks to hand over your wallet. If you do, you can go. If you don't, you'll be shot.

If you then "freely choose" not to obey, then you did NOT commit suicide.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not need to reply this ignorant post. But, ...

The genocide case is: Ancient Israelites obeyed their God, 4000 years ago.
In my understanding, that was the only case justified. It is an example which illustrates what moral really is.

No. It's an example that illustrates that "divine command theory" is the opposite of morality. It's the "morality" of psychopaths.

It's no more then obedience to a perceived authority.
If your god says "kill", then killing is "moral".
If your god says "keep slaves", then slavery is "moral".
If your god says "kill all humans", then killing all humans is "moral".

You have NO moral compass. All you have is obedience to a perceived authority.

The analogy can be found in classrooms of 10 year olds.
Consider the rule that children may not drink during classes. On a hot day the teacher might give permission to drink water during class. When you ask a child of that class if it is ok to drink water if the teacher says so, they will say "yes, no problem".

Now consider a teacher that tells the children that it is ok to punch their fellow class members in the face. When you then ask the kids if it is ok to do so because the teacher gave permission, only those kids who have psychopathic tendencies will say "yes, no problem".

And that is exacty the group you belong to. Your god is your perceived authority. And you blindly swallow whatever you believe this god commands.

He could command the most immoral, disgusting things and you'ld be ok with it. Because you are morally bankrupt. You have sacrificed your moral integrity in favor of obedience to a perceived authority. You have traded your moral compass for the "morality" of psychopaths.

And the proof is in the pudding... you're here, flat out stating that genocide is a-okay as long as your perceived authority commands it.

I wonder what will happen the day you become convinced that god is telling you to go out and commit some kind of horrible deed. Like that woman who drowned her 3 kid because she believed god commanded her to. Frightening, really...

I wouldn't want to have you as a neighbour.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mark, you are aware that intentionality/motive is key in determining whether an act ordered by a moral agent is evil correct?

This is shortsighted.

Following that logic, almost no evil takes place anywhere.
Hitler was quite convinced that he was doing some kind of moral duty.
Mohammed Atta was convinced that he was doing a heroicly moral deed when he flew an airplane into the WTC.
Every suicide terrorist is convinced to be fighting the "good" fight.

Clearly, one can be convinced to be doing morally good things, while in fact they are engaging in the biggest evils imaginable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Chany, two men each end the life of a child.

One of the men is a doctor who works in a pediatric ICU and has ordered that a child be taken off of life support because it is suffering and very ill.

The other man stabs a child to death because the child refused to have sex with him.

The actual end consequences of these men's actions is that in each case a child's life has been taken.

The MOTIVE that each man had in so doing determines whether the act is good (the first scenario) or evil (the second scenario).

The end result of the first is a decrease in suffering of a terminally ill patient.
The end result of the second is senseless killing.

Let's change it up a bit....

Let's say the second man indeed kills the child, but for a different reason... Let's say that the second man has become convinced that the child is possessed by a demon and that God ordered the man to kill the child. Now, this killing is a sacred mission in the eyes of the man.

Now what? The motive now is to obey his god. The motive is to remove a great evil from the world (= a demon possessed child, as the man believes).

Incidently, this is pretty much what muslim suicide bombers do. They engage in indiscriminate killing and consider it their moral and sacred duty to do so.

So.... not evil anymore? No longer immoral?

What gives?

 

[pyramid33]

It's too much drama. Smiles and laughter and frowns and tears.

The debate about a man made definition for believer's and non believers. "Theist's" and "Atheist's". It sounds so, "I'm trying to be special by speaking made up words", type of lame.

It has no root, no substance in it and is therefore encouraging each to be on the same field of play. When in fact, neither is on the same field.

I have no interest in hearing about how one thinks they have brains and the other doesn't. I have found dogs with bigger brains.

 

[pyramid33]

Incidently, this is pretty much what muslim suicide bombers do. They engage in indiscriminate killing and consider it their moral and sacred duty to do so.

So.... not evil anymore? No longer immoral?

What gives?

As passionate as some seem to be about that subject, I witness those that reject God to be as motivated as a suicide bomber and a bigger threat in humanity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I witness those that reject God to be as motivated as a suicide bomber and a bigger threat in humanity.

As motivated in what way? A threat how?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

No. It's an example that illustrates that "divine command theory" is the opposite of morality. It's the "morality" of psychopaths.

It's no more then obedience to a perceived authority.
If your god says "kill", then killing is "moral".
If your god says "keep slaves", then slavery is "moral".
If your god says "kill all humans", then killing all humans is "moral".

You have NO moral compass. All you have is obedience to a perceived authority.

...

I wouldn't want to have you as a neighbour.

That is what morality should be. It is an absolute guidance to thought and behavior. The content is not negotiable.

Of course, in that case, it is critical to know the nature of God I am obeying. I can assure you, my God does not command me: kill your neighbors.

What does my God want me to do? No secret, it is all clearly said in the Bible. So every human being, include you, can clearly see what the Christian morality is. No confusion, no argument, no negotiation.

Why is murder not moral? Because God says so.

That is what morality is.

 

[juvenissun]

This is so backwards....

In your mythology, it IS your god that judges you. He COULD just forgive you. Without demanding blood sacrifices. But he doesn't. Instead, he judges you to be tormented.

No matter how hard you swing it, it IS your god that decides who goes to "heaven" and who doesn't.

It's the maffia boss analogy. He holds a gun to your head and asks to hand over your wallet. If you do, you can go. If you don't, you'll be shot.

If you then "freely choose" not to obey, then you did NOT commit suicide.

You need to learn: My God can NOT just forgive me. He can not do that. Otherwise, He is not God any more. (this is steep, but indeed, you need to learn)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why is murder not moral? Because God says so.

That is what morality is.

That is precisely "divine command theory", and morally bankrupt for the reasons mentioned.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

What do you call the flood then, and the many cities god personally had destroyed such as Sodom and Gomorrah? Those cities didn't perish through in fighting or war, god blew them up.

This is a very good argument. I appreciate it.

There is one thing the same to both cases: There is not a single person in the targeted population who is still "righteous" (which means not malicious to God). In that situation, God decides to eliminate the population.

Strictly speaking, that is not an action of "punishment". Because nobody is left to know what the punishment was. It is an action more like a "management".

 

[DogmaHunter]

As passionate as some seem to be about that subject, I witness those that reject God to be as motivated as a suicide bomber and a bigger threat in humanity.

Nice attempt at derailing the topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course, in that case, it is critical to know the nature of God I am obeying. I can assure you, my God does not command me: kill your neighbors.

If whatever god commands is moral by definition, then why would it matter to know the nature of this god? If he says "kill", then kill. Period.

This is how you defined it.

Why is murder not moral? Because God says so.

That is what morality is.

No. That's what psychopathy and moral brankrupcy is.

Morality is a process of reasoning that analyses the consequences of actions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You need to learn: My God can NOT just forgive me. He can not do that.

Ow, right... sorry. I forgot...
Yeah, he can only forgive you if he first "sacrifices" himself to himselft so that he can then resurect himself and then demand of everybody to sacrifice their human dignity, integrity and rationality. Only THEN can he forgive. Yeps. Makes perfect sense.

 

[juvenissun]

If whatever god commands is moral by definition, then why would it matter to know the nature of this god? If he says "kill", then kill. Period.

This is how you defined it.



No. That's what psychopathy and moral brankrupcy is.

Morality is a process of reasoning that analyses the consequences of actions.

Because this world presents many other gods. They are different. So if you believe in a god, you must identify who he is.

Morality is a process? Fine. Then itself has no meaning. I am afraid that many of your colleagues won't agree on that. That is what I said, in your group, you can not come up with ONE definition of morality. You have to vote to get the opinion of the majority. Very pathetic.

 

[juvenissun]

Ow, right... sorry. I forgot...
Yeah, he can only forgive you if he first "sacrifices" himself to himselft so that he can then resurect himself and then demand of everybody to sacrifice their human dignity, integrity and rationality. Only THEN can he forgive. Yeps. Makes perfect sense.

You still don't learn with your little knowledge and strong prejudice. This is a very critical logic in Christianity. It has to be perfectly logical. Otherwise, the doctrine won't work.

There are many mistakes in your description, I just pick up the first one: God does NOT sacrifice Himself. God is God. He can not compromise on anything, so sacrifice is a term meaningless to Him. (warning, if you continue on this, then it would go away from the theme of this thread)

Nothing of my misconducts is ever "forgiven". I will certainly pay for it in my eternal life. This is the hidden truth of the true morality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because this world presents many other gods. They are different. So if you believe in a god, you must identify who he is.

Right, right, ... and only the one YOU happen to believe in is the correct one, off course.

Morality is a process? Fine. Then itself has no meaning. I am afraid that many of your colleagues won't agree on that.

I'm having dificulty to express what I want to say in english. However, I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

You come to moral actions / decisions by analysing the consequences of potential actions / decisions and then going for the option that doesn't increase suffering - and preferably increases well-being.

You don't come to moral actions and decisions by reading ancient bronze age myths as if they are literally true.

That is what I said, in your group, you can not come up with ONE definition of morality. You have to vote to get the opinion of the majority. Very pathetic.

No. What is pathetic is claiming that psychopathy is the way to go.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You still don't learn with your little knowledge and strong prejudice. This is a very critical logic in Christianity. It has to be perfectly logical. Otherwise, the doctrine won't work.

And it indeed doesn't work.

I just pick up the first one: God does NOT sacrifice Himself

Is Jezus god?
Does he sacrifice himself on the cross?

Nothing of my misconducts is ever "forgiven". I will certainly pay for it in my eternal life. This is the hidden truth of the true morality.

Again, obedience to a perceived authority is the opposite of morality.

You cannot be "moral" if all you do is follow orders.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The end result of the first is a decrease in suffering of a terminally ill patient.
The end result of the second is senseless killing.

Let's change it up a bit....

Let's say the second man indeed kills the child, but for a different reason... Let's say that the second man has become convinced that the child is possessed by a demon and that God ordered the man to kill the child. Now, this killing is a sacred mission in the eyes of the man.

Now what? The motive now is to obey his god. The motive is to remove a great evil from the world (= a demon possessed child, as the man believes).

Incidently, this is pretty much what muslim suicide bombers do. They engage in indiscriminate killing and consider it their moral and sacred duty to do so.

So.... not evil anymore? No longer immoral?

What gives?

Do you have a point?

What I mean is, is this some sort of argument you are making?

If so, what is your argument? Are you arguing against Divine Command Theory? I cannot really tell.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The intended purpose of each act is different. Motivation plays a part of this intention, but ultimately the motivation is independent of the actual end consequences.

The morality of the same act is not dependent upon the motivation of the agent, but dependent upon the specifics of the situation.

The act is right in the first case because of the situations and specifics. Motivation plays a small part. Let's that everything about the first situation is the same, except the fact that the doctor is performing the action because he gets some bonus out of the child's death. The action itself is still moral, just one of the agents involved is acting for the wrong reasons. We could say the agent is immoral or there is an immoral motivation involved, but the action itself is still moral or immoral independent of this.

The doctor doing what he did was a result of him intending to do it, whatever it is that he does.

It is absurd to say that intention/motivation is independent of the end consequences of a person's actions.

If there is no intention there is no doing.

You are trying to argue that an act can be good even though a person might have motivations for doing the act that are not good. I happily agree. I never argued that this could not be the case.

I simply said that a person's intentions or motivations for committing an act are key in determining whether the act is good or bad. I did not say that a person's intentions or motivations are THE ONLY THING that determines whether or not an act is good or bad. I never said that. That is clearly absurd.

A person may intend to do good by believing that God has ordered him to blow people into thousands of pieces with pipe bombs but just because he intends to do good, it does not follow that blowing people up with pipe bombs is good.