Nihilism

[grasping the after wind]

Well I'm not saying that. Obviously I can be wrong.



Sure.



I wouldn't say God's existence means there is a superior being. You can believe God exists, but think he is your equal. He may be powerful and clever, but why would that matter?

Also, if there is no objective right or wrong, then God's moral opinion is just as based on nothing as yours. It can't be a better morality if it has no different a basis. Omniscience and omnipotence don't make a personal opinion any more than a personal opinion, and all personal opinions are the same.

If there is a God, that Being is by definition superior to me any being not superior to me would not fit the definition of God and simply be another sentient creature with no more authority or abilities beyond my own.

For the believer, God does not merely hold a moral opinion God gets to decide what is and isn't moral by right of creation. Is it as subjective a morality as my own? Yes it is but I would consider it the subjective morality of a being that is superior to me and I would give it more respect just as I would consider the medical opinion of a medical doctor worthy of more respect than the medical opinion of a circus clown.

I know that I could be wrong, but of course I think I am right. There is nothing wrong with thinking you are correct while admitting fallibility.

I think that this is the most rational way to consider things.

That should be obvious.



I suppose action based on false perspective would be amoral or immoral.

To 'know' which is which we have to use our brain, and do the best with what we can figure out.

I just think we are constantly tempted to consider our own POV to be the truth and view any other POV as somehow not only false but intentionally villainous. I try, but do not always succeed, to remeber that my POV may be mistaken and that others with a different POV are very likely sincere even if I disagree vehemently with their POV.

 

[juvenissun]

There are different forms of satisfaction. There's a big difference between the physical satisfaction of sex, and the intellectual satisfaction of reading a novel or a work of philosophy, or for that matter contemplating the meaning of one's life.

The latter cuts closer to the essence of what we are as human beings. If the only source of satisfaction one has is the former, one would be better off as a pig, because one has missed out on something of being human.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, there are different forms of satisfaction.
There are also different forms of happiness.
There are different forms of everything.

Your life goal is to pursue happiness. Some forms of happiness are inferior to some other forms of happiness. So you are less happy when you only pursue a certain type of happiness but not other type of happiness. May be you only try pursue the highest type of happiness. And may be you do not know what is that. You have to compromise with a mixed types of happiness in your daily life. So you can give an average quality to your overall happiness. And your average value of happiness is different from some other average types of happiness. And you may want to pursue a type of happiness which has a higher average value. .....

I think your classification system is very confusing. So the goal of your life is also very confusing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think your classification system is very confusing. So the goal of your life is also very confusing.

It's not confusing to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

My position is that cliches are not proof of anything.

Proof? You demand proof?

One can say "we need to make the world a better place" as much as one pleases but saying a thing does not give it authority. In order to make it a valid statement we ought to have the ability to show that it is true. All I asked for was a convincing reason based upon logic and fact rather than either emotion or cliches, why a person should not put their own selfish interests first.

Well, the simple fact and logic is that in our well-being we are mutually dependent on each other. The other simple fact is that the vast majority of persons are empathy gifted and thus don´t even have a drive to put their own selfish interests first.
Thus, the actual challenge is to get aware of what we actually want and need - not to find an authority (or, in lack of such an authority existing, to even invent one).

Asking a question merely requires an inquiring mind and the use of language.

No, most questions are born from preassumptions, as well.

I do not believe anyone but a strawman made a claim about all humans being sociopaths,

Well, if you agree that the vast majority of humans are not sociopaths but empathy gifted (even though many don´t have full access to and awareness of their empathy) the approach of authoritatively dictating them what they already are in hold of.

On another note, I personally hate to find out that a person has done something beneficial to me because some authority dictated them to. This, in my perception, doesn´t make the world a better place. Ymmv.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Proof? You demand proof?

When someone makes a categorical statement they ought to have some evidence to back it up other than cliches and emotional drivel.

Well, the simple fact and logic is that in our well-being we are mutually dependent on each other. The other simple fact is that the vast majority of persons are empathy gifted and thus don´t even have a drive to put their own selfish interests first.

Asserting that something is factual and logical does not make it so.
We are not mutually dependent upon each other we are unequally dependent upon each other. Some are totally dependent upon others and some are marginally dependent upon others and still others are hardly dependent at all. I fiond not one shred of evidence to suggest that the majority of humans are inclined to consider the interests of others equally important to their own interests so your empathy gifted may well feel empathy( though I find no evidence that the majority of humans are especially gifted in this area) but there certainly is no evidence to suggest that they feel it so intensely that they act upon it as if it were as important to them as their own self interest.

Thus, the actual challenge is to get aware of what we actually want and need - not to find an authority (or, in lack of such an authority existing, to even invent one).

Our challenge is to become aware of what we want and need? Not much of a challenge. Take about ten seconds to figure that out. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that knowing and pursuing that which we need and want
is acting in our own selfish interest? Additionally if one decides that their morality is pursuit of what one wants and needs( empathically gifted or not) one has given authority on the subject to oneself. Whenever one takes a decision one must allow that one has ascribed authority to someone or something.

No, most questions are born from preassumptions, as well.

There are many things that might be included in a question but a "need" is something that cannot be done without not something that most questions have.

Well, if you agree that the vast majority of humans are not sociopaths but empathy gifted (even though many don´t have full access to and awareness of their empathy) the approach of authoritatively dictating them what they already are in hold of.

I agree with the first but not the second. People are not either sociopaths or saints. They may be a little of both but from my experience , people are neither inherently malevolent nor inherently benevolent. They do, however, tend to be more concerned with their own self interest than with anything else. That most likely is the result of a survival instinct. IMO denying that we all are primarily and fundamentally selfish is making a grave error in judgement and acting as if it were not the case is simply foolish and dangerous if it becomes the basis of a political philosophy. I believe that we have invented morality in order to curb the excesses of this survival instinct and to strengthen our empathetic impulses. I do not believe that we are one dimensional creatures bent only upon self interest but complex individuals with multiple urges some of which tend toward empathy but those urges are not our primary motivator our inherent survival instinct, which makes us first consider our self interest, is.

On another note, I personally hate to find out that a person has done something beneficial to me because some authority dictated them to. This, in my perception, doesn´t make the world a better place. Ymmv.

Make sure to tell them to desist then.Being a gifted empath I am sure you will enjoy seeing how your rejection of them for having motivations you look down upon makes them feel.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If there is a God, that Being is by definition superior to me any being not superior to me would not fit the definition of God and simply be another sentient creature with no more authority or abilities beyond my own.

For the believer, God does not merely hold a moral opinion God gets to decide what is and isn't moral by right of creation. Is it as subjective a morality as my own? Yes it is but I would consider it the subjective morality of a being that is superior to me and I would give it more respect just as I would consider the medical opinion of a medical doctor worthy of more respect than the medical opinion of a circus clown.

That's an interesting analogy. Let's consider it further. God is superior to you, in what respect? No doubt he is a superior creator, since he can create whole universes and you cannot. But what reason do you have to believe that he is superior morally? Where does God's moral expertise come from? Would an omnipotent, omniscient being even have need for morality?

Think about how you and I, and all humans generally, experience moral feelings. We do something wrong and we feel guilt, shame, remorse. We see others do something wrong and we feel enraged at the injustice. Is a being who can see all ends and control all outcomes capable of feeling regret at having done something wrong? Is such a being able to feel hurt by the injustice of a certain malice directed at them when they, in the end, know that they will claim final victory? It's difficult to imagine that such a being would have a morality superior to yours. Perhaps such a being would have a God-like morality, one that is unintelligible to us humans. But then such a morality would be useless to us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not so disposed, but I do not see why what you propose is necessarily so for anyone that was so disposed. Can you prove your assertion?

Perhaps I can't to someone who is so disposed. There is nothing in them I could appeal to; no moral feelings to arouse.

 

[Paradoxum]

If there is a God, that Being is by definition superior to me any being not superior to me would not fit the definition of God and simply be another sentient creature with no more authority or abilities beyond my own.

I wouldn't say God is by definition superior. The way you are using the word seems to be a value judgement. That is a person opinion, and can be built into a definition. You can't say I should value God higher, since you don't believe in objective morals and values (as far as I can tell).

Authority isn't inherent in a being. Authority is how beings relate to each other, and based on consent (or coercion) of the commanded. I'd agree that God has abilities that I don't, but I don't think more abilities means someone is fundamentally superior.

In my opinion, if God exists he exists we are fundamentally of equal value.

For the believer, God does not merely hold a moral opinion God gets to decide what is and isn't moral by right of creation. Is it as subjective a morality as my own? Yes it is but I would consider it the subjective morality of a being that is superior to me and I would give it more respect just as I would consider the medical opinion of a medical doctor worthy of more respect than the medical opinion of a circus clown.

Not all believers think God decides what is moral. When I was a Christian I thought God commanded an objective good.

You respect a doctors opinion because what they say will either be true or false. You admit that both you and God just have opinions which aren't objectively true... that means neither is better. You can do what God says if you want, but it is no different from doing what any human tells you simply because you like them.

Personally, I wouldn't do something I thought was most likely evil just because God told me to. I respect people too much to abuse them just because someone with a big throne tells me to.

I think that this is the most rational way to consider things.

I just think we are constantly tempted to consider our own POV to be the truth and view any other POV as somehow not only false but intentionally villainous. I try, but do not always succeed, to remeber that my POV may be mistaken and that others with a different POV are very likely sincere even if I disagree vehemently with their POV.

I agree... and I know I get annoyed at people on here because they have an opinion I think is stupid or immoral. I know it's wrong of me. I find it's harder online because you can't look them in the eye and see they are genuine.

 

[quatona]

When someone makes a categorical statement they ought to have some evidence to back it up other than cliches and emotional drivel.

Indeed, but that´s not "proof".
But just so we are clear - what is my "categorical statement" you are alluding to here, and what are the cliches and emotional drivel?

Asserting that something is factual and logical does not make it so.

Well, I have done more than merely assert it.

We are not mutually dependent upon each other we are unequally dependent upon each other. Some are totally dependent upon others and some are marginally dependent upon others and still others are hardly dependent at all. I fiond not one shred of evidence to suggest that the majority of humans are inclined to consider the interests of others equally important to their own interests so your empathy gifted may well feel empathy( though I find no evidence that the majority of humans are especially gifted in this area) but there certainly is no evidence to suggest that they feel it so intensely that they act upon it as if it were as important to them as their own self interest.

Well, you know, the problem starts with the preassumption that our interests are generally in conflict. We have heard this self-fulfilling prophecy all too long.

Besides, with every post you raise the bar, and you pretend I have to defend what I have never stated. E.g. I have never stated that all humans are equally dependent on all others, I have never stated that the interests of others are (or even only should be) as important as one´s own to each individual.

Our challenge is to become aware of what we want and need? Not much of a challenge. Take about ten seconds to figure that out.

No, often it takes decades. Some people never figure it out.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that knowing and pursuing that which we need and want
is acting in our own selfish interest?

No. It is in our own interest but that doesn´t make it selfish - unless it´s at odds with the interests of others.

Additionally if one decides that their morality is pursuit of what one wants and needs( empathically gifted or not) one has given authority on the subject to oneself. Whenever one takes a decision one must allow that one has ascribed authority to someone or something.

I understand that people who are driven by the idea of authorities see it that way. I don´t.

There are many things that might be included in a question but a "need" is something that cannot be done without not something that most questions have.

I´m sorry - I don´t understand this sentence.

I agree with the first but not the second. People are not either sociopaths or saints.

There you go again with addressing statements I didn´t make. I never said that people are (or even only should be) saints. I´m afraid you are projecting your demands on my statements.

They may be a little of both but from my experience , people are neither inherently malevolent nor inherently benevolent. They do, however, tend to be more concerned with their own self interest than with anything else. That most likely is the result of a survival instinct. IMO denying that we all are primarily and fundamentally selfish is making a grave error in judgement and acting as if it were not the case is simply foolish and dangerous if it becomes the basis of a political philosophy. I believe that we have invented morality in order to curb the excesses of this survival instinct and to strengthen our empathetic impulses. I do not believe that we are one dimensional creatures bent only upon self interest but complex individuals with multiple urges some of which tend toward empathy but those urges are not our primary motivator our inherent survival instinct, which makes us first consider our self interest, is.

Well, you are free to believe all this, and I am not the person to demand "proof" for your beliefs. I just don´t share them. I happen to think that these "solutions" (and the underlying preassumption of our needs principally being in conflict) actually are to a huge degree a cause of the problem.
I do understand, though, that your entire theology hinges on this idea.

Make sure to tell them to desist then.

Why do you think I should make sure to tell them?

Being a gifted empath I am sure you will enjoy seeing how your rejection of them for having motivations you look down upon makes them feel.

Many won´t like it, that´s not hard to predict. So what again is the reason you feel I should make sure to tell them?
Actually, my experience has always been the opposite: People were quite reliefed to learn that I don´t expect them to sacrifice anything. Many of them even found out that what usually had been taught to them as "selfless" or sacrificing behaviour actually was a need of theirs and in their own interest.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's an interesting analogy. Let's consider it further. God is superior to you, in what respect? No doubt he is a superior creator, since he can create whole universes and you cannot. But what reason do you have to believe that he is superior morally? Where does God's moral expertise come from? Would an omnipotent, omniscient being even have need for morality?

The concept of moral superiority is one I do not accept. Morality is subjective. It is not possible, IMO, to judge a subjective thing in objective terms such as inferior or superior as one cannot possibly find an objective way to prove that one person's subjective belief is more valid than anther's subjective belief.

For a believer, God would be considered superior because He caused everything to be, including the concept of morality. If one invents a thing , I assume that the inventor has more expertise about that thing than the non inventor and therfore the inventor's thoughts on that thing ought to recieve more respect than the non inventor. I apply the same or perhaps an even more intense standard of respect in terms of Creation ex nihilio. In this case God does not simply invent a thing using already existing material and building upon the wisdom of the past but He creates with nothing but His own will to guide Him and no raw material but what He decides to created out of nothing.

Now, expecting the non believer to accept such a thing is as ludicrous an idea as expecting a believer to be dissuaded from it.

Think about how you and I, and all humans generally, experience moral feelings. We do something wrong and we feel guilt, shame, remorse. We see others do something wrong and we feel enraged at the injustice. Is a being who can see all ends and control all outcomes capable of feeling regret at having done something wrong? Is such a being able to feel hurt by the injustice of a certain malice directed at them when they, in the end, know that they will claim final victory? It's difficult to imagine that such a being would have a morality superior to yours. Perhaps such a being would have a God-like morality, one that is unintelligible to us humans. But then such a morality would be useless to us.

Perhaps so, but again for the believer only, God has not imposed upon humanity a morality fit for a god but rather a morality fit for humans and having created humans to His own specification, He is eminently qualified to do so because he knows how His creation functions, what motivates it and what innate urges it possesses better than His creation does itself.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Perhaps I can't to someone who is so disposed. There is nothing in them I could appeal to; no moral feelings to arouse.

I know of no one that does not have some sense of morality even Hiltler and Stalin had strong moral beliefs as do serial killers etc.. We tend to find their beliefs twisted and internally inconsistent but they still have them. Is what you believe to be the moral truth actually just a subjective feeling which arouses you rather than an objective standard that is as apparent as the nose on your face? I have no problem with that. Morality is subjective after all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The concept of moral superiority is one I do not accept. Morality is subjective. It is not possible, IMO, to judge a subjective thing in objective terms such as inferior or superior as one cannot possibly find an objective way to prove that one person's subjective belief is more valid than anther's subjective belief.

For a believer, God would be considered superior because He caused everything to be, including the concept of morality. If one invents a thing , I assume that the inventor has more expertise about that thing than the non inventor and therfore the inventor's thoughts on that thing ought to recieve more respect than the non inventor.

Under most circumstances that would be an adequate assumption to make, except that the inventor in this case is not a user of his invention, which makes his assumed superiority a moot point. Inventors don't always know what's best. Just ask Windows 8 users.

I apply the same or perhaps an even more intense standard of respect in terms of Creation ex nihilio. In this case God does not simply invent a thing using already existing material and building upon the wisdom of the past but He creates with nothing but His own will to guide Him and no raw material but what He decides to created out of nothing.

I find the entire notion of creatio ex nihilio problematic. You're using the word 'invent' in a very strange way; that isn't at all what we ordinarily mean by an inventor 'inventing' something. The lightbulb wasn't 'invented' from nothing. As far as we know, no invention meets the definition of being invented from pure nothingness. Theists uphold God as the exception to the rule, while arguing that the rule itself proves their case.

Perhaps so, but again for the believer only, God has not imposed upon humanity a morality fit for a god but rather a morality fit for humans and having created humans to His own specification, He is eminently qualified to do so because he knows how His creation functions, what motivates it and what innate urges it possesses better than His creation does itself.

And that morality is articulated by human prophets; the very same humans that are supposedly too morally and intellectually feeble to build a humane moral system for themselves. It seems to me that God, knowing the weaknesses of his creation, could have done better to communicate his superior morality to us than by entrusting it into the hands of human prophets, who are, after all, prone to the very weaknesses that his superior morality is supposed to mitigate.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I wouldn't say God is by definition superior. The way you are using the word seems to be a value judgement. That is a person opinion, and can be built into a definition. You can't say I should value God higher, since you don't believe in objective morals and values (as far as I can tell).

When I said God is superior by defintion it was in the same respect that I would say the universe is superior than the garden gnome . It was not a value judgement but in terms of importance, stature and power. The universe has no moral superiority over the garden gnome but it surely is superior to it in importance, stature and power. Now I do make a subjective value judgement when I say God's moral vision is superior to my own but I think it is an educated subjective judgement based upon my worldview and upon the logical extension of that worldview into the realm of morality. I do not claim that others, especially others that do not share my worldview, ought to be bound by the subjective morality I adhere to and I certainly would not expect anyone to be convinced that it is the objectively correct one.

Authority isn't inherent in a being. Authority is how beings relate to each other, and based on consent (or coercion) of the commanded. I'd agree that God has abilities that I don't, but I don't think more abilities means someone is fundamentally superior.

IMO The creator of a thing has authority over that thing and is superior to that thing. I do not see any way in which authority has primarily to do with how beings relate to each other that i think is society not authority. It has to do with which agency has the credentials to claim that its knowledge of a particular subject is great enough that it should lead.

In my opinion, if God exists he exists we are fundamentally of equal value.

That simply isn't the way any god has ever been defined. This is why we have atheists and theists one believes in a superior being and one does not. there would be no need for atheism if gods were no better than humans because there would be no theists to contradict.

Not all believers think God decides what is moral. When I was a Christian I thought God commanded an objective good.

No two Christians agree on every single point. No two humans of any kind do. I find the idea of a creator God and the idea of an objective good to be mutually exclusive ones other Christians do not. I cannot explain my own position on morality by denying my position in order to conform to theirs.

You respect a doctors opinion because what they say will either be true or false. You admit that both you and God just have opinions which aren't objectively true... that means neither is better. You can do what God says if you want, but it is no different from doing what any human tells you simply because you like them.

If one believes in God, as I do, one has a POV that differs from those that do not have the same belief and from that POV certain things will logically be the case. We all make certain assumptions in order to reason and as a theist and particularly as a Christian, , God is one of those assumptions I make. That being the case, God , like the doctor, is an expert in the field even moreso as the doctor did not create the human body from nothing as God did. God has a perspective on the universe that is far beyond my perspective being both infinite and eternal may give one a bit more information and experience than being 59 and having that time and experience spent bound to a small portion of a small planet in a corner of a small galaxy that is but a tiny part of the universe that God not only has total experience of but created from nothing. Under those circumstances, to suggest that my opinion, or the opinion of another similarly limited being , on the subject in any way could be considered to be as authoritative just seems to dismiss logic entirely.

Personally, I wouldn't do something I thought was most likely evil just because God told me to. I respect people too much to abuse them just because someone with a big throne tells me to.

Who would? Who does? People tend to do what they do and blame God for it later if someone objects. I certainly am not motivated to do evil to anyone because God told me to. God to this point has never done that to me. He, so far, has told me to Love my neighbor as I love my own self. I will tell you that I dearly love my own self and would never do anything to me that was in any way evil. I will also tell you that I have not been all that good at doing what God has told me to do. I take solace in the fact that I don't see too many others that are having more success. It is a shame that I am able to take solace in the failure of others. Good thing I don't expect me to be perfect. Of course, that means I can't expect my neighbor to be perfect either.

I agree... and I know I get annoyed at people on here because they have an opinion I think is stupid or immoral. I know it's wrong of me. I find it's harder online because you can't look them in the eye and see they are genuine.

Tolerant is one of the hardest things to be and one of the hardest things to perceive you are not being.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Under most circumstances that would be an adequate assumption to make, except that the inventor in this case is not a user of his invention, which makes his assumed superiority a moot point. Inventors don't always know what's best. Just ask Windows 8 users.

Would you contend that inventors know what is best less often than their inventions?

I find the entire notion of creatio ex nihilio problematic. You're using the word 'invent' in a very strange way; that isn't at all what we ordinarily mean by an inventor 'inventing' something. The lightbulb wasn't 'invented' from nothing. As far as we know, no invention meets the definition of being invented from pure nothingness. Theists uphold God as the exception to the rule, while arguing that the rule itself proves their case.

I find the entire idea of creatio ex nihilio to be self evident. So we cannot then refute each other on that point except to say " No I am right and you are not". I will allow you to dismiss it completely in any of your arguments if you allow me to state it as a given in any of mine. We cannot them come to an agreement but we can at least endeavor to understand the other's position. In using the inventor I am making an analogy and an analogy by definition is not the same thing I am using an analogy to try to help explain.

And that morality is articulated by human prophets; the very same humans that are supposedly too morally and intellectually feeble to build a humane moral system for themselves. It seems to me that God, knowing the weaknesses of his creation, could have done better to communicate his superior morality to us than by entrusting it into the hands of human prophets, who are, after all, prone to the very weaknesses that his superior morality is supposed to mitigate.

Let me clear up some misconceptions as to my POV here. I made no claim that humans were too morally or intellectually feeble to build a humane moral system for themselves. As a matter of fact I claim that each one of us has done just that i,e, build a humane moral system for ourselves. I just happen to believe(while allowing that you do not have to agree and certainly not have to be constrained by what I believe ) that the moral system that God has put forth is more suited for general dispersion while our individual ones are somewhat idiosyncratic. Superior morality is not a term I would consider to have any meaning as it ascribes an objective standard to a subjective view. I prefer to look at God's subjective morality as being the subjective view of a being that is much better informed and with a much greater wealth of experience.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would you contend that inventors know what is best less often than their inventions?

That question doesn't make sense to me. What inventions are you talking about?

I find the entire idea of creatio ex nihilio to be self evident. So we cannot then refute each other on that point except to say " No I am right and you are not".

That's because there is nothing to refute. You have proposed a barely coherent concept, IMO, that we cannot, even in principle, test the truth of. In order to refute it, we would need to have access to it, to test it. But the argument, in so far as it is an argument, conveniently places it beyond our reach, in the domain of the permanently unfalisifiable.

I will allow you to dismiss it completely in any of your arguments if you allow me to state it as a given in any of mine. We cannot them come to an agreement but we can at least endeavor to understand the other's position. In using the inventor I am making an analogy and an analogy by definition is not the same thing I am using an analogy to try to help explain.

Well, yes, you can carry on using the concept, but at a certain point the language is strained to breaking point and you can only make assumptions about whether the word can meaningfully be used in such exceptional ways. For the purposes of the discussion though - the discussion of morality - I'm willing to ignore all the exceptional assumptions made with respect to creatio ex nihilo and to take them for granted.

Let me clear up some misconceptions as to my POV here. I made no claim that humans were too morally or intellectually feeble to build a humane moral system for themselves. As a matter of fact I claim that each one of us has done just that i,e, build a humane moral system for ourselves. I just happen to believe(while allowing that you do not have to agree and certainly not have to be constrained by what I believe ) that the moral system that God has put forth is more suited for general dispersion while our individual ones are somewhat idiosyncratic. Superior morality is not a term I would consider to have any meaning as it ascribes an objective standard to a subjective view. I prefer to look at God's subjective morality as being the subjective view of a being that is much better informed and with a much greater wealth of experience.

Fair enough. I view that as an important point of clarification, and actually, I'm tempted to agree. Assuming that there is such a divine being, and that being possesses something that resembles a moral point of view, it is likely that that being's point of view is informed by an inconceivably greater abundance of experience. That is to say I would consider such a being "wise" and an excellent source of counsel. That said, my only concern would be that this being's moral point of view comes from his or her wealth of experience as a God, not as a human being. I suppose, from a Christian view, that point is resolved in Jesus, who is both divine and human.

 

[quatona]

I prefer to look at God's subjective morality as being the subjective view of a being that is much better informed and with a much greater wealth of experience.

Do you happen to have any idea what sort of information and experience it is that a God might have over us that would have any relevance or significance for our morality?

And do you have any idea why God is unwilling/unable to communicate those superiour criteria to us so we can take them into educated consideration - instead of merely authoritatively dictating the results of His own considerations?

And on another note: when I look at allegedly God given moral systems, I´m painfully missing any assistance in solving those moral dilemmas that we are facing every day. (I.e. I understand that you criticize any reference to our empathy, benevolence etc. as cliché and emotional - but where actually does the bible (or the quran, or whatever theistic source of divine morality) really go beyond such clichés and common places?
Let´s, just for a trivial example, look at the mother of three who has problems making ends meet. She feels a need to equip her children with clothes but just can´t afford anything that isn´t fabricated in a sweat shop (which goes against her empathy for the workers there). So where does she find the advice that God has in store for her in her moral dilemma, based on His great wealth of information and experience? In the bible?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Indeed, but that´s not "proof".

The standard I am asking for isn't all that high just some evidence not an entire proof

But just so we are clear - what is my "categorical statement" you are alluding to here, and what are the cliches and emotional drivel?

Was it your statement or someone else? I will have to go back and check when i have time but the statement was something like we need to make the world a better place.

Well, I have done more than merely assert it.

I must have missed that

Well, you know, the problem starts with the preassumption that our interests are generally in conflict. We have heard this self-fulfilling prophecy all too long.

I would not assume that all interests are in conflict anymore than I would assume that no interests are in conflict.

Besides, with every post you raise the bar, and you pretend I have to defend what I have never stated. E.g. I have never stated that all humans are equally dependent on all others, I have never stated that the interests of others are (or even only should be) as important as one´s own to each individual.

Perhaps my idea of mutually dependent differs from yours? Mutual in my mind implies some sort of equanimity not simply I get spiritual satisfaction by doing things for you and you get things done for you .

No, often it takes decades. Some people never figure it out.

Children in kindergarten have known it for years. Infants know what they want and need without having access to formal language. To be so confused about such a basic thing as to take years to or never figure it out is beyond my ability to contemplate.

No. It is in our own interest but that doesn´t make it selfish - unless it´s at odds with the interests of others.

I disagree, if it does not take into consideration the wants and needs of others, even if it does not conflict with others, it is still selfish.

I understand that people who are driven by the idea of authorities see it that way. I don´t.

I don't see why one needs to be driven by something in order to that something about it is accept a fact.

I´m sorry - I don´t understand this sentence.

That is not surprising as it was poorly worded. What i meant to say was that a need is something that cannot be done without. If you need it it must always be there. Just because many questions contain a certain element does not mean that all questions must contain that element.

There you go again with addressing statements I didn´t make. I never said that people are (or even only should be) saints. I´m afraid you are projecting your demands on my statements.

The sentence below seems to me to be an either or. Can you explain why it is not?

Well, if you agree that the vast majority of humans are not sociopaths but empathy gifted

Well, you are free to believe all this, and I am not the person to demand "proof" for your beliefs. I just don´t share them. I happen to think that these "solutions" (and the underlying preassumption of our needs principally being in conflict) actually are to a huge degree a cause of the problem.
I do understand, though, that your entire theology hinges on this idea.

I do not expect proof of beliefs. I do expect proof of assertions that one presents as facts.

Why do you think I should make sure to tell them?

So you can assert your superiority. So they can be put in their place.

Many won´t like it, that´s not hard to predict. So what again is the reason you feel I should make sure to tell them?
Actually, my experience has always been the opposite: People were quite reliefed to learn that I don´t expect them to sacrifice anything. Many of them even found out that what usually had been taught to them as "selfless" or sacrificing behaviour actually was a need of theirs and in their own interest.

Why then do you wish to keep them from doing things that would be in their interest and satisfy a need of theirs? A need which does you no harm or may even benefit you in a tangible way? Have you come to the conclusion that after years of considering your wants and needs it is a need or a want of yours to deprive others of the opportunity to satisfy one of their needs?

 

[quatona]

The standard I am asking for isn't all that high just some evidence not an entire proof

Well, I am giving you the evidence. You are free to evaluate it as you see fit.

Was it your statement or someone else? I will have to go back and check when i have time but the statement was something like we need to make the world a better place.

Well, it wasn´t mine, but now I know what statement you are having in mind.
Since it doesn´t even try to be descriptive of facts I fail to see what sort of facts you are expecting.

As for the statement itself:
What do you think - if we´d made a survey asking the questions:
1. Would you like the world to be a better place? and
2. Are you willing to help make the world a better place?
What do you think the results would be, roughly?

This just to clarify why I think there needn´t be any authority to tell us to make the world a better place - it´s what the vast majority of us wants.

As for persons who answer these questions "no", I suspect that not even a God saying that we should do it will change their attitude.

I must have missed that

Then I suggest you go back and re-read.

I would not assume that all interests are in conflict anymore than I would assume that no interests are in conflict.

That´s great. So we can let go the entire "selfish vs. selfless" thing, and start looking where it is irrelevant for any given purpose (i.e. all cases where our interests are not in conflict).

Perhaps my idea of mutually dependent differs from yours?

Yes, obviously.

Mutual in my mind implies some sort of equanimity not simply I get spiritual satisfaction by doing things for you and you get things done for you .

Well, in my understanding two persons are mutually dependent on each other even though they might depend on each other in different ways.

Children in kindergarten have known it for years. Infants know what they want and need without having access to formal language. To be so confused about such a basic thing as to take years to or never figure it out is beyond my ability to contemplate.

Yes, toddlers have a very limited and simple chart of needs.
But we are adults, and with growing age our needs get more complex.
(For example, you posit a need for morality - something a toddler feels no need for).

I disagree, if it does not take into consideration the wants and needs of others, even if it does not conflict with others, it is still selfish.

An action that causes everyone´s needs to be met doesn´t even require us to think in categories such as "selfless/selfish".

I don't see why one needs to be driven by something in order to that something about it is accept a fact.

I don´t see that, either. I guess that´s why it wasn´t what I said.

That is not surprising as it was poorly worded. What i meant to say was that a need is something that cannot be done without. If you need it it must always be there. Just because many questions contain a certain element does not mean that all questions must contain that element.

Admittedly, I am completely lost here. I have no idea what this has to do with anything. If it contains an important point relevant to our discussion, please elaborate.

The sentence below seems to me to be an either or. Can you explain why it is not?

No, I can´t. That´s why I didn´t say it wasn´t. All I said was: It isn´t the "either - or" that you paraphrased it as:
It´s "either sociopath or empathy gifted", and you turned it into "either sociopath or saint".

I do not expect proof of beliefs. I do expect proof of assertions that one presents as facts.

Well, the statement in question wasn´t a statement of fact, in the first place.

So you can assert your superiority. So they can be put in their place.

Are you just taking cheap shots at me now, or are you projecting your desires upon me?

Why then do you wish to keep them from doing things that would be in their interest and satisfy a need of theirs?

I don´t know - I neither said nor meant to say that this is what I wish.
If it satisfies a need of theirs it´s entirely fine with me. I addressed the very opposite: that part that they experience and picture as not being in their own interest (but a sacrifice brought to me; and/or being in the interest of a higher authority).

A need which does you no harm or may even benefit you in a tangible way?

Well, it is my experience that things done in this attitude don´t benefit me in a tangible way. That´s the very point. People who are willing to consider not only their but also my interests and needs (which, fortunately, is pretty much everyone I interact with in real life) might be interested in learning about my needs and interests, in the first place. That´s the reason I often tell them, and that´s probably the reason they usually don´t take offense from being provided with that bit of information.

Have you come to the conclusion that after years of considering your wants and needs it is a need or a want of yours to deprive others of the opportunity to satisfy one of their needs?

No, the very opposite is the case, and that´s what I said.
I said nothing anywhere even close to what you are ascribing to me:
1. I didn´t say that others fulfilling their needs is a problem for me (in fact I said the very opposite: It is a problem for me when they do something "for me" that they feel is contrary to their interests),
2. I made no statement whatsoever about how I´d practically go about dealing with this problem; in particular I didn´t say anything about me rubbing it in as a token of their inferiority, and I didn´t say anything about making attempts to "deprave" them of anything,
3. nobody but you mentioned the idea of "superiority/inferiority" of persons, anyway.
These were entirely your ideas, and I am wondering why you are so determined to picture them as mine. Unfortunately, right from the top of my head, I can´t manage to come up with particularly charitable assumptions concerning your motives for doing that.

 

[Paradoxum]

When I said God is superior by defintion it was in the same respect that I would say the universe is superior than the garden gnome . It was not a value judgement but in terms of importance, stature and power. The universe has no moral superiority over the garden gnome but it surely is superior to it in importance, stature and power. Now I do make a subjective value judgement when I say God's moral vision is superior to my own but I think it is an educated subjective judgement based upon my worldview and upon the logical extension of that worldview into the realm of morality. I do not claim that others, especially others that do not share my worldview, ought to be bound by the subjective morality I adhere to and I certainly would not expect anyone to be convinced that it is the objectively correct one.

I don't know what it means for the universe to be superior to a gnome. Importance and stature are vague terms, and sound like value judgements still. I also don't know what you mean by saying the universe is powerful. Do you mean powerful in the same sense as the Sun? It has alot of energy? Am I to conclude that someone stronger than me is superior and I should take their personal opinions as my own (muscle strength is a form of energy)?

I just don't see the need to call anything superior in an general way. The worlds strongest man is superior to me in strength, but I don't think it makes sense to say he is superior to me without specifying an attribute.

If you think God's morals are just opinion, wouldn't agreeing with him be simply the same as saying vanilla is better than chocolate, just because Jesus said so? If that is just his personal opinion, you can buy chocolate if you like that more.

IMO The creator of a thing has authority over that thing and is superior to that thing. I do not see any way in which authority has primarily to do with how beings relate to each other that i think is society not authority. It has to do with which agency has the credentials to claim that its knowledge of a particular subject is great enough that it should lead.

I think that's a dangerous moral to have. Your explanation just sounds like a defence of tyranny to me. You also call people 'things'. If a free being is created, that being has no obligation to do what the creator says. Maybe the creator is abusive, or maybe the being simply wants to live a separate life... it's up to them.

That simply isn't the way any god has ever been defined. This is why we have atheists and theists one believes in a superior being and one does not. there would be no need for atheism if gods were no better than humans because there would be no theists to contradict.

How a God is normally defined doesn't matter. You claim that there is a being with qualities like omniscience and omnipotence. I'm saying that if such a being exists, you might be wrong to say it is superior. If you want to insist that a God must be defined as objectively superior (without which he wouldn't be called God), then you may have opened up a way to disprove the existence of God.

No two Christians agree on every single point. No two humans of any kind do. I find the idea of a creator God and the idea of an objective good to be mutually exclusive ones other Christians do not. I cannot explain my own position on morality by denying my position in order to conform to theirs.

Sure, I know.

If one believes in God, as I do, one has a POV that differs from those that do not have the same belief and from that POV certain things will logically be the case. We all make certain assumptions in order to reason and as a theist and particularly as a Christian, , God is one of those assumptions I make. That being the case, God , like the doctor, is an expert in the field even moreso as the doctor did not create the human body from nothing as God did. God has a perspective on the universe that is far beyond my perspective being both infinite and eternal may give one a bit more information and experience than being 59 and having that time and experience spent bound to a small portion of a small planet in a corner of a small galaxy that is but a tiny part of the universe that God not only has total experience of but created from nothing. Under those circumstances, to suggest that my opinion, or the opinion of another similarly limited being , on the subject in any way could be considered to be as authoritative just seems to dismiss logic entirely.

The doctor is an expert because there is a subject which you can be correct and incorrect on. You can't be an expert on a subject which has no true or falseness to it. You've already said that morality isn't objective, so there is not true of false. So it doesn't matter how long God has been around for, he knows no more on the subject of morality than us, since there is nothing to know (according to you).

Who would? Who does? People tend to do what they do and blame God for it later if someone objects. I certainly am not motivated to do evil to anyone because God told me to. God to this point has never done that to me. He, so far, has told me to Love my neighbor as I love my own self. I will tell you that I dearly love my own self and would never do anything to me that was in any way evil. I will also tell you that I have not been all that good at doing what God has told me to do. I take solace in the fact that I don't see too many others that are having more success. It is a shame that I am able to take solace in the failure of others. Good thing I don't expect me to be perfect. Of course, that means I can't expect my neighbor to be perfect either.

I've heard people say they would kill their child for God. I wonder what else they would do for God.

Tolerant is one of the hardest things to be and one of the hardest things to perceive you are not being.

Gay marriage

I know it is hard to see oneself as intolerant. I feel bad now when I consider how I once thought of homosexuality. Though luckily as a mid-teen I only considered homosexuality as a moral issue, not a legal one, so that doesn't make me intolerant.

I know I may be intolerant in some ways I don't know yet. For example I don't like the idea of polygamy being legal.

 

[Cearbhall]

My belief is that if one is to take an atheistic worldview I believe that the only inherently true belief system they could take is a sort of nihilism. The human perspective is only a product of evolution and random events thus creating no actual purpose to life.

This comes down to semantics. Technically, an atheist is someone who just doesn't believe in deities. Atheists can believe in some other form of supernatural or cosmic force. Many never even consider this issue, though, because our instincts and socialization cause us to view nihilism with horror and disgust.