Situational Morality

[Mongoose]

To start, I don't believe in objective morality. It cannot exist, no matter what sort of God created the universe.

My moral principles are based off of a combination of existentialism, subjectivism, and my own twist of universal principles.

I believe in something I like to call "universal subjectivism," whereas, what ever is in favor of every being is what is moral. Since subjective morality is all that exists, the closest we can get to a universal set of ethics is by addressing what is in favor of every single being, not just the majority, and definitly not just God.

I voted on the subjective standard. I probably should have voted the bottom one. Oh well.

 

[Kirei]

I base my moral on what I've seen : if an action performed under certain circumstances resulted in an unmitigated disaster, it's wrong. Simple as that. I don't judge what I don't know.
I don't really believe in objective morality though, since morality as I understand it needs a precise goal and I don't think the universe has one.

 

[tcampen]

I was questioning whether to see the Bible as a historical document or more like literature where the author explains the events in his own interpretive way. Literature, right?

And I would agree in definition...but the problem becomes that it is the only recorded documentation (whether biased by author or not) of that time. (How convenient, huh?) Yet as a historian (or logical thinker) you have to give it validity to some point, because you have no other reference points to that time in which to compare it to. And I would be foolish (as a historian) to disregard it off hand as false. Take for instance, the hieroglyphics in the pyramids. Are they literature or records of events? I believe, the same question applies to the Bible. Is it literature or documentation? I see it as both.

The Gospels are not the only reference points to that time. There are others, such as Josephus, Pliny, and writings on artifacts from that era, just to name a few. Furthermore, references to civil matters, people and other details of society are not judged the same way we judge claims of supernatural events. We can reasonably discern the credibility of a claim of who was the Roman Governor of Judea during a certain time period by a variety of demonstratably reliable methods. There is no corallary to supernatural claims. In fact, when one claims they witnessed a supernatural event, such as an alien abduction, an out of body experience, or talking to people who have passed away, the immediate reaction is usually one of skeptism - unless we are predisposed to believe in the subject matter already.

Now all that's left is to speak to the influence of the author's interpretation.

As I understand it, Christians believe that man dictates history, and God dictates the "truth". And since the authors of the books of the Bible are "men of God", that is to say in the "will of God", ...to that point the Bible is less a "historical" document (debatable as literature) and more of a collection of "truth".

Yes, I understand this point. It is based on circular logic from the outset, but I do understand it.

My point was never to get you to believe the Bible as a "collection of truth", but to understand, that is the stance of your opposition. So in arguing, you can have an extremely valid point (from your point of view), and yet be entirely disassociated with reality (from the other point of view).

Reality, by definition, is an objective fact. Concepts of divine inspiration for anything are subjective in both belief and application. They are different.

I'll try one more time to explain my point. Please read it this time knowing, I'm not trying to prove God (or disprove Him). I'm simply trying to explain why "hypothetical judgment" is poorly used in a debate on God (if an existing being). In a hypothetical argument (or discussion) one describes (or defines) aspects of the argument to which they wish to question. With this being true, the "definer" implies certain "truths" or "points" that wish to address. We agree so far?

…Oh man (duty calls)...let me cut to the short of it, hypothetical arguments work (and is valid) for undefined arguments concepts and ideas...but not a "real" person, place or thing.

That is not true, number one. And number two, the question itself is whether God is a real person, place, or thing - and really certain qualities imputed onto that particular concept of God. It would be intellectually dishonest to presume the truth of a particular answer to that question before even considering the merits of the proposition.

Think of it has, people arguing aspects of "you". In discussions assumptions will be made to your reasoning, actions, feelings and motives. If they thereby find them (motives, reasoning, actions...etc) illogical or unexplainable or not in keeping with their stated "assumptions" of you...can they then determine your guilt on a matter? Or more to the point, your actual existence?

I'll bite...to answer your question, suppose nobody in town has seen me since New year's Eve of 2001. So there is a question as to whether I am still in existence or dead. Debating my demeanor just before my disapearance could be useful in understanding whether it is more likely I just skipped town, killed myself, was in trouble, etc. It helps to understand what most like is the case about my existence. But I suppose that with relation to something supernatural, like God, where it is so subjective and not subject to object methodologies for determining the truth of claims made about God or God's existence, then perhaps such debate is ultimately meaningless.

If God exists...hypothetical reasoning and discussion would not be a valid as a qualifier or a descriptor of Him. While it is a valid tool for reasoning, it's not a qualifying tool for determining motive or existence of a "real" being.

That is simply not true. Please review my example of a missing person's existence. Are you implying that Police should never investigate missing persons cases? That reasoning just doesn't make sense.

This move back to my point on first arguing "Is God real?" Proving existence matters to the “method” of debate. And we can disagree on this, you know?

I'm not completely following you here. Furthermore, debating proposed qualities of a god is instructive to understanding whether such a being is likely to exist. If one asserts there is a god and that god can only do good acts, and then assert that same god killed thousands of newborn babies, it is fair to ask whether it is reasonable to hold whether such a being could exist - or whether the asserted qualities of that god is totally inconsistent with the asserted acts of that same god.

 

[tcampen]

<edit to read>

Instead of double-posting what I really meant to say was "Since I cannot read Voice of Reason's mind, I resort to limiting myself to what he has written instead."

Actually, the concept of charity is central to the whole of the Christian ethical system. The idea of fair play and ***-for-tat is the conventional mode of morality for societies, but the idea of loving on's enemy, repaying evil with kindness, and when somebody demands something from you, giving even more than what was asked radically redefines the concept of charity.

The Buddha expressed very similar "radical" ideas of charity and compassion 500 years before Jesus. So the concept is not necessarily a "Christian" one, rather it is a good one that Christianity recognizes through Jesus, his teachings, and his conduct as expressed in the Gospels.

 

[onionring]

The Gospels are not the only reference points to that time. There are others, such as Josephus, Pliny, and writings on artifacts from that era, just to name a few. Furthermore, references to civil matters, people and other details of society are not judged the same way we judge claims of supernatural events. We can reasonably discern the credibility of a claim of who was the Roman Governor of Judea during a certain time period by a variety of demonstratably reliable methods. There is no corallary to supernatural claims. In fact, when one claims they witnessed a supernatural event, such as an alien abduction, an out of body experience, or talking to people who have passed away, the immediate reaction is usually one of skeptism - unless we are predisposed to believe in the subject matter already.
...

Since we where referring “the Flood”, and not some Romansic time, then I guess the Bible does have a monopoly (though I never stated this; it was implied by you). Furthermore, each author is limited to the regions of influence (or experience). This would lend itself to some Old Testment scriptures being solo historical references of certain regions.

Strange that you label it “supernatural”. Is that a bias because it’s referenced in the Bible? “Supernatural” is a label given to things accruing outside nature; thus lacking explanation through physical laws. Strange how “the Flood” is supernatural, yet “the Ice Age” is not. Both are evidenced in nature, and only the Flood has written documentation. And yet the Ice Age is more readily accepted.

…
Yes, I understand this point. It is based on circular logic from the outset, but I do understand it.
...

Circular doesn’t make it incorrect.

Rain falls. Evaporates. Forms into clouds. Rains again.

Truth often is circular.

…
Reality, by definition, is an objective fact. Concepts of divine inspiration for anything are subjective in both belief and application. They are different.
...

Hmm…is that according to tcampen’s dictionary? Webster doesn’t say that. Matter of fact, it this is a truth you know to be correct, then philosophy is “the study of wasting time”.

Congratulation in single-handedly destroying higher-order thinking…Now we can all become mindless drones to the few priviledged that get to define “reality”.

…
That is not true, number one. And number two, the question itself is whether God is a real person, place, or thing - and really certain qualities imputed onto that particular concept of God. It would be intellectually dishonest to presume the truth of a particular answer to that question before even considering the merits of the proposition.
...

I agree. In proving God is a real person, place or thing, one does have to qualify attributes of the object…Yet, judgements on motive and reasoning of an object, not yet proven to exist, is ridiculous. To say otherwise is an argument for pointless debate.

…
I'll bite...to answer your question, suppose nobody in town has seen me since New year's Eve of 2001. So there is a question as to whether I am still in existence or dead. Debating my demeanor just before my disapearance could be useful in understanding whether it is more likely I just skipped town, killed myself, was in trouble, etc. It helps to understand what most like is the case about my existence. But I suppose that with relation to something supernatural, like God, where it is so subjective and not subject to object methodologies for determining the truth of claims made about God or God's existence, then perhaps such debate is ultimately meaningless.
...

One thing you got wrong in your assessment, you implied that proof of you existence was evident prior to a certain time. The issue is then about your “disappearance” not “existence”. The facts and discussions of your actions, motive and reasoning are not viable method of proving your existence.

…
That is simply not true. Please review my example of a missing person's existence. Are you implying that Police should never investigate missing persons cases? That reasoning just doesn't make sense.
...

Your example was flawed in the fact that it describes and addresses an issue other than existence. Perhaps you “simply” don’t understand.

…
I'm not completely following you here. Furthermore, debating proposed qualities of a god is instructive to understanding whether such a being is likely to exist. If one asserts there is a god and that god can only do good acts, and then assert that same god killed thousands of newborn babies, it is fair to ask whether it is reasonable to hold whether such a being could exist - or whether the asserted qualities of that god is totally inconsistent with the asserted acts of that same god.

Good point. If God is all good and babies die…then God doesn’t exist.

Yet…
People often judge others within their limited understand. They take that individual and assign to them all the aspects and social standard they themselves possess. Yet does this individual exist with these aspects…or within these social standards?

 

[tcampen]

Since we where referring “the Flood”, and not some Romansic time, then I guess the Bible does have a monopoly (though I never stated this; it was implied by you). Furthermore, each author is limited to the regions of influence (or experience). This would lend itself to some Old Testment scriptures being solo historical references of certain regions.

Strange that you label it “supernatural”. Is that a bias because it’s referenced in the Bible? “Supernatural” is a label given to things accruing outside nature; thus lacking explanation through physical laws. Strange how “the Flood” is supernatural, yet “the Ice Age” is not. Both are evidenced in nature, and only the Flood has written documentation. And yet the Ice Age is more readily accepted.

First of all, there is no evidence of a world-wide flood, which is not better explained in otherways. In fact, Noah's flood has been falsified several times over. Second, the forces behind such an alleged event are supernatural - God. The forces behind an ice age are natural - are require no intervention by a supreme being to be understood or explained. Can you explain to me how the "flood" occured using purely natural means?

Circular doesn’t make it incorrect.

Rain falls. Evaporates. Forms into clouds. Rains again.

Truth often is circular.

Your example is not one of circular logic, but an explanation of natural processes. Certianly you understand the difference. We're not talking about anything circular here - we're talking about logical arguments. And circular LOGIC is never correct, anymore than 2+2=3,948,845,939,884.

Tim: "Reality, by definition, is an objective fact..."

Hmm…is that according to tcampen’s dictionary? Webster doesn’t say that. Matter of fact, it this is a truth you know to be correct, then philosophy is “the study of wasting time”.

Congratulation in single-handedly destroying higher-order thinking…Now we can all become mindless drones to the few priviledged that get to define “reality”.

Just so we're on the same page, here's what Webster's says about "reality"

Reality
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
- in reality : in actual fact

Objective
1 d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

- I'm sorry, what was your point again?

I agree. In proving God is a real person, place or thing, one does have to qualify attributes of the object…Yet, judgements on motive and reasoning of an object, not yet proven to exist, is ridiculous. To say otherwise is an argument for pointless debate.

Not when a particular motive and reasoning of that being is part of the definition of its alleged existence. The assertion is not merely that God exists, but that God exists as a very particular type of being, which very specific qualities, and committed certain acts. It's a whole package. And if an assertion of this total God shows to be logically inconsistent, that is a compelling factor in determining whether that asserted total God really exists - not a waste of time.

The one thing you got wrong in your assessment, you implied that proof of you existence was evident prior to a certain time.

I'll give you that. It was not a very good analogy. I'll stick with the subject matter directly. Making analogies to explain something about god is virtually always a mistake. I should have known better. Thank you for pointing that out.