The Logical Premise?

[Kylie]

First off, Kylie, this doesn´t seem to help answering the question whether God exists or not (which, I think, was the topic - correct me if I am wrong).
Secondly, and more generally, you changed from an epistemological question to a question of valuation.

Can´t speak for Leslie, but I suspect he´ll answer that things are good or bad because God says so (I think that´s what is meant my "moral authority"). Basically it is a "might makes right" understanding.
This answer will, of course, cause some problems. Then again, I wouldn´t know how to answer "What makes something moral or immoral?" without running into such problems. Do you?
(Of course, it all depends on your definition of "moral"...)

(Sidenote: I think "murder" is not a good example, because "murder" is defined as "immoral killing", and thus there can´t be "moral murder", by way of using language properly.)

Exactly. Morality is always going to be subjective, never objective.

 

[lesliedellow]

So if God came to you and told you that you had a free pass, what would you do? God says you can do whatever you want - you can kill, steal, maim, anything at all, and you would never be caught by any Human authorities, and you would not be sent to Hell, but guaranteed a place in Heaven no matter what. Would you become a killer?

No. Some time back somebody made the surprising discovery that the majority of soldiers went through the Second World War without firing their rifles once. So great is our disinclination to kill (most of us).

 

[Kylie]

Personally, as an atheist I start with the null hypothesis: "There is no God" and work to reject that. So far I have found insufficient reason to reject the null.

So, Kylie, I agree with your point that it is perfectly rational to debate all theology from that standpoint.

HOWEVER, if one wishes to debate with Christians over a specific point of the theology I find it more interesting to work within the confines of the faith itself. So if I were to be debating a Christian over whether they should support gun control I would work within the framework of Jesus' actual existence and his exhortation in Matthew 26:52. In that case I would be working from the assumption that God is real and Jesus was God, etc.

A nice approach.

 

[lesliedellow]

Exactly. Morality is always going to be subjective, never objective.

Which gets you back with the Nazis were a bit unsociable, but you can't say they were actually evil. After all, they presumably thought they were behaving in a highly moral way, and what business have you got judging them on the basis of your subjective morality?

 

[Kylie]

No. Some time back somebody made the surprising discovery that the majority of soldiers went through the Second World War without firing their rifles once. So great is our disinclination to kill (most of us).

But wouldn't you say we got this disinclination to kill from God?

And hasn't God just relieved you of that by saying you will suffer absolutely no ill consequences whatsoever?

 

[lesliedellow]

But wouldn't you say we got this disinclination to kill from God?

And hasn't God just relieved you of that by saying you will suffer absolutely no ill consequences whatsoever?

A disinclination is something built into our psychology.

 

[quatona]

Which gets you back with the Nazis were a bit unsociable, but you can't say they were actually evil. After all, they presumably thought they were behaving in a highly moral way, and what business have you got judging them on the basis of your subjective morality?

Well, as you say: Based on your subjective morality (and some intersubjective and sometimes almost universally held morality - which isn´t "objective" in the way you´d use it).
This line of reasoning from consequence always leaves me rather unimpressed. What I´d actually be impressed with: A demonstration that objective morality exists. A great bonus would be that it would be anywhere close to my subjective morality, instead of telling me e.g. that it´s good to kill, rape or commit genocide (which actually is the risk of wishing for an objective non-human morality: it could turn out to be anything), in which case I´d still stick to my subjective morality.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, as you say: Based on your subjective morality

So if I had a"conversion" experience to Nazism, and started murdering Jews, that would be okay, because I was being moral in my own sights.

 

[Kylie]

Which gets you back with the Nazis were a bit unsociable, but you can't say they were actually evil. After all, they presumably thought they were behaving in a highly moral way, and what business have you got judging them on the basis of your subjective morality?

Well, I can demonstrate that they were causing harm to others, for a start.

 

[Kylie]

A disinclination is something built into our psychology.

By God, I'm sure you would agree.

But God has told you that such limitations no longer apply to you.

In any case, it's not just killing. You can steal if you want. If you are catching a taxi, you can just get out and walk away without paying when you get to your destination. Would you not even do that?

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, I can demonstrate that they were causing harm to others, for a start.

So?

 

[lesliedellow]

By God, I'm sure you would agree.

But God has told you that such limitations no longer apply to you.

In any case, it's not just killing. You can steal if you want. If you are catching a taxi, you can just get out and walk away without paying when you get to your destination. Would you not even do that?

If a voice came down out of the sky, giving me permission for mayhem, that wouldn't remove the psychological blocks which evolution (and therefore God) had put in place.

 

[Kylie]

So?

Are you saying I shouldn't stand up for those who are being oppressed?

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you saying I shouldn't stand up for those who are being oppressed?

I am saying that, beyond your personal dislike of what you were witnessing, you would have no basis for saying the Nazis were acting immorally. If morality is purely subjective, presumably their morality is as good as your morality.

 

[Kylie]

I am saying that, beyond your personal dislike of what you were witnessing, you would have no basis for saying the Nazis were acting immorally. If morality is purely subjective, presumably their morality is as good as your morality.

Then neither do they have any basis for saying that they were acting morally. The knife cuts both ways.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then neither do they have any basis for saying that they were acting morally. The knife cuts both ways.

If morality is relative, and culture bound, they were their own judge and jury.

 

[Obliquinaut]

No. Some time back somebody made the surprising discovery that the majority of soldiers went through the Second World War without firing their rifles once. So great is our disinclination to kill (most of us).

Penn Jillette made an interesting point about this. (I'm paraphrasing) He (an atheist) is often hit with the standard question believers have for atheists: 'If you don't believe there's a God what keeps you from killing as many people as you want?'

And he answered "I do kill as many people as I want. Exactly as many. Which is zero."

 

[Obliquinaut]

Which gets you back with the Nazis were a bit unsociable, but you can't say they were actually evil. After all, they presumably thought they were behaving in a highly moral way, and what business have you got judging them on the basis of your subjective morality?

Subjective morality. As opposed to the objective morality of the BIble? Are we just going to ignore all the previous discussion about 1Sam15:3 and the book of Joshua now?

 

[Obliquinaut]

But wouldn't you say we got this disinclination to kill from God?

Which is a good thing for God to give to people. But clearly when He needed them to do the killing it took some effort.

When Saul failed to slaughter all living things of the Amalekites (including farm animals) it greatly displeased God and God had to punish Saul.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I am saying that, beyond your personal dislike of what you were witnessing, you would have no basis for saying the Nazis were acting immorally. If morality is purely subjective, presumably their morality is as good as your morality.

This is an incorrect extrapolation of "subjective morality". Subjective morality need not be granular down to the person.

We can say, subjectively something we already do: killing innocent living things is wrong. But we, as humans, limit it to humans. We kill innocent animals all the time. And we don't, in any way, assume that other animals who kill other animals are acting "immorally".

Our morality is subjective insofar as it is not universally applied.

My dog steals tomatoes from the garden. I may think she is a bad dog but I don't think she's acting immorally. However, it is still theft.

We can create a pefectly non-objective morality based on things that maintain a stable safe society. We are a social animal and as such we have good reason to not murder each other and not steal from each other and not bear false witness against each other: these would all fracture the safety of the social group and we gain an evolutionary and survival advantage from living in a safe and stable society.

ERGO: I can rely on a wholly subjective morality and still find Nazis to be evil.

(And clearly the OBJECTIVE morality of the Bible seems completely arbitrary to whatever God says...and you have already noted that it is pointless to debate the existence of God. So not sure how valuable any sort of "objective" morality is based on that.)

QED