The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

He did nothing for 500 years! According to you, he was justified in not intervening out of respect for their free will. Yet you also argue that he was justified in intervening because he cannot allow evil to go unrestrained or unchecked. So which is it, Jeremy? Is he justified in not intervening because he respects their freedom to be cruel, or is he justified in intervening because he cannot tolerate their cruelty?

Saying God stayed His judgment of a people for 500 years is not analogous with saying God did nothing to or for them for 500 years. You know that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Saying God stayed His judgment of a people for 500 years is not analogous with saying God did nothing to or for them for 500 years. You know that.

Which is it, jerbug? Is he justified in not intervening or in intervening, and why?

 

[anonymous person]

So your argument, based on the trolley problem thought experiment, falls apart. It doesn't apply to Yahweh who, given his omniscience and omnipotence, could (1) prevent the situation from ever arising, and (2) could save everyone at risk of being hit by the trolley without ever "flipping a switch."

The trolley experiment demonstrates that in certain circumstances, causing the death of a human being can achieve a greater good.

That is all it demonstrates. It does not demonstrate that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for allowing or causing certain things to happen.

God did not have to create this world. True. He could have just created the angels and stopped.

I see no reason however to think that a world with just God and the angels in it without us in it is a world God would be constrained to make.

You have made no argument to support that contention.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. Have I been unclear on my position in some way? Morals are opinions...not facts. They have no objective basis.

So you believe that Christian morality is equally valid. We don't have a problem as far as I see then.

I'm comfortable with the reasoning behind it. I don't know what you're referring to about the OT...I've never brought it up.

Sorry, you didn't.

I don't think someone not ready to be a mother should be a mother. Not every life has value to me.

I would imagine that if someone took the life of one of your loved ones you would believe that was wrong, however, if they believed they had a good reason one could not claim that it was wrong is that what you are implying?

I don't! I often disagree with atheists on topics...this can be one of them. How about this moral behavior....

You're at the cash register purchasing a soda. The cost comes to 1.01$...and you decide to take a penny from the "take a penny leave a penny" tray to pay for your soda....even though you know you have a penny in your pocket. Is this good or bad? Right or wrong?

I might not want to dig in my pocket to come up with the penny amid the other debris in it, knowing I had put many a penny into the Take a penny tray and hadn't taken any I would think it was good.

Yes but they don't usually frame the argument as you have...and I disagree with them as well.

Of course whether or not you agree makes little difference to the validity of either positions...correct?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Saying God stayed His judgment of a people for 500 years is not analogous with saying God did nothing to or for them for 500 years. You know that.

I know that you are being contradictory. He respected their freedom to be cruel for 500 years, until he didn't anymore.

 

[anonymous person]

Which is it, jerbug? Is he justified in not intervening or in intervening, and why?

God is justified in all He does.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Baby murder? Time assassination? Immoral. Thank you for playing.

How would you feel if a nation today went around exterminating babies because they thought that they might grow up to attack their nation? Imagine hearing this in the news today. They would likely be charged with war crimes, possibly genocide. Would you defend that nation?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes. So if they believe that they pose a threat, what makes their believe wrong in your opinion?

 

[anonymous person]

I know that you are being contradictory. He respected their freedom to be cruel for 500 years, until he didn't anymore.

God still respected their freedom when judging them. In fact, it was because He respected their freedom, that judgment was even necessary to begin with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The trolley experiment demonstrates that in certain circumstances, causing the death of a human being can achieve a greater good.

That is all it demonstrates. It does not demonstrate that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for allowing or causing certain things to happen.

God did not have to create this world. True. He could have just created the angels and stopped.

I see no reason however to think that a world with just God and the angels in it without us in it is a world God would be constrained to make.

You have made no argument to support that contention.

That's because that is NOT my contention. You are presenting a strawman to distract from the actual point. Do you concede that Yahweh is able to save everyone at risk of being hit by a trolley without ever "flipping a switch"? Yes or no?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes.

You would defend a nation in committing genocide. I don't think that we have anything further to discuss.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Couldn't an omniscient and omnipotent deity prevent the situation from ever arising in the first place? Obviously, in the thought experiment, the situation needed to be staged by prior events that the actors may or may not have had any control over. The tracks had to be built, the trolley placed there, and so on... An omniscient being would be able to foresee all that would transpire, and would thus be in a position to prevent it from eventuating. An omnipotent being wouldn't even need to "flip the switch" because he could save all those at risk of being hit by the trolley. Human beings are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and so the trolley problem is morally vexing for us. We lack the resources to be able to save everyone in the less than ideal circumstances presented in the thought experiment. An omniscient and omnipotent deity doesn't face these same obstacles, so your conclusions about what it should do are misplaced.

God did not have to create this world. We have already covered this.

 

[anonymous person]

You would defend a nation in committing genocide. I don't think that we have anything further to discuss.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Tell quatona why that is. He seems to need help with these things.

 

[anonymous person]

That's because that is NOT my contention. You are presenting a strawman to distract from the actual point. Do you concede that Yahweh is able to save everyone at risk of being hit by a trolley without ever "flipping a switch"? Yes or no?

I think you are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God still respected their freedom when judging them. In fact, it was because He respected their freedom, that judgment was even necessary to begin with.

That makes no sense, Jeremy, and it's an obvious contradiction in your reasoning. Prior to his command that they be slaughtered, respecting their freedom apparently entailed allowing their violence to go on for 500 years. After those 500 years, he no longer allowed their violence to continue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To that person who thinks it's good...it's good. This is weird question. It's like asking me if someone thinks vanilla is tasty...is vanilla tasty? It is to that person.

So morals are no more relative to life than the flavor of vanilla?

I can probably come up with circumstances where I would find those behaviors acceptable...you probably would too.

Could you provide a circumstance where it would be acceptable to rape your spouse?









[QuoteWell I'm thoroughly lost now...why don't we use my moral example since I've fully fleshed it out? Generalization doesn't work well in this conversation.[/QUOTE]I used a specific one above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, apparently God didn´t command anyone to kill them. So their existence obviously added to the "summum bonum" - so killing them would have been evil.

This is a mischaracterization of my position. I have never made the claim that God will always intervene to curtail evil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think you are comparing apples with oranges.

No, you are. That's the point. You are taking the results of a thought experiment that human beings find challenging, due to their imperfect knowledge and suboptimal resources, and applying it to a being that ostensibly faces no such obstacles.

 

[quatona]

Raping children is wrong.

1. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to an objective feature of reality independent of human opinion and preference.

2. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to a subjective opinion or preference of human beings.

3. That proposition is neither true nor false.

4. That proposition is meaningless.

What´s that supposed to be. A syllogism based on your premises?
Where do the premises end. Where do the conclusions start?
In any case, 4 doens´t follow from anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Interestingly, you have just spent countless posts on trying to defend that which we "innately know" is wrong.
You guys should make up your mind whether you want to argue that our intuitve feeling about an action is a reason to assume it points to objectivity, or whether you want to discard our intuitions by pointing to our ignorance. You can´t have it both ways.

Right, I believe that you all are demonstrating that objective morality exists.

 

[quatona]

This is a mischaracterization of my position. I have never made the claim that God will always intervene to curtail evil.

Correct, you sometimes argue by pointing to the "summum bonum", and sometimes you argue by ignoring this very criterium. That was my point.