All you did was restate your initial objection, but ignore my contention: your morality is anthropocentric and thus invalid.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In a world of seemingly gratuitous evil, for instance, children dying of cancer, believing in an all-loving God is far from obvious unless you willfully blind yourself to suffering.
All you did was restate your initial objection, but ignore my contention: your morality is anthropocentric and thus invalid.
Who says? Isn't that sentient-beingcentric? Further, how about lower order sentient beings, or potential higher order ones? Why are humans the measure?Yes, there are other things, like rocks, but morality does not concern them. It concerns us.
Which is why it holds us back.
We aren't talking about home runs, we are talking about murder. If all you can come back with are red herrings, I think I've proven my point enough.
Objective consequences. We can examine exactly what harm has been done, or we can examine what good has been done.
All religions are made up by man.
But then it would not be true morality, it would be distorted by people.
Who says? Isn't that sentient-beingcentric.
Further, how about lower order sentient beings, or potential higher order ones? Why are humans the measure?
If it is the truth, whether or not you like it is besides the point. We don't decide matters.
In that case, all religious truths, even if they are actually revealed, are also distorted by people. The discussion taking place in this thread is also distorted by people.
This sort of epistemological objection is empty...It is the Black Hole of arguments that leaves everyone in spiraling down into epistemological nihilism.
Just because people can distort truths, that doesn't mean that they are distorting them in any particular case. That's why we discuss ideas, to find out if we are seeing clearly or not. Otherwise, discussion would be pointless.
I suppose it is.
I didn't say that humans alone were the measure.
If? You've yet to establish that 'if'. I see no reason to merely assume your conclusion (that morality is theocentric).
That's your faith I suppose.
So, is it morally equivalent for a bear to eat a man and a man to eat a cow?
I don't need to, as you have not shown that morality is wedded to sentient beings.
You're defining morality purely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, you have no understanding of what the viewpoint of other sentient beings is for exmaple. Appears arbitrary and faith based to me...You suppose wrongly. I don't need to believe by faith that morality concerns us.
What do you mean by "morally equivalent"?
Since when does that excuse you from the burden of proof? You claim that morality is theocentric. On what grounds?
If God knows everything, then he can make judgments of us without there being evil. If you wanted to know something about a child and could acquire the knowledge without him being brutally raped, why would you still allow him to be raped?To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.
Same goes for the men. It is perverse because it is not an activity people would do in public for everyone to see, hence it is a shameful activity.
You did not prove a point at all. You put forward an arbitrary standard, and have changed it within the conversation. So what is the proportion of good versus bad that makes someone good? 50.1% good vs. 49.9% bad? 95% to 5%? If it is so objective, please let us know.
But you just said the objective value of saving a life is not equivalent to the objective value of taking away one life. That sounds awfully subjective to me.
Precisely, including secularism. The Truth is not a religion, it is a fact.
To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us
but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.
I haven't changed my standard at all, you've been tossing out rather silly examples, like the one above.
If you have the ability to prevent a murder, it's just something that you do, you'd have a moral obligation to do so. To allow a murder to take place that you could have stopped would be an immoral act.
Secularism isn't a religion.
To the O.P. My opinion of why evil is allowed in this world so God can make full judgements on us but also so we can fully understand right and wrong. You must know that this earth isn't supposed to be heaven. Bad things happen, its up to us to grow in faith and build resistance to evil. We should fear God he has control of everything, he gives favour to those who want to know him more.
Calling something silly does not make the question any less valid. You said this issue was "objective." If so, can you quantify how many good thigns versus bad things someone can do and still be "good?"
What if it puts your life at risk? You are morally obligated to go into your neighbor's house and fight the thieves instead of calling the police and staying to yourself?
Here is a concrete example. Let's say a murderer hated his ex wife and murdered her. He gets thrown in jail and a few years later finds a gang abusing someone to the point of killing him. He gives up his life, with the intention of doing so, and saves that guys life. Is he now morally neutral?
You bet it is, it is a faith-based materialist world view and nothing more.
But then it would not be true morality, it would be distorted by people. Theists get around this by believing in revealed truth. In Islam, for example, God literally speaks Arabic and Allah breathed out the Quran through the Angel Gabriel, to Muhammad, who had a bunch of people memorize it until under the Caliph Uthman it was written down. So, according to Muslims, morality derived from the Quran would be unadulterated truth straight from the mouth of the deity.
Whether man correctly understands Allah's revelation is a different matter.
You're defining morality purely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, you have no understanding of what the viewpoint of other sentient beings is for exmaple.
Appears arbitrary and faith based to me...
One action would morally be no worse than the other, they would be morally equivalent.
I don't claim morality is objectively theocentric. I am skeptical that morality can even be discerned objectively. Hence, to answer my contention, you would have to demonstrate that it actually can be. The skeptic does not have to prove anything, he has to be proved to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?