The problem of evil

[bhsmte]

If you can get someone else to agree to the way you're connecting the objectivity of the subject and the immutability of the object, maybe they can explain your question to me so I understand it.

You stated a change in conditions, would impact whether objectivity morality changes, correct?

My question is simple, what method do you use, to determine when conditions have changed and how is that method purely objective?

 

[Loudmouth]

Umm. That obedience to the commands is arbitrary or that the commands themselves are arbitrary?

Choosing one deity out of thousands to obey based on personal whims would be arbitrary.

You can't show why the chosen deity would command one thing and not another, so the commands would be arbitrary as well until shown otherwise.

 

[Resha Caner]

You stated a change in conditions, would impact whether objectivity morality changes, correct?

No.

 

[bhsmte]

No.

See post 257, were you state different conditions can result in a different answer to whether something is moral or not.

 

[Resha Caner]

Choosing one deity out of thousands to obey based on personal whims would be arbitrary.

I am tempted to chase this, but it wasn't part of the original scope of my objection. Maybe later when the original question is answered (If you don't laugh at that ...)

You can't show why the chosen deity would command one thing and not another, so the commands would be arbitrary as well until shown otherwise.

I will not accept that I am forever responsible to answering whatever you may happen to throw out. That is the path to facetious arguing. If the only reply you're going to give to me is, "Nah, that's arbitrary," then my original post in this thread stands as my argument, "Nah."

I suggested you provide examples of something that is arbitrary and something that is not. Since you have declined, I will offer examples. If you disagree that my examples are adequate, then I expect you to offer an alternative.

Arbitrary: During the oil crisis of the 1970s, people with odd numbered license plates could purchase gasoline on odd numbered days, and people with even plates on even days.

Not arbitrary: A non-arbitrary solution would have been to identify individuals or organizations with critical needs for gasoline and give them preference for its purchase.

 

[Resha Caner]

See post 257, were you state different conditions can result in a different answer to whether something is moral or not.

Yes. I even gave an example. But neither my answer nor the example had any bearing on changes in "objective morality". It was simply to point out that there is no one single answer as in "Thou shalt not kill." The command is "Though shalt not murder," which is basically a tautology that equates to saying one should not kill without justification. Exactly what justifies killing then depends upon the conditions.

Finally, I asked you to give an example where you think the claimed "objective morality" has changed. I'm not aware of such a case.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am tempted to chase this, but it wasn't part of the original scope of my objection. Maybe later when the original question is answered (If you don't laugh at that ...)

I think we could be adults about it, and both still have fun with it.

If the only reply you're going to give to me is, "Nah, that's arbitrary," then my original post in this thread stands as my argument, "Nah."

All commands are arbitrary until shown otherwise. It's kind of like "innocent until proven guilty". The assumption is that someone is innocent until shown otherwise. All commands are assumed to be arbitrary until shown otherwise.

I suggested you provide examples of something that is arbitrary and something that is not.

Why is a majority of military equipment green?

A. A guy in 1432 was fond of green, and the tradition stuck.
B. It blends into foliage which makes the vehicles harder to see.

A is arbitrary. B is not arbitrary.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why is a majority of military equipment green?

A. A guy in 1432 was fond of green, and the tradition stuck.
B. It blends into foliage which makes the vehicles harder to see.

A is arbitrary. B is not arbitrary.

I would say B connects the color green to a purpose of military vehicles. Choice A does not. Do you agree?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The command is "Though shalt not murder," which is basically a tautology that equates to saying one should not kill without justification.

That is not a tautology at all.

"Murder is unlawful killing" is a tautology.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say B connects the color green to a purpose of military vehicles. Choice A does not. Do you agree?

I would say that B gives a valid justification for why the vehicles should be green other than "we just trust that the painter has a good reason for doing so".

 

[Resha Caner]

I would say that B gives a valid justification for why the vehicles should be green other than "we just trust that the painter has a good reason for doing so".

Why is it a valid justification?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is it a valid justification?

Camouflage is useful in military maneuvers. You can demonstrate function and utility outside of a person's claim.

 

[Resha Caner]

Camouflage is useful in military maneuvers. You can demonstrate function and utility outside of a person's claim.

Sure. And you're distinguishing military uses from civilian uses of green vehicles, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure. And you're distinguishing military uses from civilian uses of green vehicles, correct?

That distinction was there from the start.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. I even gave an example. But neither my answer nor the example had any bearing on changes in "objective morality". It was simply to point out that there is no one single answer as in "Thou shalt not kill." The command is "Though shalt not murder," which is basically a tautology that equates to saying one should not kill without justification. Exactly what justifies killing then depends upon the conditions.

Finally, I asked you to give an example where you think the claimed "objective morality" has changed. I'm not aware of such a case.

Is killing the only moral issue?

 

[Resha Caner]

Is killing the only moral issue?

No. You're free to provide examples of your own.

 

[Resha Caner]

That distinction was there from the start.

So would you consider it arbitrary to put camouflage paint on a civilian vehicle?

 

[Loudmouth]

So would you consider it arbitrary to put camouflage paint on a civilian vehicle?

Unless the civilian voiced a valid reason for doing so, I would consider it to be arbitrary.

 

[Resha Caner]

Unless the civilian voiced a valid reason for doing so, I would consider it to be arbitrary.

Sure. As discussed before, a "valid reason" would be a demonstrable use (function & utility). That might be difficult for the civilian to achieve, though. The military likely has a special connection to knowledge regarding camouflage paint. I know my company protects the paint formula for our machines.

In fact, the military probably has special knowledge of many of the features of military vehicles. Would you agree?

 

[Achilles6129]

Not really.

Why?

It's hard to believe because most of my experiences do not point towards a happy ending for things. And I don't find the Bible all that persuasive in this matter. I guess because I take an entirely different approach to the Bible and I always have. I'm not a "Bible answer man" kind of Christian.

Well, we're not supposed to discuss Biblical apologetics on this forum, and I don't want this thread to get shut down if I start quoting Scripture, so I'll have to talk in generalities. Don't you agree that the Bible paints a portrait of a restoration of all things and an ultimate negation of all evil?