The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[stevevw]

I understand what you are saying. I also understand you didn't actually respond to what I wrote.

Here's a typical definition of "morality":

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

Notice that it doesn't define that system. So when you keep going on about the wellbeing of all individuals, you have to realize that system is just one of countless systems that could be used and still be called "morality". None of those systems are objective, because if one was, then the definition of morality would include it in the definition. They're all subjective.

So if you had two systems one which said abusing a child is Ok and the other said abusing a child is not OK can we define which system is objectively good for human well-being. If we can determine scientifically what is good or bad for human wellbeing will this tell us which is the best system? Yes, it will because Just like gravity stands up scientifically so can certain physical, emotional and psychological indicators that are affected by child abuse.

For example, we know through psychology that beating children is bad for their emotional stability. That neglecting a young child creates an insecure attachment and that children with insecure attachments are highly more susceptible to problems as adults such as substance abuse, crime, poor relationships and abusing people themselves. We can also determine through neurology by brain imagining the state of the brain of a person who has been abused and now they are finding genetic markers associated with children who have been abused and adults who abuse.

So there is ample evidence to show that child abuse is bad for their wellbeing. When we measure the act of child abuse as a moral in the light of the effects it has on a child's wellbeing there is no way in the world you cannot objectively say that child abuse is good. This takes the personal opinion, views, tastes out of the equation because if the person says that abusing a child is OK we have scientific evidence to say it is not OK and that evidence stands up scientifically.

If I say "rape is morally good because it fulfills the requirements of "morally good" in my moral system", you can say it's incorrect to you because it doesn't line up with your moral system, but you can't say it's objectively incorrect, because not all moral systems line up with your preferences. I gave several examples of moral systems in my previous post. At least one of those could find rape "morally good", and would be valid for someone holding that value system.

I cannot believe what I am reading. How can anyone honestly say rape is good. Just because someone may say rape is good does not mean they are absolutely right about that and it does not mean we can eliminate that view out of the equation by saying " No depite your views rape is always bad". I think some are suffering from an overdose of political correctness. People are too scared to say that something is just wrong because we have to accommodate all the other views whether they are horribly repugnant to us or not. This is how we have ended up with terrorists walking around among us demanding sharia law in our own backyards.

But I find it ironic when there is enough chaos people begin to stand up saying we are a Christian nation and we will not tolerate this type of stuff. We act like there is objective morals. But if it is all subjective then you cannot deny them. Like you said some people think rape is OK so, therefore, let's accommodate them. The thing is subjective morals says that there is no true right and wrong so there ends up being no moral standard that clearly defines anything. It undermines our own safety and wellbeing.

The fact is just like child abuse can be scientifically determined as wrong so can rape. Rape is no good for the women. Ask the women even from the same religion that thinks rape is OK and she will act, react and behave like she is suffering and has been traumatised. There is the proof the damage rape does to human wellbeing. If good and bad, right and wrong are determined by how it affects people and I would hope that this is a basis for morality, after all, is not a fundamental of morality the golden rule then we can show that rape is always wrong because it damages the women.

But not only that a society that allows that gets damaged. It creates many other problems. The women become damaged and she becomes a cost to society, her children may get damaged and they end up victims as well, maybe turning to drugs and crime. It can be shown that it is no good for many reasons when you do the science and investigate it.

Most people might have a negative visceral reaction to such a statement about rape, but that reaction doesn't equate to an objective fact. Like I said previously, at best it represents an intersubjective experience.

People have a reaction to it becuase it is wrong. What about the women who are raped do they get a say. Can they say that every time a women is raped it is wrong. Heres an objective fact show me a woman who thinks getting raped is good. I honestly think we are in trouble if we believe this bull****. This just allows all sorts of dangerous ideas in through the back door. Ceratin things are just bad and are bad no matter what spin you put on it.

You can quote Sam Harris all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that he apparently has forgotten what "objective" means.

I think Sam Harris is more qualified than most. Plus surveys have been done with academic philosophers who are the most qualified to know about morals and the majority support objective morality. It is just a given. It does not mean that there are no subjective morals and people do not or cannot have their own opinions. It just means that not all those opinions are truly correct and there are some that are.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Research shows that we are born believers. Children intuitively understand about divine concepts such as life after death and that there is some sort of creator behind what we see. This is in them before any indoctrination and in fact even as adults peoplefind it hard to resist because belief is a natural human cognition. So maybe there is also something to there being some divine law beyond humans that we all know about for right and wrong. The fact is whether you want to appeal to a God or not we all have knowledge about right and wrong. We all know it is wrong to rape a women, or to abuse a child or steal someone elses stuff.That is why most nations have laws in place to stop people doing thses sorts of things. They allagree that they are wrong and these things stand regardless of peoples opinions about believing the opposite. No country, tribe or culture will say that stealing is good or unjustified killing is OK.

Here are some objective morals I think no one can deny.

It is never OK to Kill for fun
It is never OK to abuse children for fun and
It is never OK to rape a women for fun

Can you show me where a person can be justified to do these things.

Justification is subjective itself.

I don't think you are getting the subjectivity of morality - and erroneously mistaking consensus with validation of a truth.

There are plenty of tribe that think stealing is OK. Are you aware of most Governments on this planet? The only ones who buy into an "objective" code or morality are the plebs like "us" who think abstractions based on sensation and opinionated justification are proof or truth.

Marauders, by definition, work on a code of theft.

Reavers work on a code of razing land and scavenging resources.

Rapists work on the code of distributing sexual dominance through force.

These are paradigms that people follow because they believe it will keep them alive. Your morality is not better, and there is no such thing as subjective morality.

You are ignoring "undesirables" in order to justify your thesis - which is ironically immoral.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So if you had two systems one which said abusing a child is Ok and the other said abusing a child is not OK can we define which system is objectively good for human well-being.

Which makes absolutely no difference if one of the moral systems doesn't include maximizing the well being of all humans as a feature, e.g. "What is right and good is what benefits me directly". That value system of morality is just as acceptable under the definition of "morality" ("a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.") as any other. That's the part that you just don't seem to be able to grasp.

Here, I'll make it easy. If you can show me where in the above definition of "morality" it mentions that there is one system (specifically the one you espouse) that is objectively true, I'll concede and say that morality is objective. If you can't, then you logically need to say that morality isn't objective based on the definition above.

You do care about logic, don't you? Because if you don't, I'm wasting my time talking to you.

I cannot believe what I am reading.

Incredulity is often an impediment to understanding...

How can anyone honestly say rape is good.

Because they use a system of morality that either doesn't say rape is "bad" or flat out says it's "good", at least in some cases.

Just because someone may say rape is good does not mean they are absolutely right...

Yes... especially because I'm not saying that any moral system is "absolutely right"...

But I find it ironic when there is enough chaos people begin to stand up saying we are a Christian nation and we will not tolerate this type of stuff. We act like there is objective morals. But if it is all subjective then you cannot deny them. Like you said some people think rape is OK so, therefore, let's accommodate them. The thing is subjective morals says that there is no true right and wrong so there ends up being no moral standard that clearly defines anything. It undermines our own safety and wellbeing.

This is where your argument doesn't even make an attempt at being logical. It's a non sequitur to go from "there are no objective moral laws" to "lets accommodate rapists". As I mentioned more than once, we tend to have intersubjective views on at least some moral principles. Those subjective principles end up as laws prohibiting theft, murder, etc.. It does not make those moral principles objective.

The fact is just like child abuse can be scientifically determined as wrong so can rape.

Nonsense. Science doesn't distinguish between right and wrong. It's not what it does. The most it can say is "Making someone drink poison X will cause that person to suffer Y effects, so if your goal is to not cause suffering Y to a particular person, then don't give them poison X". It can't say that making someone drink poison is "wrong" or "bad". Whether or not suffering is good or bad in any particular case hinges on the subjective moral systems that individuals and societies have.

I think Sam Harris is more qualified than most.

Not if he doesn't understand the difference between objective and subjective.

Plus surveys have been done with academic philosophers who are the most qualified to know about morals and the majority support objective morality.

I do not believe this for one second. Post these surveys.

 

[stevevw]

Justification is subjective itself.

Quite the opposite. Justification implies something objective needs justifying and explaining why someone can breach its standards. Afterall we wouldn't bother justifying something if it were subjective because all views are included without needing any justification.

I don't think you are getting the subjectivity of morality - and erroneously mistaking consensus with validation of a truth.

Consensus alone is not the validation of truth. I am saying that all people no matter what nation, culture, and context know that there are certain rights and wrongs. It is not that they agree with them because everyone else does. They just know independently that certain morals are right and good no matter what others say.

There are plenty of tribes that think stealing is OK.

Such as. Plenty of tribes seems wrong. And these tribes who think stealing is OK how do they operate. Are they happy that their so-called trusted tribe members take their stuff? Do they then take someone else's stuff in retaliation. Or do they do it to others because they do not want to upset their own tribe? It does not make sense for anyone to steal and be stolen from and be happy about it.

Are you aware of most Governments on this planet?

What about most governments. Governments are continually trying to make people conform to something no matter if we think it is wrong. That is a form of objectivism. But they do not act morally that often. They take the approach of not siding with any religion or particular moral code because they have to be neutral and that is half the problem. They are too scared to make a stand. They use to say that Christian values were the foundation of society. Now they don't have any stand and are directionless. That allows the people with the most money or loudest voice to take control and push their agenda.

The only ones who buy into an "objective" code or morality are the plebs like "us" who think abstractions based on sensation and opinionated justification are proof or truth.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Marauders, by definition, work on a code of theft.

Yes, and they are regarded as bad. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying there are no subjective moral positions such as those who think stealing is OK. I am saying that there are also objective moral positions at the same time. We can show that those who steal like marauders are wrong and bad and the only people who think they are OK are the people who steal like the marauders. But the marauder's view is a biased position because they are going to rationalize and try to justify their moral position ie the rich have too much and deserve to have things taken etc. But this can be assessed to be unjustified and a wrong moral position by showing that the people they steal from have their wellbeing affected and it creates a divisive and dangerous situation for human survival.

Reavers work on a code of razing land and scavenging resources.

Rapists work on the code of distributing sexual dominance through force.[/quote] Once again it is like the marauder. You can claim that certain people are justified in thinking stealing is OK until they steal from you. Then you will say that they have no right to steal. Like I say people say it is OK for people to have subjective views on certain morals but act objectively.

These are paradigms that people follow because they believe it will keep them alive. Your morality is not better, and there is no such thing as subjective morality.

Sounds more like a pirate who is recognised as being wrong universally by most nations. It is another word for stealing. But what you are hinting at ie because say a person takes his friend's car keys because he is too drunk to drive is a rare justification which is acceptable because it relates to another moral which will be breached which is preserving life.

Once again the justification is being made because we all know that stealing is objective wrong otherwise, we would not bother to make the justification. But this rare justification does not open the door for all personal views about stealing to be OK. The Marauder may say stealing is OK because the rich deserve having their stuff taken and it spreads the wealth like some political statement. But this is unjustified. The problem comes when people begin to try and justify all sorts of things and that is the problem with only taking a subjective position.

To support subjective moral views you would have to support the wrong moral views as well and make a case that people have a right to parade and steal because they honestly believe it is OK. It takes your right to object and say they are wrong and opens the door for people with dangerous views to exist and promote their moral views in society. You cannot stand up and say they are absolutely wrong because that is just your view. It seems self-defeating in any decent society.
Of course, the reality is we do stand up and say people are absolutely wrong with their moral views just like with extremists or with gangs who roam the street stealing peoples cars etc. Tell me if a gang member says that it is OK to take your car and rape your wife/girlfriend would you say they have the right to say their moral view is OK and justified. Or would you say they are wrong no matter what.

You are ignoring "undesirables" in order to justify your thesis - which is ironically immoral.

I don't understand what you mean. If anything I am making a stand against undesirables by saying they are objectively wrong and should not steal, rape or abuse children.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Quite the opposite. Justification implies something objective needs justifying and explaining why someone can breach its standards. Afterall we wouldn't bother justifying something if it were subjective because all views are included without needing any justification.

Consensus alone is not the validation of truth. I am saying that all people no matter what nation, culture, and context know that there are certain rights and wrongs. It is not that they agree with them because everyone else does. They just know independently that certain morals are right and good no matter what others say.

Such as. Plenty of tribes seems wrong. And these tribes who think stealing is OK how do they operate. Are they happy that their so-called trusted tribe members take their stuff? Do they then take someone else's stuff in retaliation. Or do they do it to others because they do not want to upset their own tribe? It does not make sense for anyone to steal and be stolen from and be happy about it.
What about most governments. Governments are continually trying to make people conform to something no matter if we think it is wrong. That is a form of objectivism. But they do not act morally that often. They take the approach of not siding with any religion or particular moral code because they have to be neutral and that is half the problem. They are too scared to make a stand. They use to say that Christian values were the foundation of society. Now they don't have any stand and are directionless. That allows the people with the most money or loudest voice to take control and push their agenda. I don't understand what you are saying.

Yes, and they are regarded as bad. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying there are no subjective moral positions such as those who think stealing is OK. I am saying that there are also objective moral positions at the same time. We can show that those who steal like marauders are wrong and bad and the only people who think they are OK are the people who steal like the marauders. But the marauder's view is a biased position because they are going to rationalize and try to justify their moral position ie the rich have too much and deserve to have things taken etc. But this can be assessed to be unjustified and a wrong moral position by showing that the people they steal from have their wellbeing affected and it creates a divisive and dangerous situation for human survival.



Rapists work on the code of distributing sexual dominance through force.

Once again it is like the marauder. You can claim that certain people are justified in thinking stealing is OK until they steal from you. Then you will say that they have no right to steal. Like I say people say it is OK for people to have subjective views on certain morals but act objectively.

Sounds more like a pirate who is recognised as being wrong universally by most nations. It is another word for stealing. But what you are hinting at ie because say a person takes his friend's car keys because he is too drunk to drive is a rare justification which is acceptable because it relates to another moral which will be breached which is preserving life.

Once again the justification is being made because we all know that stealing is objective wrong otherwise, we would not bother to make the justification. But this rare justification does not open the door for all personal views about stealing to be OK. The Marauder may say stealing is OK because the rich deserve having their stuff taken and it spreads the wealth like some political statement. But this is unjustified. The problem comes when people begin to try and justify all sorts of things and that is the problem with only taking a subjective position.

To support subjective moral views you would have to support the wrong moral views as well and make a case that people have a right to parade and steal because they honestly believe it is OK. It takes your right to object and say they are wrong and opens the door for people with dangerous views to exist and promote their moral views in society. You cannot stand up and say they are absolutely wrong because that is just your view. It seems self-defeating in any decent society.
Of course, the reality is we do stand up and say people are absolutely wrong with their moral views just like with extremists or with gangs who roam the street stealing peoples cars etc. Tell me if a gang member says that it is OK to take your car and rape your wife/girlfriend would you say they have the right to say their moral view is OK and justified. Or would you say they are wrong no matter what.

I don't understand what you mean. If anything I am making a stand against undesirables by saying they are objectively wrong and should not steal, rape or abuse children.[/QUOTE]


Ok.

 

[stevevw]

Which makes absolutely no difference if one of the moral systems doesn't include maximizing the well being of all humans as a feature, e.g. "What is right and good is what benefits me directly". That value system of morality is just as acceptable under the definition of "morality" ("a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.") as any other. That's the part that you just don't seem to be able to grasp.

I do understand this and have been saying over and over that I do not deny that there are subjective views of morality good and bad. What you do not seem to understand which I have also been repeating is that along with those subjective views there is a moral objective that can determine by certain measures through behavior, psychology, neurology, genetic ect that and can show the effects on human wellbeing from good and bad moral acts. Moral acts leave a mark on people which can be measured.

From what I understand you are saying is under subjective morals it is morally acceptable to have a moral position that seeks to benefit themselves. This would be a selfish moral position which can lead to some horrible consequences. People would then be justified in saying I think we should kill the old and disabled because it will benefit everyone as they take up too many resources, that I can rape women because it benefits my sexual desires, that I can take your car because it will benefit me in getting around town etc etc etc.

It would create a crazy self-centred and destructive world where people are seen as impediments to their personal pleasures. It changes morals from being valued as good to being determined by personal pleasure. The reality is we don’t act that way and we condemn people like that and have laws to stop this. So, as I have said people can rattle off all these ideals about the reality of subjective morality but in reality, we react and live like there are objective morals.

Here, I'll make it easy. If you can show me where in the above definition of "morality" it mentions that there is one system (specifically the one you espouse) that is objectively true, I'll concede and say that morality is objective. If you can't, then you logically need to say that morality isn't objective based on the definition above.

I think I have already showed you that many times that there are certain moral positions which are the best for many reasons to do with what supports human wellbeing and flourishing no matter what people’s views are.

Do you agree that morals ultimately are about our obligation to others which includes the consequences of our actions on others. So, when a person seeks things that benefit themselves do you think they are negating their moral obligation to consider the effect they have on others.

Don’t you agree that not raping a woman is better than raping one and that anyone who thinks it is OK is ultimately unjustified in their view becuase the evidence is in that their action hurt another human. How can someone make a case for saying rape is good when it hurts another person they have an obligation to consider and treat kindly. Otherwise show me how rape is morally right. Not that someone has the view that rape is right but that rape is absolutely right morally. If you can't then this is a moral objective.

You do care about logic, don't you? Because if you don't, I'm wasting my time talking to you.

Of course and that is what I have been using all this time. I just made a case based on logic above. Tell me if this is a logical position or not.

The moral position of someone who views it OK to rape a women and abuse children because it benefits them can be shown to be wrong because that moral position hurts women and child and not hurting people is a big part of being morally good no matter what personal views you have. They can still have that moral view but it can be shown to be ultimately wrong.

Incredulity is often an impediment to understanding...

So I say that I cannot believe that you are saying rape for some people is a legitimate view as far as being absolutely morally right and have given several logical reasons for this and you say I am not understanding. What am I not understanding.

Because they use a system of morality that either doesn't say rape is "bad" or flat out says it's "good", at least in some cases.

Yes that is their subjective moral view. But that does not mean they are truly right and we can show they are absolutely wrong in their views. Going back to raping women hurts them and hurting people is a basic truism that we all agree on that does not represent a moral good.

Yes... especially because I'm not saying that any moral system is "absolutely right"...

And your also not saying that any moral system is absolutely wrong either. By saying that someone who thinks rape is good has an acceptable moral position you are accommodating their position to sit at the same table as everyone else and therefore not destinguishing that their position is ultimately wrong. Thats because you have no basis to judge them as absolutely wrong. Therefore you invite trouble and danger to your table and dont have a leg to stand on. This is the problem with modern day society in taking this position and why we have terrorists as our neigbours.

This is where your argument doesn't even make an attempt at being logical. It's a non sequitur to go from "there are no objective moral laws" to "lets accommodate rapists".

Why if there is no objective morals does not this say that no one is absolutely right or in the case of a rapist no one is absolutely wrong. If no one is absolutely wrong then does not this open the door for people who have views like rape is good to hold their position in society and make a case based on what benefits them and be justified. Subjective morality undermines any attempt to say that rapist are definitely wrong.

As I mentioned more than once, we tend to have intersubjective views on at least some moral principles. Those subjective principles end up as laws prohibiting theft, murder, etc.. It does not make those moral principles objective.

I suggest it is not because we have intersubjective morals but that we all happen to intuitively know there are certain morals that are objectively wrong. That is why someone will say that a person can have a subjective view that stealing is good but when they have something stolen they say that the other person is absolutely wrong for stealing. We are all poilitically correct and pluralistic when it comes to our ideals about moral subjectivity but are objectivists when we experience the effects of the moral wrong in reality and in our reactions.

Intersubjective does not logically stand up because we know from history and in many cases where even a group, community or even Nation have been wrong with their common views on things. Many people agreeing does not make something right look at Germany in WW2 where they thought they were doing their moral duty in eliminating Jews. So just like an individuals personal view does not say anything about something being absolutely right a group or comunities common view does not say anything about it being absolutely right and therefore they have no right to say another groups opinions are morally wrong and force their common view on others.

Nonsense. Science doesn't distinguish between right and wrong. It's not what it does. The most it can say is "Making someone drink poison X will cause that person to suffer Y effects, so if your goal is to not cause suffering Y to a particular person, then don't give them poison X". It can't say that making someone drink poison is "wrong" or "bad". Whether or not suffering is good or bad in any particular case hinges on the subjective moral systems that individuals and societies have.

I have already explained this several times so now I will leave it to the experts to explain it. In fact I have already posted these links 2 days ago to you which you completely ignored as you did not respond to any of its content which shows you are dismissing everything without even reading it. So I will post it again and suggest you read it before replying next time so you can address what it says. These are people who have experience and expertise in the area we are talking about and have recognition more than you or I.

What you value is reducible to a physical structure in your brain, such that if you changed that structure, you would change what you value, and no changes in what you value are possible without corresponding changes in your brain’s structure. But since values are in that sense empirical facts, even ascertainable scientifically (after all, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and cognitive science, are all engaged in empirically determining the objectively true fact of what certain groups and individuals value), and facts entail things about what we ought to do.
https://www.richardcarrier....

So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion -- that the separation between science and human values is an illusion -- and actually quite a dangerous one at this point in human history. Now, it's often said that science cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values, because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there's no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
https://www.ted.com/talks/s...

Not if he doesn't understand the difference between objective and subjective.

Of course they do they are more qualified than us being scientists and philosophers.

I do not believe this for one second. Post these surveys.

I think you have a lot of research to do. It is becoming quite common for ateists to support objective morality because it is the logical position to take. They just don't say that objective morals come from God.

This comes from a peer reviewed journal.

Poll done on philosophers who supported objective morality
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 /931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 /931 (27.7%)
Other 148 /931 (15.9%)
https://philpapers.org/surv...

A Case For Secular Morality: Objective Morality Without God
A Case For Secular Morality: Objective Morality Without God

The Case for Objective Morality
By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system – we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.
The Case for Objective Morality

 

[stevevw]

Once again it is like the marauder. You can claim that certain people are justified in thinking stealing is OK until they steal from you. Then you will say that they have no right to steal. Like I say people say it is OK for people to have subjective views on certain morals but act objectively.

Sounds more like a pirate who is recognised as being wrong universally by most nations. It is another word for stealing. But what you are hinting at ie because say a person takes his friend's car keys because he is too drunk to drive is a rare justification which is acceptable because it relates to another moral which will be breached which is preserving life.

Once again the justification is being made because we all know that stealing is objective wrong otherwise, we would not bother to make the justification. But this rare justification does not open the door for all personal views about stealing to be OK. The Marauder may say stealing is OK because the rich deserve having their stuff taken and it spreads the wealth like some political statement. But this is unjustified. The problem comes when people begin to try and justify all sorts of things and that is the problem with only taking a subjective position.

To support subjective moral views you would have to support the wrong moral views as well and make a case that people have a right to parade and steal because they honestly believe it is OK. It takes your right to object and say they are wrong and opens the door for people with dangerous views to exist and promote their moral views in society. You cannot stand up and say they are absolutely wrong because that is just your view. It seems self-defeating in any decent society.
Of course, the reality is we do stand up and say people are absolutely wrong with their moral views just like with extremists or with gangs who roam the street stealing peoples cars etc. Tell me if a gang member says that it is OK to take your car and rape your wife/girlfriend would you say they have the right to say their moral view is OK and justified. Or would you say they are wrong no matter what.

I don't understand what you mean. If anything I am making a stand against undesirables by saying they are objectively wrong and should not steal, rape or abuse children.

Ok.[/QUOTE]

Something went wrong here as this is my quotes posted in the place where your replies should be to me.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, he intended to kill him if that is what God wanted, but he had faith that God would resurrect him so his line would not end and Gods promise would remain in effect.




First you have to understand the universal law of justice, we all deserve to die at birth because we are born with a sinful nature and built in rebellion against God we inherited from Adam. So the infants deserved to die because of their sinful nature. But also by taking them before they actually intentionally committed sin because they had not reached the age of accountability they would go to heaven at death and prevent even greater evil by not allowing their evil parents to raise them in evil. The adults of course were allowed to reach adulthood and having time to consider repenting of their sin but they did not and therefore their time is up. God determines when our time is up. So actually He was merciful to the adults because they didn't actually deserve to live to adulthood. As far as the captured virgins, they were betrothed non sexually (they could not have sex until marriage as commended in the Ten Commandments) to the Hebrew men for a temporary time to see if they were compatible. See Deut. 21:10-14.

The fact that you would attempt to justify such evil makes my case. Most Christians know this is wrong, and are unwilling to try to justify it like you; that’s why they are reluctant to take the Bible literally; which is the point I was making.

 

[Ken-1122]

Here are some objective morals I think no one can deny.

It is never OK to Kill for fun
It is never OK to abuse children for fun and
It is never OK to rape a women for fun

Can you show me where a person can be justified to do these things.

If a person believed doing those things for fun was good, how would you prove them wrong?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ken: If I built a huge play pen for my two children, filled it with toys, and put a loaded gun in the middle of it with the toys, but told them they could play with all the toys, but do not play with the gun; would you consider me a loving and responsible parent?

Then I saw my enemy approach my two children in an effort to tempt them to play with the gun, and I do nothing.
Initially they resist my enemy’s temptation due to my instructions, and still I do nothing.
But eventually I witness my enemy cajole my two children into playing Russian Roulette with this gun, and I do nothing but watch them die. For me to take the attitude that they deserved to die because they disobeyed me would be an atrocity. Yet this is the attitude we are supposed to have towards Adam and Eve when they were tempted to eat the fruit by a much wiser Satan

Actually Adam and Eve were fully developed adults at the time so they knew exactly what the serpent was trying to do and what God wanted them to do. They rebelled against God knowing full well what they were doing, this is seen by their reaction after eating the fruit.

ken: Satan and God had a bet going to see if Job could be tempted. In the process with God’s blessing, all of Job’s children were killed. If you see nothing wrong with this, how could you call morality objective?

God brought greater good out of evil. Job was able to reap great spiritual benefit from what happened and had more children in addition. And all the humans that have read the book in the thousands of years since have reaped great spiritual reward from the story. Although it was sad that his children died it was Just for them to do so as I explained in my previous post.

ken: God sent the Angel of death to kill all the first born just to get to the King. You see nothing wrong with this? If God wanted the Israelites freed, all he had to do was put the Egyptians in a deep sleep and allow the Israelites to escape into the desert while the army slept. He could have softened the Pharaoh’s heart instead of hardening it, there were many ways he could have freed the Israelites without blood shed; only a monster would proclaim those children deserved to die

If he had done something like that very few of the Egyptians would have seen the power of God and convert, but according to the bible many Egyptians actually joined the Hebrews and traveled to the Promised land and probably converted to Judaism and ended up in heaven. Not all of them were children some were adults who had done evil things and as far as the children they would have been raised by their pagan parents and gone to hell but instead if they were taken before the age of accountability they went to heaven.

ken: Abraham Lincoln once said; Have I not annihilated my enemies by making them my friends?
After we defeated Germany, we made the citizens our friends; and they are our friends even to this day.

That is true of many but also many citizens were punished by both the US and Germany.

ken: Jonah and the Whale
So a man spent 3 days in the belly of a Whale without any air supply? Forget about the fact that a whale’s throat is so small due to the small fish they eat, a human cannot pass through; but how was he supposed to breath?

Actually sperm whales eat 30 foot giant squid, so plainly a 6 foot man could easily go down their throat. And God may have caused them to swallow air every so often which would have provided him air to breathe. Also, this may have been some mutated whale or fish that God designed specifically for this purpose, we don't really know but could easily have been done by the creator of this universe.

 

[stevevw]

If a person believed doing those things for fun was good, how would you prove them wrong?

I think everyone knows that say abusing a child for fun is never OK. It is written in everyones laws and those who don't have them are condemned by the Declaration of the. Rights of the Child of 1924.

Article 19 of the Convention provides the Convention’s central and most comprehensive understanding of child protection.
This article states that ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.’

Apart from this as I mentioned we candetermine wrong by whether it effects a persons wellbeing through scientific assessment of human behavior, psychology, genetics, neurology and other scientific disiplines that ass whether an action causes damage to a persons wellbeing. There are black and white criteria for what effects a persons wellbeing and it is not up to personal opinion. Once it is established that the moral act hurts a persons wellbeing then that moralact is judged as morally wrong regardless of personal views.

The simple question is do you think abusing a child hurts the child and effects their wellbeing. If so uthat is an objectivly wrong moral. It is not about whether you can find a person or group who that thinks abusing a child is OK like the underground paedophilia groups who think sexually abusing a child is OK. It is whether that act is truly morally good. I think you can count out 100% of anyones belief that abusing a child is good and therefore declare absuing a child for fun or any purpose is never OK and is a moral objective becuase it stands regardless of human opinion.

 

[stevevw]

The fact that you would attempt to justify such evil makes my case. Most Christians know this is wrong, and are unwilling to try to justify it like you; that’s why they are reluctant to take the Bible literally; which is the point I was making.

It is ironic that you are so concerned about the morality of Christians that you want to make judgements about their morals. Except on what basis do you make your judgement. Is it not your subjective moral view that you think Christians and the old testament are wrong. If so your judgements means nothing and have no ultimate value as to whether God, the stories in the old testament and Christians are truly morally wrong.

I mean you were just trying to justify that abusing a child is a valid moral for someone with a subjective moral view so what's the difference. This is what I mean by people speak and claim subjective moral positions but act and react like morals are objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

God brought greater good out of evil. Job was able to reap great spiritual benefit from what happened and had more children in addition. And all the humans that have read the book in the thousands of years since have reaped great spiritual reward from the story. Although it was sad that his children died it was Just for them to do so as I explained in my previous post.

Why would you bring up the fact that he was able to replace his murdered children by having more children? Do you think this justifies their murder? Many people have been turned off by Christianity because of this story, and stories like this in the thousands of years since also.

If he had done something like that very few of the Egyptians would have seen the power of God and convert, but according to the bible many Egyptians actually joined the Hebrews and traveled to the Promised land and probably converted to Judaism and ended up in heaven. Not all of them were children some were adults who had done evil things and as far as the children they would have been raised by their pagan parents and gone to hell but instead if they were taken before the age of accountability they went to heaven.

To witness the plagues was enough to convert any Egyptian who wanted to convert; murdering children was not necessary. And I find your idea that murdering these children before the age of accountability as a good thing to prevent them from going to Hell an evil mindset that can only be compared to ISIS.

And to think you believe morality is OBJECTIVE???

 

[Ken-1122]

I think everyone knows that say abusing a child for fun is never OK. It is written in everyones laws and those who don't have them are condemned by the Declaration of the. Rights of the Child of 1924.

That declaration doesn’t condemn anyone unless they act on those beliefs. To simply believe it is of no consequence. Again; if someone believed this was good, how would you prove them wrong?

Apart from this as I mentioned we candetermine wrong by whether it effects a persons wellbeing through scientific assessment of human behavior, psychology, genetics, neurology and other scientific disiplines that ass whether an action causes damage to a persons wellbeing. There are black and white criteria for what effects a persons wellbeing and it is not up to personal opinion. Once it is established that the moral act hurts a persons wellbeing then that moralact is judged as morally wrong regardless of personal views.

First of all, “wrong” has NEVER been determined by whether it effects a persons wellbeing through a scientific assessment of human behavior, and if it were such a criteria would be far from black and white.

The simple question is do you think abusing a child hurts the child and effects their wellbeing.

What constitutes “hurting a child that effects their wellbeing?”
Does Forcing your child to go to a public school against his will hurt a child?
Does forcing him to go to Church or Sunday school hurt a child?
Does telling him lies concerning Santa Clause hurt a child?
Does forcing him to get vaccinated hurt a child?
Does preventing your child from playing “collision sports” hurt a child?

What black and white scientific assessments supports your position on these issues?

 

[Ken-1122]

It is ironic that you are so concerned about the morality of Christians that you want to make judgements about their morals.

I am not concerned about the morality of Christians, only that particular Christian I was responding to. Anybody who attempts to justify evil concerns me.

Except on what basis do you make your judgement.

As an intelligent being, I know the difference between good and evil. What this particular person was trying to justify was evil.

Is it not your subjective moral view that you think Christians and the old testament are wrong.

No. I believe this particular Christian and the specific stories mentioned in the Old Testament are wrong. Do you agree?

If so your judgements means nothing and have no ultimate value as to whether God, the stories in the old testament and Christians are truly morally wrong.

My judgment obviously means something to me, and it apparently means enough to you to get you to respond

I mean you were just trying to justify that abusing a child is a valid moral for someone with a subjective moral view so what's the difference.

I think you are confusing me with the person I was debating with. He was suggesting it is good to murder children before the age of consent who are being raised by pagan parents, so they can go to Heaven. You don't agree with this do you?

This is what I mean by people speak and claim subjective moral positions but act and react like morals are objective.

I do agree people speak and act like morality is Objective. Everybody will say, “this is wrong” rather than “I believe this is wrong”. So I agree with you there, but just because everyone acts as if morality is objective doesn’t mean it is.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Ok.

Something went wrong here as this is my quotes posted in the place where your replies should be to me.

It is extremely painful that you think shared, agreed upon pathos is objectivity. Extremely painful.

The reason why it is so painful is because at this point I feel like you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between a consensual working system of codes and ethics, and objectivity in practice. And, it seems as if you are choosing to ignore this fundamental difference in order to substantiate your argument.

It isn't even a philosophical argument anymore; your evidence for morality categorically implies subjectivity. There is no objectivity in morality; the very etymology and denotation of the word implies subjectivity.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I do agree people speak and act like morality is Objective. Everybody will say, “this is wrong” rather than “I believe this is wrong”. So I agree with you there, but just because everyone acts as if morality is objective doesn’t mean it is.

Exactly.

It is very dangerous to assume objectivity or truth in consensus. It is even more dangerous to base it on pathos.

 

[stevevw]

Exactly.

It is very dangerous to assume objectivity or truth in consensus. It is even more dangerous to base it on pathos.

I agree and that is the point I was making with subjective morality. It is often claimed that because a group of people, an organisation such as NATO for example or even a Nation agree on something morally that they must be right. The example of Nazi Germany comes to mind. We have seen many examples like smoking was ok, violence in the media does not do harm, even today there is an ongoing debate about pot legalisation. Normally a small powerful group with vested interest will push their case and influence others to get their way and we are seeing that with pot. Eventually pot will become more and more legal and we will find in 20 or 30 years time that it was the wrong decision.

 

[stevevw]

It is extremely painful that you think shared, agreed upon pathos is objectivity. Extremely painful.

The reason why it is so painful is because at this point I feel like you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between a consensual working system of codes and ethics, and objectivity in practice. And, it seems as if you are choosing to ignore this fundamental difference in order to substantiate your argument.

It isn't even a philosophical argument anymore; your evidence for morality categorically implies subjectivity. There is no objectivity in morality; the very etymology and denotation of the word implies subjectivity.

Then how come I have showed you on several occassions examples of objective moral positions and you cannot show me that they are not subjective. Such as it is never OK to absue children or it is never OK to rape women for fun. Why have you not shown any valid dispute about the links I have posted about how certain moral acts can be measured scientifically to show that they are wrong no matter what personal views, tastes and opinion people have.

A challenge. Show me how someone can commit the above moral acts and justify they are good to do.

Show me how the above moral acts do not effect a persons wellbeing and in doing so it is not morally wrong.

Ifyou cannot then the above moral acts are objective wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I am not concerned about the morality of Christians, only that particular Christian I was responding to. Anybody who attempts to justify evil concerns me.

So when a subjective moral position makes raping a women an acceptable moral view at the table of moral positions is not that a concern. By inviting this position to the table you are more or less inviting trouble.

As an intelligent being, I know the difference between good and evil. What this particular person was trying to justify was evil.

But under subjective morals you dont know what is ultimately good or evil becuase subjective morality cannot know that. If you claim you absolutely know what good and evil is enough to make a judgemnet of them then you are claiming objective morality. So you can only judge them based on your opinion which says nothing about whether that person ois absolutely good or bad.

No. I believe this particular Christian and the specific stories mentioned in the Old Testament are wrong. Do you agree?

It is not a case as to whether I believe or not. It is a case that you believe it is evil and believing is not knowing for sure that it is absolutely evil.

All I can say on the stories in the old testament is there may be things we do not know about why God did things. Judging God is different to judging people becuaseGod is the creator. Because God is all good there can be no evil in Him so it would be a contradiction. The followers of God knowing this would be placing a contradictory story into a holy book and would have therefore made the story look good or not put it in in the first place. To justify something as evil we have to know everything there is to know and I do not think we can know everything as humans otherwise we are making judgements on misunderstandings.

My judgment obviously means something to me, and it apparently means enough to you to get you to respond

Your judgement means everything to you but we have to know our limitations. Sometimes we may be influenced by biases or things like power and money that causes us to not be truly independent or we just do not know all the information and circumstances to make a good judgement.

I think you are confusing me with the person I was debating with. He was suggesting it is good to murder children before the age of consent who are being raised by pagan parents, so they can go to Heaven. You don't agree with this do you?

Of course not. The belief is a deluded one just like ISIS who believe certain things. Often people like that are caught out as they end up contradicting their own belief. This relates to the video I posted earlier about determining the truth in religious belief.

I was basing what I said that you were saying abusing children was an acceptable moral view on what you said about people with thoise views believe that they are right and we can never say that they are absolutely wrong. If you cannot say that a person who abuses children is absolutely wrong then you are also saying that they maybe right and justified in their morsal position. You were defending mauraders right to steal as a moral position at the table of morals so what is the difference in applying the same logic to child abusers.

I do agree people speak and act like morality is Objective. Everybody will say, “this is wrong” rather than “I believe this is wrong”. So I agree with you there, but just because everyone acts as if morality is objective doesn’t mean it is.

Yes but come on honestly, actions speak louder than words. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck. That would make everyone hypocrites of their own moral positions.