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

[Ken-1122]

Yes, but probably since He knew we were going to choose evil, He did not want us to spread it to other planets. That was one reason He flooded the earth because we were getting too evil.

At first you said he probably wanted us to colonize other planets, now you are saying he didn’t want us to colonize other planets; which is it?

No, but 100% of people I have met including ex cons I know do not have your view of love. How do you tell the difference between love and hate? Do believe Hate Crimes exist? If so, Should Love Crimes be treated differently? If not, why?

How do you define love?

Why? If they did it out of love?

Because he is mentally ill and causes harm to others.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In other words; you are not going to answer my question. Why am I not surprised?

I did answer your question. The problem is your selective reading. I did not provide an answer you accepted so you disregarded it. Likewise, if there is ever a biblical interpretation that disagrees with your assumptions, you disregard it. So again, reread the post and at least try to focus on the last section that begins with "However,". I know you can do it. I have faith in you.

Edit: I took the liberty of bolding and underlining the section that may appear to be invisible to you.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Except for the fact that this is not what was happening.

Yes it is. Once again, if their choice was between marriage and sex with their captors or starvation, and their captors brought about that circumstance themselves, that is coercion. Coerced sex is rape.

You are just trying to force the scripture to mean something that isn't there.

Nope. That was would be you. You need the scripture to say something other than what it says, because Yahweh is, purportedly, the basis of your moral philosophy.

So you, like all biblical apologists, are stuck having to argue that rape isn't rape. And slavery isn't slavery. And infanticide isn't infanticide. And so forth. Engaging in apologetics for the most despicable of human behaviors.

Here is another example. If a Japanese woman became widowed as a result of her husband's fighting for the imperial army and later chooses to marry a U.S. soldier, is that Japanese woman being raped?

Another garbage analogy. Let me fix it for you, again,

Did that soldier kill not only her husband, but every single other potential husband where she lived? Did he then pillage all her possessions? Did he then personally take her captive? Under captivity, did he then force upon her circumstances such that her choices came down to either marriage and sex or starvation?

There. Now it's an honest comparison.

And the answer, in this case, is yes. Coerced sex is rape.

And I will ask you the same question I asked Manchild. How is your subjective secular moral standard superior to mine or anyone else?

My standard isn't subjective. It's objective. Harm is objectively quantifiable. But I don't even need to go there to answer the question.

Here's my answer:

Your moral philosophy necessitates rape apologetics. Mine doesn't.

I can stop right there. For that reason alone, mine is better than yours.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Nope. That was would be you. You need the scripture to say something other than what it says, because Yahweh is, purportedly, the basis of your moral philosophy. So you, like all biblical apologists, are stuck having to argue that rape isn't rape. And slavery isn't slavery. And infanticide isn't infanticide. And so forth.

Then prove it. Show me exactly where it specifically says the women were forced to marry their captors? Show me exactly where it says they are raped? Until you can do that, you are the only one reading into scripture things that are not there.

Yes it is. Once again, if their choice was between marriage and sex with their captors or starvation, and their captors brought about that circumstance themselves, that is coercion. Coerced sex is rape.

Show me the scripture passage which specifically says that they were coerced into marriage by their captors.

Nope. That was would be you. You need the scripture to say something other than what it says, because Yahweh is, purportedly, the basis of your moral philosophy. So you, like all biblical apologists, are stuck having to argue that rape isn't rape. And slavery isn't slavery. And infanticide isn't infanticide. And so forth.

Again, prove it. Cite the scripture which specifically says that the women were coerced into marriage by their captors?

Another garbage analogy. Let me fix it for you, again,

Did that soldier kill not only her husband, but every single other potential husband where she lived? Did he then pillage all her possessions? Did he then personally take her captive? Under captivity, did he then force upon her circumstances such that her choices came down to either marriage and sex or starvation?

And did that woman work as a servant for their captors and received care and protection as the law required. And was the woman also able to receive free food from any farmer's field to keep her alive. And if the woman chose to marry that soldier, she became a U.S. citizen with full benefits of U.S. citizenship?

There. Now it's a more honest comparison.

your moral philosophy necessitates rape apologetics. Mine doesn't.

Nobody is advocating rape. You are still beating up strawmen.

I can stop right there, actually. For that reason alone, mine is better.

That's a lovely opinion of yours. But explain why your opinion is superior to someone else who disagrees? Is it just because you say so? Because the current established majority have declared it so? By what authority (other than your personal opinion and your superiority complex) is your view of morality declared to be superior to anyone else?

 

[Belk]

Nowhere does it say that the woman would perish?

Then why did you claim that to be the case?

They, for the most part, depended on a husband to provide for them. Many did willingly choose to marry and assimilate into Israelite cultures as opposed to starving.

Ruth, a widowed Moabite woman went to work gleaning the fields of Boaz. There were also commandments which required every farmer to leave 10% of their harvest for the poor. A Moabite woman willingly choosing to marry an Israelite man and assimilate into Israelite society because she was not content with their standard of living situation does not equal rape. This is no different than the widow of a Japanese Imperial soldier choosing to marry a U.S. soldier for the sole purpose of improving her livelihood.

And I will ask you the same question I asked Manchild. How is your subjective secular moral standard superior to mine or anyone else?

Let us deal with your own claims first. Then we can shift the focus to my thoughts on ethics.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then why did you claim that to be the case?
Perhaps that was my fault for not being more specific. "Starve" was intended to mean to suffer from extreme hunger. Not to perish from lack of food. Both are valid definitions so it is my fault for not clarifying.




Let us deal with your own claims first. Then we can shift the focus to my thoughts on ethics.

 

[Belk]

Perhaps that was my fault for not being more specific. "Starve" was intended to mean to suffer from extreme hunger. Not to perish from lack of food. Both are valid definitions so it is my fault for not clarifying.

Suffer from extreme hunger...

I see

So to paraphrase your earlier claims you think these women would marry the men who just slaughtered their entire family because they are feeling a might peckish?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I notice you've dropped the tactic of trying to maintain that coerced sex is 'my definition' of rape. Maybe you googled it, looked up some of the legal precedence, that sort of thing.

Good for you. I call that progress.

Then prove it.

Why? You already said it yourself. They married to avoid starving. Are you now rescinding that?

It doesn't make too much difference to me if you do. I am still unable to bring myself to the level of childlike naivete that would read 'take for yourselves all the females who have not known a man', and think that means...what, exactly? Take them to play patty-cake with?

And did that woman work as a servant for their captors and received care and protection as the law required. And was the woman also able to receive free food from any farmer's field to keep her alive. And if the woman chose to marry that soldier, she became a U.S. citizen with full benefits of U.S. citizenship?

I notice you didn't actually dispute that she was raped, in the honest comparison I made. So I am forced to conclude that it is your position that if a rapist feeds, employs, and gives citizenship to his victim, then that excuses the rape.

Please tell me you're not a judge.

Nobody is advocating rape. You are still beating up strawmen.

No one is claiming you are advocating rape. That is a strawman.

What you are doing is attempting to hold up the Bible as a source for morality. The Bible contains sanctioned atrocities, and it is precisely because you don't advocate such atrocities that you have to become an apologist for them, arguing that they are not really atrocities.

That's a lovely opinion of yours. But explain why your opinion is superior to someone else who disagrees?

You are rather stumblingly attempting to switch into offense mode, I see.

Here's the thing - I could be someone who actually believes that atrocities are good, and I would still be able to come at you with an internal critique of your moral philosophy. Because I know that you don't believe atrocities are good, and yet here you are endorsing a holy book that depicts them being sanctioned from on high.

Just one of the many, many reasons I reject your moral philosophy out of hand.

 

[Ken-1122]

I did answer your question. The problem is your selective reading. I did not provide an answer you accepted so you disregarded it. Likewise, if there is ever a biblical interpretation that disagrees with your assumptions, you disregard it. So again, reread the post and at least try to focus on the last section that begins with "However,". I know you can do it. I have faith in you.

Edit: I took the liberty of bolding and underlining the section that may appear to be invisible to you.

Here is my point. If you believe morality is objective, that means whatever moral act deemed immoral will be immoral today, tomorrow, yesterday, a thousand years from now, or a thousand years ago. It is immoral no matter the situation, who does it, or what the intent was.

So if you deem the actions of Moses, Saul, or other Biblical military leaders justified, that would mean those same actions would have to be deemed justified today! If you find those actions immoral if done today, that would mean you would have to condemn those actions when Moses, Saul, and others when they did them thousands of years ago. My question is; do you condemn the actions of Moses when he defeated the Midianites, the actions of Saul when he fought the Amalekites, and the many other acts of genocide people did in the bible claiming to speak for God? Or would you justify what they did and justify the United States doing it to another country if we were at war today.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Suffer from extreme hunger...

I see

So to paraphrase your earlier claims you think these women would marry the men who just slaughtered their entire family because they are feeling a might peckish?

It's not "what I think". Read the book of Ruth yourself.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The book of Ruth simply doesn't apply. She wasn't starving. Indeed she meets Boaz while gleaning the fields. It was evidently enough to keep her and Naomi fed. True they were destitute, but they didn't require Ruth's marriage to survive.

Second, in no way did Boaz cause Ruth's plight.

The marriage made Ruth and Naomi's life easy, one may presume, but A) it wasn't necessary, B) some tellers consider Ruth a love story in any case.

No parallels to marrying a man who slaughtered your family.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So if you deem the actions of Moses, Saul, or other Biblical military leaders justified, that would mean those same actions would have to be deemed justified today!
If you find those actions immoral if done today, that would mean you would have to condemn those actions when Moses, Saul, and others when they did them thousands of years ago. My question is; do you condemn the actions of Moses when he defeated the Midianites, the actions of Saul when he fought the Amalekites, and the many other acts of genocide people did in the bible claiming to speak for God? Or would you justify what they did and justify the United States doing it to another country if we were at war today.

Was Moses commanded by God? Yes. And according to the Christian world view, who is the only one allowed to take life or give others authority to take life? Well...that would be God. So did Moses and the Israelites murder an entire people but a remaining few? No, because they were given authorization. If God told people today to do the same thing, it still wouldn't be murder. Remember back when i was asked me about the 9/11 hijackers? Yeah...if Allah and the God of Mohammed is indeed the one true God and this God did in fact command terrorist to fly a plane into a building, that would have been the right thing to do. I know that sounds cruel and heartless, but facts a cruel and heartless and cares nothing about your feelings.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The book of Ruth simply doesn't apply. She wasn't starving. Indeed she meets Boaz while gleaning the fields. It was evidently enough to keep her and Naomi fed. True they were destitute, but they didn't require Ruth's marriage to survive.

Second, in no way did Boaz cause Ruth's plight.

The marriage made Ruth and Naomi's life easy, one may presume, but A) it wasn't necessary, B) some tellers consider Ruth a love story in any case.

No parallels to marrying a man who slaughtered your family.

Well, this is what the bible says life was like for the moabite women. I hope you are not too upset about the fact that there is a lack of rape going on in the story. But the book of Ruth is a much clearer account than what is being assumed here on this thread. Now can we please leave this poor strawman alone? I am starting to feel bad for him.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Naomi was not a Moabite. She was a Jew. The only reason Ruth was there at all was to care for her MIL. The situation in Moab was fine when they left. Ruth had the option of returning whether or not Naomi went with her.

If there is a straw man here, the signature of the artist is "jason_delisle".

 

[Belk]

It's not "what I think". Read the book of Ruth yourself.

What does the book of Ruth say that you feel is relevant? I'm not going to read a book in the hopes it supports your position. If You feel it does then tell me how.

 

[Ken-1122]

Was Moses commanded by God? Yes. And according to the Christian world view, who is the only one allowed to take life or give others authority to take life? Well...that would be God. So did Moses and the Israelites murder an entire people but a remaining few? No, because they were given authorization. If God told people today to do the same thing, it still wouldn't be murder. Remember back when i was asked me about the 9/11 hijackers? Yeah...if Allah and the God of Mohammed is indeed the one true God and this God did in fact command terrorist to fly a plane into a building, that would have been the right thing to do. I know that sounds cruel and heartless, but facts a cruel and heartless and cares nothing about your feelings.

Doesn’t that that goes against the idea that morality is objective? Or do you believe morality is subjective. If God said 1+1=3, or that aluminum weighs more than lead; God would be wrong because math and the weight of metals are objective, not subjective. So if “X” is objectively wrong, it would be wrong even if God says it is right. So are you now saying morality is subjective?

 

[Strathos]

Doesn’t that that goes against the idea that morality is objective? Or do you believe morality is subjective. If God said 1+1=3, or that aluminum weighs more than lead; God would be wrong because math and the weight of metals are objective, not subjective. So if “X” is objectively wrong, it would be wrong even if God says it is right. So are you now saying morality is subjective?

Morality is complex. General principles can often help lead you to the morally correct option, but not always.

Let's use an analogy here. In chess, there are many general rules that players are advised to follow (don't trade your queen for a less valuable piece, don't expose your king to attack, control the center of the board in the opening, create passed pawns in the endgame, etc.) All of these rules are intended to help you win the game. But there are situations where they don't apply. Often if an amateur player is facing off against a master or a computer engine, the latter will make a move that violates one or more of these rules, and makes no sense to the amateur. But it turns out that it was actually a good move, as it had a deeper purpose that the amateur couldn't see until it was too late.

Now imagine you have a perfect chess player, who knows every possible move in every possible position, and exactly how to win any game. Our perfect player can get away with moves that seem to make no sense at all at first, because he knows they will lead to a winning position in the end. But for fallible human players, it makes more sense to stick to the general principles, as they can't know everything like the perfect player.

 

[Ken-1122]

Morality is complex. General principles can often help lead you to the morally correct option, but not always.

Let's use an analogy here. In chess, there are many general rules that players are advised to follow (don't trade your queen for a less valuable piece, don't expose your king to attack, control the center of the board in the opening, create passed pawns in the endgame, etc.) All of these rules are intended to help you win the game. But there are situations where they don't apply. Often if an amateur player is facing off against a master or a computer engine, the latter will make a move that violates one or more of these rules, and makes no sense to the amateur. But it turns out that it was actually a good move, as it had a deeper purpose that the amateur couldn't see until it was too late.

Now imagine you have a perfect chess player, who knows every possible move in every possible position, and exactly how to win any game. Our perfect player can get away with moves that seem to make no sense at all at first, because he knows they will lead to a winning position in the end. But for fallible human players, it makes more sense to stick to the general principles, as they can't know everything like the perfect player.

So are you saying morality is objective, or subjective?

 

[Strathos]

So are you saying morality is objective, or subjective?

It's objective, but we can't know what the objectively moral thing to do is in any and all circumstances.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's objective, but we can't know what the objectively moral thing to do is in any and all circumstances.

Then how do you know it's objective? I know 1+1=2 because I can demonstrate math as objective. I know Lead is heavier than aluminum because I can weigh them thus proving which is heavier. Anything objective has to be demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate that which is moral or immoral, how can you call it objective, rather than subjective?