The source of moral obligation

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes there is a lot of confusion. Thats why I think it can be hard to pin down a clear and simple meaning. Thats why I personally believe that we need to have a set of morals that we can trust and turn to that will help us united and make it clear about what is good and bad. It just makes sense so everyone is on the same page and it stops all the silly stuff that people try to get away with.

Regardless of whether ethical subjectivism is true or not, there will still be disagreement over what is moral. Even being objective, it seems that moral claims would not be free from contention.

Secular laws dont go into detail about our social lives and no law can control that. But a good set of morals can help guide people to live a better life.

Yes, they can. Ethical subjectivism doesn't change that.

Not just a better life but one that can avoid problems that can lead to the laws being broken. Thats where I think Gods laws can do that but people thing its encroaching on their liberties to much. If they only knew that it can lead to a happy and healthy life as well. God is all knowing so He knows what is best for us.

That's assuming that there is a God who cares about human affairs. Even if there were such a being, unless he makes himself apparent and his laws crystal clear, we are still left with fallible human beings telling us what they think God wants of us. Religious morality doesn't resolve moral disagreement, which seems to be your biggest concern. It merely shifts the focus from whether something is good to whether God desires us to do it or not. Moral questions thus become theological questions, and we are left to wonder about how we should make progress on them.

 

[stevevw]

Regardless of whether ethical subjectivism is true or not, there will still be disagreement over what is moral. Even being objective, it seems that moral claims would not be free from contention.

Of course, as a Christian I have to abide by some morals which are hard to do and are in contradiction to secular society. Even Christians will debate about Gods morals and have some disagreements and personal views about them. It can be like a kid sometimes who doesn't agree or understand about his parents rules and will say its not fair. The dad can say its for your own good son that we have these rules and the son can get all upset about being treated so strict.

Yes, they can. Ethical subjectivism doesn't change that.

Secular laws may not tell us that sex outside marriage is morally wrong. But Christian morals will. Ethical standards may but then its not arbitrary. You can have a couple at work who start seeing each other and one is still married. The employer is not going to sack them for that. But to a Christian this is wrong. In some ways secular society almost promotes extra marital affairs. If you look at gossip mags they will have the latest affair married or not of Hollywood stars on the front cover. Thats because its a good selling story that people like.

That's assuming that there is a God who cares about human affairs. Even if there were such a being, unless he makes himself apparent and his laws crystal clear, we are still left with fallible human beings telling us what they think God wants of us. Religious morality doesn't resolve moral disagreement, which seems to be your biggest concern. It merely shifts the focus from whether something is good to whether God desires us to do it or not. Moral questions thus become theological questions, and we are left to wonder about how we should make progress on them.

I believe that God does make it clear in Jesus Christ. It couldn't be clearer. I believe He does care as the main message is that He loved us so much that He gave His Son that we might be saved. Even if you say that this is made up by man its certainly a good thing they have made up. There is nothing wrong with it. Everything that Jesus teaches and shows by example is for good living and makes good sense.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken-1122

It sounds like more than an opinion. You are taking a position as well.

My position IS my opinion

Thats what I dont get. People will say that subjectivity allows for many views and each person has a right to believe and see things their way. All views are valid and there is no absolute single truth. Then at the same time someone can claim to know the truth of a matter and state that another person is wrong and they are right then qualify it all under subjectivity by says, " its just my opinion". That sounds like your trying to have a bet each way.

When I say “you are wrong” I am voicing my opinion; I am not necessarily claiming it as fact.

Because I am not relying on my own views about morality. You and humanity is relying on their views and we know that humans are fallible. They cannot know everything and therefore will get it wrong. God knows all and in Jesus we have an example who did not sin. So there was no morally wrong in Jesus. Because of this He is just and worthy to be sitting in Judgement. God made the laws of right and wrong because He is God the creator of everything.

I agree humans are flawed, but can you provide proof that God and Jesus are not as well? I know you’ve got a book that claims this, but suppose I wrote a book that says I’m perfect? Would you believe me then? Why should I believe you?

It is logical that if we go off the track so much with human subjective views about morality that it make sense to have a single and united set of morals that is claimed to be the truth about right and wrong. This would help us by giving us the right direction for what is best for us as far as right and wrong is concerned. We just have to decide if its trustworthy.

But if humans are the supreme moral being currently known; logic tells us anything non human is going to be an inferior moral base. It is absolutely paramount that right and wrong is based upon human morality, anything else will be inferior to what we have now.

I dont think its as black and white as that.

I disagree! When it comes to weather morality is objective vs subjective; it is as black and white as that

We are actually talking about whether that moral has one true strict meaning to make it objective.

And who decides that one true strict meaning to make it objective? Humm….. let me guess; you/your God??? But I think me/my God should decide.

So what happens to the other moral of not allowing the killer to take the life of your family. Wont you be guilty of a greater wrong.

I am not refuting the fact that sometimes you have to kill to accomplish the greater good; I’m refuting the fact that you can do this and still call it objective.

Thats the problem we should have a measure. Otherwise we are headed for disaster.

And whose measure do we use? Mine/my God? Yours/your God? The other guys/the other guys God? So much for morality being objective huh?

Ken

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What if God commands it of you?

Why not just ask me what I would do if an atheist walked up to me and commanded me to believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate?

It's simply not something they would do, right?

The Christian does not have to be concerned with what his response would be if God commanded him to torture babies for fun my friend. It's simply not something God would do.

 

[variant]

The Christian does not have to be concerned with what his response would be if God commanded him to torture babies for fun my friend. It's simply not something God would do.

Just so long as God doesn't need you to go smite Amalek.

Killing (if not torturing) babies is moral if God commands it according to Jeremy E Walker:

You say it is wicked.

Do you think you would say the same thing if your children and your grandparents had been raped and murdered by Amalek's soldiers..

You would have not even have had time to bury their bodies, much less properly mourn their gruesome end.

You would have had to watch helplessly as your loved one's were brutally cut down and ravished by godless, evil savages.

Maybe you should look more into who the Amalekites were and what they did to the weak and defenseless of Israel as they sojourned up out of Egypt. Maybe it will help you put things into perspective a little better.

I promise you if you were on the receiving end of Amalek's deeds, you would have been begging and pleading with God to avenge your loved one's and right the wrongs done to you.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7853411/#post66715657

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Just so long as God doesn't need you to go smite Amalek.

I take it you think the command to smite the Amalekites is analogous to the command to torture babies for fun.

If so, why think this?

 

[variant]

I take it you think the command to smite the Amalekites is analogous to the command to torture babies for fun.

If so, why think this?

Oh no I just find genocide, seriously morally reprehensible.

You seemed to agree earlier when you brought up the Natzi's slaughter of Jews. But I remembered a conversation where you gave a sincere defense of God ordained Genocide.

Should I take this to mean that I should be careful not to pay attention to the "for fun" qualification, as this could mean you aren't against torturing babies in all cases?

 

[stevevw]

Ken-1122

Fair enough

When I say “you are wrong” I am voicing my opinion; I am not necessarily claiming it as fact.

Ok I think I understand. But it sort of creates a double meaning which can cause some confusion. Its like some could take it as what it sounds like that you are making a definite statemnet about who is wrong and who is right.

I agree humans are flawed, but can you provide proof that God and Jesus are not as well? I know you’ve got a book that claims this, but suppose I wrote a book that says I’m perfect? Would you believe me then? Why should I believe you?

Thats where it comes down to faith and this is the crux of the matter. There is no way I am going to be able to show you this apart from trying to explain some logic and reasoning about if we are flawed as humans then it makes sense to have some sort of instruction out there for us to follow a way where we can find the answers and best way to live. But this is all related to whether you believe in God as creator and made us in the first place. The fall of man and how sin affects us and Him sending His Son to save us. But apart from that its just makes sense that if there is truth and justice and meaning to life then there can be a truthful way to do things. Certainly if we can say that man is fallible then at least the version of Jesus is pretty good. It doesn't have any bad things and promotes a good way of life even if you say its made up.

But if humans are the supreme moral being currently known; logic tells us anything non human is going to be an inferior moral base. It is absolutely paramount that right and wrong is based upon human morality, anything else will be inferior to what we have now.

Well so far we have not made a good job of it. We are destroying our planet and we have been in constant conflict. We have millions dying of disease and starvation. We keep saying we are doing the right thing but years later we find it wasn't so good. Even now the decisions we make and the things we allow will cost us in the future and I dont trust them those who make these decisions on my behalf. As a Christian I know that some of the things we have allowed now are going to hurt us in the future.

I disagree! When it comes to weather morality is objective vs subjective; it is as black and white as that

Fair enough.

And who decides that one true strict meaning to make it objective? Humm….. let me guess; you/your God??? But I think me/my God should decide.

Yes that is what I believe. But I cant make anyone else believe that. Even God allows us free will as he knows that people will disagree and have their own views. But that still doesn't take away that God has His way and He showed us that through Jesus. We had a disconnect through sin and now we have a clear way in Jesus. Whether you believe that or not is up to you and that is where faith and trust comes in. But at least we can say that the way is out there for people to see and decide on. Jesus never came to take over like a war lord or dictator. He has shown the way through example and its up to us. Gods way would not work by forcing people to follow His way. The message has to be told and shown by example. But the important thing is it has to be out there as a clear choice for people to see as a way out of their situations of sin and death.

I am not refuting the fact that sometimes you have to kill to accomplish the greater good; I’m refuting the fact that you can do this and still call it objective.

The main thing is moral objectives are true independent of human views. What I have explained still allows this to be the case. The only allowance for Gods morals to be compromised is by another greater moral good from Gods morals and not from any human view or interpretation. So this maintains them as independent and outside any human subjective opinions.

And whose measure do we use? Mine/my God? Yours/your God? The other guys/the other guys God? So much for morality being objective huh?

The important thing is we realize that some measure would be good. The next step is to decide what that measure is. We can use logic and reasoning to work this out. But we would just allow anything. Truth has to be our main aim. But how do we know what is true. I believe we do have that truth within us and we can tap into it when we are honest with ourselves. Like I said everyone will react similar when they are wronged. Its OK to say that others can have liberal views about sex outside marriage but when it happens to us we think its wrong or at least feel we are wronged in some way like there's this injustice of some sort. But we can weed out a lot of other gods by using some reason and logic and home it down to a fairly narrow set of good basic morals. Most peoples idea of morals is pretty close to what God has said.

 

[Freodin]

So it seems we have established to core of objective morality: it is wrong to torture babies for fun.

I wonder why this was never mentioned in the Bible? So many commandments... but this core one got left out.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Oh no I just find genocide, seriously morally reprehensible.

Are you an atheistic metaphysical naturalist? Yes or no?

You seemed to agree earlier when you brought up the Natzi's slaughter of Jews. But I remembered a conversation where you gave a sincere defense of God ordained Genocide.

The Israelites were right in obeying God's command to destroy the Amalekites. This is my position. The Nazis were wrong for exterminating Jews.

Should I take this to mean that I should be careful not to pay attention to the "for fun" qualification, as this could mean you aren't against torturing babies in all cases?

I am a Divine Command Theorist. God's commands constitute our moral obligations and they are expressions of God's nature as the Summum Bonum or Highest Good.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So it seems we have established to core of objective morality: it is wrong to torture babies for fun.

I wonder why this was never mentioned in the Bible? So many commandments... but this core one got left out.

It is covered under the "Big Two".

Check them out sometime.

 

[Kylie]

Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?

Ourselves.

That was too easy. Any others?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why not just ask me what I would do if an atheist walked up to me and commanded me to believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate?

It's simply not something they would do, right?

The Christian does not have to be concerned with what his response would be if God commanded him to torture babies for fun my friend. It's simply not something God would do.

How do you know that? If God can command Abraham to slay his son, why is it inconceivable for him to ask you to do something wicked? If he can command people to slaughter men, women and children, then why is it inconceivable that he could command you to torture an infant? We are talking about a deity that drowned the entire world and you say, with total conviction, that torture is not something he would condone or order? Again, I put the question to you, what if God does command it of you? Is it good to torture an infant if your deity commands it of you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Israelites were right in obeying God's command to destroy the Amalekites. This is my position. The Nazis were wrong for exterminating Jews.

And you would lecture us on moral relativism? Doctor, heal thyself.

 

[variant]

Are you an atheistic metaphysical naturalist? Yes or no?

I'm probably not whatever you think those words would imply that I think so no.

The Israelites were right in obeying God's command to destroy the Amalekites. This is my position. The Nazis were wrong for exterminating Jews.

Genocide is a sometimes correct thing then according to your "objective morality". You just have to get God's approval or write down that you did.

I am a Divine Command Theorist. God's commands constitute our moral obligations and they are expressions of God's nature as the Summum Bonum or Highest Good.

Right so if God says torture babies you torture babies.

 

[variant]

It is covered under the "Big Two".

Check them out sometime.

Do they explain when it's OK to genocide?

Also does Christianity have some dictate I can appeal to to get you to stop formatting your posts so obnoxiously?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course, as a Christian I have to abide by some morals which are hard to do and are in contradiction to secular society. Even Christians will debate about Gods morals and have some disagreements and personal views about them. It can be like a kid sometimes who doesn't agree or understand about his parents rules and will say its not fair. The dad can say its for your own good son that we have these rules and the son can get all upset about being treated so strict.

Secular laws may not tell us that sex outside marriage is morally wrong. But Christian morals will. Ethical standards may but then its not arbitrary. You can have a couple at work who start seeing each other and one is still married. The employer is not going to sack them for that. But to a Christian this is wrong. In some ways secular society almost promotes extra marital affairs. If you look at gossip mags they will have the latest affair married or not of Hollywood stars on the front cover. Thats because its a good selling story that people like.

You have a tendency to ramble. None of this appears to address my comments, so I'll ignore it.

I believe that God does make it clear in Jesus Christ. It couldn't be clearer.

Obviously, it could be clearer.

 

[bhsmte]

I am a Divine Command Theorist. God's commands constitute our moral obligations and they are expressions of God's nature as the Summum Bonum or Highest Good.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

You like some others, take what a bunch of unknown authors wrote in stories thousands of years ago in regards to God and you have all you're eggs in the basket of these stories being reliable.

If you believe that on faith, no problem, just don't think you are better than others who disagree with you, or be perplexed when they can't reconcile those stories with reality.

 

[stevevw]

What if God commands it of you?

This is where you can use your God given ability of reason and logic to work this out to see if its based on the principles of good or bad. If goodness is truth then it should have a absolute truth to it. It should all point to being good for yourself and others. We have a pretty good idea of what being good to others is about. But Jesus gives us a clear understanding by His teachings and actions as well if we need a good example to go by. If you look at those religions that say they allow hurting and killing in the name of God you will find there is an unjustified reason or it is based on personal beliefs or motives.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is where you can use your God given ability of reason and logic to work this out to see if its based on the principles of good or bad. If goodness is truth then it should have a absolute truth to it. It should all point to being good for yourself and others. We have a pretty good idea of what being good to others is about. But Jesus gives us a clear understanding by His teachings and actions as well if we need a good example to go by.

It sounds like God's commands are superfluous then. With or without them we would have to reason through the problems and develop ethical principles.

If you look at those religions that say they allow hurting and killing in the name of God you will find there is an unjustified reason or it is based on personal beliefs or motives.

This is what you always say. If religion shares none of the blame for the evils perpetuated in the name of religion, then it should receive none of the credit for the goods done in its name either.