The source of moral obligation

[Ken-1122]

For the sake of the argument, If we posit a God, which enforces a system of morality on all of the universe absolutely, there is nothing that would say that the God would not have a exceptionally nuanced view of that morality while maintaining consistency.

For the sake of argument; If we posit a God who enforces a system of morality; why is his enforcement any more valid than MY system of morality, your system, or the other guys system of morality? Who decided God's system of morality has any more merit than mine, yours, or the next guys? You? me? God? the next guy? Who decides and how is it decided?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Therefore, since some people are flat Earthers, the shape of the Earth is subjective and not set in stone.

A quick trip into outter space will prove the Earth is round.

It isn't at all clear that morality can't be demonstrable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate a moral issue as right or wrong then.... right?

The simple fact of disagreement on the issue doesn't prove anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The fact that we are ABLE to disagree does.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, yes, it is clear that morality can't be demonstrable. But you are right, disagreement doesn't prove anything here.

But as I told Mark, the fact that we can disagree proves everything.
Example: if I were thirsty and I were about to drink water from a puddle; and you correctly told me the puddle was poisonous and would kill me if I drink from it; I do not have the luxury of disagreeing; because poisonous water is objective; it is not open to interpretation. If I ignore it because it goes against my agenda, I will suffer the consequences of being wrong. But what are the consequences of going against morality? If morality were objective; I would be prevented from going against it.

K

 

[Eudaimonist]

Example: if I were thirsty and I were about to drink water from a puddle; and you correctly told me the puddle was poisonous and would kill me if I drink from it; I do not have the luxury of disagreeing; because poisonous water is objective; it is not open to interpretation.

There are other values and vices that are poisonous as well. It is possible to be self-destructive in ways that aren't as obvious as drinking poison, but that are in reality self-destructive.

The openness to interpretation is not particularly relevant here. The reality -- and fragility -- of your well-being is.

But what are the consequences of going against morality?

You will live a life stunted by self-destructive actions. You won't necessarily die instantly, but you will weaken your ability to function in a human way.

If morality were objective; I would be prevented from going against it.

That doesn't make any sense to me. There is no such requirement. There are self-destructive activities that don't kill you instantly, but that influence you towards a slow decline in the ability to look after your best interests.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken-1122

Then if this is the case you are stating that you know something of the truth more than I in this matter. But how do you know that.

It is my opinion.

Thats because the true moral is written in their hearts so they will respond to this no matter what they say. Its just everyone will change the true original moral of something with their own version. They will substitute it with humanities truth which is not Gods truth.

you say God’s truth has more merit than humanity’s, and I say humanity’s truth has more merit than God’s, what makes you right and me wrong?

Yes you can when that moral crosses with another moral that will over rule it. What happens when two morals clash. You have to compromise one of them.

If morality were objective as you claim; that would be impossible. It would be like asking what happens when addition and subtraction clash? You can’t have two objective rights clashing.

This is what happens with moral subjectivity.

True! And the reason it happens all the time is because morality is subjective; if morality were objective; it would not be able to happen

For example killing is wrong. But not defending your family against a killer is a greater wrong.

Exactly! If “killing is wrong” were an objective moral statement; you would not be able to make exceptions or compromise on it. The fact that we can compromise on killing indicates it is subjective; not objective.

Now Christians use God as the moral standard so this would be the measure. But the important thing is that we have a measure..

In the real world we do not have such a measure. The closest thing we have is the law which is objective. If we had such a measure for morality; then you could make the case that morality is objective; but we don’t thus it is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

There are other values and vices that are poisonous as well.

Those values and vices you speak of are subjective; not objective. Poison is objective.

It is possible to be self-destructive in ways that aren't as obvious as drinking poison, but that are in reality self-destructive.

Are you sure they are self destructive? Or is that just your opinion.

The openness to interpretation is not particularly relevant here. The reality -- and fragility -- of your well-being is.

No, the openness to interpretation is the point I am trying to make.

You will live a life stunted by self-destructive actions. You won't necessarily die instantly, but you will weaken your ability to function in a human way.

Is this based upon fact? or is it simply your opinion. Let's say (for example) if I were having an incest relationship. Provide proof that this self-destructive action will stunt my life and weaken my ability to function in a human way.

That doesn't make any sense to me. There is no such requirement. There are self-destructive activities that don't kill you instantly, but that influence you towards a slow decline in the ability to look after your best interests.

Demonstrate that immoral activities will result in an inability to look after your best interests. If you cannot provide proof; your argument fails.


Ken

 

[variant]

For the sake of argument; If we posit a God who enforces a system of morality; why is his enforcement any more valid than MY system of morality, your system, or the other guys system of morality? Who decided God's system of morality has any more merit than mine, yours, or the next guys? You? me? God? the next guy? Who decides and how is it decided?

Ken

I'm granting objective morality as described by those who believe in it for my proposition I'm not as interested in arguing that system's validity.

All I was saying is that for something to be concretely set in stone, it need not be simple.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well, the best way to support the idea would be to demonstrate a moral fact. It never seems to happen, though. That´s reason enough for me to put that idea to the side.


Agreed.

It's a moral fact that torturing babies for fun is wrong.

Some might disagree with this fact like some might disagree that the square root of sixty-four is eight. Just because they err in their conclusion doesn't meant that the fact is no longer a fact.

With love,

Jeremy

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm granting objective morality as described by those who believe in it for my proposition I'm not as interested in arguing that system's validity.

Trust me; the system is invalid.

All I was saying is that for something to be concretely set in stone, it need not be simple.

Nobody was suggesting it was

K

 

[Ken-1122]

It's a moral fact that torturing babies for fun is wrong.

Some might disagree with this fact like some might disagree that the square root of sixty-four is eight. Just because they err in their conclusion doesn't meant that the fact is no longer a fact.

With love,

Jeremy

Can you demonstrate that it is wrong?

K

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Can you demonstrate that it is wrong?

K

If you knew two and two were four, would you still ask me to demonstrate it to you?

And atheists wonder why they have certain stigmas attached to them.....


P.S...

Would you mind if I took your response and used it in my written work?

 

[bhsmte]

If you knew two and two were four, would you still ask me to demonstrate it to you?


P.S...

Would you mind if I took your response and used it in my written work?

Does this mean you can not demonstrate that it is wrong?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Does this mean you can not demonstrate that it is wrong?

No. It means I am not going to do the unnecessary. It would be unnecessary for me to demonstrate how I arrived at the conclusion that five and five were ten to a man who knew how do do his sums.

 

[bhsmte]

No. It means I am not going to do the unnecessary. It would be unnecessary for me to demonstrate how I arrived at the conclusion that five and five were ten to a man who knew how do do his sums.

Gotcha

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Gotcha

 

[Neogaia777]

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

In a word, if they don't believe in God, then they better be following love, my answer to your question is "Love"...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

If you knew two and two were four, would you still ask me to demonstrate it to you?

And atheists wonder why they have certain stigmas attached to them.....


P.S...

Would you mind if I took your response and used it in my written work?

To make my point? Yes I would. Again; can you demonstrate that it is wrong? If not, then it's objective.

Ken

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

To make my point? Yes I would. Again; can you demonstrate that it is wrong? If not, then it's objective.

Ken

I agree.. It's objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. It means I am not going to do the unnecessary. It would be unnecessary for me to demonstrate how I arrived at the conclusion that five and five were ten to a man who knew how do do his sums.

Nobody is asking you to demonstrate math, we know math is objective; we are asking you to demonstrate killing is wrong; if you are going to insist morality is objective.

Ken

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Nobody is asking you to demonstrate math, we know math is objective; we are asking you to demonstrate killing is wrong; if you are going to insist morality is objective.

Ken

LOL, this came from way out in left field....

Who mentioned anything about killing anyway?