Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

No; they lost the war because the Allies had a better military. Are you saying whoever has the best military decides what is moral?

and they would not have had a better army if they did not ally together like I said. And to answer your other question, I was merely pointing out that the evils of hitler were promptly met by other nations. You cited him as an example of wicked behavior, and I replied that the majority met him in arms over that wickedness, so they apparently did not approve.

 

[Ken-1122]

and they would not have had a better army if they did not ally together like I said. And to answer your other question, I was merely pointing out that the evils of hitler were promptly met by other nations. You cited him as an example of wicked behavior, and I replied that the majority met him in arms over that wickedness, so they apparently did not approve.

It's not like the Allies banned together because Hitler was a monster, if you remember; Stalin the leader of Russia was just as much of a monster as Hitler was! Stalin killed 20 million people; Hitler killed only 10 million. So if they were going to ban together to kill monsters, they would have banned together against Russia. Instead we were more than happy to join our murderous dictator friend Stalin to fight right along side him to defeat our murderous enemy Hitler. The only reason Britain fought Hitler was because he attacked Poland and they had an agreement, the only reason Russia fought Hitler was because Hitler invaded Russia; and the only reason the US fought Hitler was because Hitler declared war on us.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not like the Allies banned together because Hitler was a monster, if you remember; Stalin the leader of Russia was just as much of a monster as Hitler was! Stalin killed 20 million people; Hitler killed only 10 million. So if they were going to ban together to kill monsters, they would have banned together against Russia. Instead we were more than happy to join our murderous dictator friend Stalin to fight right along side him to defeat our murderous enemy Hitler. The only reason Britain fought Hitler was because he attacked Poland and they had an agreement, the only reason Russia fought Hitler was because Hitler invaded Russia; and the only reason the US fought Hitler was because Hitler declared war on us.

So britain felt morally obligated to uphold their moral agreement to poland, to fight someone who was not acting moral.

makes perfect sense to me, and proves my point succinctly.

 

[Ken-1122]

So britain felt morally obligated to uphold their moral agreement to poland, to fight someone who was not acting moral.

makes perfect sense to me, and proves my point succinctly.

How does Britain upholding their protection agreement with Poland prove murder is wrong?

 

[createdtoworship]

How does Britain upholding their protection agreement with Poland prove murder is wrong?

Everyone felt morally obligated to attack hitler. Some because he was a murderer. But others who could not afford the military aid, only attacked when allies were attacked. But at that point they could have said "I am sorry but we cannot afford a military aid like the united states." And stayed out of the war. But they felt morally obligated, and rightly so. So in proving your point, you actually refuted your point, and proved my point. That everyone followed the moral law. And granted if britain had a big enough army and if they had the funding, like the US, you can bet they would have attacked and aided the victims of germany. As they have in later years.

 

[Ken-1122]

Everyone felt morally obligated to attack hitler. Some because he was a murderer. But others who could not afford the military aid, only attacked when allies were attacked.

Which countries are you talking about? List the countries who attacked Hitler for being a murderer, but left Russia and Japan alone who was worse! Which countries you are talking about.

 

[createdtoworship]

Which countries are you talking about? List the countries who attacked Hitler for being a murderer, but left Russia and Japan alone who was worse! Which countries you are talking about.

lets try this another way,

here on this link it says the united states started out as neutral in WW1, but as german started attacking innocent ships, the united states felt morally obligated to join in the effort:

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/world-war-i-history

if there was not moral standard of right and wrong, then killing innocent people should not matter.

after all as you said, how can we prove that killing innocent people is wrong?

so according to your view, the united states was in error here, because after all you cannot prove criminal offense on germany's behalf.

 

[Kylie]

if there was not moral standard of right and wrong, then killing innocent people should not matter.

No objective standard, but that doesn't mean there can't be a subjective standard.

 

[Ken-1122]

lets try this another way,

here on this link it says the united states started out as neutral in WW1, but as german started attacking innocent ships, the united states felt morally obligated to join in the effort:

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/world-war-i-history

if there was not moral standard of right and wrong, then killing innocent people should not matter.

after all as you said, how can we prove that killing innocent people is wrong?

so according to your view, the united states was in error here, because after all you cannot prove criminal offense on germany's behalf.

According to my view? What are you talking about? I never expressed my view, I just asked you to prove killing innocent people was wrong. If you can't do it, just say so.

 

[createdtoworship]

No objective standard, but that doesn't mean there can't be a subjective standard.

I think subjective and standard are contradicting terms.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think subjective and standard are contradicting terms.

That's your problem; they aren't contradicting terms. If someone says that "X" is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that "X" is "not wrong.”

 

[createdtoworship]

According to my view? What are you talking about? I never expressed my view, I just asked you to prove killing innocent people was wrong. If you can't do it, just say so.

No objective standard, but that doesn't mean there can't be a subjective standard.

I did, and you didn't reply to it. But I can again if you didn't read it. Basically my argument is that if only humans have sacrificial love. And evidently that appears to be the case as no one has provided a natural explanation that is observable in nature. So if only humans have sacrificial love, it can be deduced that there is a natural law that humans have that animals do not have. And yes there is evil men like hitler and others evil people but in general societies have weeded those characters out and fought against that type of person, if it was in their power to do so of course. And I documented that as well. So again if humans have a natural moral law that they follow. Where did this moral law, that humans have that animals apparently do not have, come from? Either by nature or by God. Either natural causation or supernatural causation. And the fact that all humans on the face of the earth do not honor selfish behaviour, and honor self sacrifice, reveals that there is a universal moral standard of right and wrong. God is the source of this moral natural law, and even if people never hear the gospel of grace, they will be judged by how they acted in regards to following this law. If they acted perfectly, they can enter heaven, if not then they are judged by their imperfect actions. For one sin we die. What do they call someone who tells lies? a liar. What do they call someone who says "om#g" or "oh my gosh" (but the bad word), they call that person a blasphemer. What do they call someone who takes paper clips from work? A thief. So by that standard, we are all lying, thieving blasphemers at heart. And that is only three of the ten commandments. On judgement day will be guilty or innocent? We will be guilty.

 

[Ken-1122]

I did, and you didn't reply to it. But I can again if you didn't read it. Basically my argument is that if only humans have sacrificial love.

Sacrificial love sounds like a term you just made up. Exactly what is it, and how is this different from regular love?

And evidently that appears to be the case as no one has provided a natural explanation that is observable in nature.

Actually in previous replies, it has been proven. You insist on having a different standard for humans than for animals. According to you, for a human to have sacrificial love, they have to sacrifice to other humans, for an animal to have this type of love, it isn’t enough that he sacrifice for his pack members he has to also be willing to give his life to predator animals. This is a false comparison, because humans wouldn’t give our lives this way; thus your argument failed.

So if only humans have sacrificial love, it can be deduced that there is a natural law that humans have that animals do not have.

No, see the above explanation.

And yes there is evil men like hitler and others evil people but in general societies have weeded those characters out and fought against that type of person, if it was in their power to do so of course.

No, evil people are as plentiful as ever.

And I documented that as well. So again if humans have a natural moral law that they follow. Where did this moral law, that humans have that animals apparently do not have, come from?

You have not proven that humans have a natural objective law that they follow. There are many laws humans subjectively agree on, but if there were natural laws you would be able to describe exactly why murder is wrong; and you can’t.

 

[Kylie]

I think subjective and standard are contradicting terms.

I don't.

A standard need not be objective. I have a certain standard when it comes to movies, and if a movie doesn't meet those standards, then I probably won't enjoy it. A different person will have different standards, and so may enjoy a movie that I do not.

 

[holo]

lets try this another way,

here on this link it says the united states started out as neutral in WW1, but as german started attacking innocent ships, the united states felt morally obligated to join in the effort:

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/world-war-i-history

if there was not moral standard of right and wrong, then killing innocent people should not matter.

after all as you said, how can we prove that killing innocent people is wrong?

so according to your view, the united states was in error here, because after all you cannot prove criminal offense on germany's behalf.

Countries don't go to war for moral reasons, but because their interests are threatened. If it was a sense of moral obligation, the whole world would've liberated the North Korean people by now.

Wars are an example of how limited our morality is. If you threaten our citizens we'll go to war if we have to. Our neighbors, not so much, unless we have a treaty or feel very related to them. People on the other side of the planet, with different skin and religion? Forget it, let them duke it out among themselves (unless they have lots of oil, in which case we may find it necessary to intervene for humanitarian reasons).

But thankfully, morality seems to grow and evolve, and the more we learn about other people, the more we care about them.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sacrificial love sounds like a term you just made up. Exactly what is it, and how is this different from regular love?

sacrificial love is what the Bible calls agape love. The greeks had different words for different types of love. There is one type of love for family members and another type of love that is sacrificial.

Actually in previous replies, it has been proven.

as far as I know, scientifically speaking 99.99% of facts cannot be proven, unless your talking about mathmatics. So I await for this proof. Please post the post number where this was proven.

You insist on having a different standard for humans than for animals. According to you, for a human to have sacrificial love, they have to sacrifice to other humans, for an animal to have this type of love, it isn’t enough that he sacrifice for his pack members he has to also be willing to give his life to predator animals. This is a false comparison, because humans wouldn’t give our lives this way; thus your argument failed.

actually you are committing a fallacy of equivocation here. I had two arguments, one involving sacrificial love, and one involving love for enemies. One leads to the other and builds upon the other, you are mixing the two and equivocating that I ask for sections of one argument,a and refuse to accept replies to another argument. They are separate arguments. So if you can show animals to either show sacrificial love (for other pack members, not family at that is a separate love as shown above), and/or you can show animals loving and forgiving enemies, then that would prove your point that true love is evolving in nature. But so far, as of right now. No observational data has shown that true love (sacrificial love, including love for enemies as an extreme type of sacrificial love) is naturally occuring. You can say it is naturally occuring, but if it does not have any observational data, it is tossed out.

No, see the above explanation.

see my refutation, above to your explanation.

No, evil people are as plentiful as ever.

this is arbitrary. Love exists among humans, true love as defined above. But the existence of evil people is not a proof of the non existence of love, any more than the presence of criminals in a proof that law abiding citizens do not exist.

You have not proven that humans have a natural objective law that they follow. There are many laws humans subjectively agree on, but if there were natural laws you would be able to describe exactly why murder is wrong; and you can’t.

but you simply cannot refute it logically, so my point stands

 

[createdtoworship]

Countries don't go to war for moral reasons, but because their interests are threatened. If it was a sense of moral obligation, the whole world would've liberated the North Korean people by now.

Wars are an example of how limited our morality is. If you threaten our citizens we'll go to war if we have to. Our neighbors, not so much, unless we have a treaty or feel very related to them. People on the other side of the planet, with different skin and religion? Forget it, let them duke it out among themselves (unless they have lots of oil, in which case we may find it necessary to intervene for humanitarian reasons).

But thankfully, morality seems to grow and evolve, and the more we learn about other people, the more we care about them.

I don't disagree with you.

however in the case of defeating a immoral monster as hitler and mussolini, I think that war is a necessary evil.

I normally don't agree with decades long wars, I think bombing capitals, bombing bases, landing strips adn ship yards, sending in navy seals to assassinate dictators, is way more effective and moral than sending in an army to build bases and police other countries too weak to defend themselves. I don't think that is our job. I think we spend too much on military, and declare too many wars. I don't think Christ would endorse a military as large as ours. To war over oil or to war over land. So in this way I am not conservative. I am a christian before I am a republican.

I think if we were a christian nation, we would trust God to fight our battles for us, and take less wars into our own hands:

 

[Ken-1122]

sacrificial love is what the Bible calls agape love. The greeks had different words for different types of love.

What is agape love? You still haven’t defined it nor explained the difference.
I made it clear, humans are better at expressing love, better at expressing hatred, better at communicating, exploring; everything we do, we do it better than animals. Is it because there is some sorta natural system in place that affects our ability to love, hate, communicate, or anything else we do better than animals? If there is, you need to point to the system. Don’t give examples, show the system is actually in place. Then you need to show that this system proves that murder is wrong. All you’ve done thus far is express opinions, and make empty claims.

as far as I know, scientifically speaking 99.99% of facts cannot be proven, unless your talking about mathmatics.

A fact is defined as:
*Having actual existence:
*An actual occurrence:
*Information presented as having an objective reality.
Perhaps you can list some facts meeting the above standards that cannot be proven
Definition of FACT

this is arbitrary. Love exists among humans, true love as defined above. But the existence of evil people is not a proof of the non existence of love, any more than the presence of criminals in a proof that law abiding citizens do not exist.

No, you said evil people have been weeded out by societies. I’m saying if that were the case, either evil people would no longer exist, or there would be far less than there was before; neither of which is true.

 

[Ken-1122]

Though I didn’t look at the whole thing, this video seems to provide a false narrative. He says if you have ever stolen, you are a thief, if you have ever lied, you are a liar, etc.
This is not true. People are called liar when they lie a lot, and are called a thief when they steal a lot. A person who lies on average of once a year, or stole only once in his lifetime would be considered one of the most honest people alive because we don’t judge each others on a standard of perfection because we are not perfect.

 

[createdtoworship]

Though I didn’t look at the whole thing, this video seems to provide a false narrative. He says if you have ever stolen, you are a thief, if you have ever lied, you are a liar, etc.
This is not true. People are called liar when they lie a lot, and are called a thief when they steal a lot. A person who lies on average of once a year, or stole only once in his lifetime would be considered one of the most honest people alive because we don’t judge each others on a standard of perfection because we are not perfect.

just because you don't label someone who steals paper clips regularly from work a thief, God still defines them that way. God's standard is perfection, irregardless of the value of the item, if you take something that is not yours, it's stealing. Same with listening to music online that you don't buy, or ripping music from the internet without paying royalties. That is the actions of a thief.