Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

When are you going to show us that the content of our conscience is objective?

I think I have already provided more than enough support.

 

[Speedwell]

But how can you misinterpret a clear statement from Jesus IE
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

How can this be taken any other way than to say that Jesus is stating that we can sin in our hearts? He is even comparing it to the Old Testament Law "do not commit adultery" to point out that according to that particular law we can commit than sin in our hearts. I think we all know this as when we do it we feel guilt. I mean we wouldn't be saying to a friend, hey I was just lusting after your wife which shows we know its wrong.

He mentions other sins and also speaks about the state of our hearts as being what is important IE

Matthew 9:4
And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?
Matthew 15:18-19
But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

I won't argue the point with you, although I am sorry for you that you seem to miss the point of that beautiful story. Other people see it differently. Either the various interpretations are subjective or you're right and everybody else is wrong. You can decide.

 

[Speedwell]

I think I have already provided more than enough support.

You have provided none. Not any, and that in the face of other explanations for the content of our consciences which you have ignored. I am not arguing against moral objectivity--I think I have made that plain. What I am trying to point out to you is that your argument for moral objectivity is bootless.

 

[stevevw]

I won't argue the point with you, although I am sorry for you that you seem to miss the point of that beautiful story. Other people see it differently. Either the various interpretations are subjective or you're right and everybody else is wrong. You can decide.

I find this approach to debating frustrating. You say you don't want to argue the point yet make a point that I am wrong. It's neither here nor there. You are better off stating you don't want to argue the point full stop and not argue half a point in saying I have got it wrong and then not elaborate.

You need to tell me how I have got it wrong and what is the interpretation others have? You also have a duty to correct me with scripture. Otherwise, it's just criticism without instruction for learning and an unsupported assertion.

 

[stevevw]

You have provided none. Not any, and that in the face of other explanations for the content of our consciences which you have ignored. I am not arguing against moral objectivity--I think I have made that plain. What I am trying to point out to you is that your argument for moral objectivity is bootless.

But you cant make a claim that my argument for objective morality is baseless unless you have an argument to show why. All you have done is made an assertion that I am wrong and not argued about how I am wrong. I am not sure if you had read the arguments for objective morality that I posted earlier but I don't want to have to post them again as they are there to be found in earlier posts.

 

[stevevw]

What we observe of human behavior,

But what we observe is humans acting against their subjective views of morality. They act like moral values are truth statements for all to follow.

including the content of our consciences.

The fact we have a conscience supports objective morality. That despite people claiming subjective moral positions their conscience exposes how their subjective position is unreal and contradictory. It sheds the light of truth on the rationalizations and justifications people try to make under subjective morality.

That the passage should be subject to a "straight reading" is an interpretation. And it is an interpretation of Paul's subjective opinion--unless you believe that what Paul wrote was dictated to him by God, which is a subjective belief.

Paul was visited by Christ. He also lived and spoke to those who lived and witnessed Christ and His teachings. No one in the Bible including Christ's disciples rebukes Paul for saying something that was not representative of Christ. Christ said that He is the truth of God's word so yes Paul was speaking as though God himself had stated the verse.

It gets to a point where you either have to rationalize what is written away or take it as truth from God. The New Testament is eye witness accounts of Christ and Paul is the main instructor for the early Church. He even qualifies this by saying he was like a disciple that witnessed Christ so he was in a position to know and instruct the church. You either believe him or you don't. But you can't start rationalizing what he says away into something else because you don't like it.

No, they act/react against the content of their consciences, which you have not shown to be objective.

What do you mean by objective? Are you saying I need to show evidence that the conscience is an independent thing from our bodies? If so I don't need to do this. We can and will never be able to do that. But we can show independent support and make logical arguments. The fact that we react against our conscience shows it is independent of us. It contradicts our subjective views and rebukes us into guilt when we claim something is not wrong and OK to do by subjective positions.

Which is consistent with moral subjectivity and a hint, perhaps, that morals are not objective.

This perhaps shows that you don't understand subjective/objective moral positions. Morality is immaterial and cannot be proven by scientific testing. But that does not mean there are other ways to support it. We use indirect support and logical arguments to support many things philosophically and this is accepted as evidence. I have already given that independent support and logical arguments. You now need to dispute these rather than making unsubstantiated assertions.

Repeating that same assertion over and over does not prove it.

How are these assertions when the evidence is there for us to see how people act/react as though there are moral truths? Why do the majority of philosophers believe there in moral realism? Why do most people including atheists say there are moral truths and we all know certain wrongs are always wrong universally and cannot be changed by personal views.

That is I suggest that we all know the truth about morality and cannot deny it. No one can honestly say that sexually abusing someone is a subjective moral position that makes this act ok. They all say no it is a wrong act always and anyone who thinks it is ok to do is sick and immoral. Our intuition shows us that morality is objective.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Your making claims without having read the Bible. I suggest you read the Bible to understand the law and where Christ fits in. The law has not changed. It was just that the old testament established the law to show we were sinners. But as with any sin, the sin itself is the end result of a state of mind and heart.

I suggest you read my post and understand. I never said the law changed, I actually said it did not change.

People don't just sin for no reason. They usually have envisioned doing wrong in their minds before they do it. If you are always angry their chances of getting into fights and killing someone are higher. If you are always lusting and thinking about sex with someone you are already on your way to doing it. The old testament people were not as aware and only lived by laws and the rituals to make themselves right with God after sinning.

Ok, All I said was that god revealed more of the law to other people. Did people sin by lusting in their minds/hearts before Jesus said that is a sin?

I think people know and hold moral truths but don't acknowledge they are truths if they support a subjective position as that would be contradictory to their worldview. But they cannot help but act/react moral truths despite claiming there are no moral truths. That is why we have a conscience and feel guilt yet try to deny the truth but it often catches up with people.

You cannot deny what you are convinced is true. You can pretend, but you cannot actually deny it. What do you mean by moral truths? I have an objective morality with moral truths within that system.

Yes, I am not denying you can personally condemn it. But people often take things beyond their personal position and say that other individuals or cultures should be stopped from holding and practising their moral views. This is then taking a position that they hold the key to moral truth and everyone else needs to follow their morality. That is an objective moral position.

Yes and we are justified in doing so. My moral system says that owning people as property is always wrong. Yours does not. You can't actually condemn slavery on other cultures if you take the bible to be Gods word.

Just like above in how people take things beyond their personal subjective moral positions and push their morals onto others, that is taking an objective position. They are claiming they are the holders of moral truth and others should follow. People cannot help but do this as there are moral truths inside us.

How can that be when not all cultures agree on murder, slavery etc.?

It is impossible to take a subjective moral stand as we know certain acts are always morally wrong universally. Taking a subjective view would require people to admit that rape or abuse of a child is not a moral truth and that it is OK for some to do as that is their subjective moral position. People know that this is an unreal position and that is why they cannot hold to it.

No, we cannot hold to it becasue it is wrong within my moral system. When I objectively look at these actions against well being I can objectively conclude they are universally wrong. This does not mean there is a universal moral position.

I have always supported this position. I may not have spelt it out to you but have mentioned this before on this thread. It makes logical sense. Objective morality has to be grounded outside humans yet still have a personal element as morality can only apply to people. Morals have to be rational as they require a decision about what is right and wrong. But humans cannot know all the possible factors about how to act morally. So that points to a personal and rational transcendent being.

No, no, no. Again just because you don't like the fact that morals are ultimately subjective does not mean there is a transcendent being deciding morals. What if there is no moral lawgiver? Would people stop having morals? The answer is no.

But as mentioned humans are fallible when it comes to reasoning morality. What you may consider rational someone else will think differently and this can be different for each and every person. Humans are subjective to may influences which bias and skew their morality. We also have an evil side and this opens us up to turning a moral wrong into being OK.

These can be true if you don't think logically and with empathy about morals.

But you are wanting to criticize God. So you are accepting He is real for the sake of this argument. Why call God evil and condemn His morals if you don't believe He is real. But if you do engage in an argument about Him then you have to do it properly and get to know who God is and not just make assumptions or base things on a lack of understanding.

I have read the bible many many times. Been to countless studies etc. I just started to actually leave my bias aside. you don't, you believe god is good no matter what. I don't. If the god of the bible exists he is immoral as he condones owning people as property and beating them, condoned rape and genocide even abortion. My morals don't allow for this ever.

Humans believe a lot of things without sufficient evidence. Science cannot address non-materialism yet many people believe in immaterial things and this doesn't have to be about religion. Even scientists have some pretty far fetched ideas that take belief despite them claiming they are a scientific fact IE dark energy, multiverse because they fit in with their materialist worldview. These at best are based on indirect loose evidence not too different from arguments for God.

No scientist believes in the multiverse, they think it is a possibility. It needs to be demonstrated. Dark energy must exist in some form or everything we know about cosmology is wrong. We just don't know what it is yet. Believing things without evidence is OK for mundane claims such as if you said you owned a dog. I would just believe you, your claim is sufficient enough. When you say there is a god that want you to love him or he will send you to hell, well I want better sufficient evidence.

Yes but this only supports your own view of morality. It cannot have an objective grounding outside of yourself or other humans. Using the idea that there are different moral positions as support against objective morality is not evidence and a logical fallacy. It is like saying that because people have different views on a physical object that physical objects must not be true.

No. You are claiming there is an objective morality that everyone has and then when I say not everyone has the same morals you say they don't have to and there still is objective morals. ??? People having different morals and serious things such as rape murder etc. cannot be evidence for an objective moral lawgiver as you describe.

It is the fact that despite there being different moral positions individually or culturally that we all still believe there are moral truths is support for objective morality. When you take away the different cultural understandings about how we do things you will find that we all have similar moral beliefs.

How can you demonstrate this?

AS stated above this is a logical fallacy that because there are different moral positions that must mean there is no objective moral truth.

I am not claiming that. But it does not demonstrate that there is an objective moral truth.

 

[stevevw]

I suggest you read my post and understand. I never said the law changed, I actually said it did not change.

OK maybe I misunderstood you. But you did say " So he changed the law for humans". Not sure what you meant by this.

Ok, All I said was that god revealed more of the law to other people. Did people sin by lusting in their minds/hearts before Jesus said that is a sin?

They probably did but that was not the focus of the law back then. Remember Moses received the 10 commandments so the law was being introduced being written in stone as they say. So it was about people being shown the written law system and becoming aware that they fell short of keeping that law. This was to bring the awareness that we were sinners and that sin separated us from God.

You cannot deny what you are convinced is true. You can pretend, but you cannot actually deny it.

But people can deny the truth altogether. This is done all the time in society. As the saying goes everyone thinks they are innocent when in jail.

I have an objective morality with moral truths within that system.

What do you mean by moral truths? Moral truth is the same as objective morality. There is a true moral position to take that is independent of people. Wrong is wrong not because you or I say its wrong but because it is truthfully wrong beyond anyone's opinion.

Yes and we are justified in doing so.

What do you mean justified in doing so. Do you mean justified in condemning other people's subjective position? If so how can someone under a subjective position be justified to say another person's moral position is wrong. What are they using to determine the other person is wrong. It certainly cannot be their personal view as that only applies to themselves.

My moral system says that owning people as property is always wrong. Yours does not. You can't actually condemn slavery on other cultures if you take the bible to be God's word.

The slave issue is a tricky one. It isn't what it appears and what you think slavery means isn't always slavery in the true sense of the word. A Christian moral position on owning another person denying their rights for no good reason is that this is wrong and the Bible states this. So I have more justification in claiming that slavery is wrong that someone with a subjective moral position.

A person may think slavery is wrong under a subjective moral position but that is only their personal opinion. They cannot make any moral truth statement beyond themselves that a tribe in Africa who has slaves is objectively morally wrong. Tha's because the African tribe thinks slavery is OK under the same subjective moral system. Who is really right or wrong, no one because there is no ultimate right and wrong.

How can that be when not all cultures agree on murder, slavery etc.?

Yes we all agree that murder and slavery are wrong but even if that were the case under a subjective system that doesn't really mean murder and slavery are wrong. It's just individual moral positions agreeing that its wrong. If another group said that slavery and murder were right the other group cannot claim that they are more right as its one group's opinion against another.

No, we cannot hold to it because it is wrong within my moral system. When I objectively look at these actions against well being I can objectively conclude they are universally wrong.

You cannot say that something is wrong within your own moral system and then also wrong universally. That's because you are taking your personal view of morality and applying it to everyone. There may be people you are forcing your moral view on that to disagree and think rape is OK.

You cannot say they are wrong by your own version of morality. They will say that you are wrong with their version of morality. Then we have a stalemate. But who is truly right in this situation. We can never tell because there is no independent measure of morality. Even if you use wellbeing that is still a subjective measure. What you think is wellbeing someone else will disagree and have a different version of wellbeing.

This does not mean there is a universal moral position.

It is the fact that despite people claiming that they take a subjective moral position that they still try to live like there are one universal moral truth points to people really believing that there are universal moral truths. If you believe there are moral truths deep down, and you live like there are moral truths chances are there are moral truths.

No, no, no. Again just because you don't like the fact that morals are ultimately subjective does not mean there is a transcendent being deciding morals. What if there is no moral lawgiver? Would people stop having morals? The answer is no.

How do you know that. Most moral subjectivists say that humans developed morality through evolution for example mainly through the drive to survive as a species. But this does not explain why something is right or wrong. It only tells us how morality came about. It doesn't tell us what something is right and wrong. Evolution can only give us a description of something. It cannot be proscriptive.

So even a subjective moral explanation is inadequate to account for how people act and react like there are moral truths. How they act counter to survival through altruistic acts. Why give up your life to save a stranger when your main aim is to survive to pass on your genes (the selfish gene Richard Dawkins). There are many moral acts that are counter to evolution being the explanation for morality.

These can be true if you don't think logically and with empathy about morals.

So you agree then that humans are susceptible to acting contrary to what is morally right because they are fallible. They get it wrong, act selfishly to gain personal benefits, they may lie and cheat to gain something rather than do the right thing. They may have personal experiences that bias their view of morality. They cannot use logic as they are overtaken by feelings and feelings are unpredictable.

In fact, there is evidence that empathy can actually cause people to act immoral and bias against certain groups of people in favor of those they may feel are more worthy because they may have some personal investment towards some and not others. So empathy is also an unpredictable and arbitrary feeling.

Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again
empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. evidence from a range of sources shows that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial, and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

I have read the bible many many times. Been to countless studies etc. I just started to actually leave my bias aside. you don't, you believe God is good no matter what. I don't. If the god of the bible exists he is immoral as he condones owning people as property and beating them, condoned rape and genocide even abortion. My morals don't allow for this ever.

What independent measure do you use to say that the God of the Bible is immoral?

Just because someone happens to believe in God and supports objective morality doesn't mean they abandon rational thinking. In fact, part of the argument for God as the lawgiver of objective morality is that objective morals need to also be based in rationality.

No scientist believes in the multiverse, they think it is a possibility. It needs to be demonstrated. Dark energy must exist in some form or everything we know about cosmology is wrong. We just don't know what it is yet.

Therefore scientists are basing their support for dark energy and matter on a materialistic assumption. They still hold this belief based on indirect evidence that may prove wrong. This is 0ften the case in science. It is not different for making logical propositions in philosophy or metaphysics.

Believing things without evidence is OK for mundane claims such as if you said you owned a dog. I would just believe you, your claim is sufficient enough. When you say there is a god that wants you to love him or he will send you to hell, well I want better sufficient evidence.

But we don't have to prove any God or gods to prove objective morality exists. We just have to show there are objective morals and that they are independent of humans. The independent source can be a transcendent being. It doesn't have to be the Christian God.

No. You are claiming there is an objective morality that everyone has and then when I say not everyone has the same morals you say they don't have to and there still is objective morals. ???

So why can't there be both. I have not said there is no subjective morality. As humans, we are going to have our own view on everything even physical objectivity. Some have the subjective view the earth is flat for example but that doesn't mean the earth is not objectively round. I am saying that despite people's subjective morality there are objective moral truths.

People having different morals and serious things such as rape murder etc. cannot be evidence for an objective moral lawgiver as you describe.

I don't understand what you mean.

How can you demonstrate this?

This would require a lot of explaining. But I can give a couple of examples of how misunderstandings of facts are mistaken as differences in morality. For example, people say that we use to burn witches and now we don't so this shows how people can have a different morality. But people use to burn witches because they believed they cast spells to kill people.

So they thought witches were murderers and so they executed them. We do the same today for murderers so it is the same. When people understood that witches were not really magical and casting spells to kill they stopped burning whiches. Not because they realized it was morally wrong but because they had a misunderstanding of who witches were and what they could do.

This misunderstanding is often mistaken as differences in morality when at the core there were not really any differences people believed the same thing, that killing people was wrong.[/quote]

 

[the iconoclast]

No, in order for it to be objective, it has to be demonstrable. Morality cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong.

Hey hey my dear

Sorry for the late reply, sometimes I get busy at work and can be delayed by a week or so. Don't worry I'm not going anywhere yet and you have piqued my curiosity. ;D

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. ... Apologists for religion will define objective morality according to the commandments of their God. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder being bad.

Subjective morality is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The atheists i have discussed subjective mortality with seem to suggest empathy as a standard for subjective morality. Please correct me if you feel it's needed.

Ken previously said "Moral issues resulting from empathy perhaps is natural where as moral issues like gay marriage, male vs female circumcision, is more likely learned or taught."

I typed "Demonstrable meaning" into google and got this.

Demonstrable - clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved.

To logically prove or to verify is to be able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.
Check this out

Murder is wrong. This is a universal standard that is not up for interpretation. Christians may say it is wrong for several reasons.

A. God decreed murder as a sin - authoritative
B. Do unto others - authoritative to be empathetic (Subjective) or a pure reminder.

If I murder someone it is unjust, dishonest, or immoral. I may have been behaving in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way to murder. Usually murder is non consensual.

Ken says "No, in order for it to be objective, it has to be demonstrable. Morality cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong."

1. What do you need from me to demonstrate that Morality can be right or wrong and that subjective morality is demonstrable?

Morality is not something that can be based on authority. If your morality is based on authority, you are not being moral, you are being obedient.

Check this link of words out.

Obediant - compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Good - that which is morally right.

Morally - with reference to the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

Right - morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Obedience to the law could easily be argued. If I don't obey the laws of society

Heads up my dear I record all our conversations and am blessed with a good memory.

Ken said "I think punishment would be in order for such crimes."

An infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. You believe punishment inflicted or retribution should be exacted for an injury or wrong.

When I asked you if I was immoral. Your post #2119 Tuesday at 11:59.

"I would say that particular act you did was immoral. If such acts are typical of you, then I would assume you are immoral."

If I continue to disobey the morality of society even you suggest I'm immoral.

If I don't obey your standards you would judge my actions wrong.

Ken - "I would judge your actions wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standards"

I argue that being obedient to the law is virtuous.

2. Show me why obedience to the law is not virtuous and why empathy should be a standard?

The same way I describe it now

What way is that?

Don't be shy and do what you say you can do.

3. If sweet did not exist how would you describe bitter to me?

For me, society

I gotta go now, I will respond to the rest later.

4. How did society shape your morality?

Give me detail!

Judging from the description you gave of yourself, you sou nd like an unreasonable person so I doubt I would have much luck trying to reason with you

Hold up my dear let's back track

In regards to the scenario where I beat you up and steal your property. This part of the conversation started like.

1A You said it was unfair to beat you up.

1B. I replied "Unfair to you maybe but you and I - in this scenario - believe that good and wrong are moral constructs. How I feel about the situation is contrary to how you feel. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

You replied

1C. "In order to justify it to you we have to have a conversation and I have to convince you that I am right and you are wrong."

I replied with

1D. "Ok.

A. I have beaten you up. I felt like doing and I could.

B. I steal your shoes to emasculate you and because I have no respect for you. I do not empathize at all with you.

C. I give you shoes to the first person I see with no shoes. I give them away because I don't need them and I don't want you to have them back.

D. I believe all morality is a social construct, do not feel remorse for my actions and do not believe I was wrong.

You believe all morality is a social construct but was taught some morality and used your emotions to justify what may seem like grey areas.

3. Have a conversation with this me and convince me that im wrong?"

You reply

1E. "Judging from the description you gave of yourself, you sou nd like an unreasonable person so I doubt I would have much luck trying to reason with you"

So the comments made in 1C are now redundant. You doubt you would have luck trying to reason with me. So the comments in 1C re conversation won't work here.

You won't try to convince me.

So this takes us back to 1B.

How I feel about the situation is contrary to how you feel.

3. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

4. If it's pointless to have a conversation with me how can you justify that all morality is subjective?

Heads up. Your arguments are starting to leak and may not hold water soon.

I would not agree morality is based on emotions. I think it is a judgment and this judgment is done on a case by case basis

Ahhh, the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Consider the scenario where I beat you up and steal your property.

5. How do you come to a decision that I am immoral?

6. What influences your decision?

Let's look at gay marriage where you say empathy is involved.

7. How did you come to a conclusion that gay marriage is acceptable without empathy?

As I said before, I would judge your actions immoral because they go against my moral standards

But you suggest obedience is not virtuous.

8
Why is going against your moral standards wrong?

9. How did you come to a decision or judgement regarding such a thing?

At a minimum you should be punished because consequences are necessary for your actions. Forcing you to reimburse me for the property stolen would also be just IMO

10. So am I in debt to you? - to reimburst suggests to repay for something.

If you are unable to decipher right from wrong; yes.

But you have decided that there is no point in conversing with me re 1E.

11. Why should I follow you if you won't treat me to justification?

These 2 points are in contradiction. You won't justify with conversation but expect me to follow you as an authority?!?!

So far your position and arguments are wanting.

How are you defining God?

Dude I'm Christian. You and i are on a Christian site. You know Who and what we are talking about.

The God of Abraham, The God of David and The One Who sent Jesus.

Or do you want me state and describe the nature, scope, or meaning of God to you?

13. So you seemed to be equating your morality with that of God. Why should I agree to your morality and how can you justify your morality higher or better than the God of Abraham?

If you are unable to distinguish right from wrong, I can teach you.

14. But you said that you wouldn't converse with someone unreasonable like my character - in that scenario. So does that mean now you will?

Hint - I'm challenging you and also your replies lack detail. Don't be affraid to give me what you got.

15. I'm curious. What can you teach me and why should I listen to you?

Actually, you could answer all my questions with some detail. Teach me!

Much needed moral guidance.

Is that all!!

Jesus offers me that!?!

Jesus offers me eternal life after death, forgiveness for my son's and a resurrected body.

16. What else can you offer me as so far it's seems to be nothing!

17. What can you offer me or what more can you offer me?

I believe my views are honest and fair thus my views are superior to all others that differ from mine.

18..Here's one for you how do define your views as honest and fair? What makes them so?

If another moral view is shown to be superior to my own, I will adopt that view as my own and it will become a part of my moral view.

19. How would one show you, how would you be convinced?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey brother @Speedwell.

Hey @FrumiousBandersnatch, how's you friend @Ophiolite. I will never forget him, he gave up quickly. Lots of fun.

How r u?

Greetings @Clizby WampusCat. I have not had the pleasure of discussing things with you yet.

I'm around and a lot of fun!!!

 

[Speedwell]

I find this approach to debating frustrating. You say you don't want to argue the point yet make a point that I am wrong. It's neither here nor there. You are better off stating you don't want to argue the point full stop and not argue half a point in saying I have got it wrong and then not elaborate.

What you got wrong is all but asserting that yours is the only possible interpretation of that story consistent with the Christian faith.

You need to tell me how I have got it wrong and what is the interpretation others have? You also have a duty to correct me with scripture. Otherwise, it's just criticism without instruction for learning and an unsupported assertion.

Not all Christians take it for granted that Jesus' purpose was to elevate adulterous thoughts to the same level of sin as actual adultery. Many think that his main point was to expose the hypocrisy of those who would stone the adulterous woman by pointing out how close they were to committing adultery themselves.

 

[Speedwell]

It gets to a point where you either have to rationalize what is written away or take it as truth from God. The New Testament is eye witness accounts of Christ and Paul is the main instructor for the early Church. He even qualifies this by saying he was like a disciple that witnessed Christ so he was in a position to know and instruct the church. You either believe him or you don't. But you can't start rationalizing what he says away into something else because you don't like it.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant.

What do you mean by objective? Are you saying I need to show evidence that the conscience is an independent thing from our bodies? If so I don't need to do this. We can and will never be able to do that. But we can show independent support and make logical arguments. The fact that we react against our conscience shows it is independent of us. It contradicts our subjective views and rebukes us into guilt when we claim something is not wrong and OK to do by subjective positions.

You need to show that the content of our conscience comes from somewhere else than our own social and evolutionary experience.

 

[the iconoclast]

There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant.

Hey brother

I disagree. Let me guess, you never read the bible?

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey my dear

Wow! Welcome back; I thought you forgot about me. Good to see you back and I see you’ve come back with a vengeance (LOL)

Sorry for the late reply, sometimes I get busy at work and can be delayed by a week or so. Don't worry I'm not going anywhere yet and you have piqued my curiosity. ;D

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. ... Apologists for religion will define objective morality according to the commandments of their God. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder being bad.

Yeah but apologists and others may claim some universal law, but they don’t agree on what those universal laws are. They will 100% agree on everything else objective; (like math, or the tree in my front lawn) but for some reason when it comes to the details of morality, nobody agrees. Funny how that works huh? (LOL)

Subjective morality is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The atheists i have discussed subjective mortality with seem to suggest empathy as a standard for subjective morality. Please correct me if you feel it's needed.

I won’t comment on what other atheists think; they probably wrong too!

Ken previously said "Moral issues resulting from empathy perhaps is natural where as moral issues like gay marriage, male vs female circumcision, is more likely learned or taught."

I typed "Demonstrable meaning" into google and got this.

Demonstrable - clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved.

To logically prove or to verify is to be able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.
Check this out

Murder is wrong. This is a universal standard that is not up for interpretation.

I disagree! How many people have you heard claim Abortion is murder? Universal standard for abortion? How many vegans claim meat is murder? No. There is no universal standard for murder.

Ken says "No, in order for it to be objective, it has to be demonstrable. Morality cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong."

1. What do you need from me to demonstrate that Morality can be right or wrong and that subjective morality is demonstrable?

You are asking the impossible. Morality can’t be demonstrated as right or wrong, thus is is not demonstrable; hence my point.

Check this link of words out.

Obediant - compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Good - that which is morally right.

Morally - with reference to the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

Right - morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Obedience to the law could easily be argued. If I don't obey the laws of society

Heads up my dear I record all our conversations and am blessed with a good memory.

Ken said "I think punishment would be in order for such crimes."

An infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. You believe punishment inflicted or retribution should be exacted for an injury or wrong.

When I asked you if I was immoral. Your post #2119 Tuesday at 11:59.

"I would say that particular act you did was immoral. If such acts are typical of you, then I would assume you are immoral."

If I continue to disobey the morality of society even you suggest I'm immoral.

Correction; those were not morals of society you were (hypothetically) breaking, they were the laws of society

If I don't obey your standards you would judge my actions wrong.

Of course!

Ken - "I would judge your actions wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standards"

I argue that being obedient to the law is virtuous.

2. Show me why obedience to the law is not virtuous and why empathy should be a standard?

The only time I believe obedience of the law is virtuous is when I subjectively agree with those laws. I believe empathy is one of many parts of the standard, because I see far more good from it than bad.

What way is that?

Don't be shy and do what you say you can do.

3. If sweet did not exist how would you describe bitter to me?

Nasty/unpleasant taste.

4. How did society shape your morality?

Give me detail!

I believe my moral beliefs are superior to all others, yet they are in a constant state of growth and evolution. When I an opposing moral belief is explained to me in a way that I find superior to mine, I adopt this new moral belief as my own, and it becomes a part of my moral beliefs. This is how I grow. This is how I learn. I am constantly learning and growing via my contact with society.

Hold up my dear let's back track

In regards to the scenario where I beat you up and steal your property. This part of the conversation started like.

1A You said it was unfair to beat you up.

1B. I replied "Unfair to you maybe but you and I - in this scenario - believe that good and wrong are moral constructs. How I feel about the situation is contrary to how you feel. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

You replied

1C. "In order to justify it to you we have to have a conversation and I have to convince you that I am right and you are wrong."

I replied with

1D. "Ok.

A. I have beaten you up. I felt like doing and I could.

B. I steal your shoes to emasculate you and because I have no respect for you. I do not empathize at all with you.

C. I give you shoes to the first person I see with no shoes. I give them away because I don't need them and I don't want you to have them back.

D. I believe all morality is a social construct, do not feel remorse for my actions and do not believe I was wrong.

You believe all morality is a social construct but was taught some morality and used your emotions to justify what may seem like grey areas.

3. Have a conversation with this me and convince me that im wrong?"

You reply

1E. "Judging from the description you gave of yourself, you sou nd like an unreasonable person so I doubt I would have much luck trying to reason with you"

So the comments made in 1C are now redundant. You doubt you would have luck trying to reason with me. So the comments in 1C re conversation won't work here.

You won't try to convince me.

I never said I wouldn't try to convince you, I was just pointing out I probably wouldn’t have much luck with it.

So this takes us back to 1B.

How I feel about the situation is contrary to how you feel.

3. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

It is only fair to the person doing the judging. Remember, morality is the judgment of actions; not the actions themselves.

I will get to the rest of your replies later

 

[Ken-1122]

Ahhh, the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Consider the scenario where I beat you up and steal your property.

5. How do you come to a decision that I am immoral?

6. What influences your decision?

I consider it unfair

Let's look at gay marriage where you say empathy is involved.

7. How did you come to a conclusion that gay marriage is acceptable without empathy?

I never said it was acceptable without empathy.

But you suggest obedience is not virtuous.

8
Why is going against your moral standards wrong?

9. How did you come to a decision or judgement regarding such a thing?

Remember when I said I regard my moral judgments superior to all others? Unless you can prove otherwise, anybody who disagrees with me is wrong as far as I am concerned.

. So am I in debt to you? - to reimburst suggests to repay for something.

If you stole from me, you should return my property or reimburse me.

But you have decided that there is no point in conversing with me re 1E.

11. Why should I follow you if you won't treat me to justification?

These 2 points are in contradiction. You won't justify with conversation but expect me to follow you as an authority?!?!

I never said there was no point in conversing with you in 1E

15. I'm curious. What can you teach me and why should I listen to you?

Actually, you could answer all my questions with some detail. Teach me!

If you are morally inept, I could teach you to be morally competent like me.

Is that all!!

Jesus offers me that!?!

Jesus offers me eternal life after death, forgiveness for my son's and a resurrected body.

16. What else can you offer me as so far it's seems to be nothing!

17. What can you offer me or what more can you offer me?

Lots of people can give you moral guidance. Remember, I’m convinced mine is superior to all others.

18..Here's one for you how do define your views as honest and fair? What makes them so?

My opinion.

19. How would one show you, how would you be convinced?

Cheers

By having a conversation

 

[stevevw]

What you got wrong is all but asserting that yours is the only possible interpretation of that story consistent with the Christian faith.

For one it is not a story but teaching. So it needs to be made clear as this is how God wants us to live. I think most scholars agree with what the verse means and its part of the sermon on the mount which Christ gives His teachings. It is important to know the Bible as a whole, in verse and chapter as well to put things in context.

Not all Christians take it for granted that Jesus' purpose was to elevate adulterous thoughts to the same level of sin as actual adultery. Many think that his main point was to expose the hypocrisy of those who would stone the adulterous woman by pointing out how close they were to committing adultery themselves.

The verse in question Mathew 5:27-28 is part of the sermon on the mount. The section that the verse comes from Jesus is talking about being a fulfillment of the law without changing the law. He quotes several laws and how His fulfillment affects those laws IE

Mathew 5:21-22
You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
Mathew 5: 31-32
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So taken in context Jesus is not referring to the Pharisees and the prostitute. Though it could be applied and that does not change its original meaning because Jesus was still pointing out to the Pharisees about the sin of lusting in one's heart. Jesus is explaining how His fulfillment affects the laws of the Old Testament and the Pharisees were sticklers for the old laws in which Jesus was pointing out how it was also about the state of a person's heart.

The sin of lust is mentioned in other sections of the New Testament so we can see that Jesus was talking about lusting in a person's heart. We have a natural desire to have companionship but lust is a sin just like was has a natural need to eat but gluttony is a sin.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey brother

I disagree. Let me guess, you never read the bible?

Yes I have--that's how I know. It's all in the voicing. It's really easy for a literate person to figure it out.

 

[Speedwell]

For one it is not a story but teaching. So it needs to be made clear as this is how God wants us to live. I think most scholars agree with what the verse means and its part of the sermon on the mount which Christ gives His teachings. It is important to know the Bible as a whole, in verse and chapter as well to put things in context.

The verse in question Mathew 5:27-28 is part of the sermon on the mount. The section that the verse comes from Jesus is talking about being a fulfillment of the law without changing the law. He quotes several laws and how His fulfillment affects those laws IE

Mathew 5:21-22
You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
Mathew 5: 31-32
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So taken in context Jesus is not referring to the Pharisees and the prostitute. Though it could be applied and that does not change its original meaning because Jesus was still pointing out to the Pharisees about the sin of lusting in one's heart. Jesus is explaining how His fulfillment affects the laws of the Old Testament and the Pharisees were sticklers for the old laws in which Jesus was pointing out how it was also about the state of a person's heart.

The sin of lust is mentioned in other sections of the New Testament so we can see that Jesus was talking about lusting in a person's heart. We have a natural desire to have companionship but lust is a sin just like was has a natural need to eat but gluttony is a sin.

Great apologetics, but you spoiled it a little at the end: gluttony requires actual eating, not just thinking about eating.

 

[stevevw]

There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant.

There's plenty of evidence from a number of angles and sources that show many of the New Testament books/letters were written either directly or indirectly by those who knew Jesus or witnessed His ministry or by scribes that knew the disciples and other witnesses).

You need to show that the content of our conscience comes from somewhere else than our own social and evolutionary experience.

Why do I need to show this in order to show that objective morality exists? Consciousness is still being researched and developed as to what it is. So there is no evidence either way. But we can still show support for objective morality without proving consciousness.

Besides saying that consciousness comes from evolution and sociobiological processes make it nothing more than chemical and electrical reactions. This says nothing about why something is right or wrong. It only tells us how we know how it came about. Yet we act like there is more than just biological processes.[/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

Great apologetics, but you spoiled it a little at the end: gluttony requires actual eating, not just thinking about eating.

I wasn't using gluttony as support for how the state of our heart leads to wrongdoing. I was using it to show how what can be seen as a normal desire/need can become an extreme and destructive act that is regarded as morally wrong. I was differentiating the normal need from the sin. That's because some may claim that lust is not morally wrong.

It also shows how Jesus had the insight that sin (immoral acts) are the end result of where a person is at in their mind and heart. It shows that Christian moral laws are not just made willy nilly based on blind adherence to moral laws but have great insight into the nature of morality and how this affects people.