Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It amazes me that christians will use such twisted logic to justify genocide.
This is a very interesting and challenging notion to ponder. Unfortunately, this forum doesn't seem conducive to discussing it; very emotional subject material, with all sorts of shoot-from-the-hip injected everywhere.
Apparently I'm a Prophet:
This is a very interesting and challenging notion to ponder. Unfortunately, this forum doesn't seem conducive to discussing it; very emotional subject material, with all sorts of shoot-from-the-hip injected everywhere.
This much is obvious. Why do you feel the need to establish that?
To make it clear to you that God knows that this is a world with people suffering horribly, and that he could stop that horrible suffering if he wanted to, and yet he doesn't.
This much is obvious. Why do you feel the need to establish that?
You say to your friends and loved ones, "Gee, I really hope you're going to buy me birthday presents this year!" And they reply, "Wow, it's lucky you asked! We weren't going to gt you anything!"
Hey, if we weren't talking about people dying horribly here, I might agree with you.
But when you start telling me that there are millions of people around the world who will die today in horrible ways and that God could do something about it and yet doesn't, then I think that is sick.
This don't make sense.
It's saying that Moral objectivism is the idea that there is an objective morality, hence most philosophers consider it to be objective morality.
2 + 1 = 3 is externally testable. How can I test externally if it is wrong to smack a disobedient child?
if it is possible that our ideas about morality are wrong, how can we claim it is objective?
By what testing procedure can I determine if something is OBJECTIVELY wrong?
All you have been able to say is that I should use my own conscience, but that would seem to indicate a SUBJECTIVE, not objective morality.
LOL, Tiberius, when philosophers call objective moral values and duties moral facts, they use the terms interchangeably. Its just a shorter way of saying it. That is all that statement means. Its like a geography teacher saying to her class:
"It is objectively true that Canberra is the capital of Australia."
"She could also say:
"It is a fact that Canberra is the capital of Australia."
It is a distinction without a difference. Shes sayin the same thing. Understand now?
2+1=3 is known to us via our reasoning capacties which take place in our brains and is void of a moral context.
Asking if smacking a disobedient child is wrong, is a question regarding moral duty or moral obligation and specifically, with an emphasis on applied ethics or how we should discipline disobedient children. Some say they should be placed in timeout, some say they should be spanked on the bottom or on the back of the hand. Some people even think a good smack across the face is best. This is a question of what is the best means of disciplining a child.
What is not in question is that disobedient children should be disciplined. This is the underlying objective duty that dictates that children's disobedience should not be rewarded, but reprimanded.
It is true for all people, in all places, and all times, regardless of their own opinions, that disobedient children should be in some way disciplined. To not discipline a disobedient child would be seen as a failure of the parent's duty to properly raise a child.
The same way we can objectively claim that the external world is real and that it was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.
It is possible that we are wrong in saying that the external world is real and that it has existed for eons, but does that mean that we cannot claim that it is objectively true that the external world is real?
Of course not!
How do you determine if anything is wrong at all? Forget the word objective and just think about that question. How do you determine if anything is wrong?
I did not say that you should use your own conscience. I said we intuitively apprehend moral values and duties. Some call it conscience some call it intuition. The words refer to that process of reasoning by which we make moral judgments.
You seem to think that just because individuals are the ones who make moral judgments, that therefore moral values and duties themselves are subjective.
This is the same as saying that since scientists used their own individual minds to assimilate the evidence for the shape of the earth, that therefore the earth's shape was subjective?
But that does not even make sense. How can the world in which we live be said to have a subjective shape? That does not even make sense. The world is either flat or round. The earth's shape is an objective fact independent of scientist's minds. Scientist's discovered that the earth was round. They did not make it round by thinking it was round!
See the difference?
You have forfeited your right to even speak of Christians using circular logic.
Surely you have the intellectual capacity to see for yourself that this is completely out of place and not by any means a valid comparison.
See that bolded part? Yeah, you made that up. Try listening instead: if anything is going to get done around here, it will be PEOPLE. This is what it means for God to "give man dominion."
You never did comment on my resolution to the 'problem of evil' that you asked for, here....
Try listening instead: if anything is going to get done around here, it will be PEOPLE. This is what it means for God to "give man dominion."
I base my determination of what I expect the other person to feel, and what I would prefer if I were in that particular situation.
For example, if I see someone being mugged, I will try to help if I can, because if I were being mugged I would appreciate it if someone helped me.
But since this decision is based on MY OWN VIEWPOINT and others might have a different viewpoint, much decision is based on a SUBJECTIVE morality, not an objective one.
And the fact that different people have consciences that lead them to do different things kinda voids the idea of it being an OBJECTIVE morality, doesn't it?
No, I claim that the moral values and duties are subjective because they are entirely the product of the person making them and are in no way determined by an outside source.
What external data do you examine in order to determine morality?
No, you have not. You have just promoted consensus of opinion.
I think that, based on human wellness and empathy, an argument for objective values can be made.
(my bold)
With that bolded qualifier in your statement you have just lost your objectivity.
Should not "objective morals" apply to every person (no qualifiers)?
Let's try again. If I exceed the speed limit, get caught, I get a ticket. Rob a bank, and get caught, I go to jail. If I commit blasphemy, I don't go to heaven. Slaughter a large population, I can still go to heaven.
Based on human wellness, that last one would be a bad thing. But I am asking about your morals. Allow me to slightly change the phrasing.
If one can commit genocide, and still qualify for this hypothetical heaven of yours, why consider it wrong?
It doesn't seem to be obvious to you, since your logic has lead you to a God who allows people to suffer when he could stop it and yet you defend it.
It is actually substantiated for the following reason:
Many critics of moral relativism, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically speaking, such critics will argue that meta-ethical relativism may amount to Moral nihilism, or else incoherence. *Wikipedia*
I went to wiki to read that reference in context, and it no more substantiates your claim than your searching and finding a definition of atheism that says "believes God does not exist" substantiates your claim that all atheists believe that gods do not exist. Critics of moral relativism don't get to redefine moral relativism any more than you do.<snip irrelevant text on moral nihilism >
Only if you have defined NORMATIVE as STRAWMAN. And you do have problems with your definitions. Is your position so weak that you have to do that?Moral nihilism is indeed distinct from moral relativism in the sense that they are two different meta-ethical views. This is not in dispute and I agree with you. The thing you are not understanding is that with regards to NORMATIVE moral discussion, a relativist's views lead to the same restrictive conclusions that a moral nihilist encounters.
Oh of course they can. I have never said they could not.
But if you say that genocide is objectively wrong, then you are a moral objectivist. Not a relativist.
So which are you?
Are you a moral objectivist that maintains that genocide is objectively wrong, or are you a moral relativist who maintains that it is your opinion that genocide is wrong?
But a relativist cannot say that that act was objectively wrong.
See?
Are you saying God should not allow people to suffer when He could stop it?
If so, then you are speaking as a moral objectivist.
Not necessarily. A subjectivist could also make such a statement. You said you understood this earlier?
Are you saying God should not allow people to suffer when He could stop it?
If so, then you are speaking as a moral objectivist.
Ethical subjectivism stands in opposition to moral realism, which claims that moral propositions refer to objective facts.
What do you use to come to these conclusions?
Ok, you just said it was a decision. This answers your question about how you determine what is right and wrong. You use reasoning and intuition which are NOT testable by the way, but nontheless valid.
Now you say your decision is based on your viewpoint.
Explain to me what your viewpoint is and how it is formed and why it consists of what it does.
No more than different opinions regarding particle physics voids the idea of there being an objective truth regarding the true nature of physics.
Discussion regarding normative morals point to an outside source. That is what makes them objective.
If you need external data to tell you that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, then you are morally impaired, kind of like a blind person is visually impaired.
I don't disagree with the information on those links.Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. Moral objectivism - Psychology Wiki
Is the above a consensus of opinion? Or a standard usage technical definition?
Murder is unlawful, so not a great example. What if I kill my neighbour and bury him in the back yard, never to get caught. What if I killed him in self-defence?If something is objective it is independent of human opinion.
If I say that murder is objectively wrong, that simply means its wrong independent of human opinion. Since the proposition is a normative or prescriptive proposition, it is binding or applicable to every person.
Red herring. In fact, "Christianity" teaches nothing. People teach their interpretation of it, and from what I gather everyone has their own take on it. That is not the issue at hand. And, even if Christians teach it, it does not make it objective.In the quote you responded to, I was speaking of our knowing what objective moral values and duties are. This is epistemology Davian. It is not ontology. Do not confuse the two.
You present a caricature of Christianity and then attack it.
You insinuate that Christianity teaches that a person can just say:
"Well, if all I gotta do is say a prayer to get into heaven, then I can live like hell while im on earth and then when I have done all the evil I want, I can just say a prayer and boom Im heaven bound."
I think you know this is not what Christianity teaches. In fact, it teaches just the opposite.
And anyway, why wouldn't God do something? He did it plenty in the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?