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.
I intuitively know beyond a reasonable doubt, that raping children is wrong independent of what people's opinions are about it.
The adherence to a socio-biological evolutionary account of morality does not NECESSARILY commit one to affirming (1). But it does cause one to have to come up with some pretty untenable and problematic explanations for the existence of objective moral values and duties on a naturlistic view of the universe.
Except he never asked that, he asked by what objective standard is the genocide of children acceptable.
Oddly enough, we're still waiting for a clear answer. Do you agree the genocide of children is a moral act?
He created people, therefore if they are sinful it's his responsibility. If he didn't want them to sin, he could have easily designed them that way. Or, he could have designed a sin-free universe.
So you know your gut-feel opinion is right independent of your opinion about it? Please explain how that works, exactly. Seems that if something is wrong independent of what people's opinions are about it, the last thing you'd want to use to prove that would be your own opinion on the matter.
I believe that God judging sin is moral.
He could have created a sin free universe, but would have had to eliminate free will in the process. The fact that He created us does not absolve us of the responsibility for our own sins.
Without free will such words as love and relationships would be meaningless. We would be reduced to nothing more than robots.
You have free will because you had no choice.
Good thing there's no obligation for naturalism to explain something that doesn't exist.
This is just another way of saying that from looking at reality, we'd have no reason to believe that objective moral values exist. For some reason you seem to want to convince us otherwise. I wonder what would motivate one to teach something contrary to what reality is telling us is true?
I believe that God judging sin is moral.
He could have created a sin free universe, but would have had to eliminate free will in the process. The fact that He created us does not absolve us of the responsibility for our own sins.
Without free will such words as love and relationships would be meaningless. We would be reduced to nothing more than robots.
But what if the law he wrote is immoral?
First off, there is no biblical justification for claiming we are required to have free will, or even desired to have free will by God.
In fact, there's all kinds of examples of God clearly violating human free will within the bible.
The most obvious example is Noah's Flood. People were exercising their free will, God found them sinful and exterminated the entire planet except a few people on a boat.
There are many, many other examples as well from God hardening the Pharoah's Heart, to multiple passages saying certain people are predestined for heaven.
I believe that God judging sin is moral.
He could have created a sin free universe, but would have had to eliminate free will in the process. The fact that He created us does not absolve us of the responsibility for our own sins.
Without free will such words as love and relationships would be meaningless. We would be reduced to nothing more than robots.
You still haven't touched upon my questions. Is genocide absolutely morally wrong? Is the killing of children absolutely morally wrong?
Why are you talking about what is moral? If you are not a moral realist of some sort, you cannot talk about things being morally wrong in any objective sense.
Subjectivists can still make moral claims. You have admitted this yourself, and yet you still remain incredulous? Or is it obstinant?
Besides, you haven't answered my question about how you intend to convince the Muslim apologist that he is wrong and you are right. In fact, your discussion with this hypothetical apologist seemed to have ended with you both accusing the other of being unreasonable.
While you have every right to your opinion, moral arguments are illogical if your worldview excludes objective moral standards. Without a standard, what is the point. All opinions would be equally valid by default.
It has none, at least here in the land of false dichotomies. If it's not their way, it must be moral nihilism, or their house of cards falls down. They build with fallacies on top of fallacies.Who said that there are no standards per ethical subjectivism?
The above should be more accurately phrased as:
"But if you are right and there are objective moral values and duties..."
Using the term "morality" without a specifier or qualifier is very broad and vague and can have a number of different connotations.
This idea is based on a vague and ambiguous usage of the term "morality". As I have stated earlier, the term "morality" can have several different meanings depending on the context.
What you mean to imply is that if objective values and duties do exist, then these specific values and duties must apply to all people.
In this context you are speaking of NORMATIVE or PRESCRIPTIVE morality.
And stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family is not an extreme example? LOL ok...
Extreme example or not, people are obligated to protect, preserve, and respect the lives of others that are under their care. This is true for all people, at all places, at all times, regardless of their opinion on whether or not its obligatory. I am sure you will agree with what I just said.
Considering that people have a moral duty or obligation to protect, preserve, and respect the lives of others that are under their care, a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family in this exceptional scenario, would not be viewed in the same way as a man who steals another man's car so he can take a joyride. In the former case, the man is doing something which would be considered justifiable. In the latter, the man is doing something clearly wrong.
In order to prove this point, lets say the two men are apprehended by the police after doing what they did.
The first man's case is brought before a judge and the circumstances are considered. The judge would more than likely be lenient on the man who stole the bread and may even dismiss the charge of stealing altogether because of the extinuating circumstances i.e starving children and wife.
However, the man who stole the other man's car to go joyriding in is obviously going to receive some type of penalization for his crime. He can stand up there and say:
"Your honor, since right and wrong are determined only by individual opinion, then you can say I was wrong all you want, that's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. However, I say I was right. And since there is no such thing as an objective moral duty, then I must be allowed to go free because I cannot be guilty of breaking an objective moral law if the law does not even exist. Yes your honor I am perfectly aware that you may have a different view than I do, and I am tolerant of your view. I respect it. However, you must respect my view and be tolerant of me just as I am of you. In light of this your honor, I would appreciate it if you would let me walk out of here today, without any penalization, for afterall, your honor, why should I be penalized for doing what was right?"
Tiberius, clearly the judge would not be convinced by this plea from a relativistic view of morality. The man would probably be reprimanded for that ridiculous speech and then penalized for his crimes.
To say that objective moral values and duties exist, is to say that some acts are obligatory independent of individual opinion or preference.
I have informed you earlier, that a distinction must be made between moral absolutism and moral universalism/objectivism. Both are subsets of moral realism, but they are not the same.
To say that stealing is always wrong regardless of context is to adhere to moral absolutism. I am NOT A MORAL ABSOLUTIST. I am a moral objectivist.
Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism).
How do you determine what is moral or immoral. What standard do you compare them to to see which one is closest to the standard?
Throughout Scripture the Bible continuously instructs mankind to make righteous decisions by free will. Many persons misinterpret a few verses to arrive at the false idea that mankind does not have a free will to do good or make righteous decisions. Below are some verses which strongly show that mankind has the responsibility to exercise his free will and is commanded by God to do so.Deuteronomy 30:11 "For this commandment which I command you today [is] not [too] mysterious for you, nor [is] it far off. 12 "It [is] not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 13 "Nor [is] it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 14 "But the word [is] very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 "in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 "But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 "I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong [your] days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. 19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.
John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.
Romans 2:10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.
1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain [it]. 25 And everyone who competes [for] [the] [prize] is temperate in all things. Now they [do] [it] to obtain a perishable crown, but we [for] an imperishable [crown].
1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and [before] Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep [this] commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing.
2 Timothy 2:21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
The above underlined and bolded words and phrases demonstrate that men have the ability to make free choices.
Bible Life Ministries - God's Election and Man's Free Will
That is right. But how does that show that their ability to choose between two or more choices was violated?
God hardening Pharaoh's heart happened AFTER Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Read the passage carefully Dave.
Where are these multiple passages saying certain people are predestined to heaven?
Your position is not tenable Dave. Thus far every piece of evidence you have provided has been shown to be non-applicable to your position.
No, we just wouldn't have the option of sinning. We'd have other options.
Why are you talking about what is moral? If you are not a moral realist of some sort, you cannot talk about things being morally wrong in any objective sense.
Who said that there are no standards per ethical subjectivism?
Are you going to address the questions I asked you earlier or not?
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?