Why does God not stop the evil?

[Dave Ellis]

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.

That's simply not true.

This can be demonstrated by the standard itself.

Ask yourself how the standard came to be... was it based on reason and logic, or was it simply pulled out of a hat?

If you believe that God's moral standard is based on reason and logic, then proper application of reason and logic by us will inevitably reach the same conclusions.

That means God's "objective" standard (which is actually subjective as it's based on the opinions of your God), can be discovered by us independent of God. That makes God irrelevant to morality.

The only way around this is if you believe God simply randomly chose things to be moral and immoral without any thought whatsoever and made this his standard.... which I would also argue is no basis for a moral system.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Where do these standards come from and what gives them authority by which we should accept them?

Quit pretending that I had not already addressed your question.

Reason, Logic, Evidence and Experience.

One would assume your God would use the same tools when making a moral judgement. Do you disagree?

 

[mathetes123]

Why are you dodging around his question? It's a yes or no.

Is the genocide of children morally acceptable?

God is justified in judging sinners. He is not subject to man made moral standards or laws. You, however, whether you recognize it or not, are subject to Gods moral laws and you like myself and everyone else fall short of the standard. Gods law holds that the penalty for sin is death. God would be justified in killing every man, woman, and child He created on this earth. If you recall, He did it once already with the flood.

 

[mathetes123]

Reason, Logic, Evidence and Experience.

One would assume your God would use the same tools when making a moral judgement. Do you disagree?

Without God, there is no basis for reason or logic.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God is justified in judging sinners. He is not subject to man made moral standards or laws. You, however, whether you recognize it or not, are subject to Gods moral laws and you like myself and everyone else fall short of the standard. Gods law holds that the penalty for sin is death. God would be justified in killing every man, woman, and child He created on this earth. If you recall, He did it once already with the flood.

If you are proclaiming God is a moral being, then he is indeed subject to moral laws. You can't be a moral being, without following moral principles or laws, the idea is self-contradictory.

So your argument is that God essentially created a race of unworthy sinners incapable of meeting his standards, then judged them to be sinful and sentenced them to death?

Do you not see the inherent absurdity in this position?

So, in short, I would say the whole construct that you're proposing is sadistic and immoral. However, even on top of that, God is still guilty of the genocide of small children, and the unborn (who have not yet had a chance to sin) as it's inevitable there must have been a pregnant woman somewhere in the cities he ordered destroyed.

This is your shining moral standard?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Without God, there is no basis for reason or logic.

Even if this was correct (which it isn't), that doesn't address my point. You are dodging the question.

Do you agree that God would have used tools such as reason and logic in determine his moral laws? Or did he simply make them up at random?

 

[mathetes123]

Even if this was correct (which it isn't), that doesn't address my point. You are dodging the question.

Do you agree that God would have used tools such as reason and logic in determine his moral laws? Or did he simply make them up at random?

God created logic and reason and moral laws.

 

[quatona]

God created logic and reason and moral laws.

Randomly, arbitrarily?

 

[Tiberius]

God created logic...

This is the part that interests me.

You claim God created logic.

Is God bound by logic, or is he free to do things that are logically impossible?

 

[Elioenai26]

Again, by logic, reason, empathy and experience.

What other basis would you have for judging if something is moral or not?

You misunderstood my question.

I said how do you determine what is moral or immoral. I then made it clear what I was asking. I asked you what standard are you appealing to to distinguish between a moral and an immoral act.

Logic and reason are the collective processes of cognition. Empathy is an emotion. Experience refers to what we have endured in our lives as persons.

None of the above can be used as a standard of determining what is moral or immoral, for to say something is moral or immoral is to make an evaluative judgment as to whether said act measures up to or fails to measure up to the standard to which it is being compared. Unless you want your judgment to be arbitrary, it must appeal to something objective to both parties in question. If not, it is simply an opinion against an opinion. And if there is nothing to arbitrate between the two opinions, then the two opinions actually have no objective truth value. In this view, saying that God was wrong in ordering certain people to be killed is the same as saying chocolate is nasty.

 

[mathetes123]

You misunderstood my question.

I said how do you determine what is moral or immoral. I then made it clear what I was asking. I asked you what standard are you appealing to to distinguish between a moral and an immoral act.

Logic and reason are the collective processes of cognition. Empathy is an emotion. Experience refers to what we have endured in our lives as persons.

None of the above can be used as a standard of determining what is moral or immoral, for to say something is moral or immoral is to make an evaluative judgment as to whether said act measures up to or fails to measure up to the standard to which it is being compared. Unless you want your judgment to be arbitrary, it must appeal to something objective to both parties in question. If not, it is simply an opinion against an opinion. And if there is nothing to arbitrate between the two opinions, then the two opinions actually have no objective truth value. In this view, saying that God was wrong in ordering certain people to be killed is the same as saying chocolate is nasty.

Good points.

 

[Elioenai26]

Objective morality = some source outside a person causing that person to have a sense of what is right and wrong.

Incorrect.

Objective moral values and duties are not causal entities. They do not cause anything. They are binding which means we are obligated to obey them or we are wrong, but they do not cause us to obey them. We choose to obey or disobey them.

You are also using "morality" when you should be using moral values and duties as specifiers.

Subjective morality = The person making the decision internally about what is right and what is wrong.

Again, your definitions are vague and the cause of your confusion in terms.


Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.

I agree with your conclusion, but not the way you got there.

How we arrive at the conclusion that the proposition:

"Rape is wrong." Is simply not important to my point. You say it was via only via natural processes, I say it was not only via natural processes.

It does not matter. As long as you say that raping women is objectively wrong, you and I are in agreement. We can talk about our different explanations later on and how we get to these conclusions. But for now, It is sufficient that you and I agree that acts like the unjustified taking of someone's life is wrong even if the murderer thought it was right.

And the judge replied, "Even though there may be no objective right and wrong, it can be shown that your actions caused a disruption to society. The laws we have are in place so as to ensure that as little disruption to society occurs.

The judge says there is no objective moral values and duties, and then says...

Since you have demonstrated that you do not wish to abide by these laws, you are not fit to live in society and are therefore to be separated from that society until you demonstrate that you can function as a productive member of it."

But clearly the judge maintains that the man should not do things that cause a disruption to society even if the disruptive man thinks its just fine and dandy.

So clearly he believes that the man is morally obligated to not disrupt society, even if the disruptive man thinks it is just fine and dandy and cool. Thus, he does believe that at least one objective moral duty exists: "People should not be disruptive to society."

See how simple that is. The judge is like all of us. At the bottom, we know certain acts are wrong and right regardless of people's opinions. This is moral objectivism.

it is generally considered immoral to have an affair, yes? But suppose a society existed in which sex was as common as a handshake? Such a society exists in groups of bonobos.

I looked for information on the bonobo people to read up on them and I couldnt find anything about them.

Be that as it may, I think your argument here is wrong for several reasons:

1. In tribes, cultures, societies, civilizations that have ever existed, it has been seen as a virtue to be a faithful caring husband and it has been viewed as a vice and immoral if a husband were to just sleep around and have sex with any woman they want to at the expense of the honor, dignity, and respect of the wife and their wedding vows.

2. Let us suppose that there was a society that encouraged married men to just frolick around and have sex with any woman they wanted at the expense of the emotional and physical well-being of their wives. Why on earth would you let their immoral views lead you to the conclusion that it is not objectively wrong to be an unfaithful fornicating, disease carrying whoremonger?

3. Saying that a society that displays immoral tendencies is a good reason to not think that there are objective moral values and duties is the same as saying that since Nazi Germany thought Jews were animals and should be slaughtered by the millions, that it is not objectively wrong to take women and rape them and laugh all the while and then do experiments on them. Saying that a society that displays immoral tendencies is a good reason to not think that there are objective moral values and duties is the same as saying that since Nazi Germany thought Jews were animals and should be slaughtered by the millions, that it is not objectively wrong to take children and the elderly and send them wholesale into gas chambers under the guise of it being a shower.

This reasoning is simply wrong wrong wrong wrong.

My point is this - if you visited such a society, in which people considered it perfectly normal and acceptable to have multiple sexual partners, even if they were in long term relationships, would you think it was wrong of them?

Of course I would think they were wrong!

I would point to the evidence of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, syphilus, gonorrhea, clap, crabs, herpies, and not to mention the emotional and psychological abuse and pain caused by knowing that your husband was being intimate with God knows how many men.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God created logic and reason and moral laws.

Again, you are dodging the question.

Are his moral laws based on reason and logic, or are they not?

 

[Tiberius]

Incorrect.

Objective moral values and duties are not causal entities. They do not cause anything. They are binding which means we are obligated to obey them or we are wrong, but they do not cause us to obey them. We choose to obey or disobey them.

You are also using "morality" when you should be using moral values and duties as specifiers.

Gah. Why must you hide behind all these definitions? What's important here is whether it's objective or not, whether it is set by some agency outside ourselves or not.

Again, your definitions are vague and the cause of your confusion in terms.


Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.

This doesn't tell me anything of use.

Bear in mind, all these things you are using are all new to me. So if you are going to use them, explain them clearly. I'm not going to go searching for your meaning.

How we arrive at the conclusion that the proposition:

"Rape is wrong." Is simply not important to my point. You say it was via only via natural processes, I say it was not only via natural processes.

It does not matter. As long as you say that raping women is objectively wrong, you and I are in agreement. We can talk about our different explanations later on and how we get to these conclusions. But for now, It is sufficient that you and I agree that acts like the unjustified taking of someone's life is wrong even if the murderer thought it was right.

That is missing my point entirely.

The judge says there is no objective moral values and duties, and then says...

Since you have demonstrated that you do not wish to abide by these laws, you are not fit to live in society and are therefore to be separated from that society until you demonstrate that you can function as a productive member of it."

But clearly the judge maintains that the man should not do things that cause a disruption to society even if the disruptive man thinks its just fine and dandy.

So clearly he believes that the man is morally obligated to not disrupt society, even if the disruptive man thinks it is just fine and dandy and cool. Thus, he does believe that at least one objective moral duty exists: "People should not be disruptive to society."

See how simple that is. The judge is like all of us. At the bottom, we know certain acts are wrong and right regardless of people's opinions. This is moral objectivism.

Except that the Judge knows that morality (and don't get picky about the terms, okay?) is coming from the society of humans of which he is a part, not from a god or other such entity.

I looked for information on the bonobo people to read up on them and I couldnt find anything about them.

Geez. Wikipedia is your friend.

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be that as it may, I think your argument here is wrong for several reasons:

1. In tribes, cultures, societies, civilizations that have ever existed, it has been seen as a virtue to be a faithful caring husband and it has been viewed as a vice and immoral if a husband were to just sleep around and have sex with any woman they want to at the expense of the honor, dignity, and respect of the wife and their wedding vows.

And yet we have instances of populations of people where Polygamy and polyandry occurs.

2. Let us suppose that there was a society that encouraged married men to just frolick around and have sex with any woman they wanted at the expense of the emotional and physical well-being of their wives. Why on earth would you let their immoral views lead you to the conclusion that it is not objectively wrong to be an unfaithful fornicating, disease carrying whoremonger?

And there's your mistake. You assume that such polyamory must be "at the expense of the emotional and physical well-being of their wives." If it is an acceptable part of this society, why would the wives have any problem with it?

Also, you are claiming that they have immoral views in order to show they have immoral views. Don't beg the question.

3. Saying that a society that displays immoral tendencies is a good reason to not think that there are objective moral values and duties is the same as saying that since Nazi Germany thought Jews were animals and should be slaughtered by the millions, that it is not objectively wrong to take women and rape them and laugh all the while and then do experiments on them. Saying that a society that displays immoral tendencies is a good reason to not think that there are objective moral values and duties is the same as saying that since Nazi Germany thought Jews were animals and should be slaughtered by the millions, that it is not objectively wrong to take children and the elderly and send them wholesale into gas chambers under the guise of it being a shower.

Irrelevant.

I can show that Jewish people are no different than other people. I can show this objectively. You cannot show objectively that one society's values and morals are better than another society's.

This reasoning is simply wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You won't win an argument by simply repeating a claim.

Of course I would think they were wrong!

I would point to the evidence of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, syphilus, gonorrhea, clap, crabs, herpies...

So now you are saying that things are immoral if they spread disease? Needless to say, it is possible to protect against the majority of STDs.

...and not to mention the emotional and psychological abuse and pain caused by knowing that your husband was being intimate with God knows how many men.

Again I must ask where this pain and abuse is when this is occurring in a society for whom this is perfectly normal.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You misunderstood my question.

I said how do you determine what is moral or immoral. I then made it clear what I was asking. I asked you what standard are you appealing to to distinguish between a moral and an immoral act.

Fair enough, I am appealing to my own standard, that those are the tools I used to determine that standard.

Logic and reason are the collective processes of cognition. Empathy is an emotion. Experience refers to what we have endured in our lives as persons.

Empathy is not an emotion. Empathy is an understanding of what other people are going through. This can be in regards to emotion, however it does not have to be.

I agree generally with the other things you said though.

None of the above can be used as a standard of determining what is moral or immoral, for to say something is moral or immoral is to make an evaluative judgment as to whether said act measures up to or fails to measure up to the standard to which it is being compared.

And I have a personal moral standard which I have developed using tools like what I listed in the previous post.

Furthermore, my moral standard is vastly in agreement with the general moral standard held by most in the society in which I live.

That is what it is being compared against. I judge if something is moral based on if it aligns to what I consider moral or not. That much should be obvious.

Unless you want your judgment to be arbitrary, it must appeal to something objective to both parties in question.

Who says it isn't arbitrary? Arbitrary conclusions can also be reached nearly unanimously, at the societal level.

If not, it is simply an opinion against an opinion. And if there is nothing to arbitrate between the two opinions, then the two opinions actually have no objective truth value.

And who says they need an "objective" truth value? If 99.9 percent of society agrees mass murder is immoral, as we are bound to do based on the way we think and reason, who cares about objectivity?

It will still be held as the moral standard of the society in which we live, and those who violate that ethical or moral code will be punished accordingly by law.

In this view, saying that God was wrong in ordering certain people to be killed is the same as saying chocolate is nasty.

Not at all. Morality is not based on personal preference, and that is where you are going wrong with your analogy.

Whether or not you like chocolate has no bearing on logic, reason or empathy (it does on experience however). You simply like it, or you don't.

Moral decisions are based on far more than that. Indeed, sometimes morals conflict with personal preference. How many times do people say "I'd really love to do this, but I can't" based on moral reasons.

Your point is flawed in that you're comparing apples to oranges. An objective source is not required for moral behaviour, nor a moral standard.

 

[Elioenai26]

Gah. Why must you hide behind all these definitions? What's important here is whether it's objective or not, whether it is set by some agency outside ourselves or not.

Discourse in philosophy by nature, is technical, precise, and must accurately convey the concepts that they are regarding. It is like comparing how fans yell and shout and talk at the superbowl game to how surgeons communicate with each other in the operating room. At a game its ok to yell and shout and not care too much about the words youre using and how they are used. You can say stuff like: "Woo look at that boy over there catch that thing, look at how he flies down the field!" That is accpetable in a football game. But if you were in an operating room, the situation called for you to be precise and technical in your speech, you wouldnt say to your assistant: "hey girl hand me that shiny thing over there with the little teeth on it so I can cut this guy open over here, and slap that brown looking liquid over there in that bottle on his stomach first fore' i cut him open!"

In philosophical discourse, our correct usage of applicable terms is indispensible to effective communication. To approach it with little to know knowledge and speak from an uneducated, non-techinical, over-genralizing way makes it nearly impossible for effective discussion. This is stuff you learn when doing undergrad studies in philosophy.

This doesn't tell me anything of use.

It tells you what ethical subjectivism is.

Except that the Judge knows that morality (and don't get picky about the terms, okay?) is coming from the society of humans of which he is a part, not from a god or other such entity.

Once again, you are confusing the issue. In philosophy, it is a well-known precept that you do not attack ontology with epistemology. It simply does not follow that because the judge learned or knows (x) from his society that therefore (x) does not exist objectively. I will give you an illustration. Let us suppose that in America, we are taught that every person is endowed with certain inalienable rights, namely, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just because we are taught this in our society, does that mean that therefore it is not true for every other society? Are not people in every society, in every culture, in all the world entitled to those things at the very least? And to be deprived of those things is objectively really wrong? Is it not wrong even if the society someone lives in says: "No one is entitled to respect. No one is entitled to freedom. No one is entitled to happiness."

Would we not think that that society was wrong in believing that? And guess what? Even if every member in that hypothetical society agreed with that statement, which is not likely, what if they tried to come to your country and convince the politicians and leaders of your country to adopt the same view? Would you just throw you hands up and say: "Oh well, since what is right and wrong is determined by a society's beliefs, we should not think they are wrong and should go ahead and let them take our freedom, our lives, and our happiness from us?

Obviously not Tiberius come on man. Relativism of any kind be it subjective, cultural, etc. is simply not livable, tenable, practical or rational.

You will have to abandon it. You have continuously been shown it is ridiculous. Why still hold to it? You seem to think this is about me pointing the finger and laughing and saying: Hahaha! Im right, youre wrong, hahaha..

But that simply is not it. I am trying to show you that not even you can live according to this view. No one can. It is impossible as moral creatures to live as if nothing is really right or wrong. It is impossible.

Geez. Wikipedia is your friend.

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought the Bonobo you were referring to were people, not pygmy chimpanzees.

The fact that you use chimpanzees in an argument for moral relativism is sad Tiberius. It really is. I personally do not care one bit if a "society" of chimpanzees have sex a lot. They are animals. They do not get married, they do not exchange wedding vows. They do not promise to be faithful to their spouse and to love and cherish them and to take care of them in sickness and in health. We are humans, and even though your atheism does not allow you to see them as intrinsically any different than us, THEY ARE NOT US. We are humans and we are moral creatures. We are not chimpanzees. Chimpanzees do not "rape" each other, they do not "murder" each other, their actions have no moral dimension at all. They forcefully copulate, they kill each other but when these things take place, they do not hold courts of law and dispense punishment to one another.

So please do not use their sexual behavior as an argument agains the objective moral values and duties that HUMANS apprehend and base their lives on.

And yet we have instances of populations of people where Polygamy and polyandry occurs.

Of course. But are these exceptions or are they the norm? And does this count as a sound arguement against objective moral values and duties? The objective value and duty that is the basis for monogamy is the basis for polygamy and that is that spouses are to love one another, take care of one another, and respect one another. This is true for all spouses in all places, in all times, regardless of cultural practices. Just because a small portion of people adhere to uncommon marital practices in no way necessarily leads to the conclusion that moral values and duties are not objective.

And there's your mistake. You assume that such polyamory must be "at the expense of the emotional and physical well-being of their wives." If it is an acceptable part of this society, why would the wives have any problem with it?

I challenge you to name ONE society where the men are seen as being virtuous and noble for cheating on their wives, having unprotected sex with whatever woman they want, spreading STD's around, breaking marriage vows, having illegitimate children, and in general acting without any self restraint. I challenge you to provide one society that has done those things. If you can, guess what I will say? THEY WERE WRONG. THEY WERE OBJECTIVELY WRONG IN PROMOTING THAT BEHAVIOR.

 

[quatona]

But that simply is not it. I am trying to show you that not even you can live according to this view. No one can. It is impossible as moral creatures to live as if nothing is really right or wrong. It is impossible.

So far you haven´t shown that it´s impossible to live upon your subjective convictions. Any time we get to this point you get remarkably silent.

 

[quatona]

Would we not think that that society was wrong in believing that? And guess what? Even if every member in that hypothetical society agreed with that statement, which is not likely, what if they tried to come to your country and convince the politicians and leaders of your country to adopt the same view?

Yes - what to it?

Would you just throw you hands up and say: "Oh well, since what is right and wrong is determined by a society's beliefs, we should not think they are wrong and should go ahead and let them take our freedom, our lives, and our happiness from us?

Of course I wouldn´t. What gives you the idea that a moral subjectivist is prevented from defending himself from attacks from such attacks based on subjective opinions differing from his?

Obviously not Tiberius come on man. Relativism of any kind be it subjective, cultural, etc. is simply not livable, tenable, practical or rational.

Sure it is. Already show us why it isn´t - beyond making blanket assertions and non-sequiturs.

You will have to abandon it. You have continuously been shown it is ridiculous.

When was that?

But that simply is not it. I am trying to show you that not even you can live according to this view. No one can. It is impossible as moral creatures to live as if nothing is really right or wrong. It is impossible.

How does considering my moral convictions subjective prevent me from doing anything, exactly?
(And please spare me the "you can´t say someone else is objectively wrong" in any of the rewordings you have in store. Your argument is about living one´s convictions, not about the inability to make statements you regard incorrect, anyway).

 

[Elioenai26]

Fair enough, I am appealing to my own standard, that those are the tools I used to determine that standard.

Hmm... you say you appeal to your own standard.

This is the same as appealing to your own preferences or opinions about a moral matter correct?

 

[Elioenai26]

How does considering my moral convictions subjective prevent me from doing anything, exactly?

If all views on morality are equally valid, then there are some things you cannot do.

One thing you cannot do is criticize someone for doing something you think they should not do. For the moment you act on what you think someone should or should not do, you are acting as if they should think and act they way you do. But if the person should act or think the way you do, you are acting from a position that says not all views on morality are equally valid, but "my view is the only one that is valid". But if your view is the only one that is valid and the other person's is not, then you are saying that your view is the only right view. But if you maintain your view is the only right view then you are maintaining that the other person's view is wrong. And if you maintain that the other person's view is wrong and that your view is right, then you maintain that you are the standard by which the other person's views should be measured. But if you are the standard by which other people's views should be measured, you are saying that if you do not think my view is right, you are wrong. And you are wrong even if you think you are right because your view is not valid because it does not adhere to my standard.

Which means you cannot use the words: Should, or ought in moral discussions.

You can talk descriptively all you want to about morality, but normative moral discussions, you can have no substantial part in.