Why does God not stop the evil?

[Elioenai26]

I will say yes, it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave.

Can I ask you another question?

 

[Elioenai26]

Is there ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good?

Yes.

If Tim were a FBI Sniper and Dave had two children hostage at gunpoint in a store, then Tim killing Dave would be for the greater good (the good of protecting the lives of two children at the expense of a criminal's life).

 

[horrace99]

I wholeheartedly agree. It sounds like you are a moral objectivist. Are you?




It is a fact that some atheists ARE moral objectivists regardless of how contradictory it is but some atheists just CLAIM to be subjectivists when they are really not.

 

[horrace99]

Yes, are you?




Thats contradictory.if God does not exist then there is no such thing as morality because it is subjective and based off of opinions.Without God life is meaningless and morality is just an opinion of numerous people.


objective morality must exist externally and are universal laws that are not established by society.Without God there can be no universal law established independant of human opinions and social issues.

atheists CAN be moral but morality is different things to different people because I believe it is an objective law established by God.

 

[Tiberius]

Is there ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good?

Dave could be a vicious murder about to kill a young child. He could be a terrorist about to activate a bomb to blow up a plane. He could be suffering greatly in pain with no hope of recovery and he doesn't want to live his life anymore.

 

[Tiberius]

Can I ask you another question?

Sure.

 

[Tiberius]

Thats contradictory.if God does not exist then there is no such thing as morality because it is subjective and based off of opinions.

No such thing as OBJECTIVE morality, but there can still be subjective morality.

Without God life is meaningless and morality is just an opinion of numerous people.

Who says life is meaningless? Why can't we create our own meaning?

objective morality must exist externally and are universal laws that are not established by society.

Why must they? because you feel uncomfortable at the idea of them not?

Without God there can be no universal law established independant of human opinions and social issues.

maybe there isn't.

atheists CAN be moral but morality is different things to different people because I believe it is an objective law established by God.

This makes no sense. If morality is an objective law, how can it mean different things to different people? When we look at things that are objective, such as the theory of relativity, it works the same for everyone.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?

I want you to answer yes or no. I do not care why you say yes or no, I just want you to answer yes or no. Can you do that?

Yes, I think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because he is an Atheist.


However, this in no way ties to proving whether it's objective or not. What we have currently is my subjective opinion on the matter based on logic, empathy, etc, that most other people in society share.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why is assumption a good thing again?

Because it logically follows. If he's an all powerful moral being, he would be morally obligated to stop immorality, using moral means. And by definition, he must have the power to stop even the most minor moral transgression if he decided to.

If he stands by and watches something like a rape occur and does nothing to prevent it, he is not acting morally. That is a demonstration that he can not possibly be "all" good.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is there ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good?

The example said that Tim is kiling Dave merely because he was an Atheist. Since that's all the information we have, we can't say anything in regards to greater good. All the evidence we currently have says this is a murder based on ideological differences, which is immoral.

Keep in mind, that is open to re-interpretation if more evidence comes in that makes the killing a justified one. That's how basing your opinion on the available evidence works

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes.

If Tim were a FBI Sniper and Dave had two children hostage at gunpoint in a store, then Tim killing Dave would be for the greater good (the good of protecting the lives of two children at the expense of a criminal's life).

Agreed, however the fact Dave might have been an Atheist in this regard is irrelevant. It'd be equally as good to carry out the same act if he was a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever else.

 

[Eudaimonist]

if God does not exist then there is no such thing as morality because it is subjective and based off of opinions.

So is the view that the Earth is round, but that doesn't mean that the shape of the Earth has no "objective" reality. People can be correct or mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for morality in a godless universe. Yes, we have opinions about morality, but that says nothing about whether or not those "subjective opinions" are about something objective, and can therefore be correct or mistaken.

objective morality must exist externally

External to what? To mere opinion? Certainly. But not necessarily external to the facts of human existence. Objective morality doesn't need to be supernatural or divine.

and are universal laws that are not established by society.

Objective morality =/= universal morality. An objective morality may be universal, but does not have to be.

Without God there can be no universal law established independant of human opinions and social issues.

Why not?

atheists CAN be moral but morality is different things to different people because I believe it is an objective law established by God.

Morality is different things to different people, but perhaps only in the sense that there can be both Round Earthers and Flat Earthers, some of whom are mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thats contradictory.if God does not exist then there is no such thing as morality because it is subjective and based off of opinions.Without God life is meaningless and morality is just an opinion of numerous people.

This is false, God can not possibly be the author of an objective moral system even if he does exist. Check out the Euthyphro Dilemma and you'll see why it doesn't work.

objective morality must exist externally and are universal laws that are not established by society.Without God there can be no universal law established independant of human opinions and social issues.

Objective morality must by definition exist externally. Keep in mind, that also applies to God. If God wrote the rules, then it is a subjective system. It's just that the subjective party in this example is God.

atheists CAN be moral but morality is different things to different people because I believe it is an objective law established by God.

And again, that's a contradictory notion. You can't have an objective anything established by something.

2+2=4, that is an objective fact. It would still be objectively true with or without a god. God is irrelevant in that matter.

If rape was objectively wrong, then it's wrong because "it just is", similar to how 2+2=4, just because that's what it is.

If God wrote the rules, then he is capable of re-writing the rules subject to his own will. That is by definition a subjective system.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?

I want you to answer yes or no. I do not care why you say yes or no, I just want you to answer yes or no. Can you do that?

Again, how does people having certain opinions about morality have anything to do with there being an objective universal morality ordained by God? Every time you ask this, you're implicitly admitting that the opinions of people do matter in deciding what is and isn't moral, which makes no sense if you're trying to demonstrate that morality comes from somewhere other than the opinions and judgements of people.

 

[Freodin]

Objective morality must by definition exist externally. Keep in mind, that also applies to God. If God wrote the rules, then it is a subjective system. It's just that the subjective party in this example is God.

I found that when Christians talk about an "objective" moral system, what they really mean is an "authoritative" moral system.

A divine moral is in any meaning of the term no more "objective" than any other system of "laws". It is just the "divine authority" that makes it so special in the eyes of the believers.

 

[Elioenai26]

Agreed, however the fact Dave might have been an Atheist in this regard is irrelevant. It'd be equally as good to carry out the same act if he was a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever else.

I said nothing in this scenario about Tim or Dave being an atheist. In fact I completely agree with you. It simply does not matter if Tim or Dave was an atheist a Christian a Buddhist, a Muslim or anything else. In fact I would also say that even if Mother Teresa, or Billy Graham were wielding a gun and threatening to blow the heads off of two children that Tim would be right in pulling the trigger.

 

[Elioenai26]

I found that when Christians talk about an "objective" moral system, what they really mean is an "authoritative" moral system.

A divine moral is in any meaning of the term no more "objective" than any other system of "laws". It is just the "divine authority" that makes it so special in the eyes of the believers.

But when you talk with me, the discussion is going to revolve around whether or not there are some values and duties that EXIST and are true independent of human preference.

In my discussions I have been asking an ONTOLOGICAL question. I simply do not care at the present moment WHERE these values come from or even how we KNOW them. All I care about is demonstrating that they EXIST. In other words, are there moral facts that are objectively true?

Its the same as asking, are there facts about nature that are objectively true?

 

[Eudaimonist]

In my discussions I have been asking an ONTOLOGICAL question. I simply do not care at the present moment WHERE these values come from or even how we KNOW them. All I care about is demonstrating that they EXIST. In other words, are there moral facts that are objectively true?

This line of discussion is doomed from the outset.

By treating the issue of ontology as separate from issues of source and epistemology, there is no way to approach the issue that moral subjectivists will see as inapplicable to a subjective approach to morals.

You would have been much better off including source and epistemology in the discussion if you had convincing arguments, because that would have presented a way of verifying that objective morality actually exists. The moral subjectivists here are all about verification. Without epistemology, there is no way to verify anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

This line of discussion is doomed from the outset.

By treating the issue of ontology as separate from issues of source and epistemology, there is no way to approach the issue that moral subjectivists will see as inapplicable to a subjective approach to morals.

And you have perfectly described the question begging attitude that ethical subjectivists maintain. Its the same as saying, "a subjectivist approach to morality is best because morality is a subjective concept!!"

You cannot argue that objective moral values and duties do not exist because morality is subjective, and then when asked why you believe moral values and duties are subjective say: "because morality is subjective!"

Mark Mar Mark, do you not see this is question begging? In order for you to argue in favor of ethical subjectivism, the burden of proof is on you to provide good premises for it. Saying : "ethical subjectivism is the preferable meta-ethic because morality is subjective does not count as a premise because it begs the question. This is basic undergraduate philosophy.

In fact Mark, if you will notice, moral objectivism is so obviously true, I have no need of even utilizing an argument to prove it.

Why? Because is it not obvious that it is a moral fact that sending people into gas chambers by the train car load, men women and children, and then burning their bodies to the extent that their ashes fall like snow from the heavens, and all because they were not blonde haired and blue eyed, is wrong? And wrong even if the Nazis thought it was good?

This truth is self evident as the truth that your face has a nose.

 

[Freodin]

But when you talk with me, the discussion is going to revolve around whether or not there are some values and duties that EXIST and are true independent of human preference.

The keyword of course being "human", right?
If we were to accept your scenario of a creator god and moral lawgiver, then, yes, there would / could be values and duties independent of human preference.

But the real question in such a case - and the one question that you seem to simply ignore - is: do values and duties exist independent of conscious preference?
Only in that case they would be objective.

In my discussions I have been asking an ONTOLOGICAL question. I simply do not care at the present moment WHERE these values come from or even how we KNOW them. All I care about is demonstrating that they EXIST. In other words, are there moral facts that are objectively true?

If you care about demonstrating that... why don't you start to do so? Demonstrate that they exist. Don't ask about our (subjective) opinion on moral issues.

Its the same as asking, are there facts about nature that are objectively true?

If you think that this is the same, you should accept the reality of subjective morals. At least my answer to this question, kept very simple, would be: "Yes, there are facts about nature that are objectively true. And there are facts about nature that are subjectively true."