Why does God not stop the evil?

[Freodin]

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.

This answer would make a lot more sense, if not for the (objective) fact that Mark is a moral objectivist.

 

[Elioenai26]

This answer would make a lot more sense, if not for the (objective) fact that Mark is a moral objectivist.

Are you a moral objectivist?

 

[Freodin]

Are you a moral objectivist?

Nope. I disagree with Eudaimonist on that topic. I still think that he might come around to see that my major objection to his position makes sense, but we have as yet never gotten to discuss it.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Men writing books pretending to be gods is not an objective morality. Never has been.

Objective means that it is not opinion. It is a shared set of observations between humans. Humans, as a group, share the ability to empathise. We also share the ability to come to the same conclusions using logic and reason. This is an objective system, and it does not require us to follow the writings of men pretending to be gods.

Without God life is meaningless . . .

No, it isn't. Atheists lead very meaningful and rewarding lives.

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

You still have not supported this argument.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

That's true. And they judge morality by how obedient they are to the authoritative system.... and any moral person recognizes that obedience is not morality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Actually, yes you did.... your original question to me dealt with Tim killing Dave because he was an Atheist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Perhaps because you don't have an argument that can 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.

Again, just because we all unanimously agree that the holocaust was a moral travesty says nothing at all about it being objective.

What will it take to get that point through your head? Just because really bad things happen, and we all agree they were really bad lends nothing to your argument for an objective standard at all.

You have flatly stated that morality can be reached by subjective means, so don't you think it's very likely that most people would subjectively work out the idea that killing millions of people based on ethnicity or religion is an evil act?

Your argument that "We all agree the holocaust was bad, therefore objective morality" is simply absurd. It does not provide a shred of evidence for an objective moral standard.

 

[Freodin]

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?

Is it wrong? Even if you consider the reality of the holocaust versus your strawman version?

You have already agreed that it is morally right to kill someone who holds two kids hostage at gunpoint. Now what do you propose to do to a whole race of subhumans who poison the objectively better blood of the superiour race? (Which would be a better representation of Nazi ideology than "because they were not blonde and blue eyed".)

You have already stated that the extermination of a danger is morally right. Why would it not be right in the case of the Final Solution?

Consider that carefully. The answer might give you a hint at the distinction between "morals" and "objectively true facts about nature".

 

[Eudaimonist]

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!!"

I'll let you hash that out with the moral subjectivists. As Freodin has mentioned, I'm not a moral subjectivist. I'm a moral realist, and more specifically an ethical naturalist. I realize that it may be difficult to keep your atheists straight without scorecards.

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.

Oh, you need an argument. Even I don't think that it is self-evident. Ask the moral subjectivists if it is self-evident. I'm sure they'll say no.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

Nope. I disagree with Eudaimonist on that topic. I still think that he might come around to see that my major objection to his position makes sense, but we have as yet never gotten to discuss it.

What meta-ethic do you adhere to?

 

[Elioenai26]

Again, just because we all unanimously agree that the holocaust was a moral travesty says nothing at all about it being objective.

Freodin thinks the Holocaust was good for Germany. He gave his reasons. So this destroys your statement that "we all unanimously agree that the holocaust was a moral travesty."

Secondly, even if every gentile on the earth all unanimously agreed that the holocaust was good for Germany, that does not make the holocaust good.

What will it take to get that point through your head? Just because really bad things happen, and we all agree they were really bad lends nothing to your argument for an objective standard at all.

Since I have already demonstrated why statements like this are false, I will ignore it for the sake of expediency.

You have flatly stated that morality can be reached by subjective means, so don't you think it's very likely that most people would subjectively work out the idea that killing millions of people based on ethnicity or religion is an evil act?

Conflating epistemology and ontology does not allow for this argument to be true, and definitely not persuasive.

Your argument that "We all agree the holocaust was bad, therefore objective morality" is simply absurd. It does not provide a shred of evidence for an objective moral standard.

Once again this is a strawman. I never said we all agreed the holocaust was bad.

Also, the question I asked Mark still has not been answered by you:

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.

The above simply requires a yes or no from you. The way you answer will determine whether or not you are a moral realist or anti-realist.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The above simply requires a yes or no from you. The way you answer will determine whether or not you are a moral realist or anti-realist.

If God commands that we do those very things, does it become moral?

 

[seeking Christ]

If God commands that we do those very things, does it become moral?

If the sky was green and the ocean above your head, would that be relevant?

None of these things have ever happened.

 

[Elioenai26]

If God commands that we do those very things, does it become moral?

Do you have a yes or no reply to the question I posed to Dave? If you are a moral realist and therefore affirm the existence of moral values and duties, then I will answer your question. If you are not a moral realist and adhere to some form of moral relativism (cultural relativism), then you know the answer to the question already.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Freodin thinks the Holocaust was good for Germany. He gave his reasons. So this destroys your statement that "we all unanimously agree that the holocaust was a moral travesty."

I think it's pretty clear Freodin agrees the holocaust was an immoral act. His post was written as a thought experiment, not as an advocation of the holocaust.

I should add, by saying unanimous, I was referring to the posters on this thread, not everyone in the world. However, getting to your point, I fully agree there are some who think the holocaust was a good thing. We can show why their views are morally flawed however using reason and evidence.

I'm not going to write out a full paper to explain in detail, however the basics are that even proponents of the holocaust would value life as a good thing. Through bigotry they have been lead to believe that there are "lower forms" of life, which we can demonstrate they have no evidence for. That exposes a flaw in their views, which is in direct contradiction to their moral principles regarding the value of life.

Of course there's far more reasoning why we can show the opinions of the Nazis were misguided, which many former Nazis accepted after the war, but for the sake of not writing a 30 page article, I'll stop here.

Secondly, even if every gentile on the earth all unanimously agreed that the holocaust was good for Germany, that does not make the holocaust good.

And how could someone living in such a society know the difference?

For example, for all we know rape could be objectively good, however the vast majority of our society disagrees... How could we get to learning what is actually objectively correct in that situation?

Since I have already demonstrated why statements like this are false, I will ignore it for the sake of expediency.

Seeing as you agreed to this line of thought in previous posts, I find your statement here quite strange...

Conflating epistemology and ontology does not allow for this argument to be true, and definitely not persuasive.

I have already addressed this concern twice... You have not demonstrated there is anything ontological at all in this topic. It's mere assertion. Until you can demonstrate it, epistemology is all we have to go on.

Once again this is a strawman. I never said we all agreed the holocaust was bad.

That's not the point... You are arguing because people overwhelmingly believe the holocaust was bad, that somehow there is something objective about that belief. It's a total non sequitur.

Also, the question I asked Mark still has not been answered by you:

I didn't know I was obligated to answer questions you asked to mark... But I'll be happy to answer

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.

The above simply requires a yes or no from you. The way you answer will determine whether or not you are a moral realist or anti-realist.

I agree that the action you described above is wrong.

But again, that means nothing when it comes to demonstrating objectivity. All we have demonstrated is that you and I, and the vast majority of people agree that it's wrong. How do you tie that to an external source?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have a yes or no reply to the question I posed to Dave?

Do you havea yes or no reply to the question I post to YOU?

If you are a moral realist and therefore affirm the existence of moral values and duties, then I will answer your question. If you are not a moral realist and adhere to some form of moral relativism (cultural relativism), then you know the answer to the question already.

Read post #571 in this very thread. Already answered it.

Now will you answer my question?

 

[Loudmouth]

If the sky was green and the ocean above your head, would that be relevant?

None of these things have ever happened.

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since.(2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)



God did order these things, according to the Bible.

 

[seeking Christ]

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek

[Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars

Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll

God did order these things, according to the Bible.

He didn't do what you accused Him of doing, which was genocide based on race. Again and again you make this false accusation, and again and again you are proven wrong. Why not bother to actually read the passage you use as your proof?

Look above, and you can see I snipped out what you would prefer to skip over, making it easier for you to see.

 

[Loudmouth]

He didn't do what you accused Him of doing, which was genocide based on race. Again and again you make this false accusation, and again and again you are proven wrong. Why not bother to actually read the passage you use as your proof?

Genocide is more than race:

"Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",
Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So are you saying that it is moral to kill infants and perform burnt human sacrifices as long as you don't do it based on race?

 

[seeking Christ]

No, I'm saying the instances you cite are continually done for purposes other than what you accuse. It is the PURPOSE that is the point of the story, which you would rather gloss over, making it meaningless.