Why does God not stop the evil?

[Elioenai26]

It seems to me that if there is any external morality of any kind, it would be testable.

Think about it - anything that is objective is testable. 1+1=2 is objective, because anyone can test it themselves and they always get the same answer. Einstein's relativity is objective, because anyone can test it and they will always get the same answer.

So it seems to me that any objective thing will yield identical answers to different people when it is tested.

So how can we test morality in this way?

Rape is always wrong. Like √64 is always 8.

Child molestation is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Murder is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Not loving our neighbor as ourselves is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Tiberius, are you saying you need someone to prove to you that rape is always wrong? Is that not self evident as √64 is 8? And if someone gets their math wrong, does that mean that the √64 is not 8? Of course not! If someone says that rape is not always wrong, does that mean it is not always wrong? If we don't even know how to do square roots, does that mean √64 is not 8? Of course not.

Rape is either objectively wrong or it is not. If it is not objectively wrong, then you have to admit that it is just an opinion, no different from the opinion that some may have that ice cream is good. Ice cream being good is either an objective fact or it is not. Ice cream being good is not an objective fact because it is a personal taste preference. If rape is not an objective fact, then it is a personal preference. Some like it some don't.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't. Some like it some don't and that is up to the person's taste.

Or rape is objectively wrong, meaning always wrong. Wrong even if people like rape.

So which one is rape more plausibly?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Rape is always wrong. Like √64 is always 8.

Child molestation is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Murder is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Not loving our neighbor as ourselves is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Tiberius, are you saying you need someone to prove to you that rape is always wrong? Is that not self evident as √64 is 8? And if someone gets their math wrong, does that mean that the √64 is not 8? Of course not! If someone says that rape is not always wrong, does that mean it is not always wrong? If we don't even know how to do square roots, does that mean √64 is not 8? Of course not.

You insisting that it is so is not the same as objectively demonstrating that it is so. If someone doesn't believe that the √64 is 8, then we can go about showing them that it is.

Rape is either objectively wrong or it is not. If it is not objectively wrong, then you have to admit that it is just an opinion, no different from the opinion that some may have that ice cream is good. Ice cream being good is either an objective fact or it is not. Ice cream being good is not an objective fact because it is a personal taste preference. If rape is not an objective fact, then it is a personal preference. Some like it some don't.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't. Some like it some don't and that is up to the person's taste.

Or rape is objectively wrong, meaning always wrong. Wrong even if people like rape.

So which one is rape more plausibly?

False dichotomy. You are once again framing it in all-or-nothing terms: either it is objectively wrong or it isn't wrong at all. What kind of person would stop caring about morality if they discovered that it was not 'objective' (in the strictest sense of the word)? No one would do that. Morality still means something to people even if it isn't 'objective'.

 

[Elioenai26]

You insisting that it is so is not the same as objectively demonstrating that it is so. If someone doesn't believe that the √64 is 8, then we can go about showing them that it is.

If you agree rape is always wrong, then I do not have to give you proof of something you already believe. That would be like asking me to give you proof that √64 is always 8 after telling me that the √64 is always 8!

This is the horrible logic coming from people here and it is just incredible that such thinking goes on so frequently.

False dichotomy. You are once again framing it in all-or-nothing terms: either it is objectively wrong or it isn't wrong at all. What kind of person would stop caring about morality if they discovered that it was not 'objective' (in the strictest sense of the word)? No one would do that. Morality still means something to people even if it isn't 'objective'.

Its either objectively wrong, wrong according to the subject, or not wrong at all. There is no fourth option.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you agree rape is always wrong, then I do not have to give you proof of something you already believe. That would be like asking me to give you proof that √64 is always 8 after telling me that the √64 is always 8!

This is the horrible logic coming from people here and it is just incredible that such thinking goes on so frequently.

You seem to have missed the point. If morality is like mathematics, in the sense that you could objectively demonstrate that the √64 is 8 to someone who doesn't believe it, then surely you could objectively demonstrate the same for moral values? Instead what you are doing is insisting that they are objective, but not demonstrating that they are so. The statement "The √64 is 8" isn't true by virtue of your insistence, but by virtue of the logic of mathematics.

 

[Elioenai26]

You seem to have missed the point. If morality is like mathematics, in the sense that you could objectively demonstrate that the √64 is 8 to someone who doesn't believe it, then surely you could objectively demonstrate the same for moral values? Instead what you are doing is insisting that they are objective, but not demonstrating that they are so. The statement "The √64 is 8" isn't true by virtue of your insistence, but by virtue of the logic of mathematics.

If I tell someone that √64 is 8 and they do not agree with me or come to another conclusion than myself, then does that mean the answer is not 8?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I tell someone that √64 is 8 and they do not agree with me or come to another conclusion than myself, then does that mean the answer is not 8?

No, it doesn't. But once again it bears repeating that the the answer (8) is not true by virtue of your insistence, but by virtue of the logic of mathematics. If someone doubts your answer, they can follow that logic to arrive at the answer for themselves. They have some means of confirming or disproving your answer objectively.

 

[Tiberius]

Rape is always wrong. Like √64 is always 8.

Child molestation is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Murder is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Not loving our neighbor as ourselves is always wrong like √64 is always 8.

Very bad analogy. Is murder always the exact same situation? We've been over this before. There are many different reasons. Is it okay to murder someone if it is the only way to stop them blowing up a bus of children?

Perhaps your analogy should be that murder is wrong if √x = 5. Provided that x=25, then all is good. But if x=36, then there's a problem.

Tiberius, are you saying you need someone to prove to you that rape is always wrong? Is that not self evident as √64 is 8? And if someone gets their math wrong, does that mean that the √64 is not 8? Of course not! If someone says that rape is not always wrong, does that mean it is not always wrong? If we don't even know how to do square roots, does that mean √64 is not 8? Of course not.

Your argument is seriously flawed. By attempting to equate your claim that rape is wrong to something objectively true, you are just claiming that rape is objectively wrong, therefore it is objectively wrong. You are begging the question. You still must SHOW that moral claims are objectively wrong. All you have been doing is repeating your claims over and over, never providing any evidence that your claims are true.

Rape is either objectively wrong or it is not. If it is not objectively wrong, then you have to admit that it is just an opinion, no different from the opinion that some may have that ice cream is good. Ice cream being good is either an objective fact or it is not. Ice cream being good is not an objective fact because it is a personal taste preference. If rape is not an objective fact, then it is a personal preference. Some like it some don't.

Finally! That is exactly what I've been saying. All morality is SUBJECTIVE. It's never objective! Sure, the vast majority of people think rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true.

Rape is either a preference I.e. some prefer it and some don't. Some like it some don't and that is up to the person's taste.

Exactly.

Or rape is objectively wrong, meaning always wrong. Wrong even if people like rape.

Well, here's the thing. If some people have the opinion that rape is okay, then obviously, we can't trust a person's opinion as to whether rape is okay. After all, if some people have flawed opinions, we need some external measure to determine what the objective truth is.

So, what objective truth do you use to determine if a person's opinion of rape fits what is objectively true?

So which one is rape more plausibly?

So far, it seems to me that the "opinion" thing is much more plausible.

How about you propose some objective source that tells us that rape is objectively wrong, and I'll consider it.

 

[quatona]

The inherent weakness of subjectivism is that under it, and if everyone were a subjectivist, there would be no justifiable basis for adjudicating between opposing moral views.

1. Argument from consequence.
2. If everyone were a moral objectivist there wouldn´t be such a basis either.

So ethical subjectivism for this very reason, fails as a tenable ethical system.

Subjectivism isn´t meant to be an ethical system. It is a meta-ethical view.

In fact, it cannot even be called moral at all.

That´s because calling a meta-ethical view "moral" or "immoral" doesn´t make any sense, anyway.

For morality deals with right and wrong behavior.

Subjectivists can do and do that.

But since there is no standard by which to adjudicate between opposing moral values beyond the values themselves, there can be no right or wrong behavior in any meaningful sense of the terms.

Yes, there can, and the meaning these words have to a subjectivist has been explained to you over and over. That you prefer the meaning of right/wrong to be "objectively right/wrong" doesn´t change the fact that "(subjectively) right/wrong" are meaningful terms.

The view prohibits a sound basis for such distinguishing and approving or condoning certain acts.

No, it doesn´t. I have practically demonstrated to you several times that and how I can do that quite fine without being inconsistent.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, it doesn't. But once again it bears repeating that the the answer (8) is not true by virtue of your insistence, but by virtue of the logic of mathematics. If someone doubts your answer, they can follow that logic to arrive at the answer for themselves. They have some means of confirming or disproving your answer objectively.

I agree.

If I ask Timmy what the square root of 64 is and he reasons and says 8, do I need to give him proof that the answer is 8?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree.

If I ask Timmy what the square root of 64 is and he reasons and says 8, do I need to give him proof that the answer is 8?

You're still missing the point...

Allow me to repeat: "If morality is like mathematics, in the sense that you could objectively demonstrate that the √64 is 8 to someone who doesn't believe it, then surely you could objectively demonstrate the same for moral values?"

You aren't doing the same for moral values though. You are just insisting that certain values are objective and then expecting everyone to agree with you.

 

[Elioenai26]

1. Argument from consequence.

How is me stating the fact that if everyone were a subjectivist, there would be no justifiable basis for adjudicating between opposing moral views an argument from consequence? Appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories. Wikipedia.

Sorry quatona, your objection is based on a strawman again.

2. If everyone were a moral objectivist there wouldn´t be such a basis either.

Of course there would. The basis would be the objective moral values and duties themselves.

Subjectivism isn´t meant to be an ethical system. It is a meta-ethical view.

But ethical systems are based on meta-ethics. So I could specifically say that ethical subjectivism for this very reason, fails as a tenable meta-ethic for its ethical system derivitives. Any ethical system based on ethical subjectivism fails to be a tenable ethical system. This was implied.

That´s because calling a meta-ethical view "moral" or "immoral" doesn´t make any sense, anyway.

Of course it does. Once again, ethical systems are based on meta-ethics. If you have a meta-ethic that does not allow for there to actually be any acts inherently right or wrong, one would call this amoral. If a meta-ethical view gave rise to the ethical system that says rape is good, we would say this meta-ethic was immoral. Etc. Etc.

Subjectivists can do and do that.

They can state their subjective opinions. That is all.

Yes, there can, and the meaning these words have to a subjectivist has been explained to you over and over. That you prefer the meaning of right/wrong to be "objectively right/wrong" doesn´t change the fact that "(subjectively) right/wrong" are meaningful terms.


No, it doesn´t. I have practically demonstrated to you several times that and how I can do that quite fine without being inconsistent.

All you can say is that it is your opinion that rape is wrong quatona. That is as far as you can go. The rapist says its right, you say its wrong. Back and forth back and forth back and forth. Since the truth of a moral propostion is determined by the subjective view of the subject, both of you are right when you each say: "It is my subjective view that ...."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course there would. The basis would be the objective moral values and duties themselves.

How do we know which moral values and duties are objective? Assuming that objective values exist, then if they are to make any practical difference to our moral thinking and behaviour, we must find a way of coming to know them.

But ethical systems are based on meta-ethics. So I could specifically say that ethical subjectivism for this very reason, fails as a tenable meta-ethic for its ethical system derivitives. Any ethical system based on ethical subjectivism fails to be a tenable ethical system. This was implied.

That is inaccurate. When a person makes a moral statement they are making a moral statement, regardless of whatever meta-ethics happens to say about the origins of that moral statement.

Of course it does. Once again, ethical systems are based on meta-ethics. If you have a meta-ethic that does not allow for there to actually be any acts inherently right or wrong, one would call this amoral. If a meta-ethical view gave rise to the ethical system that says rape is good, we would say this meta-ethic was immoral. Etc. Etc.

That sounds exactly like an argument from consequence.

All you can say is that it is your opinion that rape is wrong quatona. That is as far as you can go. The rapist says its right, you say its wrong. Back and forth back and forth back and forth. Since the truth of a moral propostion is determined by the subjective view of the subject, both of you are right when you each say: "It is my subjective view that ...."

For the billionth time, subjectivism and relativism aren't necessarily the same thing! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? The subjectivist isn't obliged by virtue of his meta-ethics to regard all opinions as equal.

 

[quatona]

How is me stating the fact that if everyone were a subjectivist, there would be no justifiable basis for adjudicating between opposing moral views an argument from consequence? Appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories. Wikipedia.

Sorry quatona, your objection is based on a strawman again.

Ah, ok. I wasn´t aware that in the meantime your point had changed from "objective morals exist" to "the existence of objective morality is desirable".

Of course there would. The basis would be the objective moral values and duties themselves.

If objective moral values and duties would exist, the same would be true if everyone were a subjectivist.

But ethical systems are based on meta-ethics. So I could specifically say that ethical subjectivism for this very reason, fails as a tenable meta-ethic for its ethical system derivitives. Any ethical system based on ethical subjectivism fails to be a tenable ethical system. This was implied.

It may have been implied, but unfortunately your argument didn´t support this implication.

Of course it does. Once again, ethical systems are based on meta-ethics. If you have a meta-ethic that does not allow for there to actually be any acts inherently right or wrong, one would call this amoral.

Only if you are an objectivist and insist that right/wrong must be used in the meaning of "objectively/inherently right/wrong".

If a meta-ethical view gave rise to the ethical system that says rape is good, we would say this meta-ethic was immoral. Etc. Etc.

That´s logically fallacious, but this has never kept you from saying anything.
The meta-ethical view of moral objectivism has given rise to ethical systems that said "genocide is objectively right" (e.g. Nazi-Germany). Same problem.

They can state their subjective opinions. That is all.

Yes, and since that´s all they intend to do (by virtue of their subjectivism) this doesn´t render their statements meaningless.

All you can say is that it is your opinion that rape is wrong quatona. That is as far as you can go. The rapist says its right, you say its wrong. Back and forth back and forth back and forth. Since the truth of a moral propostion is determined by the subjective view of the subject, both of you are right when you each say: "It is my subjective view that ...."

This is getting absurd.
Subjectivist: "All one has in moral/ethical questions is a subjective opinion."
Elioenai: Hundreds of posts trying to argue against moral subjectivism without any substance.
Elioenai finally: "All a subjectist has in moral/ethical question is his subjective opinion."

Adding "objective" to your statement of opinion doesn´t render it objective.

 

[Elioenai26]

How do we know which moral values and duties are objective? Assuming that objective values exist, then if they are to make any practical difference to our moral thinking and behaviour, we must find a way of coming to know them.

How do you know the world is real, and not just a dream?

For the billionth time, subjectivism and relativism aren't necessarily the same thing! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? The subjectivist isn't obliged by virtue of his meta-ethics to regard all opinions as equal.

Of course he does not regard them all as equal. He considers his own subjective view to be right and everyone else's must be measured according to his own subjective view. But since they are all opinions, none is ACTUALLY better than any other, more right than any other, or more wrong than any other. They are all opinions.

 

[Elioenai26]

The meta-ethical view of moral objectivism has given rise to ethical systems that said "genocide is objectively right" (e.g. Nazi-Germany). Same problem.

No problem at all. They were wrong anyway. You know why you will agree with me?

Because you agree it is wrong to kill people because they are a certain race thats why.

Yes, and since that´s all they intend to do (by virtue of their subjectivism) this doesn´t render their statements meaningless.

Of course not to them! Their statements IN THEIR OPINION ARE VERY MEANINGFUL. But if I happen to disagree with you and am an ethical subjectivist, I say MY OPINION IS VERY MEANINGFUL EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS YOUR opinion which you think is meaningful.

Stalemate, stalemate, stalemate....

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Onchocerciasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small
All things wise and wonderful the lord god made them all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How do you know the world is real, and not just a dream?

That doesn't even begin to answer the question. You insist that objective moral values exist. Okay. But if those values are to have any practical significance to our moral problem-solving, then we must find a way of coming to know them.

Of course he does not regard them all as equal. He considers his own subjective view to be right and everyone else's must be measured according to his own subjective view. But since they are all opinions, none is ACTUALLY better than any other, more right than any other, or more wrong than any other. They are all opinions.

Why Moral Subjectivism Doesn’t Imply Moral Relativism « Ockham's Beard

 

[quatona]

No problem at all. They were wrong anyway. You know why you will agree with me?

Because you agree it is wrong to kill people because they are a certain race thats why.

Yes, but unlike you I don´t consider my personal subjective opinion evidence for there being an objective morality.
This is the step you would have to substantiate.

Of course not to them! Their statements IN THEIR OPINION ARE VERY MEANINGFUL. But if I happen to disagree with you and am an ethical subjectivist, I say MY OPINION IS VERY MEANINGFUL EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS YOUR opinion which you think is meaningful.

See - a lot of meaning(s) there. Nothing that supports your statement that subjective opinions are meaningless.

Of course, the problem of disagreement isn´t solved if any- or everyone added "objectively" when giving their opinions - it wouldn´t even make those statements more meaningful.
Your argument started from "if everyone were subjectivists". It can be demonstrated that the state of affairs wouldn´t be any different if everyone were objectivists.

What I do understand is your desire for everyone sharing your ethical and moral ideas (and I, too, would greatly welcome if everyone agreed with me in these questions). Reality, however, proves that this is not the case.
You are completely right: Moral subjectivism won´t get us there.
What, however, you forget: Moral objectivism won´t get us there, either.

 

[quatona]

Of course he does not regard them all as equal.

Then already stop repeating this claim.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well that's settled then. Do you have any concerns about such things in the text, or no?

What are you referring to?

I'm not buying that as examples. You've got very mixed issues there; economic mainly, cultural, geo-political. Sure religion is part of all that but only because its such a part of their National identity.

You're not buying the lords resistance army, who's stated goal is to set up a Christian fundamentalist state as an example of Christian Genocide?

As for Yugoslavia, you are hopelessly ignorant of the war.

The genocide had nothing to do with the economy, culture or politics. The Christians living in Serbia or Croatia did not try to exterminate all Bosnians, they tried to exterminate all people known as Bosniaks.

What is the difference between a Bosnian and a Bosniak? A Bosnian is someone who lived in Bosnia. A Bosniak was someone who lived in Bosnia, and followed the Islamic Faith.

Christian Bosnians were not targeted at all, where the Bosniaks were driven into concentration camps, women were systematically gang raped, and the people were tortured, starved and beaten. Over 25,000 Bosniak Civilians were killed by this manner in the three year war.

Do you still not consider this an act of Religious Genocide?

We've been through this. What are you doing when you assume? Why haven't you stopped?

I'm being correct when I assume? Just because I'm making an assumption doesn't mean I'm wrong. Address my point, or I'll consider that another concession on your part.

This is worded much better. You're being overly simplistic, if you're alluding to Scripture. If you're talking about Yugoslavia? Well I don't know anyone who somehow "agrees" with the ethnic (note, ethnic, not religious) cleansing
there, either. So I don't see how your question can be addressed other than to point out that if anyone can't argue both sides of an issue they simply aren't very intelligent. This is pretty commonly accepted.

Now that I've given you a little more insight into the Yugoslavian Genocide, specifically that it was Muslims only that were targeted, you must retract your "ethnic, not religious" line. The genocide was clearly along religious lines, and the ruling from the International Criminal Court supports my statement.

As for being able to argue both sides of an argument, that's irrelevant. Sure, I could put forward an argument in favour of the Holocaust just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, however I wouldn't agree with my own argument in that case. There's a difference between having the ability to argue for both sides, and genuinely sticking up for and defending the perpetrators of genocide.

If you are ever willing to honestly defend the actions of mass murderers, or perpetrators of genocide, you are an immoral thug. That's all there is to it. I don't care what the genocide was, or what the apparent justification was. It is one of those matters that is simply unacceptable in every conceivable way.

This does not logically follow at all. Even a prosecutor and Judge seeks to understand what the criminal they are sentencing was thinking.

What on earth does that have to do with my point? There is a major difference between understanding the Nazi's motivations, and defending those motivations. Your reply is a red herring.