The Moral Argument

[Exaeus]

What aspect of morality do Christians disagree about?

Some examples I could scrounge up on short notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Which is attributed to Jesus. Admittedly, if that is the case, Jesus, who was God in the flesh, authored the rule from from which stems the morality the world generally agrees to.

How do you propose to attribute the Golden Rule to Jesus when the Golden Rule predates Jesus by several thousand years?

Like what?

Like things that do not cause detrimental consequences to other people or society, and hence do not trigger the Golden Rule. For example, maybe a 21-year-old young man wants to marry a 65-year-old woman. Maybe someone has a habit of licking his plates in restaurants. Maybe someone has a liking for sex dolls or pornography which he enjoys in the privacy of his own home. That's where subjectivity comes into play.

The argument is not that morality comes from Christianity. The argument is that God created us, designed us to be moral beings. That cultures that have never heard of God or the Bible or Christianity have an innate knowledge of objective morality only shows demonstrates the fact that man is made in God's image and even those who have not heard of Him still reflect that image in some ways.

Just because everyone has morality is very poor evidence indeed that it came from God. In fact, it's not even evidence at all. If the exact opposite were true and only Christians were moral, I'm sure you would rush to hold that up as well as proof that God is the source of morals.

We have here a case of evidence being creatively interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the conclusion being based on the evidence.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 30 November 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

What aspect of morality do Christians disagree about?

Some examples I could scrounge up on short notice:

http://en.wikipedia...._Baptist_Church

http://en.wikipedia....n_homosexuality

The problem is that you and I have different definitions as to who is or is not a Christian. The Westboro Baptist Church is neither Baptist nor is it a Church. It is cult. It is a group of people, mostly who are related to each other under the leadership of psychopath.

I figured you would bring up homosexuality. As for the issue of Homosexuality, the Bible is very clear on the matter. The fact that some Christians choose to ignore the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality doesn't mean that there is no objective standard presented by the Bible for how human sexuality is to be expressed. Christians do disagree over that matter, but that says more about some who claim to be Christian than it does as to whether or not an objective standard exists.

Like things that do not cause detrimental consequences to other people or society, and hence do not trigger the Golden Rule. For example, maybe a 21-year-old young man wants to marry a 65-year-old woman. Maybe someone has a habit of licking his plates in restaurants.

Neither of which are "moral" issues.

Maybe someone has a liking for sex dolls or pornography which he enjoys in the privacy of his own home. That's where subjectivity comes into play.

No, it doesn't. It seems that anything can be justifed as okay so long as it is done in private.

The sin of pornography doesn't begin or end in the privacy of one's own home. For pornography to exist, young girls must be exploited and abused. Pornography has caused many young girls to commit suicide. The porn industry doesn't show you what happens behind the scenes how girls are often the victim of rape, unwanted pregancies, forced abortion, they are lured into the porn industry by false promises of big money that never materializes, they are dehumanized and in some cases, beaten.

People who use pornography as single adults usually carry that habit into their marriages and it is as destructive to a marriage as adutery. In fact, it could be argued that porn use, especially by a married person is qualifies as adultery.

Many sexual crimes have been found to be linked to pornography because once a person has gone as far as they can with toys and pornography that appetite has to be fulfilled elsewhere. It never begins and ends in the privacy of one's home. So to claim it is a subjective and does not trigger the Golden Rule isn't true.

How do you propose to attribute the Golden Rule to Jesus when the Golden Rule predates Jesus by several thousand years?

It doesn't predate Jesus by thousands of years, at least not in the way that Jesus taught.

Just because everyone has morality is very poor evidence indeed that it came from God. In fact, it's not even evidence at all. If the exact opposite were true and only Christians were moral, I'm sure you would rush to hold that up as well as proof that God is the source of morals.

We have here a case of evidence being creatively interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the conclusion being based on the evidence.

Not really. God created man to be moral creatures. God has left His signature on all aspects of the created order. Mankind reflects God in many ways. We are, in miniature, creators, inventors, discoverers, builders. God hardwired us that way. He created us to be moral (albeit, in our fallen state, we rebel aganist that truth). He created with innate knowledge of himself. That is, in part, why human tribes that have never heard of God or the Bible or any other religion still seek something outside of themselves to worship. There is something in us that tells us we have a Creator who is greater than ourselves.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Stargaze why don't you respond to this post

Interesting you keep making things about individual morals that you assume Christians have or morals that you disagree with. However you seem to ignore the fact that we are speaking of why as an individual that you are offended when someone does something that hurts you.

[Exaeus]

The problem is that you and I have different definitions as to who is or is not a Christian. The Westboro Baptist Church is neither Baptist nor is it a Church. It is cult. It is a group of people, mostly who are related to each other under the leadership of psychopath.

I figured you would bring up homosexuality. As for the issue of Homosexuality, the Bible is very clear on the matter. The fact that some Christians choose to ignore the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality doesn't mean that there is no objective standard presented by the Bible for how human sexuality is to be expressed. Christians do disagree over that matter, but that says more about some who claim to be Christian than it does as to whether or not an objective standard exists.

This is something known as the "No True Scotsman" tactic. It's a pretty well-known and well-documented logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Your God also instructed Joshua, for example, to kill every last inhabitant of Jericho, including women and children. Do you think that is moral?

The sin of pornography doesn't begin or end in the privacy of one's own home. For pornography to exist, young girls must be exploited and abused. Pornography has caused many young girls to commit suicide. The porn industry doesn't show you what happens behind the scenes how girls are often the victim of rape, unwanted pregancies, forced abortion, they are lured into the porn industry by false promises of big money that never materializes, they are dehumanized and in some cases, beaten.

People who use pornography as single adults usually carry that habit into their marriages and it is as destructive to a marriage as adutery. In fact, it could be argued that porn use, especially by a married person is qualifies as adultery.

Many sexual crimes have been found to be linked to pornography because once a person has gone as far as they can with toys and pornography that appetite has to be fulfilled elsewhere. It never begins and ends in the privacy of one's home. So to claim it is a subjective and does not trigger the Golden Rule isn't true.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to derail the thread by discussing pornography instead. The fact is that there is far more legitimate pornography companies and actors observed by strict government permits and regulations than there are unlawful ones, assuming we're talking about a democratic and civilized nation. To provide you with an analogy, just because a rare few companies exploit child labor in Asian countries to produce their goods doesn't mean you give up wearing shoes and shirts entirely. That's just being silly.

It doesn't predate Jesus by thousands of years, at least not in the way that Jesus taught.

Whatever special version of the Golden Rule that Jesus allegedly invented and and you're trying to give him credit for, the Golden Rule was already practiced thousands of years before Jesus came along, in various regions like ancient Babylon and China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule

Even if Jesus really did come up with his own special version, we've had a source of morality long before Christ all the same. Today the Golden Rule is studied and relatively well-understood in the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

Not really. God created man to be moral creatures. God has left His signature on all aspects of the created order. Mankind reflects God in many ways. We are, in miniature, creators, inventors, discoverers, builders. God hardwired us that way. He created us to be moral (albeit, in our fallen state, we rebel aganist that truth). He created with innate knowledge of himself. That is, in part, why human tribes that have never heard of God or the Bible or any other religion still seek something outside of themselves to worship. There is something in us that tells us we have a Creator who is greater than ourselves.

Religion and morality are universal. Christianity has only been around for ~2000 years, and Judaism ~7000. Mankind has existed and have been worshiping everything they could see long before that, from the sun to the trees, in attempts to come up with explanations for what they lacked the science, technology, and knowledge to understand.

As I've already explained, morality being common among man does nothing to prove that morality came from God. If only Christians were moral, you'd be claiming that as proof for your baseless hypothesis as well. You cannot have a situation X prove something, and then claim that an opposite situation Y also proves the same thing. That's not how logical reasoning works.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Exaeus

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 30 November 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

The problem is that you and I have different definitions as to who is or is not a Christian. The Westboro Baptist Church is neither Baptist nor is it a Church. It is cult. It is a group of people, mostly who are related to each other under the leadership of psychopath.

I figured you would bring up homosexuality. As for the issue of Homosexuality, the Bible is very clear on the matter. The fact that some Christians choose to ignore the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality doesn't mean that there is no objective standard presented by the Bible for how human sexuality is to be expressed. Christians do disagree over that matter, but that says more about some who claim to be Christian than it does as to whether or not an objective standard exists.

This is something known as the "No True Scotsman" tactic. It's a pretty well-known and well-documented logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia....o_true_scotsman

Sorry but what I presented is not an example of that fallacy. That is because there is an established standard for determing Christian behavior measuring the Westboro group against. The No True Scotsman fallacy erects a false standard. For example, if I said that No True Scotsman eats chicken, that would be a fallacy, as eating chicken has nothing to do with whether or not one is a true Scotsman.

The Westboro group cannot held to be Christians as they violate what the Bible says a true Christian is. Sorry, but that fallacy is not in play.

Your God also instructed Joshua, for example, to kill every last inhabitant of Jericho, including women and children. Do you think that is moral?

It was considering that Jericho was under God's judgment. God used other nations as a tool of judgment agaisnt Israel as well.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to derail the thread by discussing pornography instead.

You raised the issue of porn use as a "subjective" issue. I demonstrated that it is not.

The fact is that there is far more legitimate pornography companies and actors observed by strict government permits and regulations than there are unlawful ones, assuming we're talking about a democratic and civilized nation. To provide you with an analogy, just because a rare few companies exploit child labor in Asian countries to produce their goods doesn't mean you give up wearing shoes and shirts entirely. That's just being silly.

That is not the same and is really a red herring. No one is for much of the child labor laws in other couuntries and the sweat shops and such. But wearing tennis shoes made in China cannot be compared to self-destructive habit of pornography. Pornography destoys lives and marriages. Tennis shoes don't.

Pornography whether it operates legally or not still relies on exploiting and dehumanizing young girls and in addition it portrays sex as not having any consequences. Legal or not, it still wrecks the families of those who use it, it still results in higher suicide rates among the young girls lured into the industry it still results in pregnancies and abortions. Pornography is all about sex without consequences and responsibility. It takes what is supposed a beautiful expression of love between a man and his wife and turns it into a sick, depraved disgusting industry that destroys lives.

I have to go to class now. I wil respond to the rest of your post later this afternoon.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Exaeus and welcome.

First impressions are interesting things, aren't they? At first glance it seems you've done some reading up on logic and reasoning, you know the names of certain informal fallacies and you throw them around as if you've got the patent right on logic, but then your second sentence on this forum contains a strawman, how weird is that?

So the impression that I have of you right now is that you've learnt these things in order to use them as gotcha terms to dismiss arguments, but your misapplying them which indicates that your knowledge seems superficial.

There's a saying, "If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem becomes a nail". It seems that you've recently learnt the names of fallacies and now you're seeing them everywhere.

So let me give you a tip. Learning logic is good, but the primary reason one should learn it, is to avoid making logical mistakes yourself and to evaluate your own thinking. Once you have that sorted, then when you point out mistakes in reasoning it'll be a great deal more persuasive.

The fallacy of an entirely objective moral standard is destroyed by the fact that Christians, who claim to be the standard bearers of this objective set of morals, cannot even get together and agree on what that set actually is.

Nobody is arguing for an entirely objective moral standard. The moral argument, which is the topic of this thread has as its second premise only that objective moral values and duties exist. Even if there was only one objective moral value and one objective duty the premise would be true.

We do not claim that morality is entirely objective, and we don't need to because the premises don't require that.

The accusation that Christians claim to be the bearers of this moral standard is false. The moral argument isn't even an argument for the Christian God, but argues toward a transcendent moral law Giver. Nothing more. As such it forms part of a cumulative case for Christianity.

That Christians disagree on some moral issues is entirely irrelevant to the moral argument. People may disagree on the entire set of planets in our solar system (referring to the pluto issue), what does that prove?

Second, you're oversimplifying the problem into the classical logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Just because our morals do not come from a hypothetical supreme being doesn't mean that every aspect of it is relative and subjective. A large subset of morals that are generally agreed upon across the world can be termed as "objective" because they stem from a single source: the Golden Rule.

It seems you're trying to ground morality in the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is a moral rule. Grounding morality in a moral rule is putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? It's the same as attempting to ground the notion that murder is wrong in the rule "Do not murder".

Why should people follow the Golden Rule?

Morality has been known and practiced by non-primitive cultures centuries before Christianity even existed.

This ofcourse depends on how you define Christianity. The name "Christian" may be recently but the first worshipper of our God was Adam.

The idea that the Golden Rule predates Christ is also not entirely correct. The notion that you should put yourself in another man's shoes and consider other's perspective was given on Mt. Sinai where God instructed the Israelites to love their neighbours as they love themselves.

Confucious' rule is often called the "Silver Rule" because it is passive whereas Christ's rule is proactive.

None of this, ofcourse is relevant to the discussion. When Christianity came about really doesn't refute either premise or the moral argument and neither does the dating of the Golden Rule.

[Exaeus]

Sorry but what I presented is not an example of that fallacy. That is because there is an established standard for determing Christian behavior measuring the Westboro group against. The No True Scotsman fallacy erects a false standard. For example, if I said that No True Scotsman eats chicken, that would be a fallacy, as eating chicken has nothing to do with whether or not one is a true Scotsman.

The Westboro group cannot held to be Christians as they violate what the Bible says a true Christian is. Sorry, but that fallacy is not in play.

Which was my point exactly. There is an established standard, according to you. The WBC apparently begs to differ by denouncing other churches for not taking a more determined stand against the taint of Satanic corruption and, in doing so, leading their congregations to the pits of hell. Even among yourselves, Christians cannot agree on what is good and what is not.

It was considering that Jericho was under God's judgment. God used other nations as a tool of judgment agaisnt Israel as well.

So as long as it's under God's judgment, then indiscriminate slaughter of women and children are good and moral?

Perhaps before Christians try to claim that their deity is the objective and absolute source of morals, it might be worth asking the question: is your God moral to begin with?

You raised the issue of porn use as a "subjective" issue. I demonstrated that it is not.

Well, to be honest I'm not sure what makes you think you were successful in your attempted demonstration.

That is not the same and is really a red herring. No one is for much of the child labor laws in other couuntries and the sweat shops and such. But wearing tennis shoes made in China cannot be compared to self-destructive habit of pornography. Pornography destoys lives and marriages. Tennis shoes don't.

Do your morals teach you that exploiting underage, poverty-stricken children for profit, and you enjoying the fruits of that exploitation is perfectly fine (presumably because your Bible doesn't outlaw it), but a legitimate trade plied by willing actors of legal age is not?

Pornography whether it operates legally or not still relies on exploiting and dehumanizing young girls and in addition it portrays sex as not having any consequences. Legal or not, it still wrecks the families of those who use it, it still results in higher suicide rates among the young girls lured into the industry it still results in pregnancies and abortions. Pornography is all about sex without consequences and responsibility. It takes what is supposed a beautiful expression of love between a man and his wife and turns it into a sick, depraved disgusting industry that destroys lives.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to ask you to back up your claims with credible statistics.

First off, how does pornography "exploit and dehumanize" young girls? Assuming they're operating for a legal company, they are compensated for their services like a worker in any other industry, and last I checked, I did not recall acting or having willing sexual intercourse counting as a dehumanization process. That word is usually reserved to describe processes undertaken by fascist/racist groups or governments against their victims, and in your haste to condemn pornography you have unfortunately stretched the truth a little bit too thin.

The sex trade is the oldest in the world. Pornography itself has been around since the Victorian era, and has been readily accessible for decades at the very least. You're quite right that pornography is all about sex without consequences and responsibility, except that pornography is fictional, and the participants involved are paid actors. Unrealistic portrayals are what movies are about, and pornography is no different. Any person stupid enough to destroy their family over pornography is suffering from a severe inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, in which case pornography is hardly to blame for what he does to himself.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Exaeus

[Isaiah 6:8]

Stargaze why don't you respond to this post

Interesting you keep making things about individual morals that you assume Christians have or morals that you disagree with. However you seem to ignore the fact that we are speaking of why as an individual that you are offended when someone does something that hurts you.

Sorry, I thought stargaze had said what Exaeus' said.

So Exaeus, can you read that post and reply, as well as let me know if your a believer or not. as from all appearances you are not.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Stargaze why don't you respond to this post

Interesting you keep making things about individual morals that you assume Christians have or morals that you disagree with. However you seem to ignore the fact that we are speaking of why as an individual that you are offended when someone does something that hurts you.

Sorry, I thought stargaze had said what Exaeus' said.

So Exaeus, can you read that post and reply, as well as let me know if your a believer or not. as from all appearances you are not.

I re-read your post, I saw how you stated "your god" so I figured that answered my question. I have therefore changed your status to that of "Nonbeliever" This restricts you to posting in the outer court, and does not allow you access to the board Private Messaging system.

[Exaeus]

Hi Exaeus and welcome.

Thank you, and I'll accept that welcome at face value.

Nobody is arguing for an entirely objective moral standard.

I'm not sure who you're including in your definition of "nobody", but the original poster I replied to was debating under the premise that the only alternative to an objective set of moral values was a set of entirely subjective, relativistic ones. I'm glad we agree that reality is somewhere in between.

That Christians disagree on some moral issues is entirely irrelevant to the moral argument. People may disagree on the entire set of planets in our solar system (referring to the pluto issue), what does that prove?

It proves that the criteria used to determine whether a celestial body is a planet or otherwise is hardly an objective matter. Likewise, Christians disagreeing with each other proves that the set of moral laws allegedly given by a hypothetical transcendent giver is not objective, at least not entirely. But since we're apparently in agreement on this point, I'll move on.

It seems you're trying to ground morality in the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is a moral rule. Grounding morality in a moral rule is putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? It's the same as attempting to ground the notion that murder is wrong in the rule "Do not murder".

Why should people follow the Golden Rule?

The Golden Rule is grounded in neuroscience and evolutionary biology in order to reject destructive elements of a herd when species learned to band together in groups for increased survival chances, and food and mating opportunities. When combined with altruism under certain situations, it can potentially improve the fitness of the group or species as a whole at the expense of a few individuals. We follow the Golden Rule because it allows us to exist and function as a society. A number of other animal species do the same; "morality" is hardly restricted to the human species.

This ofcourse depends on how you define Christianity. The name "Christian" may be recently but the first worshipper of our God was Adam.

Actually, Adam would technically be a follower of Judaism. The first Christian is the one who first followed Jesus Christ.

The idea that the Golden Rule predates Christ is also not entirely correct. The notion that you should put yourself in another man's shoes and consider other's perspective was given on Mt. Sinai where God instructed the Israelites to love their neighbours as they love themselves.

Confucious' rule is often called the "Silver Rule" because it is passive whereas Christ's rule is proactive.

God's revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai is generally dated to around 1400-1450 BC. On the other hand, the Golden Rule can be found in the Code of Hammurabi dated to ~1780 BC, and presumably in practice quite a while before Hammurabi formalized and inscribed them on stone.

None of this, ofcourse is relevant to the discussion. When Christianity came about really doesn't refute either premise or the moral argument and neither does the dating of the Golden Rule.

I beg to differ. Since an "objective" moral code had existed long before anyone heard from (or about) God or Jesus, I would propose that premise #1 is called into question.