Question for nonbelievers, atheists, seekers

[LuftWaffle]

It also strikes me as odd to see Christians disagreeing with the concept of moral relativism, since the Bible depicts it clearly (e.g., is genocide immoral?  Apparently sometimes not.)

 

 

If morality is defined by a culture as you say, then what's wrong with genocide? Surely if cultures get to define what's right and wrong for their culture then it would be right for a culture to commit genocide if they define it so. If a culture defines genocide to be right, then any individual within that culture who is opposed to genocide would find themselves morally in the wrong.

 

Do you agree?

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

That's an incorrect distinction between moral relativism and moral objectivism.

Both moral objectivists and subjectivist would say that moral values and duties are dependent on circumstance.

 

Ok.

 

If morality is defined by a culture as you say, then what's wrong with genocide? Surely if cultures get to define what's right and wrong for their culture then it would be right for a culture to commit genocide if they define it so. If a culture defines genocide to be right, then any individual within that culture who is opposed to genocide would find themselves morally in the wrong.

 

 

It's a matter of perspective.  For example, are the accounts of God directly ordering genocide and sexual slavery in the Bible morally good or bad?

 

 

What do you mean it's a matter of perspective? So if from one's groups perspective genocide is right, then it is right. And from another's perspective it is wrong so for that person it is wrong. There's nothing really wrong with the action it just depends on preference. Is that what you're saying?

If so then what do we make of the moral reformer who goes against the societal norm? If a culture deems genocide as preferable, thereby making it morally right according to your view, then a person going against that societal norm, is by virtue of your view immoral. Correct?

 

At this point we're talking moral ontology, so your question about what I consider to me moral or immoral is irrelevant. It's more important that you tell me why you're referring to "genocide in the bible" , when it seems your view of morality cannot make any moral claim about it.

[LuftWaffle]

Yes.

So in essence then you're saying there's nothing morally wrong with another culture, say the Israelites, committing genocide? It's simply their preference? According to you, it's morally equivalent to let's say, making toast, or washing a car?

 

 

Do you think the Israelites, as they were slaughtering women and children, were thinking to themselves "this is morally wrong"?

I don't know what they were thinking, I'm not a mind reader, much less a historical mind reader.

 

May I ask what your point is seeing as that according to you there no moral weight to other cultures committing whatever?

 

 

 

Within that society, yes.

So moral reformers like Martin Luther King, Wilberforce and Nelson Mandela were acting immorally by going against the societal norms?

In the American south blacks were viewed as inferior, which according to cultural relativism, is morally right. Martin Luther King was against the cultural norm so he was acting immorally, right? 

 

From our perspective it all seems absolutely horrible....well, from mine anyways.  I'm still not clear on your position on Biblical genocide.

Why should anyone care about your perspective if morally is perspective dependent.

 

And I'm not really sure what relevance your questions about biblical genocide has, since it cannot have any moral weight according to cultural relativism. It's like asking me whether I think eating with chopsticks(another societal preference) is morally worse than eating with one's hands.

 

If you're arguing that genocide is always immoral, no matter what the circumstances or perspective, then as a Christian you must condemn the genocide in the OT.

Again, circumstance has nothing to do with moral objectivism vs moral relativism. Both groups believe circumstances affect moral values and duties.

 

Why should I condemn the genocide in the old testament? Why should the same limitations and prerogatives that apply to humans apply to God? What's your reason for making that assumption?

 

If OTOH you have constructed an "out" for the OT genocide, then you make my point for me ("moral" and "immoral" is a matter of perspective and circumstances, rather than any sort of universal absolute).

I still think you don't really understand the objective/subjective distinction.

Ethics is always dependent on circumstance, that doesn't make it subjective. The circumstance in the Old Testament is not that God is setting a moral precedent for His followers to follow, but that God is passing a judgement on an entire nation which has become debased and wicked to a point where they would roast their own children to Molech while playing their drums louder so they couldn't hear the screams of their babies as their flesh bubbled on the brass.

 

Again, why should one assume that God is limited to the restrictions and prerogatives of man?

When a prison guard acting as a representative of justice locks up a convict it's not setting a moral precedent that we should follow.

If I go about locking people against their will in tiny grey rooms, and claim "well prison guards get to do that, why can't I?" I'd be viewed as a nutcase, because I don't have the authority that a representative of the law has. Is that proof of moral relativism? Certainly not.

 

Likewise, God has certain prerogatives to pass judgement for morally sufficient reasons that we don't have, acting solely on our behalf.

[enoob57]

If OTOH you have constructed an "out" for the OT genocide, then you make my point for me ("moral" and "immoral" is a matter of perspective and circumstances, rather than any sort of universal absolute).

According to God - He alone holds the true moral fiber of Being without sin!  Thus leaving Him The Only communicator of morality in existence!   Love, Steven

[Sevenseas]

I am very interested in knowing how those who do not take God's Word as God's Word think of moral and ethics.

 

What is good, what is bad or evil?

 

What is right and what is wrong?

 

 

And especially:

 

How do you define and what arguments do you have for your ideas?

 

It's interesting for me to know what kind of views there are, so please satisfy my curiosity

 

 

I don't think non-believers have different emotions, eh?  They are human after all.

 

We don't suddenly become super human or something just because we are saved or believe.

 

Even as a Christian, one still has to decide how they will behave...we don't suddenly become a different person.  

 

I won't say more.....but that is the direction I am heading in with an answer.  

[LuftWaffle]

So given everything that was just posted, is genocide absolutely immoral?

 

I have answered your question. Genocide is objectively immoral when it is not a judgement of God.

 

You on the other hand don't seem to have any basis to fault any genocide perpetrated by another culture, correct? So from your perspective there's nothing wrong with it?

[LuftWaffle]

LOL!  Just a hint, if you have to add "except when...", then what you're taking about isn't absolute.

Rubbish. I've already made it clear that both objectivist and subjectivist theories of ethics hold that moral values are circumstance dependent. You simply don't get to redefine objectivism in your own terms.

I've also made it clear that God wasn't setting a moral precedent for us to follow.

 

What you haven't done is explain why one should apply the same prerogatives and restrictions to God as one does to humans.

 

From my perspective, it's horrible, terrible, and immoral.

And I have asked you why another culture should care given your view of cultural relativism. According to your own words morality is perspective dependent, isn't it?

 

The fact that you would even think my position could be otherwise shows you're not making any effort to understand my argument.

I think I understand the implications of your view better than you do. Please go ahead and explain to me what's wrong with the Israelite genocide from a cultural relativist perspective? Merely saying that you think is immoral doesn't apply to other cultures, remember? According to your own view the only reason why you think it's immoral is because your own culture prefers no genocides, just like some cultures prefer to eat with chopsticks, yes?

[LuftWaffle]

And what's truly ironic is that the only ones here defending and justifying genocide are Christians, yet I'm the one being accused of "saying there's nothing wrong with it"!

 

Hilarious.

 

Try to keep up, sport! I didn't say you think there's nothing wrong with it. I said according to cultural relativism, which you hold, there's nothing wrong with it. You have yet to show otherwise.

So either abandon cultural relativism for a better ethical theory, or live with its implications. We can't help you with that.

 

Secondly I'm not defending and justifying genocide and neither does the Bible in the way you're implying. God simply isn't obliged to grant immortality to the whole world regardless of what they do, just because some atheists might take exception.

 

It seems you've come face to face with your worldview and are now flinching? What precisely is wrong with some aggregates of particles that we call human interacting with other particles in a way that you call "genocidal", given that from an atheist perspective human beings are essentially recycled stardust arranged mammal-wise on a obscure planet in a very large universe? Don't get snippy, just tell us.

 

Or would you be consistent and agree with Dawkins that there's no such thing as good and evil?

[LuftWaffle]

So according to you, genocide is a moral act in some circumstances. 

Put more accurately, God is entitled to kill people if He has morally sufficient reason to do so.

 

 

That argument falls apart when you understand the God didn't commit genocide; humans did. 

Nope, the humans were acting on God's command. If they acted on their own, It'd be wrong.

 

 

Not only that, some of the Bible accounts depict God telling one person (a leader) to commit genocide.  So if you were an Israeli soldier, you don't even get the excuse "It's ok because God told me to do it".  Instead, God told person A who then told everyone else to go commit genocide.

In what way does that mean that God didn't command it?

 

 

So getting back to the question raised in the OP, if genocide is fundamentally immoral and all humans instinctively know it, why then didn't any Israelite soldiers object to being commanded by another human to commit genocide?

In what way does this assumption have any bearing on moral ontology, which is the question raised in the OP?

I'm guessing the soldiers didn't share your inability to distiguish between the prerogatives of God and man.

 

 

If a trusted religious figure told you that God told him to form an army and kill all Muslims...men, women, children, babies...would you do it?

No. Christ ushered in a new Covenant, and the next time God judges the earth He will do so himself.

So you don't have to worry about us genocidal Christians going on a rampage

 

 

Of course it is.  And history is very clear that not every culture views genocide as immoral at every point in time throughout their history

Why then complain when I say that your view can't find anything wrong with genocide?

 

 

That's correct.  I strongly believe the Biblical genocides (if they happened at all) were very immoral.  But obviously the people who carried it out felt differently, as do you

But your mere opinion doesn't make the act really moral or immoral. It's merely a preference you have.

Remember according to cultural relativism "right" simply means "we in our culture like it" and "wrong" simply means "we in our culture prefer it not."

So as a cultural relativist, what you mean is simply that in your culture, you don't like genocide, just like some cultures like eating with chopsticks.

If on the other hand you think genocide is really morally wrong, then welcome to ethical objectivism.

 

 

And there's your mistake.  I've never once said "there's nothing wrong with genocide", and as I noted, the only ones here defending it are Christians.  No, from my perspective there are lots of things "wrong" with genocide. 

Then you're not being a consistent cultural relativist. Perhaps you'd like to revise your position?

According to cultural relativism there's no such thing as moral reality. Genocide is simply something that you in your culture doesn't like.

 

 

But here you Christians are the ones justifying genocide, not me.  Isn't your perspective, "Genocide is immoral...unless ordered by God"? 

I'm justifying the notion that God is entitled to kill if He has a morally sufficient reason to do so. Your position seems to be skipping from moral objectivism ("Look how immoral the Christians are") to cultural relativism ("cultures get to define what's right or wrong for them")

It would be good if you'll settle on a position.

 

 

LOL!  Your first statement is contradicted by your second. 

"I'm not justifying genocide.  Besides, God can do whatever He wants, including ordering genocide!"

Hilarious.

Wow, you have to misquote me to make me contradict myself. A brilliant if not slightly dishonest strategy.

I said that I'm not defending genocide in the way that you're implying. The "in the way that you're implying" bit is important... that's kinda why I wrote the sentence that way.

 

By that I simply mean that God passing judgement on a nation by wiping it out isn't the sort of "genocide" that comes to mind when one commonly uses the term. It as if you're attempting to make it look like Christians support Cambodia, Rwanda etc. A clever rhetorical move, but there's a huge difference between a judgement by God and what we commonly call genocide.

So lets be clear. I'm not defending genocide in any normal sense of the word, but rather I am defending the (I know bizzare) notion that an omnipotent creator of the universe isn't obliged to prolong anybody's life if He doesn't want to do so.

[LuftWaffle]

I find most atheists know full well that Christians are opposed to genocide in the general sense. If Christians weren't opposed to genocide then the atheist argument loses it's force, because the atheist would claim "you support genocide" and then Christians would simply claim "yeah so?".

So in essence the only way the atheist argument can work is if it assumes in advance that Christians in general must oppose genocide. So in essence the mere fact that atheists reach for this argument means that Christianity doesn't really support genocide and they know it.

 

What the argument attempts to do is force a contradiction in the Christian view, by portraying God's judgement on certain nations in the Old Testament as' genocide'. The Christian is then "forced" to defend God and thus the notion of genocide.

Apart from some rhetorical appeal it just doesn't work, because the hidden assumption in the atheist argument is that when God wipes out a nation in judgement, then it's exactly the same as when a murderous government wipes out a nation.

I have yet to see an atheist justify the hidden assumption that the restrictions and limitations prerogatives that apply to mankind must also apply to an Omniscient and Omnipotent God.