Jump to content
IGNORED

Objective morality


Seanc

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 16/08/2017 at 2:04 PM, George said:

When you were young -- do you remember how your conscience worked?  Isn't that a God-given morality code ... over time though, this very innocent morality code can become corrupted.   I believe it's both in answer to your question.  First it's hard-wired ... but over time it can become lost ... and secondly, you can learn a deeper understanding of true holiness as you get closer to a Holy God.  However, in getting closer to a Holy God ... you'll realize how wretched we truly are ... and yet loved .. thus can love others despite all their flaws. :)

Isn't it a God given mortality code well maybe... can you demonstrate a God gave it? In terms of closer to God...i see lots of things in the bible I would consider immoral. Stoning in the bible includes...gay people.. witches..unrulely children... those who leave the religion..a wife if on her wedding night isn't a virgin...those who work on the Sabbath and more . That's not even including slavery and some other things discussed in other threads.  I know you wouldn't do these things to people as I wouldn't as a now non believer so I don't see we get morality from the bible or god. Those in ISIS seem to as they take the gay killing...death to apostates and the rest more literally.

It seems we may take some lessons from the bible and God but don't act on others. This says to me morailty comes from elsewhere..well being...social conditioning etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/22/2017 at 4:49 PM, Bonky said:

My statement was made a bit "tongue in cheek".   The comment seemed to suggest that I, a priori have some "contempt" for an objective standard.   I don't feel that I've done anything other than ask fair questions.  So my spin on the comment was to suggest perhaps that's something somebody would say when they don't want their critics to question their claim(s).

Having said that I don't recall my question really being answered.  So far I've essentially heard that there's an objective standard that we should be measured against but no idea where the standard came from or what it's based on.   My view is that if morality entails how humans should treat each other to maximize human flourishing and freedom, then we have solid tangible avenues to take to try to strive for that goal.   If you're ultimately asking, "Why should we strive for happiness, freedom and security?" to me that's a senseless question I guess.  

Hi Bonky,

It's been a while, hasn't it?

I've sort of loosely followed the discussion between you and Shiloh, and I have a question: why human flourishing? I find it fascinating that on one hand atheists will claim that atheism is much more humble than Christianity because atheism doesn't attribute anything special to human beings whereas theism has a God focuses on a certain species of primate on an obscure ball of magma, water and dust called earth. At least that's more or less what atheists say. Yet here you are saying that "good" is what promotes human flourishing (whatever that means) and bad is whatever doesn't promote human flourishing.

So essentially there are all the things in 'ye olde' universe and you've arbitrarily drawn a circle around the set of things called homo-sapien and you've suggested that their flourishing (whatever that means) must be the good. That's cool and everything, but your average PETA activist might disagree with your arbitrarily drawn circle, saying human are a blight on the planet (except themselves of course). That the circle must be drawn around all sentient life. Your typical KKK member might want to draw a different circle saying that human flourishing is important but that some people aren't as human as others. Planned parenthood's circle is different still because their circle excludes the group of living human beings that they arbitrarily dubbed "potential humans". Then your average Jihadi has a different circle saying that the house of Islam's flourishing is what matters and the "house of war" must be brought into submission. Then you have the weirdo's who put up the Georgia Guide Stones whose "manifesto" reckons that the world population should be less than 500k. Their circle is rather smaller than yours. Then you've got Antifa who thinks that the circle should exclude fascists, which they define as basically anybody who disagrees with them. 

So it's great that you think human flourishing is cool, depending of course on how you define flourishing and how you define human, but at the end you've not really grounded anything. It seems that human flourishing is whatever you or anybody else needs it to be.

The theist on the other hand, (while you may harp on the slavery red herring and think that your view is superior) not only has a set of beliefs that grounds an objective morality, but accountability, a day of judgement, a day of justice, which you do not. Futhermore, last time we spoke I asked you whether you believed in libertarian free will, and you responded that you're a compatibilist, which of course is still a deterministic view. So the problems you have are rather numerous:

a) No grounding for morality other than arbitrarily making rules for yourself to follow (or break) as you please.

b) No ultimate accountability for failing your arbitrarily erected edifice of morality

c) No free will to connect responsibility to the human acting. The killing bullet is caused by an explosion, which is caused by a trigger, which is caused by a finger, which is caused by a nerve, which is caused by a desire, which is caused by an anger, which is caused by a hormone, which is caused by a drug, which is caused by abuse, which is caused by a stepfather which is caused by a tumor, which is caused by a disease which is caused by a mutation which is caused by an enzyme which is caused by DNA which is caused by a chemical, which is caused by a reaction, which is caused by a particles and forces...big bang...singularity...multiverse...chance

We have the slavery issue, which I'm fine with because I think enslaving those violent cruel marauding, child sacrificing, incestuous, murderers and wiping out their cities.... promoted human flourishing ;)

Edited by LuftWaffle
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 9/18/2017 at 3:28 PM, LuftWaffle said:

Hi Bonky,

It's been a while, hasn't it?

I've sort of loosely followed the discussion between you and Shiloh, and I have a question: why human flourishing? I find it fascinating that on one hand atheists will claim that atheism is much more humble than Christianity because atheism doesn't attribute anything special to human beings whereas theism has a God focuses on a certain species of primate on an obscure ball of magma, water and dust called earth. At least that's more or less what atheists say. Yet here you are saying that "good" is what promotes human flourishing (whatever that means) and bad is whatever doesn't promote human flourishing.

So essentially there are all the things in 'ye olde' universe and you've arbitrarily drawn a circle around the set of things called homo-sapien and you've suggested that their flourishing (whatever that means) must be the good. That's cool and everything, but your average PETA activist might disagree with your arbitrarily drawn circle, saying human are a blight on the planet (except themselves of course). That the circle must be drawn around all sentient life. Your typical KKK member might want to draw a different circle saying that human flourishing is important but that some people aren't as human as others. Planned parenthood's circle is different still because their circle excludes the group of living human beings that they arbitrarily dubbed "potential humans". Then your average Jihadi has a different circle saying that the house of Islam's flourishing is what matters and the "house of war" must be brought into submission. Then you have the weirdo's who put up the Georgia Guide Stones whose "manifesto" reckons that the world population should be less than 500k. Their circle is rather smaller than yours. Then you've got Antifa who thinks that the circle should exclude fascists, which they define as basically anybody who disagrees with them. 

Hi there!  Glad to chat with you again.  

I get the points you are raising, we live in a world where people have all kinds of ideas about how it should run or how things should work.  We have a marketplace of ideas which is a good thing.  I would think the best way to sift though these ideas is to talk about them, critique them, debate etc and see what logic and reason might have to say about the issues.  We also have the past few thousands years of written human experience at our disposal.  

On 9/18/2017 at 3:28 PM, LuftWaffle said:

So it's great that you think human flourishing is cool, depending of course on how you define flourishing and how you define human, but at the end you've not really grounded anything. It seems that human flourishing is whatever you or anybody else needs it to be.

I don't think this is a very fair assessment.  I don't feel that I've been vague or flimsy about the basis of a secular morality.  Nothing about my view of secular morality is just arbitrary or based on a whim.  

 

On 9/18/2017 at 3:28 PM, LuftWaffle said:

The theist on the other hand, (while you may harp on the slavery red herring and think that your view is superior) not only has a set of beliefs that grounds an objective morality, but accountability, a day of judgement, a day of justice, which you do not. Futhermore, last time we spoke I asked you whether you believed in libertarian free will, and you responded that you're a compatibilist, which of course is still a deterministic view. So the problems you have are rather numerous:

I don't think the slavery topic is a red herring at all.  The only defense I really got was that the only slavery that's really bad is the one that America engaged in a couple hundred years ago.  It's like having two wife beaters, one beats the wife so bad she has broken bones or ends up bleeding etc.  The other doesn't go that far but he does punch or push here and there.  Neither one is acceptable!  It worries me that I feel like I'm the only one here who gets that distinction.  Slavery is a BAD idea and that's why we abolished it in America.  Think about it, we allow people to drink liquor and drive cars...but not own slaves. 

 

On 9/18/2017 at 3:28 PM, LuftWaffle said:

a) No grounding for morality other than arbitrarily making rules for yourself to follow (or break) as you please.

Can you show where I've been supporting this view?

On 9/18/2017 at 3:28 PM, LuftWaffle said:

b) No ultimate accountability for failing your arbitrarily erected edifice of morality

What does "ultimate accountability" mean?  

 

On 9/18/2017 at 3:28 PM, LuftWaffle said:

c) No free will to connect responsibility to the human acting. The killing bullet is caused by an explosion, which is caused by a trigger, which is caused by a finger, which is caused by a nerve, which is caused by a desire, which is caused by an anger, which is caused by a hormone, which is caused by a drug, which is caused by abuse, which is caused by a stepfather which is caused by a tumor, which is caused by a disease which is caused by a mutation which is caused by an enzyme which is caused by DNA which is caused by a chemical, which is caused by a reaction, which is caused by a particles and forces...big bang...singularity...multiverse...chance

We can all do this, we can all trivialize a view and break it down to bare components and say "ok so what's so great about this".   

I also see that you have no solution for how I should know that the Christian theistic moral compass is superior to that of an Islamist.   I still feel that's not been addressed yet.  I get attempts, but nothing of substance...."Just trust us, the Christians have the right morality". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
9 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Hi there!  Glad to chat with you again.  

I get the points you are raising, we live in a world where people have all kinds of ideas about how it should run or how things should work.  We have a marketplace of ideas which is a good thing.  I would think the best way to sift though these ideas is to talk about them, critique them, debate etc and see what logic and reason might have to say about the issues.  We also have the past few thousands years of written human experience at our disposal.  

Shouldn't ISIS have a right to their own definition of "human flourishing"  even if it means murdering you and your family?  
 

Quote

 

I don't think this is a very fair assessment.  I don't feel that I've been vague or flimsy about the basis of a secular morality.  Nothing about my view of secular morality is just arbitrary or based on a whim.  


 

Then what does human flourishing mean?


 

Quote

 

I don't think the slavery topic is a red herring at all.  The only defense I really got was that the only slavery that's really bad is the one that America engaged in a couple hundred years ago.  It's like having two wife beaters, one beats the wife so bad she has broken bones or ends up bleeding etc.  The other doesn't go that far but he does punch or push here and there.  Neither one is acceptable!  It worries me that I feel like I'm the only one here who gets that distinction.  Slavery is a BAD idea and that's why we abolished it in America.  Think about it, we allow people to drink liquor and drive cars...but not own slaves. 


 

Why is owning another human being wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

As to your first comment: actually, I can bring up something that is timeless and spaceless: thought, which has no time or space, but can only be expressed in words within time and space. But thoughts themselves have neither time nor space to them.  Without thought, we wouldn't be having this discussion where a lot of thoughts have been fielded (although to be frank, I sometimes wonder if the US Congress is exercising any thought as of late when they debate! :lol:)

Well except that you need time to think and space for a brain that does the thinking ;).  

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

As you pretty well know (this definition is for those reading),"arbitrary" is defined as " based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. " I consider it "arbitrary" in that in spite of the established moral system that originated with the creator, you substitute your own from a finite, limited perspective that is subject to change per not only your own experiences, but even future ones. An objective reality does not change. And something limited and chosen from a perspective that is subject to change cannot be used reliably as a constant. To choose such a finite, unreliable system int he place of an established one that originated with the One who created this universe would have to, at the very least, be based on personal whim.

As I view the secular morality that I see established in many Countries I'm not seeing "random choice" as a component.  I think you are using the term "arbitrary" to mean "of human origin" or something like that.   You also have a bit of a paradox on your hands.  On one hand you point to how frail and corrupt the human mind [and therefore couldn't begin to handle morality]  is but then use that same human mind to determine that a particular religion [out of hundreds/thousands] that sprang out of ancient Palestine accurately describes the being who is the ultimate objective authority for humans.  I'm not sure how that works.

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

By your questioning of living in places where humans harm and kill one another with utter ruthlessness, ti makes me ask you: why would you care if it were not happening to you personally? "Logic and reason" do not dictate caring about a situation that you are not experiencing, so it should make no difference to you. But yet, you feel it is wrong given that you posed the question in a way that indicated that no one would want to live in such a place, indicating that you felt such things were inherently wrong.

Fair question.  This is a complex topic but I think the reason why humans tend to care is because we're social creatures.  We can find many occurrences in raw nature where social animals look out for each other and even appear to show empathy.   It doesn't strike me as odd at all that a social creature who also has a very powerful nervous system/brain is capable of establishing a fairly complex moral code.  If we were sharks?  Yes I'd say morality is out the window and it's time to look for lunch.  I'll enjoy sinking my team into the flesh of whatever and feeling full.

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

But it comes down to a lot more than that:  it is not just how "humans treat each other". Yes, morality in large part is about our interactions with one another, but it extends to other matters as well, such as how we treat ourselves (an admitted extension of how we treat humans, since we are inherently human), how we treat animals, and creation as a whole. And most importantly: how we relate to and treat God, who set all of this forth.

I agree, and it seems that no matter what your moral views are....you are in the same boat as me.  There's no one "Christian" way on how to treat animals.  I don't even think there's one "Christian" way on how to treat humans.  

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

Thanks, the thing is though that with free will, God often worked within what He had created in order not to "short-circuit" what Man had chosen. In those specific cases where "man woman and child" were killed, God had given them chance after chance to repent, but they sank further into depravity. As any medical doctor will tell you: there comes a point where an infection has spread to where tissue cannot be saved. I know how that analogy must seem, but when every avenue had been used, God had no choice but to act. And given the culture of the people in the Levant at that time, the Lord ensured the survival of those taken in the battle in the most humane way possible given how other cultures would treat such people. Not ideal, admittedly, but far better than what most nations would do at that point in time, to be certain.

It might be "decent" behavior back then, but I don't think these actions would be very popular these days.

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

Yes, they were unfounded, and that is a major consideration here. In fact, "logic" can be deeply influenced by fear and paranoia in something we call "rationalization". Logic and reason can be used to good effect, but they must be based upon the compass of morality in order to not be subverted by the rationalizations of those who would do otherwise. Satan used rationalization in many of his schemes, from Eve at the Garden, to Jesus in the wilderness. All of his words sound reasonable and good, and may even seem like wise advice. But logic and reason, like any attribute we have, can be misguided and misused. The Nazis, evil as they were, used rationale and thinking that were twisted in their combat strategies, philosophy, and even in their plans to exterminate the Jews.

All it takes is the presentation of something evil as something "noble and good".  And we've seen that all too often, especially in this day and age.

That's why we have ongoing debates about how we should respond to certain actions.  Places like America have some measures in place to make sure no rogue totalitarian gets into power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

43 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Shouldn't ISIS have a right to their own definition of "human flourishing"  even if it means murdering you and your family? 

You mean take the term "flourishing" and mess with it so that it's not the same thing anymore? ;)

I'll bet you $1000 you know exactly the kind of things I'm thinking about when it comes to human flourishing.   Would you consider working all the time and very little off time as a good "quality of life"?

43 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Then what does human flourishing mean?

Well let's look at some synonyms; grow, thrive, prosper, bloom.  Some antonyms; die, wither, decline.  Now I know we might bicker about some of the fine details, but it's not a mystery here what I'm referring to. 

43 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Why is owning another human being wrong?

Because of the stark propensity for abuse of humans which violates the whole "prosperity" thing.  Other than that it's great.

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
26 minutes ago, Bonky said:

You mean take the term "flourishing" and mess with it so that it's not the same thing anymore? ;)

I'll bet you $1000 you know exactly the kind of things I'm thinking about when it comes to human flourishing.   Would you consider working all the time and very little off time as a good "quality of life"?

I know exactly what you mean.   My question is why, if others have a different definition of "flourishing," do we need to sit down and hash it out?   What makes your definition of "flourishing" any more moral than that of a member of ISIS?

Quote

Well let's look at some synonyms; grow, thrive, prosper, bloom.  Some antonyms; die, wither, decline.  Now I know we might bicker about some of the fine details, but it's not a mystery here what I'm referring to. 

But in other countries and cultures, owning slaves is part of how they define flourishing.  I don't think that is one of the "finer details."

Quote

Because of the stark propensity for abuse of humans which violates the whole "prosperity" thing.  Other than that it's great.

And why is abuse of another human  being wrong?   Why shouldn't it be perfectly legal and moral own and beat your slaves?   Who gets to decide for everyone else that such a thing is wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I know exactly what you mean.   My question is why, if others have a different definition of "flourishing," do we need to sit down and hash it out?   What makes your definition of "flourishing" any more moral than that of a member of ISIS?

If by morality you mean the ethical and fair treatment of humans by other humans....I don't know how you ask the question with a straight face.   If by morality you mean "the treatment of human beings as dictated by God" then no wonder this may not make sense to you.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

But in other countries and cultures, owning slaves is part of how they define flourishing.  I don't think that is one of the "finer details."

Flourishing for ALL? Or just the slave owners?  The context is pretty important.
 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

And why is abuse of another human  being wrong?   Why shouldn't it be perfectly legal and moral own and beat your slaves?   Who gets to decide for everyone else that such a thing is wrong?

In a world where people don't care about the treatment of other people that's probably what it would look like.  Is that the world we live in?  Is that the world we want to live in?  That's where morality takes off is it not?  

I can turn around and ask similar questions.  Why is obeying God good?  Why does it matter if someone becomes saved or not?  Why does it matter what God wants?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Hi Bonky

Quote

I get the points you are raising, we live in a world where people have all kinds of ideas about how it should run or how things should work.  We have a marketplace of ideas which is a good thing.  I would think the best way to sift though these ideas is to talk about them, critique them, debate etc and see what logic and reason might have to say about the issues.  We also have the past few thousands years of written human experience at our disposal.

 The thing is, Bonky, discussion and weighing of ideas only really makes sense if there are right and wrong ideas to discuss. So, one can have a debate about the shape of the earth or the boiling temperature of water because there is a correct answer to these questions. In other words discussions about the correctness of something the thing being discussed to be objective. 

Quote

I don't think this is a very fair assessment.  I don't feel that I've been vague or flimsy about the basis of a secular morality.  Nothing about my view of secular morality is just arbitrary or based on a whim. 


Let me clarify what I mean:
It seems to me that all that's needed to make a case for an act to be good (in the secular humanist world) is to tell a just-so story about how the act promotes human flourishing. No secular humanist that I've heard or spoken to on this topic actually sits and meticulously works out whether or not their actions really promote human flourishing. Instead they take what they consider good and they invent a post-hoc reason for what they consider to be good, also happens to promote human flourishing.

For instance there are lots of studies showing that women who are sexually promiscuous end having less fulfilled relationships, a greater risk of STDs, suffer more depression and so on. Secular humanists who happen to like promiscuous woman ignore this data and simply make up just-so stories about how the freedom to express your sexuality makes society a better place and therefore it should be permitted

Likewise one can show study after study showing that pornography is detrimental, but those who disagree need only claim that people should be left alone to do as they please, and that this makes society better.

So it seems to me that human flourishing is only good as long as it doesn't impinge on whatever personal morals a person has.

As such I don't think that "human flourishing" as a driving factor for one's personal ethic really has any weight. Would you really do something that is hard to do, because human flourishing demands it of you? I don't see how, and statistics bears this out because religious people tends to be more generous than unbelievers.

Quote

I don't think the slavery topic is a red herring at all.  The only defense I really got was that the only slavery that's really bad is the one that America engaged in a couple hundred years ago.  


It is a red herring in a discussion about moral ontology. A deist can make the same arguments against secular morality that I am making. 

Lets talk about slavery though since this is clearly something that's bugging you and instead of just assuming that you're trying to play rhetorical tactics, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about it:

Firstly do you have a moral problem with Israelites working off debts so that their land can remain in the family? Indentured-servitude, in other words. This is after-all what the primary purpose of so-called slavery was in Israel and that isn't the same as the inhumane treatment that slaves in the US or ancient Rome, or pretty much any non-Christian nation today gets. The Christians who tell you that slavery in the Bible was different is 100% correct. Most atheists aren't very interested in how biblical slavery might differ from what we commonly understand about slavery because, I think, they're relying on the rhetorical effect of the word "slavery", to do the heavy lifting for them. I think being able to work of family debt so that future generations don't need to suffer the mistakes of forefathers' bad decision is actually a very good thing and preferable to welfare.

So, do you have a problem with indentured-servitude? If yes, please let me know what the issue is.

What about enslaving enemy forces, you may say?

Since we're assuming the for the sake of argument that the claims of scripture are true, what would you have done if you were Gideon or Joshua and you've just defeated a violent and brutal nation. Keeping in mind that you are acting as an instrument of God's judgement on nations that have become totally evil. Child-sacrifice, bestiality etc. etc. You know this already, we've talked about it before, but you can kind of imagine the people in Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto, or the baddies in The 13th Warrior.

So, you've defeated their army, and there are some enemy soldiers left. Do you

a) Just let them go so that they can regroup, ally themselves to other enemies and return to attack you killing your children and raping your women, and so on?
b) Kill them all on the spot and be done with them?
c) Grant them full citizenship and treat them as brethren trusting that they'll assimilate quickly and become productive savages dreamers?
d) Limit their autonomy and strip them of their freedom and put them to work? After all war is taxing on the horses

Or make up your own solution, and lets discuss it.

Quote

What does "ultimate accountability" mean?  

It is possible for a person who is utterly evil to be completely unaccountable provided they have enough power. Think Kim Yong Un, Robert Mugabe etc. Robert Mugabe destroyed Zimbabwe, turning it from the bread-basket of Africa to an place of corruption, death, violence and poverty. He will probably die peacefully in his sleep one day, because he has all the power.

My worldview says that he will one day be held accountable, not in this life, but in the hereafter. If he held my worldview, I don't think he would have been as evil as he is. 
Now I agree this isn't as much of an argument for my view. But the problem with your view is that provides no sense of peace and justice to the victims of crime, and it doesn't provide any restraint to the wicked.

Quote

We can all do this, we can all trivialize a view and break it down to bare components and say "ok so what's so great about this".   

The problem is that determinism doesn't have a way to assign responsibility. You can't look at the wind blowing a tumbleweed and say the tumbleweed is tumbling wickedly. Tumbleweeds aren't responsible for the way they are tumbled, because they can not do otherwise. If you wish to have a deterministic view of free will, you will need to deal with the responsibility problem. If we do not have agency but instead our ideas, thoughts and actions are mere effects, then moral responsibility is meaningless. You need to think about this.

Quote

I also see that you have no solution for how I should know that the Christian theistic moral compass is superior to that of an Islamist. 

Pitting Christianity against Islam, doesn't let you off the hook, with dealing with the problems of your view. :)

But I'm happy to answer because I happen to think that if human flourishing is what impresses you then is it a coincidence that humans flourish more in historically Christian nations than pretty much any Islamic nation in the world?

I don't think that answer will satisfy you though because it almost seems to me that you're looking for some empirical answer to why Christian morality is better, but that assumes morality is the kind of thing that's empirically measurable. I believe morals are objective and since morals are immaterial, as such I cannot give you an empirical reason for why Christianity is better, because it is your worldview that requires all things to be empirical, not mine.

I do however believe and I think history bears this out, that human beings are happier when they emulate Jesus in their dealing with their fellow man.

Edited by LuftWaffle
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

The thing is, Bonky, discussion and weighing of ideas only really makes sense if there are right and wrong ideas to discuss. So, one can have a debate about the shape of the earth or the boiling temperature of water because there is a correct answer to these questions. In other words discussions about the correctness of something the thing being discussed to be objective. 

Ok but the track record for a supposed author of an objective morality is awful.  Why did it take so long to get to a point where we are just getting a grasp on what is fair and equitable?   As I've stated earlier, if there is an author of objective morality, it sure doesn't appear to be useful.

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

For instance there are lots of studies showing that women who are sexually promiscuous end having less fulfilled relationships, a greater risk of STDs, suffer more depression and so on. Secular humanists who happen to like promiscuous woman ignore this data and simply make up just-so stories about how the freedom to express your sexuality makes society a better place and therefore it should be permitted

I don't view having consensual sex as immoral, but does it have consequences??  Sure can.  So we seem to be talking about health here not morality.  I understand for many who are religious that sex outside of marriage is immoral.  I have no problem with that, so long as they don't impose that on other people.  Ironically doctors are trying to get folks in Africa to use condoms etc and guess who's been getting in the way calling that a "sin"??

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

Likewise one can show study after study showing that pornography is detrimental, but those who disagree need only claim that people should be left alone to do as they please, and that this makes society better.

Right, so we have to find a balance at some point.  We can't have porn police showing up at someone's how to do what?  Arrest them, give them a fine?  We don't want to emulate North Korea.  At the same time we obviously need to be careful of what we allow etc.  I'm a libertarian, I feel that people should have as much freedom as we can give them w/o going so far as to hurt society. 

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

As such I don't think that "human flourishing" as a driving factor for one's personal ethic really has any weight. Would you really do something that is hard to do, because human flourishing demands it of you? I don't see how, and statistics bears this out because religious people tends to be more generous than unbelievers.

It's certainly a starting point for a basis of morality but I wouldn't say it's the end all be all.   I'd be curious if the study includes money given to religious organizations, if so then the study is nonsensical.  

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

Firstly do you have a moral problem with Israelites working off debts so that their land can remain in the family? Indentured-servitude, in other words. This is after-all what the primary purpose of so-called slavery was in Israel and that isn't the same as the inhumane treatment that slaves in the US or ancient Rome, or pretty much any non-Christian nation today gets. The Christians who tell you that slavery in the Bible was different is 100% correct. Most atheists aren't very interested in how biblical slavery might differ from what we commonly understand about slavery because, I think, they're relying on the rhetorical effect of the word "slavery", to do the heavy lifting for them. I think being able to work of family debt so that future generations don't need to suffer the mistakes of forefathers' bad decision is actually a very good thing and preferable to welfare.

So, do you have a problem with indentured-servitude? If yes, please let me know what the issue is.

I assume indentured servitude means that the person would work OFF this debt for a period of time.  Would there be cases where the time frame was up to the master?  If so, then "yes" that's immoral.   I ask the question rhetorically because I'm already well aware the Bible states that non-Jews were able to be kept for life.  The slaves could even be handed down to the children!

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

Since we're assuming the for the sake of argument that the claims of scripture are true, what would you have done if you were Gideon or Joshua and you've just defeated a violent and brutal nation. Keeping in mind that you are acting as an instrument of God's judgement on nations that have become totally evil. Child-sacrifice, bestiality etc. etc. You know this already, we've talked about it before, but you can kind of imagine the people in Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto, or the baddies in The 13th Warrior.

So, you've defeated their army, and there are some enemy soldiers left. Do you

a) Just let them go so that they can regroup, ally themselves to other enemies and return to attack you killing your children and raping your women, and so on?
b) Kill them all on the spot and be done with them?
c) Grant them full citizenship and treat them as brethren trusting that they'll assimilate quickly and become productive savages dreamers?
d) Limit their autonomy and strip them of their freedom and put them to work? After all war is taxing on the horses

Or make up your own solution, and lets discuss it.

Let me throw you a bone and say during those times it would have just been best to wipe them out.  Keeping in mind that God is authorizing the killing of little children who have no idea what's going on.  You don't turn and take the young ladies and spare them by handing them over to the soldiers and priests.  STOP pretending that's a normal rational exception.  That reeks of a command given by men that want to take advantage of the situation and get a wife or concubine or whatever.  Christ said something about how to handle enemies, I'm trying to remember what that was......

 

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

It is possible for a person who is utterly evil to be completely unaccountable provided they have enough power. Think Kim Yong Un, Robert Mugabe etc. Robert Mugabe destroyed Zimbabwe, turning it from the bread-basket of Africa to an place of corruption, death, violence and poverty. He will probably die peacefully in his sleep one day, because he has all the power.

My worldview says that he will one day be held accountable, not in this life, but in the hereafter. If he held my worldview, I don't think he would have been as evil as he is. 
Now I agree this isn't as much of an argument for my view. But the problem with your view is that provides no sense of peace and justice to the victims of crime, and it doesn't provide any restraint to the wicked.

On the flip side if someone rapes your wife but the very next day become a Christian....they're going to paradise.   It's a cold hard fact about reality, we don't always get closure or justice after a crime(s).

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

Pitting Christianity against Islam, doesn't let you off the hook, with dealing with the problems of your view. :)

I'm not the one advocating an author of an objective morality that is used to measure whether humans are good or not.  Hence my question.  The principle you're giving me behind your logic also applies to a terrorist.  

On 9/21/2017 at 9:59 AM, LuftWaffle said:

But I'm happy to answer because I happen to think that if human flourishing is what impresses you then is it a coincidence that humans flourish more in historically Christian nations than pretty much any Islamic nation in the world?

Careful there, the "historically Christian" Nation of the US had a very bumpy start.  Getting to where we are today [not perfect by any means] had nothing to do with religious edicts.

 

 

 

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...