Jump to content
IGNORED

Objective morality


Seanc

Recommended Posts


  • 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 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.

I wanted to tackle this separately.  I think Bertrand Russell addresses this issue well:

Quote

Among physically possible actions, only those which we actually think of are to be regarded as possible. When several alternative actions present themselves, it is certain that we can both do which we choose, and choose which we will. In this sense all the alternatives are possible. What determinism maintains is that our will to choose this or that alternative is the effect of antecedents; but this does not prevent our will from being itself a cause of other effects. And the sense in which different decisions are possible seems sufficient to distinguish some actions as right and some as wrong, some as moral and some as immoral.

It would seem, therefore, that the objections to determinism are mainly attributable to misunderstanding of its purport. Hence, finally it is not determinism but free will that has subversive consequences. There is therefore no reason to regret that the grounds in favor of determinism are overwhelmingly strong.

 

How do you reconcile that many people will [according to the Bible] will suffer torment forever after living a life where they are severely handicapped from doing what is right?  We are born in a fallen world with a devil trying to steer us even further into darkness but if we don't navigate this life properly and we die we get tormented forever?   What is your take on free will within the Christian paradigm?

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

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?


I'm not sure what to make of this argument, to be honest. Are you saying there is a limited amount of time for which an objective reality must be discovered and if that time limit is exceeded then it's no longer objective? So, you would have believed in objective moral values and duties if mankind held such beliefs prior to the deadline that you've imposed? 
 
Knowledge of the existence of anti-biotics isn't even 80 years old, does that mean that science isn't objective, or that the scientific enterprise has a terrible track record where that's concerned because it took such a long time for the discovery?

But what if that argument was turned around on you? Suppose certain moral values and duties can be shown to timeless and ubiquitous, such as that bravery is better than cowardice? If the lateness of moral discovery disproves objective morality in your view, then would you be consistent and grant that timeless and ubiquitous moral values prove objective morality?

If on the other hand your argument is that God being omnipotent would have found a way to make mankind more moral, then my counter to that argument would be that since God is omnipotent He can take His time. Which leads nowhere. So what exactly is your argument here, because I'm failing to see it.

Quote

So we seem to be talking about health here not morality.

According to your view there is no such thing as morality, morality is just a synonym for human flourishing, remember.

Does human flourishing not include health?

Quote

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.


Right, and here's why I say basing morality on human flourishing is completely arbitrary. In the end the health issues are dismissed with a mere, "I don't have a problem with it". No actual contemplation of- or research into human flourishing happening here. Just your own subjective preferences.

So the whole human flourishing thing seems to be a secular humanist ruse, to which they refer when it's convenient, but which they're happy to shove back into the drawer when it encroaches on preferences. Thus, even if something can be demonstrated to be detrimental to society as a whole or to particular individuals, if you don't have a problem with it, that's all that really matters.

Quote

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 agree largely with you, but the "needing to find the balance" is an objective thing, wouldn't you say? You can't have an optimum situation without a means to determine what's optimum?

I have always argued that morality is objective but not absolute. Sometimes the greater good determines that one lie, in order to protect a life and so on. Finding the greater good only makes sense if there is greater and lesser goods and greater and lesser evils.

Quote

I assume indentured servitude means that the person would work OFF this debt for a period of time. 

Sure, the deal between Jacob and Laban was that Jacob work 7 years for the right to marry Laban's daughter, for instance

Quote

Would there be cases where the time frame was up to the master?

Im pretty sure that slaves and owners came to an agreement and if an agreement couldn't be reached then the judges would make a ruling.

Quote

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!

The Bible strictly forbade the kidnapping of people and selling them as slaves. So for a non-jew to become a slave they would be either enemies who were spared execution and put to work, which you've indicated that you don't have issue with- or a foreigner fleeing his own country and making the decision to work as a slave. In which case he is making a free decision to work for a master in exchange for food, lodging, safety and so on.

Let's look at some parts of the Mosaic Law with regard to non-Israelites.

Servants and foreigners were forbidden from working on the sabbath for instance.

There was protection laws against harming slaves: But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 
(Exo 21:23-27)


Exodus 22:21  "You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."

Hardly the image of an oppressive slave trade that you're hoping to cultivate, isn't it?

"And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God." - Lev_19:10

You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God." - Lev_24:22

I dare you to find any ancient society that has codified in it's law to be this generous to foreigners?

"If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan, then after he is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself. He shall calculate with his buyer from the year when he sold himself to him until the year of jubilee, and the price of his sale shall vary with the number of years. The time he was with his owner shall be rated as the time of a hired worker. If there are still many years left, he shall pay proportionately for his redemption some of his sale price. If there remain but a few years until the year of jubilee, he shall calculate and pay for his redemption in proportion to his years of service. He shall treat him as a worker hired year by year. He shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. 
(Lev 25:47-54)


The above section is interesting because it describes a situation where an Israelite is slave to a wealthy foreigner.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy to take some wartime verses out of the context of the situation, out of the context of the legal system of which they form part, give them the most negative interpretation possible and pretend that we've never actually read our bibles. This is always the thing that I find interesting about atheists, is that it's as if they think that Christian aren't aware of the slavery in the Bible, or the Amalalike slaughter. That if only you pointed it out to us. Do you really think we haven't wrestled with these issues? Or the Christians before us, or the ones before them?

I'd like to make another point about servitude that's a bit more spiritual. The Bible actually elevates servitude a lot. So while it's typical for humans to aspire to be the ruler and to value personal freedom above all things, the Christian worldview throws this on its head and places it's premium on servitude. As such you have a theme that's repeated over and over again of Joseph being a servant of Pharao becoming a wise ruler, of David a lowly shepherd and servant to Saul becoming the greatest king of Israel, Daniel the servant of Nebukadneser and so on. As the way to Jesus who took the role of the obedient servant and taking that obedience all the way through from washing the feet of His disciples to dying a criminals death.

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." 
(Php 2:5-8)


The Bible teaches that true freedom lies not in wealth, or autonomy or power, but in service. So far from being anti-servant you're actually dealing in Christianity with a religion that places servitude and humility quite high, and this emphasis on serving our neighbour is carried through the missionary work we do, teaching kids how to read and write, feeding the poor, visiting the sick and the lonely elderly. Just go to any Christian Church, ask for the Church's weekly newsletter and see what they're doing for the community.

Quote

 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. 

Ugh, here we go.

Now we're changing the subject from slavery to the Amalakite slaughter. So after you've mentioned slavery in every thread on the topic of ethics, the depth of your slavery case amounts to "I think it's immoral is the owner chooses how long a person is to be enslaved". This is what happened last time as well, Bonky. You keep referring to slavery, then when we talk about it, it seems your case is really just mentioning the word slavery and hoping that the emotional reaction to the word will do the heavy lifting for you. From that you skip to another so-called atrocity and so on, following a classic atheistic shotgun approach which involves making a lot of shallow emotive points rather than showing any real interest in whether or not Christianity can harmonise these events with the rest of scripture. Tomorrow in another discussion about ethics you'll bring up slavery again as if this discussion never happened, just like the previous discussion we had about slavery. 
Can you at least see why some of us sometimes doubt whether the issues you're raising are really "the issue"? 

Quote

On the flip side if someone rapes your wife but the very next day become a Christian....they're going to paradise. 

Notice how you're not actually addressing the concern I've raised, instead you're just trying to bounce the issue back at me with a tu quoque fallacy.

I don't think the issues are as symmetrical as you're making it out to be. I've stated that the atheist worldview doesn't really satisfy our sense of justice, and it seems you're acknowledging it, and then saying that Christianity also doesn't satisfy justice because a rapist can get saved and inherit eternal life. Well this is an overly simplistic way of looking at it. First of all, salvation isn't a loophole where one can quickly ramble off a sinners prayer, and boom, you get off on a technicality. Genuine remorse and repentance is required, so there's that. I don't know of a single Christian who has seen a sinner come to Christ and said, "That's so unfair". I would rather have a rapist come to Christ and deal with what He did, than die remorseless.

Secondly in the atheist worldview the scales of justice remain skewed, but in the Christian worldview Jesus Christ died on a cross and purchased with his own blood the price of sin. So while the scenario you've offered will leave a lot of emotional scars which will need to heal in time, the problem isn't a problem of justice, but a problem of emotions, of anger, of hatred and of hurt. Here too Christianity beats atheism hands down, because it is through forgiveness that one can find peace from those who transgress us, and it is through Christ's forgiving us, that we get the strength to eventually heal and forgive others. Lastly the Christian worldview offers the hope that while there is struggle and injustice in this world, to those who overcome there is the hope of a better life in the kingdom of God. Atheism simply doesn't have the resources to deal with real human pain, to soothe the broken heart, to give the strength to forgive as we have been forgiven. 

Quote

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.

Prove it. What is you evidence that Christianity played no role whatsoever in the moral history of the United States? Is the fact that the abolitionists were all Christian, merely incidental? 

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

On 9/27/2017 at 4:58 PM, Bonky said:

I wanted to tackle this separately.  I think Bertrand Russell addresses this issue well:

No Bertrand Russel doesn't address the issue at all. Determinism is like a chain of domino's falling. Compatibilism takes one domino, somewhere in the middle of the chain, paints it green and calls it "will", and claims that if the chain of events goes through will then it's a free act, but otherwise it's not. But "free" here is redefined to mean "a determined desire", and since it's just as much a domino as the others, after all it is bumped and it falls on another domino, it makes absolutely no meaningful difference at all.

You'll also notice that I've catered for the compatibilist view in my initial post to you where I mentioned "desire" here:

Quote

"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"

So given Russel's claim that our will is caused by antecendents but also causes antecedents, what changes in the above sequence of events? What is the missing ingredient that I've left out in the above chain? If you say that the man didn't need to act on the desire but could have willed otherwise then you're espousing libertarian freewill, which is not deterministic. If you say the outcome is determined, then what difference does it make?

Quote

How do you reconcile that many people will [according to the Bible] will suffer torment forever after living a life where they are severely handicapped from doing what is right?

As an evangelical conditionalist, I believe the Bible teaches that eternal life is conditional upon being saved and that the unsaved will perish and die. The wages of sin is death. I do not believe the Bible teaches that the unsaved are immortal, and that they will live forever in torment.

In answer to your question about the devil, the fact that I am not a determinist, means I don't have a problem here, because I believe we choose to sin, we are not determined to sin. The role the devil plays is that of a temptor, not a puppet master. One can and must resist the devil, is what the bible teaches.

Edited by LuftWaffle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • 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 9/29/2017 at 3:03 PM, LuftWaffle said:

As an evangelical conditionalist, I believe the Bible teaches that eternal life is conditional upon being saved and that the unsaved will perish and die. The wages of sin is death. I do not believe the Bible teaches that the unsaved are immortal, and that they will live forever in torment.

In answer to your question about the devil, the fact that I am not a determinist, means I don't have a problem here, because I believe we choose to sin, we are not determined to sin. The role the devil plays is that of a temptor, not a puppet master. One can and must resist the devil, is what the bible teaches.

What?

We have a sin nature but we choose as well?  I would say there are many times over our lives where we choose to "sin" but it's "natural" for us to do so as well.   It's like putting a severe drug addict into a room full of drugs and waiting to see what happens.  You can say they "chose" to partake in drug use but you and I both know we would "naturally" expect them to do that.  

I'll read more into the free will component of the discussion because I'm not well versed in that area.  In my brief searches the discussion doesn't appear to be as black and white as you are addressing it here.  So I'll need some time on that to get my bearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,796
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,264
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

As I have read through this meandering convo of complexities I have formed this comment:
Pretty much all avenues of learning and advancement in truth will depend upon reason and said reason will either be sound or irrational... but we have not arrived at absolute yet for areas of subjective and objective considerations which are sourced in either God or no god! To say there is no god is to abandon reason altogether for the premis of infinite causation is self defeating for you have purpose and no purpose at the same time  which is irrational when seen as -A and not A- occurring at the same time... thus born from this system we have self authorized subjectivism which can only be chaotic unreasonable foolishness with no direction or purpose and what may I ask is profitable to this insanity? So what causes the need of reason stems from the need of an ‘uncaused cause’ the very core of an objective universal foundation of the very fabric that creative laws set forth to understand and know that God ‘IS’...  Purpose ‘IS’ and proceeds the very nature of existence we have began in... in order to deny this rational one must formulate lie and embrace irrational concepts to dwell in the insanity of no god...yet somehow motivate their lives with a purpose of no purpose! This is why God has lovingly said
Psalms 53:1 (KJV)
 [53:1] (To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

We have in these last days advanced enough in science to understand the evidence demands that God ‘IS’ for everything points to that conclusion by sound reason...
Love, Steven

 

  • This is Worthy 1
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

5 hours ago, Bonky said:

It's like putting a severe drug addict into a room full of drugs and waiting to see what happens.  You can say they "chose" to partake in drug use but you and I both know we would "naturally" expect them to do that. 

You make it seem as though sin and subsequent guilt is inevitable, but that's precisely what I'm denying. I don't subscribe to a doctrine of total depravity that teaches that we are fatalistically thrust into a situation where we're destined to fall. I think life is hard and doing good is much harder than doing bad, but when we do wrong our conscience bugs us for a reason, because we know we could have done otherwise, that we should have done otherwise.

I believe the bible when it teaches that we will never be tested beyond our capabilities and I don't believe that we'll be judged for the sins we couldn't avoid. 

I don't mind you reading up on the freewill stuff, and I never intended to make things seem black and white. I know what arguments there are in favour of compatibilism, but I don't find them convincing. I think most people mistakenly think compatibilism is a goldy-locks best-of-both worlds solution, but it's just as deterministic as hard determinism. Surely you agree with that at least?

I agree, there is nuance in everything and that was my point to you from the beginning. You expect proof for God that's beyond possible doubt, but nothing can be proven that way. Everything is about weighing the pros and the cons and looking at which way the scale leans.

Take care

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

45 minutes ago, LuftWaffle said:

I agree, there is nuance in everything and that was my point to you from the beginning. You expect proof for God that's beyond possible doubt, but nothing can be proven that way. Everything is about weighing the pros and the cons and looking at which way the scale leans.

Just wanted to quickly chime in on this.  I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I need proof for God beyond possible doubt.  What I do need is enough support for the proposition that I can defend it to some degree.  To me reality is what it is, it makes no sense to fight it.  If there's a God that created our Universe I don't have any objection, because it's silly to do so.  I'm just in the "I don't know" camp until something pushes me out of that [a compelling argument(s)].  

Obviously theists are convinced there's no other answer, I just can't join them because how can we possibly support that??

 

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

11 hours ago, Bonky said:

Just wanted to quickly chime in on this.  I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I need proof for God beyond possible doubt. 

Fair enough.

Perhaps you're softening up as you're getting older and wiser, yes? When you started posting here you sounded like steve_w who just be contrarian and unreasonable about everything. Now you're almost on the brink of being reasonable and pleasant. So all the years of you hanging around here has paid off, eh?

Face it man, you can't get enough of us, because we Christians are way cooler than the atheist community, that's basically just full of smug, middle class, white guys who got too many participation awards when they were little and still crave validation. Fortunately most of the Dawkins generation atheists either grew up and got married, or has now joined Antifa or the MGTOW movement so we don't get too many coming here anymore. I remember when atheists used to outnumber the Christians in the outer court 5 to 1.

Sure, every single one of us are hypocrites, and sometimes we can be too sanctimonious, but what's the alternative, right? :) 

Anyway, I'm going fishing this weekend, so I'm in a silly mood already.

I hope you have a good one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,796
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,264
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

yeah Bonky has really mellowed from first he appeared :D 

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

4 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Fair enough.

Perhaps you're softening up as you're getting older and wiser, yes? When you started posting here you sounded like steve_w who just be contrarian and unreasonable about everything. Now you're almost on the brink of being reasonable and pleasant. So all the years of you hanging around here has paid off, eh?

Honestly?  Absolutely true.  I've chilled as I've gotten older and I've learned a lot since being here.  I think I used to be more dismissive and cynical but that isn't helpful.    I don't want to live in an echo chamber. 

 

4 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Face it man, you can't get enough of us, because we Christians are way cooler than the atheist community, that's basically just full of smug, middle class, white guys who got too many participation awards when they were little and still crave validation. Fortunately most of the Dawkins generation atheists either grew up and got married, or has now joined Antifa or the MGTOW movement so we don't get too many coming here anymore. I remember when atheists used to outnumber the Christians in the outer court 5 to 1.

I guess the atheist community is just as diverse as every other.   I happen to occasionally listen to the atheist experience on youtube, there are atheists on there that are mild and looking to help and then there are atheists that are less patient and more combative.  I think this forum does an excellent job balancing things.  Some forums are very strict for non believers and some forums are so open that jerk atheists flood the place.  

5 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Sure, every single one of us are hypocrites, and sometimes we can be too sanctimonious, but what's the alternative, right? :) 

Anyway, I'm going fishing this weekend, so I'm in a silly mood already.

I hope you have a good one.

I'm going to try to read up on free will, but I have a feeling it's going to be dry for me :28:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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