ethical.atheist Posted December 13, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 167 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/20/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 If one continues on your thought line then a moral absolute is possible only if it can be observed all of the time. Why should that be?Well that kind of follows the definition of "absolute." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undone Posted December 16, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 819 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2006 Aren't biblical moral absolutes the same as the Ten Commandments? I think so but if I'm missing something please feel free to let me know. If they are as I believe them to be, then isn't the purpose of the Ten Commandments to show us our need for God's mercy? And isn't His mercy demonstrated by the offering of unconditional love and acceptance through Jesus Christ? And this is because Jesus bore the punishment for our sins on the cross? I believe this is correct. So, the purpose of moral absolutes isn't so much to cut our hand off when caught in the cookie jar, but to get us to realize we need to repent and recieve forgiveness. Now, how does that relate to Secondeve's "stealing to feed the kids" type scenario? The first sin is that our society didn't help the family in need (assuming they asked for help and/or were visible to the public). The second could be that the stealing parent didn't get off his rump and get a job and relies on theft as a means to get by. The third could be that the grocer didn't show mercy when and if they realized the family's dire need. I think we could go further with this but the problem is the fallen world we live in. In the Garden of Eden, there was no need to steal food, it was all around them. There was no need to murder, there was nothing to gain by it. There was no one to hate and no reason to hate them. There was only one true God to worship...until they wanted to be like God themselves. Again, we could go on and on. The point is, in a perfect world, moral absolutes are the natural state of things. No one is hungry or deprived of any need. And the bibles message is that God's plan is to restore earth back to it's Eden like status. It will be done in His timing and He does not want anyone to perish. Thus the FREE gift of mercy and grace through Jesus Christ our Lord. Moral absolutes (or the Ten Commandments) are meant to be a like a mirror that reflects back to us a true and sobering picture of what we are compared to the standards of God. Does this make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apoptosis Posted December 17, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 48 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2006 I am going to digress from the topic by a small bit, but its a question to raise as food for thought. Suppose that moral absolutes exist (I believe it does) Now the question is: Are God subject to these moral absolutes? OR Does god Dictates whats morally acceptable as absolutes? Before you choose, the first choice indicate people can be moral without God, because Moral can exist in the absence of God since it comes before God and God in turn is obliged to obey absolute values of morality. the second choice opens up the question to evaluate if Absolute Values can be considered "absolute" if they were made because if God could made moral values this way, they could have changed the value to some other kind of moral value such as one that indicate it is okay to stone people to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted December 17, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2006 moral absolutism. The ism indicates belief, so it's not wrong because it is a belief. I believe differently. I am not wrong because it is my belief. Decide who is right amongst yourselves if you wish, but what I am saying is what is in mans heart, and mans heart is never wrong, even when its wrong. get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethical.atheist Posted December 19, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 167 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/20/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 19, 2006 (edited) moral absolutism. The ism indicates belief, so it's not wrong because it is a belief. I believe differently. I am not wrong because it is my belief. Decide who is right amongst yourselves if you wish, but what I am saying is what is in mans heart, and mans heart is never wrong, even when its wrong. get it?Oh you apathetic skeptic! Let's just never try to understand anything, because it won't make a difference! I am not wrong because it is my belief.It gets dangerous when part of your beliefs are that you are right. Edited December 19, 2006 by ethical.atheist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apoptosis Posted December 20, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 48 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2006 moral absolutism. The ism indicates belief, so it's not wrong because it is a belief. I believe differently. I am not wrong because it is my belief. Decide who is right amongst yourselves if you wish, but what I am saying is what is in mans heart, and mans heart is never wrong, even when its wrong. get it?Oh you apathetic skeptic! Let's just never try to understand anything, because it won't make a difference! I am not wrong because it is my belief.It gets dangerous when part of your beliefs are that you are right. Man: (kills babies) Police: MURDERER!! Man: I AM NOT A MURDERER!! I AM NOT WRONG BECAUSE IT IS MY BELIEF! Police: ... sure buddy Man: GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT! Okay I don't want to push buttons, but when you believe you're right because your belief tells you so we get Suicide Bombers and Jihadists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted December 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted December 20, 2006 ...when you believe you're right because your belief tells you so we get Suicide Bombers and Jihadists. This is not necessarilly true at all. It's not about believing you are right, but about believing that others should die for their beliefs. It doesn't take religion to incite people to kill in such a manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undone Posted December 20, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 819 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2006 Man: (kills babies) Police: MURDERER!! Man: I AM NOT A MURDERER!! I AM NOT WRONG BECAUSE IT IS MY BELIEF! Police: ... sure buddy Man: GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT! Okay I don't want to push buttons, but when you believe you're right because your belief tells you so we get Suicide Bombers and Jihadists. I agree... Hitler: (kills Jews and millions of others) World: MURDERER! Hitler: I AM NOT A MURDERER!! I AM NOT WRONG BECAUSE IN TRUTH, I BELIEVE WE'RE A SUPREME RACE BECAUSE DARWINISM AND NIETZSCHE SAY SO. I ONLY TELL PEOPLE I'M RELIGIOUS FOR POLITICAL GAIN! I ACTUALLY HATE RELIGION AND I AM AN ATHEIST ADHERENT! World: Sure buddy....that makes it okay... Hitler: I SAY IT'S OKAY BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORAL ABSOLUTES. WHO CAN TELL ME IT'S WRONG TO KILL JEWS AND ANYONE WHO OPPOSES MY RULE!?! WHO'S DEFINITION OF MORALITY!?! I'M IN CHARGE! I DEFINE MORALITY! I AM GOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitzva Posted December 20, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 4 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/05/1970 Share Posted December 20, 2006 ...when you believe you're right because your belief tells you so we get Suicide Bombers and Jihadists. This is not necessarilly true at all. It's not about believing you are right, but about believing that others should die for their beliefs. It doesn't take religion to incite people to kill in such a manner. All theological propositions aside...philosophical...one cannot make an ought statement into an is statement. In other words, i will have a hard time proving empiracelly any ethical statement I make. I can tell you "one ought not murder", but I cannot say it is like gravity (which is very difficult to argue against empirically). This is why belief and what-one-believes-ought-to-be-done are so intimately related. No one believes, being "honest is true" and "gravity exists" in the same way. Hence, we will always disagree [because it (belifes about what one should do) derives from belief). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted December 20, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2006 morality is determined by ones feelings towards good or bad. We define what moral and immoral are. In other words we put words to it. If we never knew of morality in the spoken or written word it would still exist via natural law or instinct. One would always frown upon another who killed as our humanity, and our nature is that of a social one. Murder would clearly be anti-social and therefore unaccepted regardless of the "harm" one caused to another. It would also be viewed as pointless unless food was involved. In other words killing another man would be an ignorant act. Murder is ignorant Murder is pointless Murder is anti-social Nothing positive can be found in murder Murder is therefore wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts