Moral Absolutism

[Observer of dreams]

If it seems I misunderstand I don't Kantianism still follows moral beliefs based on the "limits" you spoke of. If Kantianism was a doctrine in and of itself it would proclaim it's own moral standard like that of cultural subjectivism. Since it does not but instead adds to moral values already established this implies that there is a universal moral code that is basic, and essential for human survival. Hitlers actions actually aren't justified, but they would be if there was no moral right or wrong.

The only ones who like what Hitler did are his supporters. If cultural subjectivism were correct than everyone who agreed with Hitler would be right in their judgment and be justified since no one else would have the right to judge another person based on ones own moral and ethic standard.

If you are correct and there is no moral standard than what Hitler did is no better or worse than what Martin Luther King Jr. did.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[CSLewis]

EA - I was wondering about a few things. Morality seems to come from a minority within a culture that believes that transforms that society. I think about slavery. In the Bible, especially the OT a strict guidline was necessary in order for that society (Israel) to prosper to one day be the nation in which the Messiah would live and die in. When God said "male and female" he wasn't condemning homosexuality- He was concerned about reproduction. Likewise polygamy was encouraged and not condemned by God. So we do see instances when "eye for an eye" is replaced by "turn the other cheek", and indeed morality is dictated by the society that existed at the time. However a minority (Jesus and his disciples) fulfilled the law - Later we see in society an evolution of the understanding of God's Word (we are not there yet by any stretch of the imagination) - Killing someone who disagrees with us is wrong, slavery is wrong, racism is wrong, bigotry is wrong. Slowly we are starting to see as asociety what Christ meant. Again we are not there yet . But I do believe Christ is the standard, He is the absolute. But we don't ask what would Jesus do all the time. Maybe we should.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Who would Jesus die for?

What words would Jesus say?

What people would Jesus not allow at his table?

[ethical.atheist]

If it seems I misunderstand I don't Kantianism still follows moral beliefs based on the "limits" you spoke of. If Kantianism was a doctrine in and of itself it would proclaim it's own moral standard like that of cultural subjectivism. Since it does not but instead adds to moral values already established this implies that there is a universal moral code that is basic, and essential for human survival. Hitlers actions actually aren't justified, but they would be if there was no moral right or wrong.

The only ones who like what Hitler did are his supporters. If cultural subjectivism were correct than everyone who agreed with Hitler would be right in their judgment and be justified since no one else would have the right to judge another person based on ones own moral and ethic standard.

If you are correct and there is no moral standard than what Hitler did is no better or worse than what Martin Luther King Jr. did.

I still think you don't quite grasp cultural subjectivism because you don't seem to understand that it is not the only idea opposing moral absolutes.

On your Hitler example, cultural subjectivism (aka conventionalism) would only apply to those who saw the Holocaust as a cultural/conventional norm. To even the nazis, it was not part of the usual culture to commit genocide, so it was wrong. Cultural subjectivism is a silly ethical theory that few take seriously. Please stop using it as an example.

The argument that I am attempting to put forward is that there is a right and wrong regardless of a commandment from a supreme being. For example, society figured out that stealing and killing weren't generally working out long before anyone heard of the Jewish god. There is no need for these moral absolutes, since sane people have the ideas of right and wrong built into them.

Kantianism isn't a doctrine?

Doctrine n. a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

It does proclaim a moral standard. In order to be a good person, you have to act under the best intentions and never use people as a means to an end. You have to consider the far reaching ramifications of your actions and an obligation to be good to your fellow person.

Kantianism and applied utilitarianism could distill down to moral absolutes if it was possible to measure every aspect of a moral dilemma. Thou shalt not steal is too simple. Kant would say, "Thou shalt not seize property which you have no claim unless the act of doing so is the only perceivable way to preserve life, unless this seizure is an act to retrieve that which is due to one's person." It is impossible to distill this situation completely and even if it were possible, it would be absolutely infeasible to build a structure of absolutes which could cover every variable of any situation.

[ethical.atheist]

Morality seems to come from a minority within a culture that believes that transforms that society.

It might just be my eyes, but I can't seem to figure out what you are trying to say here.

I think about slavery. In the Bible, especially the OT a strict guidline was necessary in order for that society (Israel) to prosper to one day be the nation in which the Messiah would live and die in. When God said "male and female" he wasn't condemning homosexuality- He was concerned about reproduction. Likewise polygamy was encouraged and not condemned by God. So we do see instances when "eye for an eye" is replaced by "turn the other cheek", and indeed morality is dictated by the society that existed at the time. However a minority (Jesus and his disciples) fulfilled the law - Later we see in society an evolution of the understanding of God's Word (we are not there yet by any stretch of the imagination) - Killing someone who disagrees with us is wrong, slavery is wrong, racism is wrong, bigotry is wrong. Slowly we are starting to see as asociety what Christ meant. Again we are not there yet . But I do believe Christ is the standard, He is the absolute. But we don't ask what would Jesus do all the time. Maybe we should.

So... are you saying that there is an absolute that we are unable to articulate/understand? ...or that morality changes with the citations in which it is applied (different time/places/circumstances)? ...or something else?

I agree with you that asking "What would Jesus do?" is a good call. I just wish he would come and hang out for a bit. I mean, you get an idea from the bible... and can kinda imagine what he might be like, but.... if he would just come down and voice his opinion on abortion/gay marriage/other religions/morality that may solve a bunch of problems. Those things aren't drawn out so well in the bible... and there is that whole thing about the bible being re-written a bunch.

I mean... if God had a blog, that would rock my socks off!

[CSLewis]

Sorry about that line. I meant morality seems to come from a minority within a culture that believes in something and then transforms the society.

In a way we are unable to understand this moral standard. I don't think the true power and light of God's love will ever be truely understood in this life.

"I agree with you that asking "What would Jesus do?" is a good call. I just wish he would come and hang out for a bit. I mean, you get an idea from the bible... and can kinda imagine what he might be like, but.... if he would just come down and voice his opinion on abortion/gay marriage/other religions/morality that may solve a bunch of problems. Those things aren't drawn out so well in the bible... and there is that whole thing about the bible being re-written a bunch. "

Unfortunately the first century Jews lived in a different society than we do. However we can apply principles learned from Christ and then there is the Holy Spirit- like an inward nudge telling you what is right. Of course if he did come down here again we'd crucify him again.

Even though the Bible has been rewritten a bunch the vast number of manuscripts are very close to one another. But truth is truth no matter who writes it.

[Observer of dreams]

In that case your question is unscientific. If you don't believe in God then there has to be some sort of rational logic. Science would be the next logical step. Your question cannot be answered by any scientific method. Only by faith.

So my answer to you is study the bible and learn who God really is instead of diluting him into some sort of ridiculous image before you ask questions that you couldn't possibly start to comprehend the answers to as an atheist.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[ethical.atheist]

In that case your question is unscientific. If you don't believe in God then there has to be some sort of rational logic. Science would be the next logical step. Your question cannot be answered by any scientific method. Only by faith.

No reason to get snippy.

I really wish you would just discuss this with me. ...but no matter. I don't think that the scientific method is the answer to everything.... what on earth gave you that idea?

I spent a lot of time giving you thoughtful reply though. I wish it didn't go to waste.

So my answer to you is study the bible and learn who God really is instead of diluting him into some sort of ridiculous image before you ask questions that you couldn't possibly start to comprehend the answers to as an atheist.

I diluted God?

...and how can you judge me so easily? How do you know that I am unable to comprehend?

[redeemed098]

Point of interest ethical atheist....

Youre right...Jesus would not have used caps, nor would he have yelled at you....For these things I do apologize..You see when sharing the gospel our desire to see someone saved often frustrates us because no one seems to be able to HEAR the message....Because we have this desire, it appears that our pride gets the better of us sometimes if not all the time which results in us feeling the need to tell you the same things over and over again...We think that WE have the ability to convince you and the longer you hang around, the closer you will come to salvation.....This has led me to a great realization ethical atheist....I cannot save you, and I cannot convince you to follow Christ. I do not have this power of salvation...I can only tell you about it. You have already made it quite apparent that you seem to know the teachings of Jesus...This is not all you need to know though ethical atheist...You need to know the Person Jesus. I have realized that my constant badgering of you is really just a reflection of my own pride. I apologise again..

In closing I would like to say to you that the right thing for me to do right now is exactly what Jesus would have done....

You are right, Jesus would not have yelled at you and he would not have used caps to get his point across. He never chased after anyone...By now Jesus would have wiped the dust from his shoes and moved on. Thus, so shall I. It is only my pride that is keeping me here. I should have left a long time before now. You already KNOW the message. What you do with it now is up to you.

Ethical atheist, it is not those who question who hold back and fight tyranny.....It is God. God is in control of all things.

The greatest tyranny is sin. It's like Jesus said to Pilate when Pilate made the statement..."Do you not realise that I have the power to decide whether you live or die..??" Jesus responded, "If it were not granted to you from above, you could do nothing." You may not realize this, but it is not those who question who provide freedom to worship and it is not those who question that prevent tyranny.......If it were not granted to you from above, you could do nothing. It is in him that we live, it is in him that we move and it is in him that we have our being. Man lives under the illusion that HE is in control. God is in control...Of everything. He is the creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Of course if you dont believe in the foundation, then it makes perfect sense that you wont believe in everything that has been built on top of it. I dont know how else to share Christ with you without trying in some way to manipulate you to believe, so with this knowledge that I cannot convince you I leave you to your philosophies and intellect....I wont say anything to you as corny as I will pray for you either.....I just hope that one day you will come to a knowledge of Gods salvation through Jesus Christ.....

With respect and humble apologies to you ethical atheist and all other atheists on this board,

Regards,

Ben.

[ethical.atheist]

[...]

I just hope that one day you will come to a knowledge of Gods salvation through Jesus Christ.....

With respect and humble apologies to you ethical atheist and all other atheists on this board,

Regards,

Ben.

Thank you for your respect, and know that you have earned mine.

[Observer of dreams]

I blew up last night. I apologize as well. The truth and the hidden meaning behind my anger is that I am hurt when I hear someone doesn't believe in God. I get personally hurt and I took my pain out as frustration towards you. You weren't the only one I blew up at, I also made an awful topic that I edited to say something more important. God spoke to me last night when I went to bed. It was weird because I was speaking, but I wasn't in control of my voice or mouth, but I could hear everything, (this was before I went to bed I wasn't dreaming yet)

I was told "It is not the custom of our culture to learn how to fish, then throw stones at our friends to show them what we caught."

Here is a better answer.

God is neither moral nor immoral. He is illogical by human standards. Humans cannot be in two places at once, but God can. This is why it is so confusing to us. God is neither moral, nor immoral. He is all-knowing, and being all knowing he knows the path that will produce the best fruit, and will make humans the happiest. God is all things and nothing at once. My answer is that morality is totally separate from him, yet it is one with him as well.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Observer of dreams