knowledge

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
so? nazi germany had societal mores, ethics, morality, that included the mass extermination of a race.. nothing objectively evil in that, is there?

---

​

No but there sure is something subjectively wrong with it from where I`m sitting.....

---

then simply sit in another chair... right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

​

I had hoped to avoid bringing this one up but if a certain semitic tribal deity commands his believers to kill all the infants (including ripping the unborn ones from the womb) in a conquered city does that mean that, for a brief period at least and under certain limiting circumstances, infanticide is objectively moral?

---

no, it doesn't mean that

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Right and wrong are extremely practical concepts.
[/B][/QUOTE]Question: Can you explain to me what you mean by this? Please :-) Am I understanding you to mean that I know its "right" because it makes me feel good or because it has pleasant results? [/B][/QUOTE]Well, nothing that cuddly actually. Humans stink at being big scary wild animal loners. We don't have great big claws, or pointy teeth, or venom, or camoflage, or renewable limbs. We aren't very strong. We aren't very fast. What we do have, though, is culture, which, in the broadest sense is our ability to work together in very complex and rapidly mutable ways. Certain behaviors would throw a wrench into this system. The belief that it is morally correct and proper for anyone to kill whomever they wish for no good reason would wreck society and we all suffer the consequences. Theft is similar. Conversely, behaviors like charity help to shore up the social structure upon which we depend.This is not to say that behaviors like murder cannot be incorporated into a culture. Warfare is an example. But it is controlled. The same with theft. How these controls operate can vary widely from the suppression of the idea of personal property to prison terms and capital punishment.This is on the broadest scale.Other behaviors are more dependent upon specifics of the culture and environment. Infantide is one of those behaviors. There is good evidence that this practise was once very common in many many different cultures. Why? An extra mouth to feed can kill three or four people. We aren't used to thinking in terms so close to the wire but if there are three people living one meal from starvation, the addition of one more could kill them all as you would divide the same food by four that could barely support three.So, basically, I do not see anything mystical about morality. No innate ideas, no divine spark, no supernal Good, just .... it works.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:So, basically, I do not see anything mystical about morality. No innate ideas, no divine spark, no supernal Good, just .... it works.
[/B][/QUOTE]Ok, so what you're saying is that humans figured out what was good as they went along?

quote:

---

I am not so sure that what was meant was a list of "things" that are right and wrong, but the concept that right and wrong exist. Otherwise we couldn't even have these debates - at least most of them - because a debate is trying to show that the other man is wrong.

---

wooh chara. I like this post.... wooh donkey!!------------------
saved by grace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:So, basically, I do not see anything mystical about morality. No innate ideas, no divine spark, no supernal Good, just .... it works.
[/B][/QUOTE]Ok, so what you're saying is that humans figured out what was good as they went along?[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, essentially... we figured out what works.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

I am not so sure that what was meant was a list of "things" that are right and wrong, but the concept that right and wrong exist. Otherwise we couldn't even have these debates - at least most of them - because a debate is trying to show that the other man is wrong.

---

​

wooh chara. I like this post.... wooh donkey!!

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:So, basically, I do not see anything mystical about morality. No innate ideas, no divine spark, no supernal Good, just .... it works.
[/B][/QUOTE]Ok, so what you're saying is that humans figured out what was good as they went along?[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, essentially... we figured out what works.[/B][/QUOTE]well, i have a problem with this... see, on a naturalistic model of humanity (or evolutionist or even atheistic), what "works" is survival of the fittest... what works is allowing the weakness in the gene pool to die out (or even helping it die out), so the species as a whole becomes more surviveable.. this can be (and has been) extended to societies, hence wars... if poland is too weak to withstand the onslaught of its tiny neighbor germany, then poland doesn't deserve to survive... if the jews are in fact only slightly removed from animals, fire up the ovens... see?but that goes against (imho) our very natures... that isn't to say we don't often act against our natures, simply that we have some internal mechanism that lets us know right from wrong (often choosing wrong)... i did like your post about humans being terrible loners, i think that's true... but i even think *that* is innate

This is a comment on a post by LL in the "why do you hate God?" Before I begin my point, I would like to add a disclaimer. I took great offense to LL's post.But the most remarkable thing is this. The majority of readers would have found this post wrong. Even LL appears to have repented of his words recognizing them as wrong. Why? Why were LL's words anymore wrong or right than anything else that people have posted?Perhaps there is a real Right and Wrong. People may sometimes not get things under the right heading, just as we oft make mistakes in addition (at least I do!), but that these Rights and Wrongs are not just a matter what agrees with us, or what we've chosen to adhere to, or a protection of the "order of things." There just might be something inherent in Right and Wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
well, i have a problem with this...

---

You dislike the possible implications of this. But what you dislike has very little to do with what happens to be true. (...in general. Don't take this as an assertion that I am right.) Now, if it isn't truth that you are after but instead are looking to develop a propaganda campaign to keep people in line (essentially validating my position in the process) then the expected consequences are indeed important, even primary.

quote:

---

see, on a naturalistic model of humanity (or evolutionist or even atheistic), what "works" is survival of the fittest...

---

Well... survival anyway. I think human culture largely shortcuts the harsh survival of the fittest stance by making possible the contributions of countless persons who would not survive outside of society. A crippled elephant will likely die, and soon. However, a crippled old lady may well have information that makes her valuable despite her no longer being able to walk or prepare food or whatever. This, even, is the point I am making. The species would not survive, I speculate, if we somehow lost our ability to finction socially.

quote:

---

what works is allowing the weakness in the gene pool to die out (or even helping it die out), so the species as a whole becomes more surviveable..

---

What weakness? Do you know what will be useful a hundered years form now? Here in the US, obesity is considered a major problem. Five hundred years from now a thick layer of fat may be the best thing you've got going for you. Sickle cell here in the US? Too bad. In Africa it may just save your life.Evolution is about populations not species. Species is a concept we made up to help us organize.

quote:

---

this can be (and has been) extended to societies, hence wars...

---

Many things have been used to justify war. It doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the proposition.

quote:

---

if poland is too weak to withstand the onslaught of its tiny neighbor germany, then poland doesn't deserve to survive... if the jews are in fact only slightly removed from animals, fire up the ovens... see?

---

Again, people do vicious stuff, but that has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.And you'll also find that the motivations for war are nearly always heavily religious and involve large amounts of greed.

quote:

---

but that goes against (imho) our very natures...

---

How do you define our natures? History is nasty and brutish.

quote:

---

that isn't to say we don't often act against our natures

---

Our natures being some magical goodness? Or something?

quote:

---

simply that we have some internal mechanism that lets us know right from wrong (often choosing wrong)...

---

Very vague...

quote:

---

i did like your post about humans being terrible loners, i think that's true... but i even think *that* is innate

---

I see you taking what can be observed and concluding that if the observation were true then we'd see things like you outline. Which in fact we do see. So your objection is what?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
let me quote professor j.p. moreland here, from his debate with dr. nielsen (who held views like yours):

​

think for a moment how sad it really is... we're born, we live, we die... from dust to dust, and that's all... why not be a hitler instead of a mother teresa? why not be ted bundy and not mahatma ghandi? it makes no difference, it can't make any difference

​

one thing has to be admitted... if joz is correct, if objective good and objective evil don't exist, neither does God.. there can be nothing against which to measure, no standard by which we can say "this is good" and "this is evil"... everything *would* be subjective, relative, cultural

​

if joz is correct, might indeed does make right... gas the jews or brush your teeth, neither is more nor less morally right than the other... we can even decide, because we choose to, to reverse the meanings of the words... good is evil, evil is good... that's in effect what it means in a subjective, material, relativistic world... if i decide tomorrow that i'd rather shoot a homeless man than feed him, well then i can call that good... it isn't my fault society is behind the curve on this... behind *my* curve, anyway, my subjective curve

​

it always makes me a little sad and tired when someone attempts to argue that good and evil are subjective...

---

So let me get this straight you make an arguement by authority, and what is more the only way this authority can argue its case is by misrepresenting mine (well ours I guess given that you reckon Nielsens are the same)...All you and the good prof have done is object to the fact that subjective rather than objective morality *May* lead to genocide etc...You (plural now) have yet to offer any evidence to show that objective morality exsists, you have yet to show that people cannot commit genocide etc if objective morality exsists, and if you argue, as I am sure you will, that people can disobey objective morality I fail to see the relevance of claiming that moral subjectivism leads to said distastefull attitudes....Why not? Do it if you want just don`t be surprised when I give you a RGK (Reet Good Kickin) if you do it around me...(Oh and there are various reasons that Mother Theresa is not the best person to contrast against Hitler, her intentions were certainly good but there are certain lines of evidence that demonstrate that she made the situation worse (staunch stance against contraception) and failed to use all of the resources at her disposal in an effective manner.)As for the exsistence of God if you really feel like conceeding that then I won`t quibble too much but it ignores the possibility of a God who is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent for one or even a malevolent God, you are constructing a false dichotomy where either your own omni(insert set of characteristics here) God exsists along with objective morality or neither do....I could go out tommorow and hear a voice in my head that says its God and tells me to push old grannies out in front of traffic, its not my fault that society disagrees.....[This message has been edited by joz, 11-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
then simply sit in another chair... right?

---

No you get off your arse and apply the aforementioned RGK principle.....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B][QUOTE]no, it doesn't mean that[/B][/QUOTE]So would God be acting:a)Morally?or,b)Immorally?(from the viewpoint of a moral objectivist that is?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

You dislike the possible implications of this. But what you dislike has very little to do with what happens to be true. (...in general. Don't take this as an assertion that I am right.) Now, if it isn't truth that you are after but instead are looking to develop a propaganda campaign to keep people in line (essentially validating my position in the process) then the expected consequences are indeed important, even primary.

---

i think i can agree with this, but i'd ask the same of others... it's true that we come to any discussion with presuppositions... but there is a difference in the goals one has when some things are held to be true by both parties (such as God's existence)... if, for example, a christian asked me why i believe transcendental entities are rooted in God's nature, whatever reasoning i gave her for that belief would hold more weight than if one who denied the premise that God exists asksone thing i left out of plantinga's epistomology, a very important thing, is his anti-evidentialist stance... iow, he's of the opinion that when reasonable people discuss a topic, given properly functioning minds and warrant for the respective beliefs, not much can come of the conversation unless both parties take a "innocent until proven guilty" stance... but often (and i'm as guilty as anyone) we take the "guilty till proven innocent" stance..what that really means is, i would have to enter a discussion with you (an example only) about evolution with the attitude that your words on the subject, since you hold them sincerely and since your mind is obviously properly functioning (meaning you have warrant for that belief), are true until i have good reason to believe otherwisebut the converse holds in equal measure... an atheist who sincerely wants to know why a christian believes as she does would need to enter the discussion with the same attitude... this allows both parties to think and speak rationally, and should prevent each from dismissing intuitively logical statements simply because empirical data isn't forthcoming...we seldom see this type conversation, however, on either side... i think we hold our beliefs so strongly that we aren't willing to *hear* another... we listen, meaning we understand the words and concepts, but we don't hear... again, i plead guilty to this myself...

quote:

---

quote:

---

see, on a naturalistic model of humanity (or evolutionist or even atheistic), what "works" is survival of the fittest...

---

​

Well... survival anyway. I think human culture largely shortcuts the harsh survival of the fittest stance by making possible the contributions of countless persons who would not survive outside of society. A crippled elephant will likely die, and soon. However, a crippled old lady may well have information that makes her valuable despite her no longer being able to walk or prepare food or whatever. This, even, is the point I am making. The species would not survive, I speculate, if we somehow lost our ability to finction socially.

---

i agree... my point was, if man is simply another animal, if man falls under darwinism, mental redardation (for example) would be wiped out forcefully...

quote:

---

quote:

---

what works is allowing the weakness in the gene pool to die out (or even helping it die out), so the species as a whole becomes more surviveable..

---

​

What weakness? Do you know what will be useful a hundered years form now? Here in the US, obesity is considered a major problem. Five hundred years from now a thick layer of fat may be the best thing you've got going for you. Sickle cell here in the US? Too bad. In Africa it may just save your life.

---

we can limit it to mental illness if you want, tho we both know i can give countless examples of physical defects that mankind would be better off without...

quote:

---

Evolution is about populations not species. Species is a concept we made up to help us organize.

---

yes, we categorize... evolution does speak to survival of the fittest, tho...

quote:

---

quote:

---

this can be (and has been) extended to societies, hence wars...

---

​

Many things have been used to justify war. It doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the proposition.

---

what proposition? survival of the fittest? and yes, justification is easy to come by, no matter the choices we make

quote:

---

quote:

---

but that goes against (imho) our very natures...

---

​

How do you define our natures? History is nasty and brutish.

---

i define our natures as mirroring God's... being unable to foresee the outcome of our freewill choices, even for the near-term, has led to your correct appraisal of history

quote:

---

quote:

---

that isn't to say we don't often act against our natures

---

​

Our natures being some magical goodness? Or something?

---

not magical... transcendental, metaphysical, but not magic... all things being equal (the properly functioning mind thingy), man is good and logical and kind and loving and and and... but i admit this only works when one presupposes a God who is those things, and who created us in his image... but the entities do exist, they aren't suspended in time and space (no physicality) [quote]

quote:

---

i did like your post about humans being terrible loners, i think that's true... but i even think *that* is innate

---

I see you taking what can be observed and concluding that if the observation were true then we'd see things like you outline. Which in fact we do see. So your objection is what?[/B][/QUOTE]my *point* is, man is the only product of evolution (given for the sake of argument) that doesn't adhere to the survival of the fittest dogma... in fact, man goes out of his way to preserve life, even the weakest of lives, even lives that would be harmful to the gene poolthat shouldn't be so in a naturalistic world, in an atheistic world... we're no different, that philosophy goes, than any other species, we have no more right to live than the cockroach... we have no more value than a spotted owl... mankind in general obviously disagrees with that, but why (given evolutionary theory)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
that concept predates descartes by centuries... it can be found in the book of romans...

---

Actually bud its older than that, Plato originally advanced the idea AFAICT, the reference was about Rationalism though so my comments about Descartes were warranted.....[This message has been edited by joz, 11-22-2002][This message has been edited by joz, 11-22-2002]