Do feelings count?

That undercuts your argument. In message 29 you were saying that if your feelings were somehow universal, that would support the objectivity of your feelings. Now that it's pointed out that your feelings are not, in fact, universal, you are labeling these other cultures as coarse.Can we can come up with some sort of objective criteria by which to judge your hypothesis? "If my moral feelings reflect some sort of objective moral standard, then we should see X." Sort of using the scientific method to investigate this question.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

The only way it can be objectively grounded is by an absolute authority such as God.

---

But that doesn't objectively ground morality. It merely replaces one subjective set of principles (my own, say) with another subjective set, namely whatever God feels is morally right or wrong.Edited to correct a typo, and to add clarity.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-Mar-2006 10:17 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

What if God says a rose is blue? Well, by golly, the rose is still red, regardless of what God says.And I will remind you that, according to the literalists, who feel that the book of Joshua is literal history, God said that it was perfectly alright for the Israelites to murder the Canaanites and take their land. That was wrong, regardless of what God says.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I shouldn't respond for holmes, but I'm bored right now.-

quote:

---

So if I understand you correctly you feel there are no inherantly good or bad human behaviors?

---

That would be a good conclusion to make; I believe that holmes recognizes, as do I, that no human behaviors are inherently good or bad. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms that can only be applied in the cultural and personal context of the person who is making the judgement.-

quote:

---

So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone.

---

Whaaa...? How does this follow from what holmes said? Of course it would mean something to him. It would also mean something to me if I were to learn of it. It would probably mean something to everyone. The point is that it could mean something very different to different people; obvious, if someone were to do something bad to holmes' family and friends, it would mean something different to holmes than to the doer.-

quote:

---

Well I don't have any concept of good and evil so I stand as a direct contradiction of your argument. There are many, and much greater in the past, who share my view and so stand as a contradiction.

​

Then you are simply the exception and not the rule.

---

Not necessarily. I also don't really have a concept of "good and evil". Of course, I might also be an exception, but it is my understanding (perhaps incorrect, but if so someone can correct me) that the Manichaean division of the world into "good" and "evil" is almost (but not quite) unique to Christianity -- most other cultures, if I recall correctly, did not have the same concept of "evil" that the West has.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

God=infinity. Humans= a finite value. Pure evil has no (zero) value.
Human standards are always finite. Evil standards never stand up to scrutiny.

---

There are a couple of premises here that are presumed but have not yet been demonstrated.One is that there is an absolute system of morality.The other is that God exhibits this absolute system.First, it has not yet been demonstrated that there is an absolute system of morality -- in fact, that is exactly what we are discussing. Your discussion is assuming what you are trying to demonstrate.Second, even if there is some absolute standard, there is no reason to assume that God's actions automatically exhibit this standard.Of course, some people are trying to argue that because God is omnipotent and/or the creator of the universe, then somehow his standards are the absolute standard. Which is false, of course. I have been trying to get people to explain for a while why it is that an omnipotent being and/or a creator of everything determines an absolute standard. The closest I ever got for a coherent answer is that because this omnipotent being has the power to punish those who disobey -- which isn't a standard of good/evil, but merely a tyrant exercising his ability to coerce others to his will.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

He very clearly stated he has no concept of good and evil.

---

I'll let holmes speak for himself and explain what he means. It seems pretty clear to me, but it isn't for me to explain it.-

quote:

---

Why exactly should it mean anything to either of you?

---

You seem to be confusing my refusal to acknowledge the existence of an absolute standard of good and evil with an admission that I have no personal feelings of right and wrong.I do have a sense of right and wrong, and I will act one it when necessary. However, I am not so arrogant that I will confuse my own personal feelings with some sort of absolute laws that hold for all people for all time. In fact, I acknowledge that even in the present time and place there will be people who will disagree with my sense of right and wrong; however, there is no absolute standards by which I can judge either of us to be wrong or correct, all I can say is that this other person's personal sense of morality is different than mine.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

This statement is a meaningless statement unless you are playing off the semantics of my usage of the word "say" when by "say" I mean "create".

---

Huh? Are you saying that you were stating that if God creates a red rose, then the rose is red? If so, what relevance does that have to do with the topic?-

quote:

---

Wait a minute... do you believe in good and evil or not?

---

Do I believe in an absolute standard of good and evil? No, I do not. Do I have my own personal beliefs in regards to right or wrong? Yes, I do.In that case, I have as much right to pass moral judgement on God's actions and attitudes as he does to me. The difference, I suppose, is that God has the power to damn me to everlasting torment, while I have no power over God whatsoever. Except that difference isn't really relevant to the question of right or wrong.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

You don't have beliefs in right and wrong. You have preferences about how people should behave.

---

If you prefer stating it like that, then I have no objections.-

quote:

---

haha... no you have no "rights" whatsoever because nothing is right.

---

Let me rephrase it in your language. I have my preferences how God should behave just as God has his preferences how I behave, and there is no reason to consider one set of preferences any more valid than the other. The only difference is that God has the ability to punish terribly those who do not act according to his preferences, while I have no power over God.Edited the last paragraph.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-Mar-2006 01:44 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Where in the world is stealing from each other at will sanctioned by a majority? Where in the world is murdering at will sanctioned by the majority? Where in the world is raping either sex at will sanctioned by the majority?
Where in the world is random violence of any kind, at will, sanctioned by the majority?

---

Well, if you are going to be that vague about it, then, yes, I do agree that it is a universal or nearly universal trait that people try to get along with one another, and that this trait is probably innate. We are a social species, after all, so it wouldn't be surprising that we have some sort of innate tendencies to work together as a society. I can't recall what your point is, but if your point is that there are some general, vague tendencies that seem to be nearly universal, then I won't argue with it, but it is a less interesting point to me than the notion that is being discussed here that there is some sort of objective moral standards.But the actual specific behaviors that are allowed and are prohibited can vary greatly from society to society. Even in your own examples, no, people are not generally allowed to do these things "at will", but that is because to do so would be very diruptive to the smooth functioning of society that everyone relies upon. But societies do vary greatly in to whom and in what circumstances it is permissible to engage in these sorts of actions. The idea that every society has a notion that there is at least one person in that society which a particular individual may not kill with impunity is a bit too vague to consider it as a universal moral absolute.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Except that what God prefers becomes our objective reality.

---

Rubbish. According to the literalists, God preferred that Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The objective reality, according to the literalists, is that they did.-

quote:

---

I'll say it again, the subjectivity of the creator is the objectivity of the created.

---

You can say it as many times as you would like; it won't make it true.Added by edit:I should add that this reminds me of the end of 1984 where they were torturing Winston Smith to get him to acknowledge their claim that 2 + 2 = 5. It wasn't enough that Smith just says it, he had to believe it. After enough torture, they got him to at least doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. In the end, Smith loved Big Brother. Sincerely.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-Mar-2006 06:39 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Hash it out with God and commit your freethinking to either #1 above or to admitting that His preferences supercede your preferences.

---

I have no problem with the idea that his preferences supercede mine in the sense that he has the power to punish me if I don't accept his preferences. The issue here is (1) whether there is an objective morality, and (2) whether God's preferences themselves form an objective standard of morality.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Once gods create free will, they inherently remove objective moral value. In other words, when gods prefer free will, moral subjectivity becomes our reality.

---

Nicely said. Two sentences that sum up what I tried to say in an entire thread on another message board.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

It seems really stupid to start throwing around limitations on the one who creates limitations.

---

It is a poor debating method it add assumptions and unsupported premises to an argument. By definition a triangle has three sides; God himself cannot create a triangle with four sides. It appears to me that morality is similar; it is simply the nature of morality that it is subjective, so, like a four-sided triangle, an objective standard of morality is not something that God can create. Maybe I am wrong on this, but so far no one has presented a cogent argument to show that I am wrong.-

quote:

---

If you believe that statement is false....

---

All I am saying is that I do not see how morality can be made "objective". You simply made up a sentence that I agree is grammatically correct, but not all grammatically correct sentences correspond to anything in reality. If you want to explain what your sentence means and give me reasons why I should consider it more than an empty string of words the we can have an "intellectual" discussion on this. But simply making statements as if they prove something is not an intellectual discussion.-Let's back up. The question is whether there is an objective standard of morality. (Actually, I think that the OP is whether we can trust our feelings to give us insight whether there is an objective standard of morality.)I have stated that there is no objective standard of morality. I state this because I don't even know what "objective standard of morality" even means. But I am willing to consider the possibility that one exists if one can explain good reasons why I should believe that such a thing exists.So far, there have been several attempts at a "yes" answer. One (which is relevant to the OP) is that the existence of a universal set of ethics among all human societies is evidence that an absolute standard exists. That is debatable, but it is also moot since there is no universal set of ethics (except of the most vague sort).Another argument, which seems to be yours (and you may clarify if I am wrong) is that God can set up an absolute standard by fiat. I am simply stating that I don't see this as possible.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Spring break?Have a good vacation. Hope that you enjoy yourself and return home safely.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Since this thread has become a thread discussing whether or not the existence of God implies an absolute standard of morality, a topic that has just appeared in another thread, I am bumping this one.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt