|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature and the fall of man | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
That's why we were given the great gift of the ability to tell right from wrong, the ability to make those subjective decisions. If right and wrong are subjective, they are ultimately meaningless. Your morality consists of the following dicta: What's right--trying real hard What's wrong--not trying hard enough. If this set of rules is subjective, something you made up, then it's of no more significance than my prefering blue shirts to green shirts. "Subjective" means the idea has no logical basis. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 03:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
jar writes: Good and Bad are but a human construct and depends totally on the particular circumstances.
Robin writes: That's certainly true if there is no God. True if there is a GOD too. No, the God who actually exists determines good and bad. They are absolutes because they derive from His very nature. YOUR God on the other hand obviously has no notion of good and bad as well as being too incompetent to control a meteor he supposedly brought into existence. He lets his creatures suffer until he manages to provide a few weak remedies in modern times to help just a tad to alleviate the suffering. He/she is an idiot and apparently thinks we're all idiots to consider him/her worthy of worship.
jar writes: That's why we were given the great gift of the ability to tell right from wrong, the ability to make those subjective decisions. We do as lousy a job of it as your weak and incompetent and morally challenged god. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 04:15 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If right and wrong are subjective, they are ultimately meaningless. Well, perhaps in your philosophical world they might be meaningless, but in reality, that's how it works. right and wrong are subjective, and depend on the specifics of each individual instance. What is right in one case may well be wrong in another. That's why the Gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is so wonderful. GOD actually gave use the power to consider all the circumstances and decide in each case what is right or wrong. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What is right in one case may well be wrong in another. You're confusing subjectivity with circumstantiality. Let's assume for a moment that morality is objective. You might still have cases where what is right in one case is wrong in another. The reason is that if you had multiple virtues, sometimes these virtues might clash. For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case. Why? Because there is a higher virtue that clashes with it (compassion for a victim). That would not violate the objective nature of either rule--if they really were objective. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 03:24 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-12-2006 05:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let's assume for a moment that morality is objective. You might still have cases where what is right in one case is wrong in another. That is incorrect. If you have an objective morality, some that is wrong is wrong in ALL cases, by definition.
For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which a way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case. Might be better I'll give you but if it is honesty is objectively moral, then lying to that murderer would be immoral, no matter the circumstance. That is by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think we are getting into word games here. But look at your example. It would be the same whether there was a GOD or not. What is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, all depends on the circumstances and the individuals knowledge as wel as the specific incident.
It has nothing to do with whether or not GOD exists. edited to fix subtitle and add an e to whether. Other required spalling errors added. This message has been edited by jar, 04-11-2006 04:01 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
and IMHO so important, that I had to return to respond again.
You outlined a case:
robin writes: For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which a way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case. Why? Because there is a higher virtue that clashes with it (compassion for a victim). That is so perfect for this discussion I simply couldn't let it pass. Notice as we move through this it doesn't really matter if there is a GOD or not, since everyman, Theist, Agnostic or Atheist faces the same set of choices. Suppose you do not know that the person is a murder, and so you tell him which way the person went and thus lead directly to another murder. Did you do wrong? Suppose the man was a murderer, but had had a change of heart. He had been involved in a plan to kill someone but was now actively trying to prevent it? Suppose you don't tell him where the third person went, and thus he doesn't get there in time to save the person? Suppose you do tell him, and he gets there in time to save the person? There's no magic bullet of right and wrong, but rather we are charged to try our best to make the best decisions possible in each case. That's as true for the Theist as for the Agnostic or the Atheist. I believe the charge to do that, as well as the capability to make such decisions came from GOD. Others may think it purely social and that it evolved naturally over time. The common point is that all of us seem to realize that those decisions need to be made. The threat to all of us though is when some group, whether Theist or Atheist or Agnostic tries to establish absolute objective standards for right or wrong. Then we move into the area of Law. IMHO that was one of the things Jesus came to remind us to avoid. The thing we all need to fear is the arrival of someone with THE ANSWER, whether it is a Christian Fundamentalist, and Islamic Fundamentalist, a Hindu Fundamentalist, a Secular Fundamnetalist, anyone that comes to you with THE ANSWER is to be feared. That's why the message of the Gospel is as it is, Love GOD and love others as you love yourself. It makes you start by first valuing yourself. Then it tells you to treat others like you'd like to be treated. Finally, if you are doing that, then you will be loving GOD. It's simple, but it's not easy. It requires a level of honesty many find uncomforting. And it requires work, and that you make choices, that you actually think before doing. But it also realizes that you will be working within the limits of your personal knowledge and abilities. GOD tells us if we tried, if we told the person where the third man was, and the person we told turns out to be a murderer, we will not be held accountable. If on the otherhand, we do the same things in the full knowledge that the person was a muderer looking for his victim, we will certainly be held accountable. And GOD will apply exactly the same set of rules when judging the Satanist or Agnostic or Atheist or Wiccan or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist. This message has been edited by jar, 04-11-2006 05:00 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4708 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Hows this as an example:
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
That is incorrect. If you have an objective morality, some that is wrong is wrong in ALL cases, by definition. It could be objective but complicated. If you have multiple virtues, it will be complicated. One must never tell a lie except in such cases where lying is in conflict with a higher virtue. This would be true at all times in all places. And you could have this heirarchy of virtues all laid out. There are lots of objective statements that have these exceptions built in as part of the idea. X=P except when P is less that X. Objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yes, ifen. Now imagine setting out the rules for human morality. Vastly more complicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Notice as we move through this it doesn't really matter if there is a GOD or not, since everyman, Theist, Agnostic or Atheist faces the same set of choices. The fact that people disagree about morality is not what illustrates its subjectivity. It's the fact that we have no logical ground for any moral rule is what tells us our rules are subjective. If there were a God, and he implanted into us moral truths, then there would be no doubt about it. There would be a ground and we would know what that is. It would be as obvious as 2 plus 2 make 4. All we have now are our feelings--which are notoriously misleading. More about this later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The thing we all need to fear is the arrival of someone with THE ANSWER, whether it is a Christian Fundamentalist, and Islamic Fundamentalist, a Hindu Fundamentalist, a Secular Fundamnetalist, anyone that comes to you with THE ANSWER is to be feared. I don't see why this applies just to "fundamentalists." They're just as moralistic on the Left as on the Right. One minute the Left is talking about how all morals are relative, and the next minute they are waxing with moralistic fervor about some injustice they think has occurred. Take an issue like abortion, for example. Both sides are extremely moralistic. pro-life: Thou shalt not kill an embryo which is a human being.pro-choice: Thou shalt not interfere with a woman's right to choose. Can either of these moral statements be proved? Of course not. How do we decide? We rely on our feelings. That's all we have to rely on when it comes to morals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
pro-life: Thou shalt not kill an embryo which is a human being. pro-choice: Thou shalt not interfere with a woman's right to choose. Can either of these moral statements be proved? Of course not. How do we decide? We rely on our feelings. That's all we have to rely on when it comes to morals. For a Bible believing Christian, morality is objective because it is given by the Creator God, and we are not going by feelings. It is spelled out in the Bible. There is a Biblical basis for the pro-life position; there is not for the pro-choice position. The Biblical basis for the pro-life position is the references to God's forming us in the womb and knowing us from the womb. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 09:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Maybe someday you'll expound on that thought and actually show that there is no logical ground for any moral rule. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024