God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

I'm the victim of you not giving me all of your money and it is causing me great suffering.The moral thing for you to do would be to give me all your money.You're not a jerk, right?

I've thought about this kind of scenario a lot, actually. It can be seen as a silly point, but I think it has a lot of nuances to it that may help to explain my stance.I have two ways of looking at it. I don't really "split them up" so much as I "consider them both" at the same time:

quote:

---

Me "not giving you all my money" is not an action, it is inaction.
That's not to say "it's not bad"... just to say it's more "not applicable" to a moral judgment.

​

Granted, all this started on my issues with God's inaction in the face of evil. So it's kind of confusing..

​

But, God's inaction is in the face of other actions (say, rape).
My inaction is not in the face of any other actions. I'm just not doing something you want. That's the end of the line.

​

There's a difference there that should be recognized on some level.

---

And another, more important, way:

quote:

---

Yes, you are the judge of this "idea" (action, whatever..) so you do get to decide that it's good or bad. So, yes, I'm being bad to you by not giving my money to you.

​

Now, should I give you my money?
Well, I have limited money, giving you my money has consequences... my family could die because I can't provide for them, that would be bad to them (pretty sure I can assume that one).

​

So, now I have to decide between being bad to you, and being bad to my family.

​

I choose my family over you, and decide that I'm okay with being bad to you.
My "justification" for being bad to you is that I want to provide for my own family (or myself... if we're talking general and "I" don't have a family..).

​

And with the justification... society can decide as a group on the punishment. If we're going to jail those who do not give their money to others on their say-so... then I'm not sure if we're going to last as a society and I'll move to another country (If I'm not in jail...).

​

Notice that the justification doesn't make the action-to-you "not bad." It's still bad, I just have other things prioritized.

​

These other prioritizations can even be observed objectively (by seeing who I choose and don't choose to give my money to).

---

As I said, I usually keep both in mind... but I think the second idea shows more of the nuances of the system I have in mind. We all have to make choices in life, and it's impossible to keep everyone we involve ourselves with happy. However, I think it's important not to down-play other people's feelings.If you feel bad that I don't give you all my money... I think this should be recognized. I don't think I should be able to say "that's not a bad thing to you!" just because I don't want it to be or have other reasons or excuses (regardless of how "valid" they are). I think your feelings are just as valid as anyone else's feelings and shouldn't be able to be dismissed.I may accept them, consider them, and choose to ignore them anyway... but at least I went through the process of accepting, considering and then ignoring instead of simply jumping to ignoring in the first place. I think that's the important difference I'm trying to emphasize by using this system.If I just said "that's retarded" and ignored you... on some level that downplays your feelings as a human being. It basically says "I know better than you, in an absolute sense, and therefore I judge myself to be arbiter of what's right/wrong and pronounce you to be stupid."
Granted, in this simple situation, that's kind of true... but you can't apply that sort of system to other more-complicated issues. My system does produce a valid answer for this, it works in practice and can work for more serious issues as well. Having a consistent, practical, available, usable system for figuring out right/wrong is an important aspect in the human day-to-day life... and one I don't think that many people have.Many people simply jump to the "I know the answer to this one!" and fail to go through the process. Fail to consider other people's feelings. If you get used to that system... well, I'm sure you know many people who don't care about anyone else's feelings. "Failing to consider" is different from "considering, but not agreeing because of x, y, z...." The entire point of my system is to get away from the former, and move towards the latter. I think getting people to consider other people's feelings more often is a desirable thing. Maybe to you, maybe not to someone else. That all depends on what each person thinks
Of course, demanding I give you all my money and getting butt-hurt when I don't may make other people think you're a jerk, if you care about such things...

How can you divorce morality from justification? He'd say that in that case the end justifies the means. I don't take any credit for any "method". I'm only talking about what is, as opposed to you "method", which isn't.

The objective group endeavour doesn't feel obligated to judge every blink of an eye as good or bad.

I'm not.
I'm divorcing justification from identifying good/bad.
Both are parts of morality. "In that case?" How is that objective? What if some other "objective" observer says that in this case, the ends does not justify the means? How do you, objectively, know which one is correct? If you're talking about current popularity, then you're correct.
If you're talking about the best-way-to-do-things, then you're wrong.. as I've shown.

They also seem rather useless, as they cannot answer any questions at all about being "objective" or even whether or not actions are good/bad.What's the point of having them, again?

Objectivity is always on a case-by case basis. There's no such thing as "another objective observer". An objective conclusion is based on consensus. How can you "show" something that's just a woulda/coulda/shoulda fantasy with no basis in reality?

Since it is their answers about good/bad that we're talking about, you're not making much sense.

Objectivity is always based upon some value that can be agreed upon.
A measurement.
I'm just asking for your measurement.Unless, of course, you're just talking about agreement... popular opinion. Do you really think it's the best idea to have morality decided by popular vote?
There should be a better way. My system proposes a method that is a better way. You can't.
But I can show my system of morality to you:Good/bad is decided upon by the person affected by the action.
You can learn how the person was affected by asking them.Therefore, my system of morality is not a fantasy and does have a basis in reality. Much more than this "objective" system you're proposing where you seem unable to identify any metric whatsoever other than "whatever I think, whenever I choose to think of it."

I think you need to develop this objective system for morality you're attempting to propose.
It doesn't seem based on anything objective, and it when you do make a clear point, it agrees with the system I propose.

It is symbolically a start. Communion is where His will becomes our will and His thoughts inspire our thoughts. Communion is admittedly about Doing and not simply Being...that much I'll give you. Communion is a common union between His presence and ourselves.But you never answered my question.What is the difference between offering someone food and force feeding everyone so as not to exclude anyone?

You keep talking about "the best idea" and I keep talking about reality. In the real world, the "best idea" is the one that prevails. There's no way to rewind history to see if another idea would have been better. I can show you another system of morality: Good/bad is decided upon the opinion of the Easter Bunny.How is your system more realistic than that? Again, I'm not "proposing" that any more than I'm proposing gravity. I'm describing. That's how morality works, which is why we know it's relative.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm describing how morality works in the real world.Society decides what's moral. Victims of the gas company do not have the power to put gas company executives in jail; society does if it decides a wrong has been done.

No one's talking about replacing history.
And of course "the best idea" is the one that prevails.
If you're content with the world the way it is, and don't want to try and get better... that's fine, that's your choice.But if my idea is better, and does prevail, then you would agree it's actually best?I can't read the future any better than you can. Are you seriously asking me how "people" are more realistic than the Easter Bunny?
Who do you think you're talking to on this forum, even? And I've never disagreed with such a thing.

No, you're not.
I've asked you to describe it, and you've said it's "objective."
Then I asked you to show how it's objectively good for me to give my friend a coffee.And you've yet to answer that question.Really, you're not describing anything. You just keep talking in extremely vague and general statements. Pretty much all of which describe my system of morality. Never said anything to disagree. And again, you're wrong.
Individuals do.Would you like to go through your slavery example again, or would you like to choose another?