Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An object lesson
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 76 of 131 (76459)
01-04-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by grace2u
01-02-2004 7:16 PM


Re: Now I'm hounding you
Humans are social creatures. In order to eat and reproduce more effectively we've found that banding together is the way to go! Unfortunately, earlier (and current) efforts to band together resulted in some pretty messy situations! For instance, you will find many examples in the history and current events of groups of people:
1 Person in a group of people taking all the food for himself/herself! This is known as stealing to some. It does this thing to a group of people making them all suspicious of one another and has the effect of DISBANDING the group and makes them not trust one another and therefore they work together LESS effectively and their food supplies dwindle and then their children die. We can assume that at some point some people decided that they'd rather not live like this, so they punished a person who stole.
You will find that the morals we have help us to exist as a society, to make a happier, more better place for us to live, eat, and play in. They encourage trust and social cooperation. But they can't be absolute, otherwise societies that have developed could never change based on a new threat and would then die off clutching their absolute morals defiantly to their bosoms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by grace2u, posted 01-02-2004 7:16 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 131 (76477)
01-04-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by MrHambre
01-04-2004 9:25 AM


Re: Highway 61 Revisited
quote:
Why a believer is allowed to ignore the admonitions against judging others is another curious loophole that the faithful seem to exploit when it suits them.
Well yah gotta admit, sometimes red lobster is just too enticing... hey but them lobsters are red like Satan, so maybe, nahhhh. It's the gays, blame it on the gays.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by MrHambre, posted 01-04-2004 9:25 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 131 (76622)
01-05-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by MrHambre
01-03-2004 1:04 PM


Re: That Other Discussion
My apologies for not responding sooner, however I have been away.
I have read yours and Holmes discussion and will address a couple of few points that were brought up. First however, a direct response to your original reply.
You're trying to define the term 'moral absolute' to mean 'something floating around in the sky.'
Given that it is a nonmaterial entity, I suppose your description is sufficient.
Unfortunately this is the only definition that non-believers feel comfortable with, since it makes it easier to ridicule the entire notion
I think that where the absolutists and the relativist would differ is what this absolute implies or where it comes from. The "meta" as Holmes correctly pointed out is what I am talking about here. Btw, could you demonstrate your bias to the subject matter any more thoroughly-(to ridicule the entire notion??)?
And it most certainly does depend on our opinion
Questions of existence or non-existence do not depend upon opinions. I thought this was a simple enough statement however I simply mean that for questions of existence, an entities existence does not depend upon matters of opinion. Surely you would agree that if we all agree that moral absolutes do not exist, or perhaps better stated "that they do exist but that when applied they are either absolute or relative", has no ultimate relevance as to whether or not they do in fact exist. At the risk of sounding oversimplified, supposing a simpler example my point becomes clearer. Our opinions might differ as to whether or not a car is a parked in my garage, but ultimately the cars location is not dependent upon our opinions.
The point I was making is that it is extremely oversimplified rational to conclude that moral absolutes(applicable to all) do not exist simply because we all have differing opinions of what is right and wrong. The problem is much more complex than that. I stand by this claim, and believe that within the context of the discussion it is sensible.
If we regard freedom as good in and of itself, it is a moral absolute for us
Surely you would agree that ultimately when a moral absolutist(as I am) refer to moral absolutes and their existence or non-existence, we are dealing with what you are mentioning here. Namely that morality is absolute (universal and invariant), not relative and what that implies, or as Holmes correctly pointed out, where we get this from.
Ultimately if we are talking about the applications of moral truths, then yes, opinion does obviously matter. This can be seen from the fact that when deciding what laws or rules should govern a society and what moral truths should be absolute (for that society, not for all societies), then opinion could be used as a practical method in determining this. Ultimately this is how most democratic societies deal with this problem.
However, I again will agree with Holmes in that this forum is speaking of the meta(or searching for a more comprehensive and thorough discussion) of morality as opposed to the application of morality, which is a far simpler discussion and a lot more boring IMHO.
Regards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by MrHambre, posted 01-03-2004 1:04 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 131 (76628)
01-05-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by MrHambre
01-03-2004 4:41 PM


Re: Meta is Better
I'm not sure how to address the concept of where we 'get' these absolutes, because I'm not sure it matters.
Imagine a world in which God does exist and these moral truths do reflect His nature and character. That is, morality exists because God exists and morality is simply a reflection of Him and His goodness. Would you then still conclude that it doesn't matter?
Do you think it's possible that this is the case, that God exists and absolute morality is a direct reflection of Him?
Why are there plenty of belivers who don't hold these beliefs, if their morals are supposedly derived from the same sources?
This is again, extremely oversimplified reasoning. In the entire context of Christianity, this is entirely possible given the theology concerning mans fallen nature. If man is imperfect, all men including beleivers, then surely we would expect this to be the case, namely that man as an individual does not have a full grasp of what this perfect set of absolute moral truths consist of, therefore different opinions would exist within the body of Christ. If this were NOT the case, there would be reason to question what God has said about the fallen nature of man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by MrHambre, posted 01-03-2004 4:41 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 131 (76638)
01-05-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
01-04-2004 1:16 AM


I guess this is where I part paths with you...
For all of the talk of how relativism allows ANYTHING to be okay, when push comes to shove if God tells someone to do ANYTHING it then becomes okay.
It doesn't become okay, it always was ok. God is the standard by which we can even begin to judge what is ok and what is not. Do you agree that there is a standard? If so what is that standard in your opinion?
So in the end, under a deity there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong at all. Rape and murder are just fine as long as God told you personally to go do it... or you feel you are fulfilling God's plan.
This is oversimplified as well. One must examine the context in which actions were allowed to occur. Surely this is a rational concept that a moral absolute is not simply "Do not murder". Perhaps the moral absolute is more likely, "do not murder for the mere pleasure of watching someone die". And then there would perhaps be another "saying do not murder for the mere pleasure of being bored". It should be easy enough to see that the final set of moral absolute truths is infinite as God is. These simply reflect the nature, character and glory of God. While there are times when God commands acts that would appear to me immoral to us, why do we even have a sense of what is moral or immoral? Why should we assume that the morally correct course of action is to not allow the questionable act to occur instead of it being allowed to occur or even commanded to occur? In other words, if our understanding is imperfect(as I'm sure you would agree), then why should we assume at all times that we have a perfect understanding of what is the right or wrong thing for a supposed perfect God to do or not do(allow or not allow)? Furthermore, if it is clear that we are not perfect in our understanding (Plato,Descartes,etc), how can this be possible if there is not some standard of right and wrong, or correct understanding or incorrect understanding(that is, something by which we can test our understanding to and conclude it is imperfect in light of)? Absolute authority, be it truth or morality, is THE STANDARD by which or imperfect senses judge all things by. For a self proclaimed faulty entity(man) to conclude that moral truth is not absolute in light of the evidence suggesting it is, is to be choose the less likely option in my opinion. This "searching for truth" is in reality denying the very things which reality depends upon, that is objective truths very own existence. To deny objective truth is to declare an objective truth, that is to deny objective truth is in essence declaring an absolute truth. Since it is impossible for absolute truth to not exist(for in denying its existence, one is declaring an absolute) why should a rational person, after examining all evidence, conclude that ALL is relative? The statement that everything is relative is in itself another form of absolute. To make the statement that there is one thing that is not relative, is to concede that absolute truth exists. So in order for a relativist to sustain a rational discussion, they must ultimately compromise their own position. Since, while assuming to be searching for truth, or to have understood truth(that all is relative), they are ultimately conceding that truth exists and that they have found it(again, that all is relative).
Concerning moral relativism, while this could quickly become a discussion on Divine Command Theory, my position is that these moral absolutes are a direct reflection of Gods glory and grace. Furthermore, absolute truth exists because it is impossible for it to not exist.
Take care

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2004 1:16 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 1:55 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2004 6:02 PM grace2u has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 81 of 131 (76644)
01-05-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by grace2u
01-05-2004 1:29 PM


grace2u writes:
To deny objective truth is to declare an objective truth, that is to deny objective truth is in essence declaring an absolute truth.
No, it's not, and I addressed this in Post #142 of the thread "Where did God come from?" to which you have not responded. If you have a response, please post it in that thread. If you cannot rebut my post, then I think you are being disingenuous to continue making the claims that you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 1:29 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 2:28 PM :æ: has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 131 (76650)
01-05-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by :æ:
01-05-2004 1:55 PM


grace2u writes:
The statement absolute truths do not exist is making a claim of absolute truth.
:ae: writes:
No, it's not. It is a descriptive observation of reality.
I apoogize if I sound disingenious, however I do not consider your declaration that it is a descriptive observation of reality to be a sufficient rebuttal. For one, you provide no examples and no explanation as to what you are suggesting. I could simply reply "no it is not" and we would obviously get nowhere.
You do demonstrate your ability to get trapped and provide further evidence for my claim however, namely that even you assume absolute truth(while you continue to deny its existance, again "professing to be wise..."). The statement that it is a descriptive observation of reality I would have to ask, what do you suppose this reality to be? Is there such a thing as something that is not real? Absolute truth reigns sovereignly over that which you understand this reality to be, and any concept of what we think this reality is, is compared to what our view of absolute truth is, perhaps instead of denying it's existance, you could concede it exists and we could discuss what this implies or does not imply. At any rate, you agree that reality exists, what do you suggest this reality is?
Finaly, you have yet to explain to me, how it is possible that absolute truth may NOT exist?
I want to grant you the last word on this-I will try. I do not intend to continue this debate on this forum. The question and discussion, while in existence on other threads, probably does deserve it's own. If I had time, I would compose a position on this, and add a new thread. If you would like to, I will do my best to participate.
Thanks and regards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 1:55 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 4:07 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 131 (76660)
01-05-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by :æ:
01-02-2004 12:57 PM


Begging the question?
:ae:
Reading another discussion you were in, about minds and brains, I learned a lot about begging the question. But it seems that some of this is going on here.
The wider context of all of this, is, are we created beings, or evolved? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we are created, then a question of morality, right and wrong, good and evil, all harks back to the intent of the creator. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we are evolved, we arrive at the point you seem to be making. It's all subjective. We are here where evolution has brought us, and our opinions are as good as it gets.
Now, you note a bit of evidence, that people have stronger opinions about moral issues than they do about other stuff. This is used as you note to confirm that we are created. Not all that persuasive; either theory can account for it. Just as either theory can account for your object lesson results in general.
So, I don't have, from the lesson, any change in my estimates of the plausibility of the two ideas, and see no support in the lesson for the idea that there are no moral absolutes. You have to assume that the creator idea is not true to be confirmed in this idea, that He hasn't set up moral absolutes, and made them more important to us. Now, is that begging the question?
When I ask Jehovah about making moral judgements, He affirms that they have an essentially subjective basis, but that He is the only one who "ought" to be subjective about this, since He made everything. We "ought" (if we know what's good for us) accept His moral judgments in preference to our own. But, to do that, He has written that we have to walk with Him and deal with moral issues case by case, instead of having a policy that we get from Him. The only moral statement we can make is that we ought to talk to Him about everything. It is good to "pray without ceasing." Hence, that is the only moral absolute. Well, it's one. One that we have from the camp that thinks it likely we are created beings, not evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by :æ:, posted 01-02-2004 12:57 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 4:28 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 84 of 131 (76678)
01-05-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by grace2u
01-05-2004 2:28 PM


See my response in the thread "Where did God come from?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 2:28 PM grace2u has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 85 of 131 (76681)
01-05-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 2:58 PM


Re: Begging the question?
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
The wider context of all of this, is, are we created beings, or evolved?
False dichotomy. We may be both.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we are created, then a question of morality, right and wrong, good and evil, all harks back to the intent of the creator.
Not necessarily. I believe that certain things are wrong which the Biblical God obviously believes are right. Genocide, for one. He can't make me believe otherwise, no matter how much me might threaten to punish me for believing so.
Now, you note a bit of evidence, that people have stronger opinions about moral issues than they do about other stuff. This is used as you note to confirm that we are created.
I don't recall making this confirmation that you say I have.
Not all that persuasive; either theory can account for it. Just as either theory can account for your object lesson results in general.
My point was not to account for people's actual responses but instead to indicate that there's no objectively right answer to any of the questions I posed.
So, I don't have, from the lesson, any change in my estimates of the plausibility of the two ideas, and see no support in the lesson for the idea that there are no moral absolutes.
If there were, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a means of determining the correct answers to my questions apart from our individual beliefs? If not, why not?
You have to assume that the creator idea is not true to be confirmed in this idea, that He hasn't set up moral absolutes, and made them more important to us. Now, is that begging the question?
To assert that moral absolutes exist in the face of so many widely variable moral opinions and without a means of detecting the existenece of said absolute(s) such that the variable moral opinions might be arbitrated begs quite a larger question, IMHO. My conclusions are drawn from the evidence included in this thread. Unless you can meaningfully differentiate between the "correctness" of a person's opinion with regard to color and the same with regard to abortion, the evidence seems to indicate that morals are as subjective as all other aesthetic tastes.
He is the only one who "ought" to be subjective about this, since He made everything.
Non-sequitur. He supposedly endowed me with my own sentience which also gives me leave to form my own opinions with regard to morality. Might does not make right.
We "ought" (if we know what's good for us) accept His moral judgments in preference to our own.
I'd prefer to remain in abhorance of genocide as well as infinite punishment for finite transgressions, thank you very much. I'll not surrender my own moral integrity at the hands of some cosmic bully.
He has written that we have to walk with Him and deal with moral issues case by case.
Well, there are at least a few cases that indicate to me that Jehovah is not such a good judge of morality, and I think the Amalekite babies would've agreed with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 2:58 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 11:42 PM :æ: has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 131 (76709)
01-05-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by grace2u
01-05-2004 1:29 PM


quote:
I guess this is where I part paths with you...
Part paths? Don't you get it? You just sang my praises!
quote:
It doesn't become okay, it always was ok. God is the standard by which we can even begin to judge what is ok and what is not.
Exactly. But that is from a universal perspective. To humans it will appear that something was a moral absolute and then we learn it has always been okay... and thus it becomes understood as okay from then on.
We are not saying anything different. I was merely speaking from a different perspective.
quote:
One must examine the context in which actions were allowed to occur. Surely this is a rational concept that a moral absolute is not simply "Do not murder". Perhaps the moral absolute is more likely, "do not murder for the mere pleasure of watching someone die". And then there would perhaps be another "saying do not murder for the mere pleasure of being bored". It should be easy enough to see that the final set of moral absolute truths is infinite as God is.
Eureka! This is truly the mother load. Thank you for showing how right I am, and in spades.
Once you have a set of moral truths that encompass infinity, you no longer have a set. Thus absolutism (when attached to a deity) becomes worse in practice (and comprehension) then relativism.
quote:
While there are times when God commands acts that would appear to me immoral to us, why do we even have a sense of what is moral or immoral? Why should we assume that the morally correct course of action is to not allow the questionable act to occur instead of it being allowed to occur or even commanded to occur? In other words, if our understanding is imperfect(as I'm sure you would agree), then why should we assume at all times that we have a perfect understanding of what is the right or wrong thing for a supposed perfect God to do or not do(allow or not allow)?
Again, thank you. This is exactly what absolutism starts reducing to and so freeing everyone from moral control of any kind.
Who is to say that lady that killed her kids to protect them from Satan was wrong? Maybe she WAS following the will of God? Who is to say Jones wasn't right for spiking the KoolAid with poison? Maybe it was just God's will to bring them all home?
Who is to say the detectives should catch the serial killer on the loose, as maybe he is doing God's work of ridding the streets of prostitutes?
Mmmmmmm, yeah. And who then is to say that maybe the right thing to do, is to allow relativists to do what they will? Perhaps (in our imperfect state) God actually does not give us any absolutes and is expecting us to derive the ability to live together on our own?
Chaos is the true result of moral absolutism hitched to a deity, because there is absolutely nowhere to point the moral finger as the source, or the absolute.
At least with relativism, people can point out that laws of action men have derived are not having their intended result.
quote:
Furthermore, if it is clear that we are not perfect in our understanding (Plato,Descartes,etc), how can this be possible if there is not some standard of right and wrong, or correct understanding or incorrect understanding(that is, something by which we can test our understanding to and conclude it is imperfect in light of)
This is where we part ways in logic. One does not need an a priori, or external, or objective standard of right and wrong to determine whether we are perfect or not in our understanding.
Simply failing to achieve what we want, through our actions, gives us evidence that we are not perfect (with respect to understanding).
And more importantly to the relativist, we can see what others are trying to impose upon ourselves and know that it will not work. It's just that easy.
quote:
For a self proclaimed faulty entity(man) to conclude that moral truth is not absolute in light of the evidence suggesting it is, is to be choose the less likely option in my opinion.
What evidence are you speaking about? Have you taken into account the moral truths of all other religions as well? Whose has the most evidence on its side?
I am forced to add something here as well. You have been harping on how imperfect people are and so incapable of moral reason. And in this post mentioning that we admit we are imperfect.
The God of the Bible states quite clearly that he is Jealous and Vengeful. If that is not admitting an imperfect state I am incapable of thinking any states more imperfect that he could ascribe to himself.
quote:
To deny objective truth is to declare an objective truth, that is to deny objective truth is in essence declaring an absolute truth.
To deny a particuler asserted objective truth may be to declare an objective truth of some kind, but it does deny all objective possibilities of truth.
And I am uncertain what the problem is here. How is it inconsistent to state that the objective truth of the world is that either there is no particular "set" of moral values which exist, or man is not in a position to know them?
That does not change the definition of relativism at all.
Or perhaps I can put this better with an analogy. One can say there are no apples, without saying anything about oranges.
You are equivocating between an Absolute objective moral truth, and an Absolute objective reality.
quote:
my position is that these moral absolutes are a direct reflection of Gods glory and grace. Furthermore, absolute truth exists because it is impossible for it to not exist.
Given your earlier statements regarding our inability to know whether God is changing his mind or not... and so anything goes... what moral absolutes are you talking about?
And if an absolute truth must logically exist, which set must logically exist? Xianity's? There are many others to choose from and they can argue the same case you just did. Moreover Xians from different denominations will hand me different sets. Which set shows God's glory and why?

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 1:29 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 9:25 PM Silent H has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 131 (76736)
01-05-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
01-05-2004 6:02 PM


Part paths? Don't you get it? You just sang my praises!
Alas, have no fear, I never did mean to suggest that YOU were on my path, rather I was following yours concerning the repsonses to MrHambre.
But that is from a universal perspective. To humans it will appear that something was a moral absolute and then we learn it has always been okay... and thus it becomes understood as okay from then on
Ok, this is fine.
Once you have a set of moral truths that encompass infinity, you no longer have a set.
What?? Are you suggesting that a set MUST not have infinity contained within it as one of its elements? Any mathematician will inform you that this is simply a false statement. Have I misunderstood you? If so, please clarify. Or perhaps you are referring to a definition that supposes a set to be complete. If so, this is semantics.
Thus absolutism (when attached to a deity) becomes worse in practice (and comprehension) then relativism
If this is your rational behind embracing relativisim than I can only fault it as being simply illogical. It does not logicaly follow that because I supposed an infinite number of elements exists within the supposed set, which you alledge is not allowed(while mathematics would reject your claim), that because of this absolutism is worse in practice or in comprehension, and therefore relativism is more likely. While something might be harder to comprehend, this does not prove that the simpler construct is more valid or more likely. I simply do not follow your logic here. Perhaps I have again misunderstood you. If so please clarify.
Again, thank you. This is exactly what absolutism starts reducing to and so freeing everyone from moral control of any kind.
Allow me to be clear, I am not trying to propogate some absolutist moral agenda here. I concede that there are real problems that can be addressed when dealing with the application of these moral truths. The question this begins to examine is whether or not there is some absolute moral entity responsible for deciding what a moral absolute is or isnt. Your comments is again either being misunderstood by me, or is a very strange conclusion.
Are you suggesting that end result of absolutism is that we still know nothing and therefore are free to commit any moral act? Does it not follow that if an absolute moral truth exists, then there is something which governs what this truth is? The implications behind absolutism is not that we can therefore finaly create a set of laws within the United States that will control peoples lives and reflect heaven. Rather it is evidence that God does in fact exist and that He is the standard of moral absolute truth. One can then begin to deal with this likely reality as they see fit. Either by meeting this standard (impossible) or by asking this standard be met by that which is perfect(Christ).
Who is to say that lady that killed her kids to protect them from Satan was wrong? Maybe she WAS following the will of God? Who is to say Jones wasn't right for spiking the KoolAid with poison? Maybe it was just God's will to bring them all home?
Now to address your situational ethics(which is not ultimately what this thread is about as you correctly pointed out in previous posts),
God has asked us to submit to societies authority, even corrupt Rome at the time. If society has a law that says it is illegal to kill for no reason(which I'm sure all do), then that is what we should embrace as believers and non-believers. If I am chosen to make laws, then my duty as a beleiver should be to help make laws that I believe to be consistent with Gods will and His nature, this realized through walking with the spirit, reading His word and through prayer. Will I get it wrong? Sometimes I will. This is to be expected since I am but a fallen vessel, who can only BEGIN to know Gods perfect and just ways.
Chaos is the true result of moral absolutism hitched to a deity, because there is absolutely nowhere to point the moral finger as the source, or the absolute.
At least with relativism, people can point out that laws of action men have derived are not having their intended result.
I am not saying (nor would I) that because of absolutism derived from a God, we can finaly have a perfect society here in the U.S. that will reflect Gods true nature and ultimate will. While I agree some extreme fundamentalists might hold this position, I certainly would not. I am much more concerned with what the existance of an absolute moral truth implies (or does not imply).
What evidence are you speaking about? Have you taken into account the moral truths of all other religions as well? Whose has the most evidence on its side?
You do have a sense of right and wrong as do I. This is evidence that there exists something called morality. The absolute nature of morality follows because it is reasonable to assume that there is a standard by which we measure our moral judgements by. While this is impossible to truly quantify, a reasonable person can certainly conclude that one exists. Christian theology, as I'm sure you know, teaches that God placed within all of us a basic understanding of His invisible qualities so that we would know He exists. I understand this to mean His qualities, nature or character are seen by man in that we have concepts of justice, good, bad, evil, right, wrong, morality, and ultimately truth. Even those who deny God exists have such things, while their worldview can not give a rational account for their existance. For example, you have stated that it was wrong for God to ask Abraham to kill his son. Where do you think this sense of what is right or wrong comes from? Do you not agree that if God placed it in you, and if you were faulty in nature compared to God, that you would have a misunderstanding of what right or wrong truly is and could possibly misinterpret certain situations? You conclude that it is wrong for God to command this, what evidence do you have? Why should one suppose that it is wrong for God to ask someone to do this? Do you not agree that it is possible that this is a good act in that it demonstrated for most of humanity that we can trust God to provide the sacrifice(Christ)? Or that He is faithfull?
The God of the Bible states quite clearly that he is Jealous and Vengeful. If that is not admitting an imperfect state I am incapable of thinking any states more imperfect that he could ascribe to himself
Gods jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Gods vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because God is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by. There are much more complicated and thought provoking explanations, in particular J. Edwards has some incredible insight into these concepts. I will attempt to explain his theology concerning this from memory. Any corrections are welcome. Ultimately since God is perfect, we would expect God to behave in a perfect manner. Furthermore, it should follow that God would appreciate different concepts to the degree of perfection that these entities exhibit perfection. So if something is ok, it should be esteemed to the level of ok. If something is the greatest possible thing imaginable, then a perfect entity should love this concept or entity to a degree as large as possible. This ultimately explains why God appears to be so "caught up in Himself"(jealous and vengeful). We should fully expect Him to value that which is greatest to be valued to a degree that it is the greatest. Since God is perfect, the degree He is perfect is infinite. Therefore, God should value Himself to an infinite degree.
Why do you perceive jealousy and vengence to be imperfect states for an alleged God to maintain? They are imperfect states for US since they suggest we have ultimate authority or that we are the ultimate in perfection and can therefore be jealous over a lack of attention or for some other reason. We are also tainted by falsehood so any act of vengence we carry could potentialy be done in error.
How is it inconsistent to state that the objective truth of the world is that either there is no particular "set" of moral values which exist, or man is not in a position to know them?
I understand your confusion on this. I brought up concepts of absolute truth, simply to demonstrate that absolute truths exist, and therefore it is possible for absolute truths of a moral type to exist.
Given your earlier statements regarding our inability to know whether God is changing his mind or not... and so anything goes... what moral absolutes are you talking about?
Perhaps you have misunderstood me on this. While it is possible for God to change His mind, it is not possible for moral absolutes to change. Any proposed moral absolute that would change is simply not a moral absolute. A property of moral absolutes are that they are invariant.
And if an absolute truth must logically exist, which set must logically exist? Xianity's? There are many others to choose from and they can argue the same case you just did. Moreover Xians from different denominations will hand me different sets. Which set shows God's glory and why?
I parialy agree with this. It is true that many religious systems could use this argument. Some could not. In fact, this ultimately is an argument for the existance of an absolutely moral God as opposed to strictly an argument for Christianity. If one were to concede that God must exist because of the high probability of an absolute moral truth existing, then there would be an entirely different argument which could lead a person to conclude that Christianity is true. Christianity is consistent with this argument and can deal adequately with these concepts. In fact, Christianity does make the claim that these concepts of morality have been placed within man, reflecting Gods invisible attributes. Concerning a denomination handing you the defnition of this set, I would say they are all wrong. I think now that this is probably just a simple misunderstanding of my position on your part. Only God fully knows what this set is. We simply see sin-tainted glimpses of it.
Take care and regards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2004 6:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2004 1:54 AM grace2u has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 131 (76752)
01-05-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by :æ:
01-05-2004 4:28 PM


Re: Begging the question?
:ae:
Re being created or evolved, or both: The dichotomy stems from failure to acknowledge the creator's intent and credit His glory in dealing with His creation. We can imagine a creator starting a big bang, and then stepping back and letting the rest work itself out without any further involvement. But, the creation idea came from the Bible, in our culture at least, where the creator is a very involved Person in the working out of history (His Story!). But I like the term evolition for the idea that our creator, using artificial selection and genetic engineering, has produced every thing through a long developmental process, with His hand tweaking vigorously along the way. Then I reserve evolution for the idea that natural selection and random mutation produced diversity in life, at least. Best to create true dichotomies where confusion and ambiguity has produced a false dichotomy.
You write, in reference to my claim that creators have the last say in right and wrong in their creations,
Not necessarily. I believe that certain things are wrong which the Biblical God obviously believes are right. Genocide, for one. He can't make me believe otherwise, no matter how much me might threaten to punish me for believing so.
Do you believe it is wrong to kill a breed of cattle, all of whom it turns out are likely to sooner or later get mad cow disease? My point is, if He is your creator, and made you to prosper and be happy with certain notions of right and wrong, then those judgments would be the "right" ones for you. You do have the freedom, of course, to choose otherwise, and it is good that you recognize that you may have to pay a prosperity price for asserting your wisdom of right and wrong over that of your creator. But, in our own ethical systems in dealing with what we have created, we believe "genocide" is right when those created things (the breed of cows) are selectively vulnerable to and contaminated by an enemy, whose powers to spread to all cows are enhanced by that breed's continued survival.
My point was not to account for people's actual responses but instead to indicate that there's no objectively right answer to any of the questions I posed.
You cannot know that until you have done what can be done to get an interview with your creator, in case He is really out there, and ask Him.
If there were, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a means of determining the correct answers to my questions apart from our individual beliefs? If not, why not?
But, according to the bible, a common basis for the creation idea, there is a means of determining the answers (or the lack of answers) to the questions. Ask Jehovah. Become one of Yeshua's sheep. Then He will never leave nor forsake you, and you will know His voice, and He is the Truth, so you can ask Him. That any of this is possible is debatable, of course. Never know till you try!
I said, "He is the only one who "ought" to be subjective about this, since He made everything." and you replied,
Non-sequitur. He supposedly endowed me with my own sentience which also gives me leave to form my own opinions with regard to morality. Might does not make right.
Interesting words here: "leave" "might" "right" and I would add, "free." To me, to be the creator of something means that one has the right to decide what that something is for, which in turn determines what is right for that something. But, creating a person, somebody with free will, well, I agree that changes the "rights" somewhat. But God has been clear about this. "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." In other words, He did give you sentience, but so you could know Him, not kill yourself by trying to be like Him in knowing good and evil. That that is a choice says something about love. You know, the "If you love someone, let them go, etc."
As to might and right, well, what we have from God is a potter and clay analogy. It's His universe, He created it. He has the right to do with it what He will. And, He was smart enough not to make a matrix, a creation that could take Him down. He has and retains the might to do what is His right. All we can do is deal with it.
But one bit of advice. The gut feeling that we ought to be gods, since we have this sentience, actually starts coming to fruition as soon as we take our eyes off of the goal. We humble ourselves, wanting to live, even as created beings, if that's what we must do to live. And then He comes along and raises us up. This works on such a micro-level, that it actually can be the basis of personal experiments, to see if one can get experience confirming that all of this is actually reality.
I'd prefer to remain in abhorance of genocide as well as infinite punishment for finite transgressions, thank you very much. I'll not surrender my own moral integrity at the hands of some cosmic bully.
The act with the most moral integrity is to give Jehovah a break! He says, repeatedly, "Can we talk?" He says that He is love, but then He does these severe things, but not lately. And, we are no strangers to severe things. Have you ever seen the film, "The Silent Scream"? At least, get to know His voice, and ask Him for understanding of these difficult matters. The Amalekite babies? The ones that escaped Molech? Who would have grown up to toss their own babies into fiery idols? Who, in their infancy might have escaped the corruption, the stumbling blocks, of their culture. Who might have had, in their childlikeness, a faith in a mysterious "Spirit-god" that had been poured out on all flesh? Who now rejoice in heaven, because they were never made to lose this faith?
It still seems to me that arguments here that do not examine ideas that, if true, would color the evidence differently, are weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 4:28 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by :æ:, posted 01-06-2004 12:06 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 131 (76775)
01-06-2004 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by grace2u
01-05-2004 9:25 PM


It looks like there were a couple of misunderstandings. In part I did not make clear when I was discussing metaethics specifically, and when I was showing that an inability to even construct an ethic (regardless of practicing one) reflects on the reality of an absolute metaethic.
I'll try to be more clear in this post.
quote:
Any mathematician will inform you that this is simply a false statement. Have I misunderstood you?
We are not discussing mathematics, especially theoretical mathematics which can allow for a concept like infinity to be grouped in a set of abstract numbers.
We are discussing morality. Inherent to the concept of moral laws are "allowed actions", and "proscribed actions"... moral laws separate one group from the other. By necessity, infinity cannot be a part of either set of actions or no laws exist. Or if there is moral law the only law is that set out in the Satanic Bible "Do what thou will, shall be the whole of the law."
You claim that there is an absolute set of laws, set eternally by an eternal being. If you wish to maintain this position as a metaethic, then you certainly cannot say that everything may end up being allowed according to the infinite being that is God. You also may not maintain that humans are incapable of knowing these laws. The first removes from possibility the existence of an ethic at all, the second is an argument for moral relativism (the "soft" kind crash and I have mentioned previously).
In my previous posts I have mentioned an additional problem. Because of human inability to actually access these absolute sources, or rather in constructing absolute metaethics and ethics so many different sources are cited as indisputable, the result is more chaotic than relativism. Absolutism empowers badly constructed ethics with an authority beyond the ethicist whom others must somehow disprove the existence of. Relativism lets everyone point directly at the ethicist and ask "what the hell are YOU talking about?"
quote:
that because of this absolutism is worse in practice or in comprehension, and therefore relativism is more likely. While something might be harder to comprehend, this does not prove that the simpler construct is more valid or more likely.
Yeah, I was not trying to say a simpler construct is more likely than a complex one. The part you were replying to was kind of a throwaway observation that the result of tying a deity to an absolute moral ethic, was to make the construction and practice of such an ethic near impossible, and (worse than any relative ethic) impossible to argue against. The ethicist becomes immune to calls to rational behavior because rationality itself is not needed, only obedience, and whatever voice is in this person's head may have to be obeyed.
Relativism demands more than obedience. It actually calls on a person to have some amount of rationality to construct and operate their ethic. It is true that people may be free not to create any ethic at all, but a near identical condition exists even under the absolutist scheme.
I will add though, that the fact that an no absolute ethic has ever worked for everyone (leading at best to oppression), tends to suggest that perhaps none exists. Or if one existed, who the hell should care if the result is worse than the not having a unified code at all?
quote:
I concede that there are real problems that can be addressed when dealing with the application of these moral truths. The question this begins to examine is whether or not there is some absolute moral entity responsible for deciding what a moral absolute is or isnt.
Again the focus was supposed to be on creation of an ethic, not just on how to apply it. I am sorry that my wording was not clear on this point.
I posit to you that if an absolute ethic cannot be constructed, or must be constructed on an ad hoc basis do to the nature of the deity, this renders moot any question of whether an absolute moral authority exists and what its laws are.
quote:
Does it not follow that if an absolute moral truth exists, then there is something which governs what this truth is?... Rather it is evidence that God does in fact exist and that He is the standard of moral absolute truth.
No. You cannot make this argument as it is circular. A metaethic comes before an ethic and so the absolute authority must exist before the ethic.
You cannot work backward and say there is an absolute ethic, which proves that there is a God, when what you are trying to prove in the first place is that there is an absolute ethic set by God.
If you want to prove God based on the existence of an absolute set of ethics (which we all must agree exists), because it is self-evident he is their creator, that is fine.
Unfortunately for this argument we do not live in a world where an absolute ethic is agreed upon to exist, and (even less) that those ethics are from a specific deity.
In this thread, if it deals with metaethics, you must start from the existence of your deity separate from the existence of his laws. Or if you are more interested in arguing for absolute laws, regardless of deity, then you must discuss the existence of absolutes separate from appeals to a deity.
quote:
Now to address your situational ethics
I was not dealing with the application of ethics, but I understand why it looked that way. My real point was to get at that there was no ethic we could understand at all. If there are absolutes, what are they?
Absolute ethicists who use a deity, often fall into an ad hoc style of reasoning which results in no absolute ethical positions at all. We cannot assemble them because in the end the rules vary by the nature of the deity... which may vary.
This comes before the problems of having to apply those resulting ethics to any situation.
Otherwise I had no real problem with you answer to how you end up having to apply them.
quote:
I am much more concerned with what the existance of an absolute moral truth implies (or does not imply).
This is working backwards and you cannot really do this. At least you cannot in the form that you are doing. You make statements regarding God (his perfection etc etc) which allow us to understand how the laws must be shaped, and then make statements regarding the laws themselves to prove that there is a God. You must pick a point to begin and stick with that course.
In this thread it seem more appropriate to prove God first (without using morality) and then move on to what his moral laws must be.
quote:
You do have a sense of right and wrong as do I. This is evidence that there exists something called morality. The absolute nature of morality follows because it is reasonable to assume that there is a standard by which we measure our moral judgements by.
You make too large a leap in this paragragh. While this does show there is something called morality, the fact that all of us differ on what right and wrong is argues that it is relative and NOT absolute.
When I construct my ethic, I in no sense look toward some universal ethic and see how close to it I can get, and then get upset if it falls short. There may be common ethical positions which many incorporate into their own, but almost everyone I know judges the common morality by their own and not the other way around.
I mean, what absolute are we looking at and checking our own against? There are myriads of Gods and philosophies out their to choose from and most aren't alike.
I would be one to argue that where most of us actually get or develop our moral beliefs is in the world of human interaction itself. We learn what we want and what others want and what we feel is appropriate for them and for us, in order to achieve those ends. The variety of human experience accounts for the variety of moral outlooks.
A singular absolute moral code, would not tend to generate so many moral positions if we are all striving to match that one.
quote:
while their worldview can not give a rational account for their existance. For example, you have stated that it was wrong for God to ask Abraham to kill his son. Where do you think this sense of what is right or wrong comes from?
I find this oddly inconsistent. Well first of all I should say that I just gave a rational account for the existence of these worldviews, but lets get to the Abraham issue.
You ask where did I get the idea that Abraham being ordered to kill his son was wrong, implying God did. Yet you then go on (beyond what I quoted above) to suggest that I couldn't be in a place to judge God's orders.
What good then are his orders? If I cannot be sure when I am told "killing is bad" that "killing is bad" will remain true, then I am unsure what kind of an absolute moral agent I could be.
I might add that if God ordered Abraham to carry through, you would have to say how wonderful that was. Just as God ordered Moses to slaughter defenseless women and children after handing out commendments that said "thou shalt not kill". The concept of moral rules in this scenario becomes cheap.
quote:
Do you not agree that it is possible that this is a good act in that it demonstrated for most of humanity that we can trust God to provide the sacrifice(Christ)? Or that He is faithfull?
No. To me it shows the same delusional thinking that went into the attacks on 9-11. There is no good in the world, once humans abandon peace and health in the name of following extremist demands of a deity. You say we all have basic concepts of right and wrong. Does this act of a God asking a man to kill his own son, and push him through that emotional turmoil, not make you uneasy? If I had an exampe of Satan doing the same thing would it not seem barbaric?
Thankfully there are other religions that do not include such jarring conflicts between what I feel to be right and wrong, and the actions of their deities/wisemen. If anything this not only makes them more palatable, but if there is an absolute moral code then it makes them look like the more obvious choice as its creator.
quote:
Gods jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Gods vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because God is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.
Satan's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Satan's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Satan is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.
Vishnu's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Vishnu's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Vishnu is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.
Zeus's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Zeus's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Zeus is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.
Tell me how to differentiate between all of these statements without being completely abritrary or self-serving?
I will only add that to argue that jealousy and vengefulness can be "good" as a basic property in anything, sounds rather absurd. Because it is PURE jealousy and vengefulness? Devoid of emotion? What does that even mean?
Thankfully Lord Buddha and Lao Tzu set better examples by avoiding such emotions and teaching us how to avoid them in life, not that we will always be able to, but that we can strive to... like they do.
Why are they not the creators of this perfect absolute morality? I don't even have to twist myself into knots trying to explain away how their jealousy is not as bad as yours.
quote:
Why do you perceive jealousy and vengence to be imperfect states for an alleged God to maintain?
Well, if that alleged God is jealous and vengeful then it indicates that he is unable to attain something. If a God is unable to attain something, then he is in an imperfect state. Now if you try to argue that God's inability to attain something he desires is somehow a state of perfection, then... well I'll probably just laugh.
Imperfection in a God is fine with me as long as it doesn't claim it is the only God and that it is all powerful and perfect. Most polytheistic religions used the imperfection of their gods to mirror human activity and so explore the concept of virtues rather than strict right/wrong. I like that style much better. It does not involve so much symantic gymnastics.
quote:
While it is possible for God to change His mind, it is not possible for moral absolutes to change. Any proposed moral absolute that would change is simply not a moral absolute. A property of moral absolutes are that they are invariant.
I understood this. The problem is that it makes impossible the creation of an ethic, beyond "thou shalt obey". In hindsight I suppose that would have been easier for Moses to carry down, and not make God look like he keeps changing his mind.
quote:
In fact, Christianity does make the claim that these concepts of morality have been placed within man, reflecting Gods invisible attributes.
Hmmmmm, while Lord Buddha and Lao-tzu say that experience is what allows us to arrive at solutions to our suffering, and these are common to all, so the creation of morals will be common.
Which of these moral explanations makes more sense?
quote:
Only God fully knows what this set is. We simply see sin-tainted glimpses of it.
So which is it? Do we see a real set of absolute laws, which means there could be a God? Or are we unable to see a set of laws, which suggests there is no God (or at least not one that sets rules)?
I am troubled by a metaethic which states that there is a God and he has set rules for human conduct, yet created the world such that humans are unable to access those rules. This is made only worse by appeals to the existence of these laws which we cannot know, to argue for the existence of that God.
This metaethic looks like it needs to be heavily reworked. Back to the drawingboard grace.

holmes< !--UE-->
[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 9:25 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 01-06-2004 5:21 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 98 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 4:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 131 (76784)
01-06-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
01-06-2004 1:54 AM


Jumping in..without a clue....
Shadowdragon says that: There can be no absolutes when you deal with human beings. We have differing viewpoints based on personal experience, societal customs, outside influence, etc... Ad nauseum. The human being can not be simplified to fit any mold due to our inestimable reactions because of our own individuality.
To further impose that we have only one absolute truth in the shadow of all the religious beliefs of the world is a folly I would not attempt. There are many and all have their own validity when examined as that they are based on Faith and Belief.
------------------------------------------------------------
I say: Gravity is an absolute. A man may go on a roof and try to fly because it is his opinion that he can. He will hit the ground every time. It may be true that all religions have a different conception of who or what God is, but I would argue that God exists outside of human definition. To prove this is another matter, however.How can I prove something that exists outside of my frame of reference? I will agree that it is within a persons right to define reality as they see it. All of us can define reality differntly. If 5 guys out of a hundred see pink polka dotted bunnies, we could assume that they have a unique sense of reality. If over a billion people worldwide claim that Jesus is Gods Son and that He lives, we may still claim that they see it their own way. 1 out of 6 is better than 1 out of 20, however. And it may be true that most Christians would waver if faced with refuting arguments. How strong is my Faith? So strong that, even if the entire Bible were proven to be false, I still would believe in Jesus. I can say that He is an absolute, but I cannot make anyone believe this as a truth.
Crashfrog astutely points out that:" there may very well be ( God,) but since he rather refuses to actually tell us what he thinks, then we can't count on moral absolutes)
So the Bible is too weird to be a valid source,eh? For example...why does God allow genocide in OT? Because the people who are getting wiped out have already chosen their destiny and are unable/unwilling to change. Thus, the mutation must be eliminated!
This is not mean. It is actually preserving the "chosen". So who chooses whom? Tell me. Do we choose our Diety, or does He choose us?
If our Diety is relative to our Belief, we choose Him. Or Not.
But if our Diety is Absolute, He chooses us. Or Not. He has given us the ability to make Him dissappear in our own minds! Or Not.
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2004 1:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2004 12:25 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024