Morals without god/the bible

[Byblos]

"Subjective morality does not mean adherence to popular opinion. It means one can decide for one's self."

Like Hitler and Stalin, for example. Hey no harm no foul in atheism. It's all ultimately meaningless in their view of the world. Everyone do whatever you want. There's no good nor evil, accoutability, etc... after this life. Everyone makes their own rules, like the animals they are, regardless of the good (meaningless) or harm (meaningless) it does to anybody else.

^ This looks like a heavy price to pay for humanity just to justify nobody being able to tell you what to do even if it's good for you and others.

But at least it's an internally consistent position that acknowledges its inevitable logical conclusion and doesn't live vicariously through some borrowed system of morality while denying the lender. While I vehemently disagree with it, I have a lot of respect for the former position and absolutely none for the latter. But what difference does my respect make anyway, right? It's all relative.

[ageofknowledge]

But what difference does my respect make anyway, right? It's all relative.

Hehe NOT! But of course that's what they're selling.

[Proinsias]

"Subjective morality does not mean adherence to popular opinion. It means one can decide for one's self."

Like Hitler and Stalin, for example. Hey no harm no foul in atheism. It's all ultimately meaningless in their view of the world. Everyone do whatever you want. There's no good nor evil, accoutability, etc... after this life. Everyone makes their own rules, like the animals they are, regardless of the good (meaningless) or harm (meaningless) it does to anybody else.

^ This looks like a heavy price to pay for humanity just to justify nobody being able to tell you what to do even if it's good for you and others.

I have no idea what happens after this life. I don't see myself as atheist and in many aspects of life I do what I'm told, not because I think God may judge me but out of respect for others. I could make up my own rules and post whatever I want here but I choose to try and abide by the rules of the forum out of respect for the people here.

If large amounts of people are staying in relatively small areas then general agreement on rule sets are required to prevent things from becoming chaotic and allow for a relatively smooth life. People can do whatever they want regardless of morality being subjective or objective. The difference is that you believe they'll pay for what they do after death and I have no idea what will happen after death.

But at least it's an internally consistent position that acknowledges its inevitable logical conclusion and doesn't live vicariously through some borrowed system of morality while denying the lender. While I vehemently disagree with it, I have a lot of respect for the former position and absolutely none for the latter. But what difference does my respect make anyway, right? It's all relative.

Thanks Byblos. It makes a difference to me, as I respect your opinion.

[ageofknowledge]

I have no idea what happens after this life. I don't see myself as atheist and in many aspects of life I do what I'm told, not because I think God may judge me but out of respect for others. I could make up my own rules and post whatever I want here but I choose to try and abide by the rules of the forum out of respect for the people here.

It sounds like you're an agnostic not a dyed in the wool atheist. So what I said might not fully apply to you. See in an atheistic worldview, none of your choices to get along here are ultimately meaningful whatsoever. It's just a choice of convenience to go along with whatever crowd you feel like associating with or not for whatever time you feel like it. One thing I've observed reading history is that people exercising this mentality have done a great deal of damage to humanity. Assuredly, you'll point out that true religious believers and religious hypocrites have done likewise. I'll agree but with a caveat. They weren't acting on Jesus Christ's orders or in accordance with the message of His gospel. That message is God loves humanity and God loves you: its very antithesis.

[topic]

i doubled up on my reply and not sure how to delete ?

[topic]

proinsias

"No man is an island" and although i do empathise with you in this view, we both know it is not a reality.The "Greater Good" is the premise for how society has developed and it is in this dynamic we find ourselves, and must address. Either that or we go hermit and live the peaceful and quiet life
The "highland clearance" is a prime example of how individual morals and the collective morals and laws of society played its part in how this developed.We could look at the full effect on the clearance (which would take allot of discussion) or isolate it to the most deplorable of acts (which had direct and indirect cause and effect to the rest of the highlands) Now i will assume that since you are living in Scotland and your call sign being Proinsias being Irish Gaelic you will know of whom i am talking about and the situation. If not the let me know and i can develop in more detail)
From the collective society the cheviot sheep was seen as a monumental economic plus and this view was used for the permission or more directly compliance, to bring in the highland clearance. The lowland farmers could care less about the effects this had on the highlanders because they look at what the effect would have on themselves - their immediate wealth and sustinance - and their individual morals where upheld by the collective morals of the then society.The Sutherlands also percieved this in the same way even though when the Queen went to visit she stated to them " i have left my house to come to your palace" clearly an indication of their wealth. Which was also well known throughout Europe.If we then look at Laird Stafford's first commissioner William Young and the Laird's factor Partick Sellar, we also see personal morals soliciting from societies greater morals.If we then look at Donald Macleod who from his personal moral perpective, saw the unjust in these actions.It was not until the full clarity of the clearance was seen by the majority society - thus greater morallity view - that things would change; but this did not happen for a very long time.
Oliver Cromwell is either loved/admired or hated/despised in Ireland. The south (and Catholic in Nth Ireland) hated/despise him and of coarse in Nth Ireland the Protestants ( or those of mainland descent ) love/admire him. Yet the mans ideals was from a personal moral obligation which he perpetuated through the collective morality by the peoples of England.

Where you say ----

Either morality is cultural or morality is subjective. It can't be both. If it is subjective then the unit is the individual, if it's cultural then it's based on general agreement

--- the above clearly shows it is both.They feel/lend and lead/feed of each other.In this element then their is no accoutability either for the individual or the collective, unless the moral changes - like a ship without a rudder.

God brings accountability irrespective of this, you are personally held accountable for your actions.You know as well as i do that when a mobs morals takes hold, (as in the burning of Strathnever as an example) those who participate in the act feel justified, Now whether this mob is a group or a nation (Bosnia or Rwanda) is irrespective, the comfort the individual has is in being part of the group and the defence always given is that they where just following the rest! I then put it too you that if those who act first looked and percieved at God as the absolute and with personal accoutability and collective accountability, their actions would have been far differant, for God does not just hold a person accoutable, he also holds nations accoutable.

My issue is that it is not an absolute which is handing out objective ethics, it is people claiming an absolute origin for the morals they proclaim, as I could also do and I'm sure you would be suspicious of my claims.

Your view is relevant.My view is that God uses that which he has created to bring his message to man.I propose that you are looking at the message (writer and word) and not the messanger.We as a collective and individually are so cynical, that i would ask you ---"If God brought the message to man directly as God (in his form) then men would still not belive it to be him, because it is God who has instigated the situation and not man." We as humans have a great propensity to believe in what we activate but not which is put to us.The other issue i bring to you is that -- if it had directly been GOD, do you honestly believe 2,000+yrs later, modern generations would still consider it to be true? Would the outcome be differant? This of coarse is the dilemma of man, is it not?

You may look to Leviticus or the teachings of Jesus, others look elsewhere - The Koran for instance, those who stopped at the OT or those who subscribe to the scripture of latter day saints. I'm sure there are many other examples outwith the Abrahamic framework.

This is one of the most common arguements, and clearly the observation has substance, but the underlying thought is that if the God of the Christian faith is the only TRUE God and that Jesus is the Messiah, why do others believe in what they do and more importantly what will God do with them when they are held accountable.
In truth we do not know. God has given us laws to follow but they are more than this, they are indicators on how far you are from God.They show where you are in relationship too and with God. One who follows the laws of God to the letter is known by God as a righteous man, but it is the faith in Jesus as the Christ that brings the defining truth - Ephesians 2:8,9 (which in truth is still believing in God). We are called by God to see and know what is right and wrong and to praise or punish those who go against these commands, but more importantly --- in stating who will go to heaven and who will go to damnation--- this is God's and Gods' alone judgement, for we do not know what is in the heart of any person on the edge of death. What is in their heart at that last nano second of conciousness. It is also God alone who will show and give what life or damnation they are worthy of.This is also in respect to those who have not heard of or for cultural reasons cannot follow the Christian faith. The truth is that many who object to this confronting judgemental view by God and Christians in particular, are therefore saying, Christians are above everyone else - on the higher moral ground, or the epitome of human existance, but this is erroneous. Even a Christian cannot say in truth they are saved,they can infer it, but cannot say in the absolute because many will believe this and expect to go to heaven but as it is said in Matthew 7:21,22, and Matthew 7:23 that it is not the case. You cannot be complacent or see yourself on the high moral ground.Saying this God does clearly say who will not Revelation 21:8.

They cover a lot of common ground. I tend to think of ethics more as the study of morality - I may be wrong on that.

I put this too you, that the law codifies a society's customs, norms, idea's and moral values. They encompase all that it is to be human within the society you find yourself in. But of "THE" (objective) morality, they are not a truth but a mere reflection of the subjective which can be changed at the whims of the majority, which then in effect can and does to many, alter the view point of the individual. They are of no substance and actually show no growth in character from the subjective perspective.

don't think that is moral law, I believe people need to older before being allowed to make such a commitment.

A law becomes the moral when the majority agree to it. You personally may not agree, but that in the end,in regards to subjective morallity it is irrelevent. If not, you need to show me where the individual overules the law and how people act. Child marrage is very common in some Middle Eastern countries, Central and South East Asia. By their interpretation it is morally right to be married at even younger than this - some even at the age of 8 or nine (mostly young women)to either the same age but also to people far older 20 or 30 years in age differance. Those countries who believe in this arragment do not have any problems with the child work force (but it is not only these society's),however, in these societies the morals of economics out weigh the moral ethics of human rights.Since there is no belief in final judgement, they perpetuate these actions with no or little remorse, and with out reservation; believe they can justify their actions.It is then compounded by 1st world countries around the world buy their products, place their percential margin for profit on it. Since there is no objective moral standard everything is accepted or not accepted dependant on how the economy and peoples needs (Maslow pyramid) are justified, this intern perpetuates morality and the same justification.

Yes I do think that changes in the law can influence the morality of individuals. I think that changes in law relating to race and sexuality have changed the morals of many people

You are being selective in your view. I am looking at the gambit of moral worth. I would suggest that changes in law is far greater than just these two and if it can happen in your two examples it can happen in all facets of morality.

A definitive benchmark seems like quite a tough call. I can call whatever I want right or wrong as can you. If you appeal to OM stemming from God via a text and I appeal to my own feelings at that particular point in time I don't see one as being more definitive as the other.

I put it too you that in this context your personal views hold no weight whatsoever and if you have no agreed "definitive benchmark", no directive to follow , then laws and morality are at the whim of the "ideal" and not reality - which objective morallity brings.In effect there is no substance and why anyone would not want substance is beyond my understanding. I put it too you that those (not all ) but the majority do not want objective morals because it is both confronting and limits thier primordial belief in what they want to do, without ramification to it. As it is said " you can think it, but you do not have too say it", their motto is " you can think it and can say(do) it", because their is no Greater cause.

Society in my estimation doesn't tend to deal in morals, it deals in laws

But it does as stated above, laws are codefied in a society's customs, norms, ideals and moral values.

How can society collectively agree and at the same time disagree with a law? Where I live one is free to object to laws on moral ground. If you break the law then you face the consequences of the law, if you get caught. The question of being seen as immoral to society means little to me. If a law is passed to say that drinking tea is immoral I couldn't care less, I'll keep drinking tea. If a law is passed to hand out custodial sentences to those who drink tea I'd be furious.

YOU SAY " How can society collectively agree and at the same time disagree with a law?"

Come now you cannot be serious? History (ancient and modern) is filled with such situations - it is called moral rebellion or a 'JUST CAUSE'. Scotland did this in regard to the English claims of Superior Lordship over the Scottish Kingdom.Although the English king did this in a subtle way, they did it none-the-less. When the Scottish king gave honour to the English King due to lands owned in England, the English king took this act by the Scottish king as him being soveriegn over Scotland, yet when the English king did this to the French king, the English king did not acknowledge it in the same manner.The antagonism between the two (Scottish and English) as you know was enduring.
Even though under the Roman Catholic Church directive the Scottish king was seen as not being under English control, yet by the R.C.C. the Pope would not permitt (acknowledge) the Scottish kings soveriegnty by permitting the placement of oil on the Scottish king. Look at the Falkland Island war or even now with the BNP. 66% percent of 1400 people asked if they would vote for the BNP said they would not in any way vote for them.Yet 45% agreed with their immigration policy. All these viewpoints are through the laws given by and fore the people on the reflecton of the greater moral view, who agreed to have them.If not their would have been a referendum that would have been introduced to radicate the law.

In all this, the view i take is that subjective morals holds no accountability for anything other than what that particular society believes AT THE TIME. The subjective view of accountability can only be judged if that society conquers another society and then has the power to judge. There is no incentive for anyone to follow the law if they do not want too, which you yourself clearly have stated in regards to the "tea" scenario to your morality. I put it too you, if i feel that killing to rid those i find detestable by blowing a plane over Lockerby is just as morally defensible as you not wanting to drink tea ( since by this you have set the precedence) , puting me in jail holds no value to me since i will eventually be let out,if not by a time limit then by the nature of my health, and then sent home to be praised by my society as a hero - so what ?
God will hold this man accoutable (as he will every single one of us without exception) irrespective of who believes in his morals as the act of truth.

[Proinsias]

Thanks for the reply topic.

Due to the depth and scope of it I may be some time in getting back to you but I will certainly reply as soon as I've had time to digest it.

[topic]

Proinsias,
i know i have said allot but i need to address this statement separately.

If you break the law then you face the consequences of the law, if you get caught.

The crux of this statement - which is ver insighful on your part is " if you get caught "

With God you will get caught! This is the confronting reality of God. God does not do this to be "Big Brother" as many spout. He does this because when he gives the final judgement, he must be seen as being correct in his judgement. That noone can call God unjust. It then also shows how far that person has willingly removed themselves from Gods' life.Finaly it highlights to everyone that everything has a moral value either in the view or idealism or realism.

peace

[B. W.]

Absolutely.

All social animals have well defined codes of conduct (aka morals) that control inter-personal relationships. Without these codes of conduct, their respective societies would quickly disintegrate. Since most social animals are not particularly adapted to survive individually, they benefit greatly by operating in concert. Whether this "morality" is the result of evolution or a good design may be debatable, but its existence certainly does not "prove" the existence of God.

BTW Some of the codes of conduct used by other social animals are pretty "immoral" (by our standards) if not downright brutal, but they are effective. The same can be said of the codes of conduct under which many civilizations operated in antiquity, and under which some still do to this day. Humans are fairly unique in being able to, and sometimes actually refining their code of conduct.

I have been reading the discussions and I would say that Jac has more than adequately answered the questions posed by Waynepii and others.

However for Wayne and those inclined to agnostic and atheistic lines of reasoning regarding morality being objective or subjective used in order to disprove God's existence need to consider what is known as Moral Law. For Waynepii — the golden rule.

Where did it come from — how was it derived (Moral Law — Golden Rule)? Was it a product of trial and error of people thrown together in order to survive? Or do the principles of moral law, right and wrong, the golden rule come from another non-human source?

Here is a point to ponder in order to gain better clarity regarding this subject: Does a 3 year know that the Basic Laws of Thermodynamics exist? Of course not. In fact many adults do not even know that the Basic Laws of Thermodynamics exist either.

So, does not knowing that the Basic Laws of Thermodynamics exists mean that these cannot and do not exist? Of course not, the Basic Laws of Thermodynamics exist despite someone not knowing they exist.

The Basic Laws of Thermodynamics are discovered (by human beings) because they exist. Likewise, the Moral Law, (the Golden Rule), always existed, it is the human experience that interprets the discovery of these as manmade due to a cause and effect rationale that prevents us from realizing that these existed before from a source.

We discover what is right and good and wrong and evil. For example, we know murder is a breach in Moral Law. If Adolf Hitler and the German People were being sent to the death camps, they would agree Murder is wrong as well as Racism. In a 'what they did being done to them kind of way' murder is still murder.

Problem is that we people twist and break moral law for our own ends. In doing so, the discovery is made that moral law was written in or hearts by our creator. We discover that these laws always existed by showing us how we break these in everyway.

The Basic Laws of Thermodynamics were discovered because they exist. Moral law exists because it exists from a source, God. So Wayne and others, are you discovering God?

Morally Relative Objective Morality Derived or Not???

What moral right does anyone have in trying to prove God does not exist through the use of morals and then impose that belief on the rest of us? To those that view that Morality as being relative — are you absolutely certain of this?

What moral grounds can anyone base abortion, human rights, political redistributive justice, etc and etc on? How can you object to any religion imposing its will on anyone if there is no moral law to base objections on? Without moral law, there is absolutely no basis for objecting too or even being-for anything at all!

Moral Law exists. It is we who discover that it does because we are unable to abide in the reality of Moral Law for any length of time without breaking it in some manner. We discover right and wrong — not determine what is right and wrong. If we determine what is right and wrong then anything goes: rape murder, lust, stealing, and genocide. Something within us intuitively tells us that these are wrong and that is our own conscience which manifests the discovery of moral law to us.

Moral Law is the standard of rightness. It was written on all our human hearts by our Creator. You who are atheists may believe in objective right and wrong but you really have no way to justify this because to justify you need an absolute standard in which measure it against. If morality is relative what absolute standard are you using to justify this that can be trusted?

The Basic Laws of Thermodynamics existed before discovery. Likewise, moral law existed before discovery because it always existed from a source, God. We can only discover right and wrong because we cannot settle on how to determine right and wrong until we discover the lawgiver,God, first.

In what ways does a person, culture, society engage in the discovery that moral law exist? By breaking, twisting, manipulating in relativistic ways or not?

Romans 2:15

Romans 7:7, 21, 23
-
-
-

[jlay]

When one tries to rate an ethic they are not borrowing from objective morality, they are rating an ethic as they would a cheese, a wine or war.

Pros, where to start. I'll defer to the answers of many of my brethren here who have already answered.

Get this. Deciding whether to rape or not (perhaps I should say, deciding whether rape is wrong or not) is like deciding which cheese or wine you prefer. Are you telling me your conscience actually confirms this within you? This just baffles my mind.

Pro, if one claims morality is ONLY subjective, and then attempts to rank morality, they are ignorantly stealing from OM to do so. Now, if those people were content to say, "this is my opinion based on my ethic only. It has no bearing on another ethic. My opinion that murder is wrong has no greater value than someone who thinks murder is right." But is that what people do? Uhh, no. Just try and find me a person like that. We've already seen demonstrated here by Wayne, that he isn't just claiming his ethic is his own preference. When he took a stand against the cultural norm, he did so with the belief that his ethic was inherently better than the cultural norm. Now, he will resist this notion because of the consequences to his worldview, but his post is there for everyone to analyze and critique. The evidence is there. They are not simply making a list of their top five flavors of ice cream. i mean if this doesn't war with your conscience, then I feel for you.

We know of all the conflict in the world today. Genocide has become a cultureal norm in many parts of Africa. Imagine looking from the outside in. "Yes, in my opinion a culture that embraces Genocide is abhorrent. But hey, you like vanilla, I like chocolate. That's just my opinion. There is nothing inherently wrong with genocide. It's just my opinion."
Not buying it Pros.

[B. W.]

Pros,

If I stole from you - would that be wrong?

Point to Ponder:

The Laws of mathmatics exist despite how we come to know and discover them because they exist (Two Objects plus Two Objects equals Four total Objects). Moral Law exist despite how we come to know and discover them because they exist.
-
-
-

[Proinsias]

Sorry for the excessively long response.

topic:

I'm not sure we need to go into the fine details of the historical relations within the UK.

I'm saying, in my opinion, morality is subjective. A majority of people in a given area agreeing on something does not change this. Someone bringing to light new information or framing things in a different way which changes the majority opinion does not change this either.

When you say a society views something as moral I'm not taking that as a blanket statement about that society. I'm taking that to mean a large percentage of people in that society view that something as moral depending on the resources they have access to. If one person within the society sees something as moral which all the others see as immoral the society does not see that thing as immoral, it's fine to talk about it as such in day to day terms but on an issue such as this I must make my position clear.
If most people in a society, along with law, deem something to be moral that does not mean that the society deems that thing to moral. The society includes the law and all the people within the society, not just the law and a certain percentage of people dependant on what question you ask.

God brings accountability irrespective of this, you are personally held accountable for your actions.

Unfortunately I can't take this as any more than an opinion.

You know as well as i do that when a mobs morals takes hold, (as in the burning of Strathnever as an example) those who participate in the act feel justified, Now whether this mob is a group or a nation (Bosnia or Rwanda) is irrespective, the comfort the individual has is in being part of the group and the defence always given is that they where just following the rest! I then put it too you that if those who act first looked and percieved at God as the absolute and with personal accoutability and collective accountability, their actions would have been far differant, for God does not just hold a person accoutable, he also holds nations accoutable.

I put it to you that if those people stopped for a moment being swept along with the mob and took a look at themselves thier actions would have been far different. Where you think they should stop and think about God, I think the difference is mainly in the stopping and thinking bit.

Your view is relevant.My view is that God uses that which he has created to bring his message to man.I propose that you are looking at the message (writer and word) and not the messanger.We as a collective and individually are so cynical, that i would ask you ---"If God brought the message to man directly as God (in his form) then men would still not belive it to be him, because it is God who has instigated the situation and not man." We as humans have a great propensity to believe in what we activate but not which is put to us.The other issue i bring to you is that -- if it had directly been GOD, do you honestly believe 2,000+yrs later, modern generations would still consider it to be true? Would the outcome be differant? This of coarse is the dilemma of man, is it not?

I think we're both agreeing that there was a message and a messenger. I just classify it roughly the same as any other message, a message and a person delivering it whereas you see the person as part of the message which then assumes the need for another messenger.

If it had directly been God, I don't know.

I put this too you, that the law codifies a society's customs, norms, idea's and moral values. They encompase all that it is to be human within the society you find yourself in.

I don't agree. They encompass some of what the majority feels to be human and some of what those in power deem to reasonable. What encompasses all that it means to be human in a society is, simply, all the humans in that society.

A law becomes the moral when the majority agree to it.

Therefore a law becomes moral as soon as over 50% of people in that society view it as such. How do you measure that? One person could be the difference between moral and immoral.

You personally may not agree, but that in the end,in regards to subjective morallity it is irrelevent. If not, you need to show me where the individual overules the law and how people act.

I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Do you mean someone like Rosa Parks?

Child marrage is very common in some Middle Eastern countries, Central and South East Asia. By their interpretation it is morally right to be married at even younger than this - some even at the age of 8 or nine (mostly young women)to either the same age but also to people far older 20 or 30 years in age differance. Those countries who believe in this arragment do not have any problems with the child work force (but it is not only these society's),however, in these societies the morals of economics out weigh the moral ethics of human rights.Since there is no belief in final judgement, they perpetuate these actions with no or little remorse, and with out reservation; believe they can justify their actions.It is then compounded by 1st world countries around the world buy their products, place their percential margin for profit on it. Since there is no objective moral standard everything is accepted or not accepted dependant on how the economy and peoples needs (Maslow pyramid) are justified, this intern perpetuates morality and the same justification.

I'm not sure what objective morality has to do with this. Were people not married at a very young age in biblical times? Do many of the countries you are referring to not believe in Abrahamic OM? - many of them do believe in final judgment, they just don't agree with you that they will be judged badly for it.
Child labour, under 16, is something that was/is practiced by people who believe in OM. It's as you say, something that becomes more unpleasant the more prosperous a society becomes. In economies that are not dependant on child labour, child labour appears immoral - belief in OM isn't required. If we go back even a few hundred years, or less, it wasn't belief in OM that generally determined if your kids worked or not, it was position in society. The other thing to take into consideration is at what age does one stop being a child? around 12/13 which seem to be traditional in the Abrahamic religions or 16-21 which is more common to the societies in which we live.

You are being selective in your view. I am looking at the gambit of moral worth. I would suggest that changes in law is far greater than just these two and if it can happen in your two examples it can happen in all facets of morality.

I agree. I wasn't trying to be selective, just to give some examples.

I put it too you that in this context your personal views hold no weight whatsoever and if you have no agreed "definitive benchmark", no directive to follow , then laws and morality are at the whim of the "ideal" and not reality - which objective morallity brings.In effect there is no substance and why anyone would not want substance is beyond my understanding. I put it too you that those (not all ) but the majority do not want objective morals because it is both confronting and limits thier primordial belief in what they want to do, without ramification to it. As it is said " you can think it, but you do not have too say it", their motto is " you can think it and can say(do) it", because their is no Greater cause.

I put it to you that my personal views do hold weight. Perhaps you are correct in that the majority do not want OM as it limits what they want to do. I don't think that is the case for myself.

I'd also be wary of giving objective substance to morality because people want substance.

As for thinking - action. I believe in purity of thought, confronting demons if you'll allow the poetic language. Not in thinking terrible things but just not doing them, more heading towards not thinking terrible things which one must not do.

Come now you cannot be serious?

I am.

I put it too you, if i feel that killing to rid those i find detestable by blowing a plane over Lockerby is just as morally defensible as you not wanting to drink tea ( since by this you have set the precedence) , puting me in jail holds no value to me since i will eventually be let out,if not by a time limit then by the nature of my health, and then sent home to be praised by my society as a hero - so what ?

Put it to me then, I'm keen to hear the argument.

No need for OM, just a decent argument.

I try to buy my tea from reasonably trustworthy sources and people I trust. At the very worst I may occasionally buy from places which utilise child labour, or pay rather unfair prices to farmers. I really can't be sure about the origins of 20yr old bricks of tea that I have.

Blowing up a plane full of people causes misery and suffering of a large scale. If my tea drinking was shown to cause a similar level of human suffering to that caused by the Lockerbie bombing, I could not continue to drink tea.

I put it to you that spending as much time in jail as Al Megrahi did would hold some value. Also that the evidence on which he was convicted on was rather sparse. Personally I'm not convinced that he was responsible, even if the majority of my society are and the law I live under is.

God will hold this man accoutable (as he will every single one of us without exception) irrespective of who believes in his morals as the act of truth.

Maybe he will. The same God will also let Al Megrahi, Hitler and Stalin into heaven if they personally accept Jesus Christ as their savior moments before death and repent for their sins. That's something between them and God, so surely you can't know that these people will suffer for the misery caused, if in the case of Al Megrahi it was them at all. No matter how much misery and suffering one person has caused they can still get into heaven, no?

Proinsias,
i know i have said allot but i need to address this statement separately.

If you break the law then you face the consequences of the law, if you get caught.

The crux of this statement - which is ver insighful on your part is " if you get caught "

With God you will get caught! This is the confronting reality of God. God does not do this to be "Big Brother" as many spout. He does this because when he gives the final judgement, he must be seen as being correct in his judgement. That noone can call God unjust. It then also shows how far that person has willingly removed themselves from Gods' life.Finaly it highlights to everyone that everything has a moral value either in the view or idealism or realism.

peace

That's why I mentioned it, to separate the law from your view of God.

B. W.

To be very brief, in my opinion the law of thermodynamics was not discovered, it was created by humans. It will probably be broken some day along with all the other laws we have created.

I'm not absolutely sure that OM does not exist, it may well do. My guess as to what it is holds as much value as yours or those who wrote the Scriptures.
I'm not sure that something within us intuitively tells us that certain things are wrong, it's not something within that tells me that rape and murder are wrong. It's seeing the effect that rape and murder has that tells me it is wrong, it causes a great deal of suffering. Maybe ice cream preference is a big deal in the mind of God, I just tend to dismiss it as it causes little misery and suffering in the world.

What moral right does anyone have in trying to prove God does not exist through the use of morals and then impose that belief on the rest of us? To those that view that Morality as being relative — are you absolutely certain of this?

I'm not trying to prove that God does not exist through the use of moral means. I'm saying I think morality is subjective, I'm not absolutely certain of this and I'm not trying to impose that on anyone, I'm trying to explain why I think that and find out why some people think otherwise.

Pro, if one claims morality is ONLY subjective, and then attempts to rank morality, they are ignorantly stealing from OM to do so.

If cheese preference is only subjective and then one attempts to rank cheeses one is ignorantly stealing from the objective cheese scale to do so.

Pro, if one claims morality is ONLY subjective, and then attempts to rank morality, they are ignorantly stealing from OM to do so. Now, if those people were content to say, "this is my opinion based on my ethic only. It has no bearing on another ethic. My opinion that murder is wrong has no greater value than someone who thinks murder is right." But is that what people do? Uhh, no. Just try and find me a person like that. We've already seen demonstrated here by Wayne, that he isn't just claiming his ethic is his own preference. When he took a stand against the cultural norm, he did so with the belief that his ethic was inherently better than the cultural norm. Now, he will resist this notion because of the consequences to his worldview, but his post is there for everyone to analyze and critique. The evidence is there. They are not simply making a list of their top five flavors of ice cream. i mean if this doesn't war with your conscience, then I feel for you.

What is murder to you? I view meat as murder, I eat it. I view the death penalty as murder, I don't support it. I view much of the Iraq and Afghanistan war as murder.
People murder, as they see murder as wrong they call it something else.
Doesn't really matter if it is ultimately right or wrong, what matters is that we deal with it in a way which minimizes suffering in the world which arises from it and do what can to prevent it.
I have no idea if the death penalty is ultimately right or wrong, it's something I generally don't agree with as I see it as murder, many people do not agree with me.

Wayne may well believe that his ethic was inherently better than the cultural norm and then resist certain conclusions. I believe that my morality is, on occasion, better than that of the cultural norm - not inherently better, just better from where I'm standing and that's enough for me to make a stand.

We know of all the conflict in the world today. Genocide has become a cultureal norm in many parts of Africa. Imagine looking from the outside in. "Yes, in my opinion a culture that embraces Genocide is abhorrent. But hey, you like vanilla, I like chocolate. That's just my opinion. There is nothing inherently wrong with genocide. It's just my opinion."
Not buying it Pros.

Again I couldn't care if chocolate ice cream is inherently wrong and genocide inherently right. Preference for ice cream doesn't cause misery and suffering and preference for genocide does. I went to visit Auschwitz on my eighth birthday, I really don't need God to tell me that genocide is wrong. It's quite enough for me to horrified by it. What we need to realise is that genocide is a really big issue, it can affects the lives of millions a huge way, and ice cream preference is relatively trivial as it may bring forth an amusing conversation at the end of the odd dinner party or some philosophical chat at the worst.

Pros,

If I stole from you - would that be wrong?

Maybe, some context would help.

If you stole my wallet on the bus I think it would be wrong

If you stole a weapon from me before I was about to hurt someone I think it would be right.

Both are unlikely to happen.

The Laws of mathmatics exist despite how we come to know and discover them because they exist (Two Objects plus Two Objects equals Four total Objects). Moral Law exist despite how we come to know and discover them because they exist.

So the laws of mathematics exist because they exist and moral laws exist because they exist?

[ageofknowledge]

From an atheistic perspective, one can hardly argue with the comment of Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov: "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible. While a particular atheist may find these things personally objectionable, another atheist might readily agree with them. But one viewpoint is no better than the other, for both would be purely subjective and arbitrary within their worldview. Things happen in a godless, merely physical world, but who's to say that any of it is "bad?

For evil to exist requires an objective moral judgment. But in a godless world morals can only be arbitrary, subjective, and relativistic in nature. They lack an objective metaphysical foundation. Therefore without God and absolutes, there may be obstacles, inconveniences, and unpleasantries in conjunction with an individual's subjective desires and needs, but these cannot be called evil. Atheists may choose to act in an expedient or convenient or pragmatic way, but such action cannot be considered prescriptively moral (having anything to do with "should or "ought"). Indeed prescriptive morality is necessary to the concept of evil.

Most atheists do, nonetheless, express belief that some things or actions in the world are indeed evil. They may recognize something is morally amiss in the universe. This "amiss," or incongruity elicits their objection against God. Many atheists fail to acknowledge that when they object to evil they must appeal beyond their godless world to an objective standard of goodness. Something can only be nefarious if it has transgressed the good. By its very nature moral injustice implies a standard of right and wrong, good and evil.

As Gerard J. Hughes notes: "The problem of evil cannot even be stated unless it is assumed that it is proper to speak of moral truth; and it cannot be stated
with much force unless it is assumed that moral does not simply depend on human conventions which could well have been quite different."

All these moral considerations raise serious difficulties for the atheist. Logic forces them to reasonably account for the "problem of good." Ironically, the problem of evil may serve as powerful evidence for God's existence; for an objective standard of goodness needs an adequate metaphysical foundation.

The existence of a theistic God explains both the existence of goodness as well as its opposite, evil. Some Christian philosophers have pointed out that when atheists are indignant about evil and God's relationship to it, they are actually borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview. Their own worldview provides no adequate basis upon which to make such moral claims. This assessment of the unbeliever's moral confusion in light of his indebtedness to God's inherent moral Law is clearly spoken of in Scripture (Rom. 1 : 18-2: 16).

Biblically speaking, the incongruent scenario has been played out by various secular thinkers in their moral complaint against God concerning evil. The atheist, in effect, depends upon the objective moral system of Christianity in order to raise moral objections against the Christian God. As Christian philosopher Greg L. Bahnsen succinctly puts it, "Antitheism presupposes theism to make its case."

Atheism offers no adequate explanation for evil and suffering. Atheists cannot even speak about evil without relying upon borrowed moral capital, nor can they account for the concept of good. Since atheism's argument about the problem of evil fails to make a case against God, it is necessary to consider why God, specifically the God of Christianity, chooses to allow evil and suffering.

And that is a discussion we can have.

[topic]

Proinsias,

Sorry for the excessively long response.

We need to minimise our discussion and if possable limit our referance to support our view.

Your perception of morality is very Hedonistic.The issue i have with this view is that you cannot and will not be able to see what your morality actually brings.You also percieve that people will think the same way you do, as your reply in the mob example. Yes you can see the immediate response to your action but you cannot see the total cause or impact of your moral view past this point. Since it is personal and if everyone elses is also subjective it holds no value other than to the person who holds that particular view.Which you support in your replies throughout this conversation. It is always subject to change, from one given situation to another. i.e. I like them so i will not lie to them. i could careless about them, so i don't care if i tell them the truth or not.I will give this homeless person money, but in another time you don't won't too.

Now just to clarify, the codification of morals is not the complete dynamics of human morality. It would be impossable to codify all morals and even more difficult to impose. The majority Moral view codified by law is what the majority agree to and accept. Personal moral view is how you wish to solicit the value of these. Objective moral values give you the guide lines in how to conduct yourself, subjective moral values is as stated above - acted upon given the situation... who you are interacting with, how you feel that particular point in the day or week , what just happened before you make the decision to act on your own subjective moral values. In all this you and noone else is held accountable.

In most of your replies you have given me no substance, if i wanted to follow your lead all i would say is that God is right you are wrong and that is my opinion, i.e. ----

topic wrote:
God brings accountability irrespective of this, you are personally held accountable for your actions.

Unfortunately I can't take this as any more than an opinion

No substance, just opinion. If not why not? What is your view? care to quantify your view?why do you not accept this view? and ---- again -----

topic wrote:
You know as well as i do that when a mobs morals takes hold, (as in the burning of Strathnever as an example) those who participate in the act feel justified, Now whether this mob is a group or a nation (Bosnia or Rwanda) is irrespective, the comfort the individual has is in being part of the group and the defence always given is that they where just following the rest! I then put it too you that if those who act first looked and percieved at God as the absolute and with personal accoutability and collective accountability, their actions would have been far differant, for God does not just hold a person accoutable, he also holds nations accoutable.

I put it to you that if those people stopped for a moment being swept along with the mob and took a look at themselves thier actions would have been far different. Where you think they should stop and think about God, I think the difference is mainly in the stopping and thinking bit.

Again quantify your view. In all three examples i gave,so if you where inclined, you could google then up and see clearly that all three where controlled, thought out with a defined goal, validated by those who perpetrated these acts, and they where not random or impulsive in anyway, and where acted out over a long period of time. They clearly did not look at an objective moral guide but looked at what they subjectively percieved to be morally and justly correct.So explain if you will how they looking at it again would have changed there actions one iota?
Again ---

topic wrote:
Your view is relevant.My view is that God uses that which he has created to bring his message to man.I propose that you are looking at the message (writer and word) and not the messanger.We as a collective and individually are so cynical, that i would ask you ---"If God brought the message to man directly as God (in his form) then men would still not belive it to be him, because it is God who has instigated the situation and not man." We as humans have a great propensity to believe in what we activate but not which is put to us.The other issue i bring to you is that -- if it had directly been GOD, do you honestly believe 2,000+yrs later, modern generations would still consider it to be true? Would the outcome be differant? This of coarse is the dilemma of man, is it not?

I think we're both agreeing that there was a message and a messenger. I just classify it roughly the same as any other message, a message and a person delivering it whereas you see the person as part of the message which then assumes the need for another messenger

again no substance.Do you think that the bible was only written by one person ? Why would they (collectively) do this?why would differant writers say the same thing knowing what had already happened to them in the past? why put themselves in such a position? If you look at the history of the Jewish nation, it did not work for them, so why keep going at it, why not just change the whole dynamics on the view of God to get on with everyone else? What gain have the jewish people achieved by this fallacious lie ? AND one more ----

Do many of the countries you are referring to not believe in Abrahamic OM? - many of them do believe in final judgment, they just don't agree with you that they will be judged badly for it.

the last example - again no substance. What countries?what is their belief in OM and final judgement?


Rosa Park was a product of a movement which had been in progress for decades if not longer. I expected people such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc to be your example?

topic wrote:
I put it too you, if i feel that killing to rid those i find detestable by blowing a plane over Lockerby is just as morally defensible as you not wanting to drink tea ( since by this you have set the precedence) , puting me in jail holds no value to me since i will eventually be let out,if not by a time limit then by the nature of my health, and then sent home to be praised by my society as a hero - so what ?

Put it to me then, I'm keen to hear the argument

I did! I thought you would have picked it up. Your view is subjective then so is my view. You look at what the cause would be too you but give no relevance to how i would act given the same latitude. Punishment holds no value for me, so the effect of my cause is that my act is more important. By your definition, if i make myself happy and my country then i am morally in the right.

If my tea drinking was shown to cause a similar level of human suffering to that caused by the Lockerbie bombing, I could not continue to drink tea.

Again i do not care if you do, you opened the gate by your act. Just because you change it because i took substance from it, i now see how right my act was, so from my subjective moral view i like what it did,so i will do it again if i have the oppertunity - you are too late - the influence has been recieved and accepted.So you giving up the tea makes you happy, i killing people and being seen as a hero make me happy, all in all we are both winners!

topic wrote:
I put this too you, that the law codifies a society's customs, norms, idea's and moral values. They encompase all that it is to be human within the society you find yourself in.

I don't agree.

Interesting. That statement is what secular Philosophy of ethics perpetuates.Care to clarify what you base your view point on?what substance you are using as referance?

The same God will also let Al Megrahi, Hitler and Stalin into heaven if they personally accept Jesus Christ as their savior moments before death and repent for their sins.

What Christian theology are you using to state this? Can you give me referance to support your claim?

[B. W.]

That's why I mentioned it, to separate the law from your view of God....

B. W. --- To be very brief, in my opinion the law of thermodynamics was not discovered, it was created by humans. It will probably be broken some day along with all the other laws we have created. I'm not absolutely sure that OM does not exist, it may well do. My guess as to what it is holds as much value as yours or those who wrote the Scriptures.

…So the laws of mathematics exist because they exist and moral laws exist because they exist?

So the laws of Physics never existed until they were discovered? Then what would be holding the universe together billions of years ago?

Evidence: 6 billions years ago — did the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics exist despite not having human beings to discover these mathematical principles?

There is an absolute standard that we call moral law. People can deny it, suppress it, one's actions can even contradict it; but a person's reactions to moral law reveal they know there is a standard of right and wrong. You do as evidenced by your own statement below….

I'm not sure that something within us intuitively tells us that certain things are wrong, it's not something within that tells me that rape and murder are wrong. It's seeing the effect that rape and murder has that tells me it is wrong, it causes a great deal of suffering. Maybe ice cream preference is a big deal in the mind of God, I just tend to dismiss it as it causes little misery and suffering in the world.

So by seeing or experiencing the effect — you discover certain things are wrong. However if there are no right and wrongs then nothing you think is wrong is wrong.

Next, do not the principles of science find out facts in what it observes so that then discovery is made? For example, we human beings use existing elements to create things through the discovery of experimentation. Are you not then in that process of discovering that Moral Law exists?

What moral right does anyone have in trying to prove God does not exist through the use of morals and then impose that belief on the rest of us? To those that view that Morality as being relative — are you absolutely certain of this?

I'm not trying to prove that God does not exist through the use of moral means. I'm saying I think morality is subjective, I'm not absolutely certain of this and I'm not trying to impose that on anyone, I'm trying to explain why I think that and find out why some people think otherwise.

If you are not absolutely certain that Morality is subjective then would this not prove that Morality is not based on personal subjectivism due to uncertainty as you cannot trust even your own opinions?

Moral Law adjudicates between the different moral opinions people have. Without the standard of Moral Law that comes from a Moral Lawgiver (God), then we are left with just human opinions and uncertainty.

This, Moral Law, God placed within the human heart so we can discover the need for the Moral Law giver to save us from our subjective morals that enslave us.

You know evil when you see it and have it inflicted upon you as well as know what goodness is and consist of as it effects causes no evil to anyone and blesses. You also discover that evil exist in conflict with what is good.

You have trouble seeing how a Moral God could let evil happen, yet, if he denied evil, how could that denial be just? In the denial, you would be guilty of tyranny as well as absolutely proving you are not all powerful enough because you would be unable to work through all things according to infinite justice guided by infinite love.

A Moral Law Giver grants personal autonomy. If Moral Law does not grant that personal autonomy then how could it truly remain morally just to the one granted this gift of autonomy? How could the Giver remain truly just to all by denying personal autonomy?

Through personal autonomy one can choose fairly if they want a truly fair, infinitely just, infinitely loving Moral Law Giver or something else not truly fair, not infinitely just, not infinitely loving but rather tyrannical and enslaving. This in effect makes sin and evil found in us, not God (The Moral Law Giver) for it is we who create it. Such is in us.

Human beings were hardwired to explore and discover things. In this discovery we find that Moral Law exist because there is a Moral Law Giver who let's us discover. The Standard of Moral Law is God's very own nature of rightness, justice, etc and etc… who being who he is let's us explore and discover that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. In this you deem God unfair being that infinitely just to the unjust and just????

….If I stole from you - would that be wrong?

Maybe, some context would help. … If you stole my wallet on the bus I think it would be wrong

If you stole a weapon from me before I was about to hurt someone I think it would be right.

Both are unlikely to happen.

If someone else beat you bloody by stealing your wallet and after stealing your gun, left you a paralyzed quadriplegic — would that be wrong?
-
-
-