Evidence for God from Science

Jac i concure with B.W. Well said.

if you don't mind me interjecting ----

The hypothesis that morality is based on cultural or social agreement from an evolutionary process is not valid. From an evolutionary perspective in relation to the "selfish gene " hypothosis the fact that we humans even consider morality, is a waste of time for the survival of the fittest. Evolution does not accept such wasted time.It does nothing for the preservation of the species but is actually counter productive. The fact that we even have religion is totally contridictory to evolution and as yet it cannot be explained. But as Richard Dawkins says (as he always does) "although we do not understand it now, we will eventually find the answer and it will be science not religion that will do this".

You have used the Holocaust.If we moved past this and went hypothetical - What if Hitler and Germany had won the 2nd world war! The morals of the world would have been drastically changed.Nuremberg would never have happened.

You just need to look at Mao and the cultural revolution, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il,Stalin and Iran goverment.
Man makes excuses but with God there is no excuse all are the same and are judged the same - this is objective morality.
Science says that religion does not face reality. The truth is that it is science that does not face reality. If you can change the line in the sand, then you can feel comfortable in your own morals. If the line cannot be changed then you are forced to look into the mirror and see your place and that can be too confrontational for many to do.

peace

topic wrote: The hypothesis that morality is based on cultural or social agreement from an evolutionary process is not valid. From an evolutionary perspective in relation to the "selfish gene " hypothosis the fact that we humans even consider morality, is a waste of time for the survival of the fittest. Evolution does not accept such wasted time.It does nothing for the preservation of the species but is actually counter productive. The fact that we even have religion is totally contridictory to evolution and as yet it cannot be explained. But as Richard Dawkins says (as he always does) "although we do not understand it now, we will eventually find the answer and it will be science not religion that will do this".

Dawkins also tries to literally explain away altruism by talking of "kin selection" and "group selection" and "reciprocal altruism", and posits that the gene will (wait for it) think to itself, "I know, if I do a favour for X then X will hopefully, at some later stage, do something for me." Thus Dawkins thinks he can "Darwinise" morality. It is the most pathetic of attempts. Moreover Dawkins then abuses his "selfish gene" by absurdly positing "reciprocal altruism" where ( at best) a possible mutual back-scratcher is detected?

It is also a maltreatment of the word "altruism" and completely takes away its meaning.

topic wrote:Science says that religion does not face reality. The truth is that it is science that does not face reality. If you can change the line in the sand, then you can feel comfortable in your own morals. If the line cannot be changed then you are forced to look into the mirror and see your place and that can be too confrontational for many to do.

Great point.

I want to wait on Wayne's response to my last post before I say much yet (I have a definite idea in mind where I want to take this, which will tie directly into HIS question about how we know right from wrong), but hinting at the direction I want to go and bouncing of y'all's comments, the view of morality that "science" takes on this (relativism) reduces "morality" to a description rather than a prescription. I think, though, if you consider the nature of morality, you--and Wayne and Dawkins and everyone else--will find the latter is essential for any meaningful moral statements. Consider Kant's "ought" . . .

Now, YOU say that BASED ON YOUR CULTURE, you think it is wrong (and certainly, it would be, based on American values). What I am asking is if you are prepared to defend my right to commit the act that you personally consider to be MURDER so long as it happens in my culture as me having done the RIGHT thing? If not, why not? If so, I want you to admit here and now that what the Nazis did to the Jews was NOT WRONG, that it was RIGHT in THEIR CULTURE. If you want to preface that with, "Well, according to American culture, it was wrong, but . . ." then fine. But if you are going to be consistent, then I want to see you defend the Holocaust as being morally acceptable according to Nazi ethics.

The Jews were largely a convenient scapegoat for the economic and social problems plaguing Germany after WWI. Much of Hitler's rise to power reinforced the "fact" that the Jews were "at fault". I think Hitler and other high level Nazis had an overwhelming hatred for Jews, which culminated in the holocaust. That the true horror of the holocaust was kept secret (at least in part to make collecting Jews easier) makes it difficult to say how widespread hatred of Jews was and what measures would have been tolerable to the German citizenry as a whole. Couple that with the fact that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime that had pervasive, highly effective, and extremely brutal intelligence and police systems and it is understandable that regardless of what the populace knew or suspected about "the final solution", there was relatively little outcry.

All that said, I have to ask "so what"? The fact is that acts virtually everyone consider reprehensible were perpetrated by the Nazis. There was little outcry, even from the churches (Germany is and was a Christian country). This is history. Will I defend Nazi Germany and/or the holocaust (even as "their right" or "their morality"), no way! Will I defend the institution of slavery as "their right or morality"? No way! Why am I not "being consistent" unless I do? Many societies have or had codes of conduct I (and most others) find reprehensible. Are only Christians to be allowed to judge these societies and their moralities? What gives you any more rights than anyone else?

1. If God does not exist, things cannot be inherently right or wrong

This is self-evident, given that you effectively define "inherent" as "coming from God".

2. But things are inherently right and wrong

How so? Do you have examples? ... proof?

3. Therefore, God exists.

Kind'a depends on 2)

nazi stuff

You ARE being inconsistent. It doesn't matter what OTHER people did or did not do. Remember, by YOUR definition, something is RIGHT if it is consistent with what THAT SOCIETY values. The Nazi ethic encouraged the extermination of the Jews in their effort to produce a Superman race. So, by YOUR DEFINITION, what they did was RIGHT.

Now, you as an individual and as a member of a culture that does not embrace the Nazi ethic would certainly find it wrong. That's just definitional. Their actions don't comport with your value system. But, remember, for you, "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with YOUR value system. They have to do with the value system of the person (or society) in which the act was done.

I'm not asking you what you personally think of the Holocaust. I'm asking you if you are intellectually honest enough to admit that, by your definitions of "right" and "wrong," that not only was there nothing inherently wrong with the Holocaust, that it is actually morally DEFENSIBLE as the RIGHT thing to do given the underlying Nazi ethic? Are you going to be consistent with yourself or not?

I suspect you have desire NOT to be consistent because you KNOW that the Holocaust was wrong no matter what the Nazi ethic was. The fact that that contradicts your definitions is your problem, not mine, and it goes as a single example of evidence that things are inherently right and wrong. But, of course, that would require you to acknowledge God's existence, so I expect you to resist on that front. But that is fine. Right now, I am content with having you acknowledge the logical outcome of your position. I want to see you admit that WHAT THE NAZIS DID WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR DEFINITIONS.

This is self-evident, given that you effectively define "inherent" as "coming from God".

It's not definitional. It's the logical conclusion. You can see that yourself. In order for right and wrong to be inherent in a thing, it requires the existence of a Moral God for its ontological grounding as we've shown in this thread. And to that extent, it IS self-evident.

The reverse of this is that if God does NOT exist, then nothing can be inherently "right" or "wrong." We will talk about the implications of that soon enough.

How so? Do you have examples? ... proof?

Working on it. I have to get you to acknowledge the logical outcome of your position first. One discussion at a time. Once we get you to acknowledge the nature of your system, we can then look at the nature of mine. We are still discussing moral ontology--the nature of the systems themselves. Once we do that, THEN we can answer your epistemological question of "how can I know/"read" what is right and wrong?"

Kind'a depends on 2)

Exactly. That's what all valid syllogisms do. They depend on the truthfulness of the premises. (1) has been established. We now need to look at (2), which we are in the process of doing. To do that, you have to acknowledge the logical requirements of YOUR system.

So - again, simple question, as stated above: are you willing to acknowledge that, under your view of morality, the Holocaust was actually RIGHT?

Wayne,
You find it reprehensible. I would ask, so what? You can duck and dodge by giving a history of the Holocaust, but it doesn't change the core questions Jac has raised.

If morality is subjective, and nothing is inherently wrong, then why do you think you have something to be revered in being appaulled at some society's actions?

As Jac pointed out, you want to have your cake and eat it to. You almost brag that your ethic finds things reprehensible. But if there is not objective truth on the matter, then so what? Why should "do unto others" be any better idea than "kill or be killed?"

Come on Wayne. Man up and embrace your value system for ALL that it offers.

Jac3510 wrote:

nazi stuff

You ARE being inconsistent. It doesn't matter what OTHER people did or did not do. Remember, by YOUR definition, something is RIGHT if it is consistent with what THAT SOCIETY values. The Nazi ethic encouraged the extermination of the Jews in their effort to produce a Superman race. So, by YOUR DEFINITION, what they did was RIGHT.

As I explained in my prior post, it highly doubtful that the holocaust was even known, let alone endorsed, by most of the German citizenry. Even among those taking an active role in the holocaust, I suspect that a large percentage were participating out of survival. Clearly, some WERE fully in agreement with what was going on, but do they determine the morality of the entire society? I'm not evading your question, but I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth either.

Now, you as an individual and as a member of a culture that does not embrace the Nazi ethic would certainly find it wrong. That's just definitional. Their actions don't comport with your value system. But, remember, for you, "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with YOUR value system. They have to do with the value system of the person (or society) in which the act was done.

I'm not asking you what you personally think of the Holocaust. I'm asking you if you are intellectually honest enough to admit that, by your definitions of "right" and "wrong," that not only was there nothing inherently wrong with the Holocaust, that it is actually morally DEFENSIBLE as the RIGHT thing to do given the underlying Nazi ethic? Are you going to be consistent with yourself or not?

I suspect you have desire NOT to be consistent because you KNOW that the Holocaust was wrong no matter what the Nazi ethic was.

We BOTH are looking at the holocaust in hindsight. What was done is known in detail, and can be discussed openly without fear of reprisal. Things were very different to the German citizenry of the Nazi era.

The fact that that contradicts your definitions is your problem, not mine, and it goes as a single example of evidence that things are inherently right and wrong.

Not at all.

But, of course, that would require you to acknowledge God's existence, so I expect you to resist on that front. But that is fine. Right now, I am content with having you acknowledge the logical outcome of your position. I want to see you admit that WHAT THE NAZIS DID WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR DEFINITIONS.

IF the morality of Germany during the Nazi regime was accurately reflected in atrocities such as the holocaust, and as explained previously, that is highly doubtful, then yes, the majority of Germans of that era would have considered the holocaust the "right" thing to have done. More likely, the holocaust was the work of a relative few, together with an environment not conducive to either protest or investigation. Did those responsible for the acts consider themselves to be doing "right", "wrong", or did they even think about it? Your guess is as good as mine.

Does John Salvi (convicted of several murders of abortion providers) in any way define or reflect the morality of Christians as a whole?

This is self-evident, given that you effectively define "inherent" as "coming from God".

It's not definitional. It's the logical conclusion. You can see that yourself. In order for right and wrong to be inherent in a thing, it requires the existence of a Moral God for its ontological grounding as we've shown in this thread. And to that extent, it IS self-evident.

The reverse of this is that if God does NOT exist, then nothing can be inherently "right" or "wrong." We will talk about the implications of that soon enough.

We wait with baited breath .

We have been ignoring the need for social animals to live by established codes of conduct, even though such codes usually run counter to the best interests of some members of the society. To speed this thing up, I will not go into it now, but may in the future. I am mentioning it now only so as not to be accused of "changing my stance" if I do choose to go into it in the future.

How so? Do you have examples? ... proof?

Working on it. I have to get you to acknowledge the logical outcome of your position first. One discussion at a time. Once we get you to acknowledge the nature of your system, we can then look at the nature of mine. We are still discussing moral ontology--the nature of the systems themselves. Once we do that, THEN we can answer your epistemological question of "how can I know/"read" what is right and wrong?"

Is determining what is "right" from "wrong" per objective morality really this difficult?

Kind'a depends on 2)

Exactly. That's what all valid syllogisms do. They depend on the truthfulness of the premises. (1) has been established. We now need to look at (2), which we are in the process of doing. To do that, you have to acknowledge the logical requirements of YOUR system.

First off, it's not MY system. It's called the real world - bad people sometimes do bad things. Bad people in positions of power sometimes do really bad things, and may even be able to convince at least some that those things are "right" or "necessary" or for a "greater good'.

• What prevents others from saying "that's wrong" (admittedly wrt their morality)? Nothing!
• What causes most people to concur that "that's wrong"? Because their various moral codes agree that "that's wrong".
• How come so many moral codes agree "that's wrong"? For one thing, we live on one planet with (now) very good communications, so society is becoming more global rather than local.

So - again, simple question, as stated above: are you willing to acknowledge that, under your view of morality, the Holocaust was actually RIGHT?

Asked and answered.

topic wrote:Jac i concure with B.W. Well said.

if you don't mind me interjecting ----

The hypothesis that morality is based on cultural or social agreement from an evolutionary process is not valid. From an evolutionary perspective in relation to the "selfish gene " hypothosis the fact that we humans even consider morality, is a waste of time for the survival of the fittest. Evolution does not accept such wasted time.It does nothing for the preservation of the species but is actually counter productive. The fact that we even have religion is totally contridictory to evolution and as yet it cannot be explained. But as Richard Dawkins says (as he always does) "although we do not understand it now, we will eventually find the answer and it will be science not religion that will do this".

If man were a solitary animal, this might be true. But man is a social animal. Our chances of survival are much greater as a member of a group rather than individually. Hence, maintaining the integrity of the group supersedes strict self interest.

You have used the Holocaust.If we moved past this and went hypothetical - What if Hitler and Germany had won the 2nd world war! The morals of the world would have been drastically changed.Nuremberg would never have happened.

Yes, and there would probably have been US personnel tried for war crimes for dropping the bomb on Japan.

You just need to look at Mao and the cultural revolution, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il,Stalin and Iran goverment.
Man makes excuses but with God there is no excuse all are the same and are judged the same - this is objective morality.
Science says that religion does not face reality. The truth is that it is science that does not face reality. If you can change the line in the sand, then you can feel comfortable in your own morals. If the line cannot be changed then you are forced to look into the mirror and see your place and that can be too confrontational for many to do.

And religion has never "changed the line in the sand"?

peace

And to you.

As I explained in my prior post, it highly doubtful that the holocaust was even known, let alone endorsed, by most of the German citizenry. Even among those taking an active role in the holocaust, I suspect that a large percentage were participating out of survival. Clearly, some WERE fully in agreement with what was going on, but do they determine the morality of the entire society? I'm not evading your question, but I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth either.

And as explained in my response to your post, it doesn't matter what others thought or didn't think. This is evidenced by what you said later:

You wrote:IF the morality of Germany during the Nazi regime was accurately reflected in atrocities such as the holocaust, and as explained previously, that is highly doubtful, then yes, the majority of Germans of that era would have considered the holocaust the "right" thing to have done.

Working, for the sake of argument, on the assumption that "the morality of Germany during the Nazi regime was accurately reflected in atrocities such as the holocaust," then by your definition they did what was RIGHT.

THIS is what you are evading. Notice in your statement above that you softened it. You said, the Germans "would have considered" the Holocaust morally right. You are back to that epistemological thing again. I am not talking about if something is CONSIDERED or THOUGHT to be right. I am talking about, as we have already agreed upon, if something is right or wrong IN AND OF ITSELF, that is, regardless of what we think about it.

For example, if someone today argues that slavery is a good thing, you would say that they were wrong--you would even say that they are objectively wrong because we, as a society, have rejected that ethic. So, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT IT (that is, ignoring the epistemological question you insist on bringing up over and over again when it is NOT RELEVANT), the FACT is that slavery is wrong in our society and that by your definition.

Return, then, to Germany. I'm not asking you if you would be willing to concede that the majority of people would have THOUGHT it was OK of if they would have CONSIDERED it acceptable. I am asking you, "IF the morality of Germany during the Nazi regime was accurately reflected in atrocities such as the holocaust," then isn't it true that, even if a small number of people objected, then in fact is it not the RIGHT thing?

I am trying to get you to see something about your view of morality. You are so quick to fall back on the epistemological question--what we consider or think--and I am trying very hard to get you to stay focused on the system you are proposing in and of itself. By your system, the Holocaust isn't just something some people considered to be right. It actually WAS right. Can you see the difference in those two statements? I'll put them side by side again:

1. He considered the Holocaust to be the right thing to do.
2. The Holocaust was the right thing to do.

The first statement has NO BEARING on our discussion, which YOU fell back on. I am trying to get you to focus on the second. By your definitions, the Holocaust isn't just considered the right thing to do--it WAS the right thing to do. In fact, you don't even have the right to say that according to your value system it was the wrong thing. You have to acknowledge that it was the RIGHT thing to do, for the simple reason that it was in accordance with societal standards! You may say that it isn't in accordance with OUR society's standards, but it doesn't matter one bit of anything one our society's standards are (unless you believe that you have the right to IMPOSE our standards on others. Do you?). By THEIR standards it was not only acceptable, it was the logical outcome of their ethic. Thus, it was not just CONSIDERED right, it WAS right.

Can you admit that, Wayne?

Are you willing to admit that the Holocaust was not just considered right, but it actually WAS the right thing to do?

We have been ignoring the need for social animals to live by established codes of conduct, even though such codes usually run counter to the best interests of some members of the society. To speed this thing up, I will not go into it now, but may in the future. I am mentioning it now only so as not to be accused of "changing my stance" if I do choose to go into it in the future.

Noted and I already figured as much.

Is determining what is "right" from "wrong" per objective morality really this difficult?

Only when you are careless with words and continue to fall back on the wrong type of thinking. Fuzzy thinking makes it hard, and you have been very fuzzy the entire time, oscillating, as you have been, from moral ontology to moral epistemology without making the necessary distinctions. It is evident in this very discussion. You AGAIN said that you "determine" right and wrong when I have REPEATEDLY pointed out why that word is incorrect. You may complain that it is just semantics, but that is what makes this discussion so important, Wayne. If you are UNWILLING to think precisely, why are you surprised that this would be at all "difficult"?

First off, it's not MY system. It's called the real world - bad people sometimes do bad things.

Another word that needs defining . . . what is "bad"? What makes a person bad? What right do you have to say that they are bad? Don't you realize that "bad" people think they are doing good? That's very intolerant and downright self-contradictory of you to go around calling people "bad." Another example of your fuzzy thinking.

Bad people in positions of power sometimes do really bad things, and may even be able to convince at least some that those things are "right" or "necessary" or for a "greater good'.

DO YOU NOT SEE THE SELF CONTRADICTION? If "right" and "wrong" have NO INTRINSIC MEANING, then it is IMPOSSIBLE of me to "convince" you of anything about it. I can only convince about things that have real meaning. I can convince you that two and two is five and then be wrong about it. I can convince you that there is a giant purple unicorn on the other side of the moon and be wrong about it. But I can only do that because two, five, unicorns, and moons are real things, whether material or conceptual. I CANNOT convince you that "balug;" is better than "qquspsleu." I cannot convince you that square circles are prettier than tall short people. And if right and wrong are defined only in terms as how they are related to societal ethic, then I cannot "convince" you that one ethic is "better" than another, because no "ethic" can be "better" or "worse" than another. Likewise, I can't convince you that something really is right if there is no such thing as inherent rightness. This is why I said that you DO believe things are inherently right and wrong. You say that it does not exist to avoid being FORCED to acknowledge God's existence, and yet despite what you SAY, your fundamental belief in real right and wrong finds its way through. You are just confused, man.

* What prevents others from saying "that's wrong" (admittedly wrt their morality)? Nothing!

Definitions prevent them from saying it. They cannot say "that is wrong" because it is not a something. I can say an apple is red because the apple, in and of itself, is red (or is not red, whichever). You cannot say something IS wrong if nothing IS right or IS wrong. They can, at best, say, "That is not consistent with this ethic over here." But they cannot say, "That is wrong."

* What causes most people to concur that "that's wrong"? Because their various moral codes agree that "that's wrong".

You contradict yourself again. Is morality based on society or on the individual? You defined morality as being right or wrong based on what ethic the society has embraced, not based on what ethic the individual has embraced. If they say, "That is wrong" when the society has embraced an ethic that comports with the action, then they are simply mistaken by your definition.

Now you are talking about "individual moral code." So now we not only have social morals, but individual morals as well, in which, I presume, what is right or wrong is based on whether or not something is consistent with our own values. But in that case, NOTHING IS EVER WRONG, because EVERYTHING we do is consistent with our values. EVERYTHING. If you cite an example of me doing something that is contrary to my values, I'll simply say, "No, it is contradictory to my stated value. In reality, the action revealed what my true values are."

So, you are contradicting yourself with your fuzzy thinking again.

* How come so many moral codes agree "that's wrong"? For one thing, we live on one planet with (now) very good communications, so society is becoming more global rather than local.

This is empirically wrong, as it would imply that in ages past, cultural moral codes would have been very diverse. But they weren't. There were some differences, but there are today as well. They were very similar.

In any case, all this is nothing more than an ad populum fallacy. Your "morality by popular vote" is terrible, do you realize that? Just because a majority of people vote to kill all blacks, does that make it morally right? No, but that is what your system allows.

You are consistently ducking the basic question. You keep falling back on your own personal feelings when we already agreed to talk about ontology rather than epistemology. You are going back on your word, which is basically being dishonest.

ONTOLOGICALLY SPEAKING--referring to things in and of themselves--isn't it true that genocide is MORALLY RIGHT (not just considered to be morally right, but actually right in and of itself) if it is consistent with a society's value system?

wayne thanks for responding it was actually unexpected. I will reply to your response, however i do not want to interfere with the discussion you are both having.It would over all detract from the content as i am in much agreement with Jacs thoughts and the proposals he is placing to you.In effect you would be just discussing the same with two and why waste time when you can do it with just one

waynepii wrote:If man were a solitary animal, this might be true. But man is a social animal. Our chances of survival are much greater as a member of a group rather than individually. Hence, maintaining the integrity of the group supersedes strict self interest.

Well maybe you should send an e-mail to Mr. Dawkins because i can assure you neither he nor any bio-evolutionist can determine the cause for this apparent "anomaly". I have to make it clear that they have also taken into account your view but still have registered the opinion as stated on my first post.


point 1 ----

waynepii wrote:Yes, and there would probably have been US personnel tried for war crimes for dropping the bomb on Japan.

point 2 ----

waynepii wrote:And religion has never "changed the line in the sand"?

In regards to your above replies which i have highlighted as point 1 and point 2.


Ref point 2.
What i stated was not regarding to anyone in particular other than a simple perception of what objective morality is, however since you have taken it to be from the religious perspective it makes the point even stronger since you have put a "one" to it. therefore --


This is exactly the point being highlighted. Where is the defining line that their morality is objective?
Germany did not see that the Holocaust was wrong to their ethics and morals.(Why you will not say this I do not understand? (After reading this thread it is clear that no ones morals are being questioned. It is a clinical discussion only. So an observation is an observation but not a personal view is asked for) The allied forces do not see that using the Atomic Bomb not once but twice was not ethically nor morally wrong. And every religion you can poke a stick at believes that their faith is ethically and morally correct, with the actions they take to uphold their doctrine.

So by definition if each culture/society believes that what they see and do is correct, then there is no intrinsic wrong or right - IT JUST IS! .
Even if some societies or cultures agree that for example killing is wrong, other societies will counter this by their own definition which is in line with their own ethics and moral code. Again this view shows that there is no intrinsic right or wrong.If this is the view you are taking, this is all subjective and there is not one iota of objectivity in it.

For who or what in your view then has the final authoritive claim that then no individual or collectively (social or cultural) can dispute the claim of authority?

waynepii wrote:it highly doubtful that the holocaust was even known, let alone endorsed, by most of the German citizenry.

to finish off. I strongly disagree with your uneducated view on the German peoples knowledge that the Holocaust was happening. There is no argument that not every German knew about it but to infer that it was " highly doubtful that the holocaust was even known" is absurd, however this is not the time or place as it is clearly off the subject at hand and as one could say is "nothing more than a red herring "

Just a few points of clarification:

topic wrote:Germany did not see that the Holocaust was wrong to their ethics and morals.(Why you will not say this I do not understand? (After reading this thread it is clear that no ones morals are being questioned. It is a clinical discussion only. So an observation is an observation but not a personal view is asked for) The allied forces do not see that using the Atomic Bomb not once but twice was not ethically nor morally wrong. And every religion you can poke a stick at believes that their faith is ethically and morally correct, with the actions they take to uphold their doctrine.

The point is NOT to have Wayne say that the NAZIS didn't see their actions as wrong (clearly they didn't); it's that HE MUST see them as not wrong either even if they contradict HIS system of values. Not so subtle a difference.

topic wrote:So by definition if each culture/society believes that what they see and do is correct, then there is no intrinsic wrong or right - IT JUST IS! .

Here you are making the classic error Wayne has been making all along, confusing epistemology (what each culture believes) and ontology (what inherent or intrinsic right and wrong are).

topic wrote:Even if some societies or cultures agree that for example killing is wrong, other societies will counter this by their own definition which is in line with their own ethics and moral code. Again this view shows that there is no intrinsic right or wrong.If this is the view you are taking, this is all subjective and there is not one iota of objectivity in it.

And again, your conclusion is false. How do you arrive at an ontological conclusion by drawing an epistemological premise? Inherent right and wrong can and do exist irrespective of societies' set of beliefs. If not, then are you and Wayne prepared to defend the Nazis' actions as morally right if only from their perspective? THAT is the point.

Byblos, when i wrote that post i was looking at it from a secular perspective.Let me clarify before i continue. I do believe in God and i do believe in objective morals.If you want me to then reply to your post which i have no problem doing i will then do it as the devils advocate.If we are looking at the discussion from a clinical perspective then ---

Byblos wrote:then are you and Wayne prepared to defend the Nazis' actions as morally right if only from their perspective?

Well didn't i say this from the start ? I said " Germany did not see that the Holocaust was wrong to their ethics and morals."
When you look at the Aryan Race hypothesis what the Nazi's did was not wrong, and here is why --

Dr. Wilhelm Pfonnerstiel, professor of hygiene at the University of Marburg, who was an SS Lieutenant Colonel, reporting on a vist to the concentration camp at Belzec, wrote " I wanted to know in particular if the process of exterminating human beings was accompanied by any act of cruelty. I found it especially cruel that the death did not set in until 18 minutes had passed."He wasn't concerned about killing them, just that it took longer than it should have to be humane - in his opinion.

Amos Goeth, the commandant of the labor camp at Plazow ( which later became a concentration camp) would come out onto his balcony in the morning with a rifle and binoculars and scan the campground. If he saw someone who in his opinion displeased him -- he would shoot the prisoner. He looked at the prisoners not as human but as mere objects, and had no capacity to see his behaviour from the perspective of others was inhumane. Again he felt justified in what he was doing.

and one more --

Jan Karski who was a representitive of the Polish Civil Directorate went to the Warsaw ghetto in October 1942 and reported this ----

" i looked throught the opening and in the middle of the street i observed two boys, dressed in uniforms of the Hitlerjugend, where standing looking the image of health and life with their blue eyes and rosy-cheecked faces. While they where talking one pulled a gun out and started looking around. He was looking for a target with the casual gay absorption of a boy at a carnival. Glancing around i noticed that all the pavements about them were absolutely deserted. He suddenly raised his arm and took careful aim. The shot rang out, followed by the noise of breaking glass and then the terrible cry of a man in agony"

These 3 incidents where all within the dictum of the Nazi agenda and they where encourage to do what they did and felt no remorse or saw that what they where doing was justified.

Byblos wrote:Inherent right and wrong can and do exist irrespective of societies' set of beliefs.

What evidence do you have to make such a statement and from what basis do you make such a sound judgement?

topic wrote:Byblos, when i wrote that post i was looking at it from a secular perspective.Let me clarify before i continue. I do believe in God and i do believe in objective morals.

Thank you for making that clearer. Seeing where you stand helps going forward .

topic wrote: If you want me to then reply to your post which i have no problem doing i will then do it as the devils advocate.If we are looking at the discussion from a clinical perspective then ---

Byblos wrote:then are you and Wayne prepared to defend the Nazis' actions as morally right if only from their perspective?

Well didn't i say this from the start ? I said " Germany did not see that the Holocaust was wrong to their ethics and morals."
When you look at the Aryan Race hypothesis what the Nazi's did was not wrong, and here is why --

Yes you said that and what you said pertains to what the NAZIS thought. For the purpose of this discussion we're not interested in what the Nazis thought. We're interested in how WAYNE sees what the Nazis did. We all understand that, according to Wayne's system of morality what they did was wrong. What we're trying to get him to state if whether or not HE THINKS what they did was RIGHT according to the NAZIS' system of morality because that's the only logical conclusion of such a system of lack of inherent right and wrong. I hope I've explained it better this time.

topic wrote:Dr. Wilhelm Pfonnerstiel, professor of hygiene at the University of Marburg, who was an SS Lieutenant Colonel, reporting on a vist to the concentration camp at Belzec, wrote " I wanted to know in particular if the process of exterminating human beings was accompanied by any act of cruelty. I found it especially cruel that the death did not set in until 18 minutes had passed."He wasn't concerned about killing them, just that it took longer than it should have to be humane - in his opinion.

Amos Goeth, the commandant of the labor camp at Plazow ( which later became a concentration camp) would come out onto his balcony in the morning with a rifle and binoculars and scan the campground. If he saw someone who in his opinion displeased him -- he would shoot the prisoner. He looked at the prisoners not as human but as mere objects, and had no capacity to see his behaviour from the perspective of others was inhumane. Again he felt justified in what he was doing.

and one more --

Jan Karski who was a representitive of the Polish Civil Directorate went to the Warsaw ghetto in October 1942 and reported this ----

" i looked throught the opening and in the middle of the street i observed two boys, dressed in uniforms of the Hitlerjugend, where standing looking the image of health and life with their blue eyes and rosy-cheecked faces. While they where talking one pulled a gun out and started looking around. He was looking for a target with the casual gay absorption of a boy at a carnival. Glancing around i noticed that all the pavements about them were absolutely deserted. He suddenly raised his arm and took careful aim. The shot rang out, followed by the noise of breaking glass and then the terrible cry of a man in agony"

These 3 incidents where all within the dictum of the Nazi agenda and they where encourage to do what they did and felt no remorse or saw that what they where doing was justified.

And if morality is not inherently objective (as Wayne seems to believe) then the above actions ought to be perfectly acceptable, nay absolutely defensible as morally right. Personal opinions to the contrary being irrelevant.

topic wrote:

Byblos wrote:Inherent right and wrong can and do exist irrespective of societies' set of beliefs.

What evidence do you have to make such a statement and from what basis do you make such a sound judgement?

Lol, thanks. It is a sound judgment, isn't it? I hope the answer is as obvious as: because, like you, I believe in an inherently, intrinsically, objective moral giver.

I'm on a business trip for the next 2 weeks or so, so my participation will be spotty due to availability of time and internet access.

To see if we can speed this up:

As I have pointed out several times in this thread, Nazism and the atrocities perpetrated during the Nazi regime do not represent the morality of the German society at the time. Further, just because the leaders and individuals actually responsible for the atrocities did in fact cause the holocaust does not necessarily mean they saw their actions as "right". Now, is this indicative of an underlying "objective morality" or merely the result of the individuals having been brought up in a more "normal" culture which, like most cultures, would have considered their actions reprehensible? Clearly, I think it was the later.

Bringing this discussion back to my original question "how do we determine what 'objective morality' 'says' on any given issue?" I'm still waiting for some progress toward the answer to my question.

waynepii wrote:
If man were a solitary animal, this might be true. But man is a social animal. Our chances of survival are much greater as a member of a group rather than individually. Hence, maintaining the integrity of the group supersedes strict self interest.

OK, let's say the Nazi crimes weren't in line with the collective morality of Germany. (I would argue that) So, what. So, the Nazi's crimes weren't evil, or abhorrent, just not preferential to the social codes??