Omniscience and free will

[Jac3510]

I'd rather have a long conversation over several more months and get somewhere than move on to other issues before we've covered these, Wayne. You are asking me to explain calculus to you when you haven't even gotten down your basic arithmetic.

Whether or not the Holocaust actually reflected the underlying values of the German people is irrelevant. As you noted, as I QUOTED you, working on the assumption that it did (this is called a thought experiment, by the way), you have to admit that if ""the morality of Germany during the Nazi regime was accurately reflected in atrocities such as the holocaust" then what they did was RIGHT. You can't personally consider it wrong any more than I can consider 2+2 to be five. By YOUR DEFINITIONS, something is right if it is consistent with the values of the society. If, then, the holocaust was consistent with the values of the society, then the holocaust was RIGHT. It was "good."

I can't answer your epistemological question until we properly define what right and wrong are in any given situation. That is what I am trying to do here. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that in the above scenario the Holocaust was morally good says more about your willingness to be consistent than my willingness to move forward.

Here's the bottom line:

If a society embraces a value system that promotes genocide, then your definitions of morality mean that genocide actually is, in and of itself, MORALLY GOOD. You cannot fall back on what people "consider" to be right or wrong. That is epistemology. We are talking about morality in and of itself. AGAIN, under YOUR DEFINITIONS, how is genocide not morally good if the society embraces a value system that promotes it?

[waynepii]

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??

They were abhorrent acts by the individuals who perpetrated them. I suspect a number of the perpetrators were acting under duress (going along for fear of the consequences of speaking/acting against the acts). Cowardly - yes, but can you honestly say you are sure you would have had the courage to do otherwise under similar circumstances? I would like to think I would, but know that it would be a much more difficult to do in spite of the likely consequences than say in the abstract. In short, I can't honestly say if I would be able to speak out or act against acts such as the holocaust given an environment like Nazi Germany.

So where does all that leave us?

[waynepii]

I'd rather have a long conversation over several more months and get somewhere than move on to other issues before we've covered these, Wayne. You are asking me to explain calculus to you when you haven't even gotten down your basic arithmetic.

Whether or not the Holocaust actually reflected the underlying values of the German people is irrelevant. As you noted, as I QUOTED you, working on the assumption that it did (this is called a thought experiment, by the way), you have to admit that if ""the morality of Germany during the Nazi regime was accurately reflected in atrocities such as the holocaust" then what they did was RIGHT. You can't personally consider it wrong any more than I can consider 2+2 to be five. By YOUR DEFINITIONS, something is right if it is consistent with the values of the society. If, then, the holocaust was consistent with the values of the society, then the holocaust was RIGHT. It was "good."

I can't answer your epistemological question until we properly define what right and wrong are in any given situation. That is what I am trying to do here. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that in the above scenario the Holocaust was morally good says more about your willingness to be consistent than my willingness to move forward.

Here's the bottom line:

If a society embraces a value system that promotes genocide, then your definitions of morality mean that genocide actually is, in and of itself, MORALLY GOOD. You cannot fall back on what people "consider" to be right or wrong. That is epistemology. We are talking about morality in and of itself. AGAIN, under YOUR DEFINITIONS, how is genocide not morally good if the society embraces a value system that promotes it?

Sorry, I started working on my previous response before you posted this one.

If you want to use a hypothetical (and in my opinion, an invalid hypothetical) - IF Nazi Germany truly believed acts we consider abhorrent (such as the holocaust) were "right", then by their morality at the time, those acts would be considered "morally good" (by them).

BTW I think a more realistic subject for your thought experiment would be human sacrifice as practiced by cultures such as the Aztecs. It is fairly clear that the Aztec culture DID consider human sacrifice a moral and necessary thing that had to be done.

[Jac3510]

Two things:

IF Nazi Germany truly believed acts we consider abhorrent (such as the holocaust) were "right", then by their morality at the time, those acts would be considered "morally good" (by them).

Not good enough. This is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL statement when we are having an ONTOLOGICAL discussion. How many times do I have to make this distinction? For the umteenth million time:

1. What I CONSIDER to be moral is an epistemological question
2. What is ACTUALLY moral is an ontological question

I am NOT asking if they would CONSIDER the Holocaust to be good. I am asking if it would ACTUALLY be good--that is, good IN AND OF ITSELF. They way YOU defined the terms of something being good IN AND OF ITSELF is if that action comported with that society's value system. If they CONSIDERED it right and it actually was right, that just means that they were correct in their assessment. I couldn't care less if they were correct or incorrect in their assessment, though. That is not what this conversation is about. I am trying to get you to focus on a single, foundational issue, which you refuse to address.

In an of itself, by your definitions, the holocaust was either RIGHT or WRONG, depending on whether or not it comported with their value system. You do not have the right to say that you believe it was wrong or right relative to YOUR value system because YOUR value system is not what the rightness or wrongness is relative to. It is relative based on the value system of THEIR culture, not yours.

So, AGAIN, IF THE GERMANS EMBRACED A VALUE SYSTEM WITH WHICH THE FINAL SOLUTION COMPORTED, ARE YOU WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THE HOLOCAUST WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

Second,

BTW I think a more realistic subject for your thought experiment would be human sacrifice as practiced by cultures such as the Aztecs. It is fairly clear that the Aztec culture DID consider human sacrifice a moral and necessary thing that had to be done.

Fine. I've told you a million times before that I don't care about which words or which illustrations we use. I am trying to get you to face the idea itself. So replace "Germans" with "Aztecs" and "Holocaust" with "Human sacrifice" and the question still stands:

Can you admit that human sacrifice was not merely considered the right thing to do (that would be moral epistemology) but that it was ACTUALLY the right thing to do in and of itself (moral ontology)--assuming your definitions, of course?

[waynepii]

Two things:

IF Nazi Germany truly believed acts we consider abhorrent (such as the holocaust) were "right", then by their morality at the time, those acts would be considered "morally good" (by them).

Not good enough. This is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL statement when we are having an ONTOLOGICAL discussion. How many times do I have to make this distinction? For the umteenth million time:

1. What I CONSIDER to be moral is an epistemological question
2. What is ACTUALLY moral is an ontological question

I understand the difference. I don't see how ontology applies to morality, morality being dependent upon the ethics of the society in question. On what are you basing the use of ontology with respect to morality. I think you are trying to "back into" "proving" objective morality by assuming ontology applies, ontology only applies to objective facts, therefore morality "must" be objective. While there are some objective inputs to morality (the GR, requirements for being part of a society, etc), a society's local code of conduct depends on that society's ethic.

I do not see how any societies view of morality makes any difference beyond what they consider moral conduct.

I am NOT asking if they would CONSIDER the Holocaust to be good. I am asking if it would ACTUALLY be good--that is, good IN AND OF ITSELF. They way YOU defined the terms of something being good IN AND OF ITSELF is if that action comported with that society's value system. If they CONSIDERED it right and it actually was right, that just means that they were correct in their assessment. I couldn't care less if they were correct or incorrect in their assessment, though. That is not what this conversation is about. I am trying to get you to focus on a single, foundational issue, which you refuse to address.

In an of itself, by your definitions, the holocaust was either RIGHT or WRONG, depending on whether or not it comported with their value system. You do not have the right to say that you believe it was wrong or right relative to YOUR value system because YOUR value system is not what the rightness or wrongness is relative to. It is relative based on the value system of THEIR culture, not yours.

So, AGAIN, IF THE GERMANS EMBRACED A VALUE SYSTEM WITH WHICH THE FINAL SOLUTION COMPORTED, ARE YOU WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THE HOLOCAUST WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

From their (hypothetical) perspective, the holocaust was right. What more do you expect me to say? How could the "fact" that the Nazi era Germans embraced a value system with which the final solution comported affect any morality or moral values beyond their own?

Second,

BTW I think a more realistic subject for your thought experiment would be human sacrifice as practiced by cultures such as the Aztecs. It is fairly clear that the Aztec culture DID consider human sacrifice a moral and necessary thing that had to be done.

Fine. I've told you a million times before that I don't care about which words or which illustrations we use. I am trying to get you to face the idea itself. So replace "Germans" with "Aztecs" and "Holocaust" with "Human sacrifice" and the question still stands:

Can you admit that human sacrifice was not merely considered the right thing to do (that would be moral epistemology) but that it was ACTUALLY the right thing to do in and of itself (moral ontology)--assuming your definitions, of course?

And the answer is the same - less the "hypothetical".

[Byblos]

So, AGAIN, IF THE GERMANS EMBRACED A VALUE SYSTEM WITH WHICH THE FINAL SOLUTION COMPORTED, ARE YOU WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THE HOLOCAUST WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

From their (hypothetical) perspective, the holocaust was right.

One more time Wayne, we're not interested in their perspective. We're interested in whether or not their actions were right based on YOUR society-based moral code. You have just been appointed defense attorney for the UCLU (Universal Civil Liberties Union). Even though the Nazis' actions go against every fiber of your being, would YOU stand up in the Hague and argue that their actions were morally RIGHT because they were following their own definition of society-based moral code in which genocide was acceptable? Would YOU do that Wayne? I mean, it really is a rhetorical question so I don't know how you can possibly say no (unless you want to admit objective morality) but it is rather important that you do if we are to go forward with this discussion. I honestly don't see why you're so reluctant to say it Wayne. If you want to embrace atheism, don't you think you owe to yourself to embrace all of it, whatever the implications are?

[jlay]

Wayne, I'll just be as candid as I can. I think you are drifting to a lot of side roads (as Jac has pointed out) because you don't like where the main road leads. I think you admit as much when you say, " I don't see how ontology applies to morality."
Of course you don't see how it applies, because you don't want to believe that morality IS objective/ inherent/whatever. The consequences are devestating to your worldview.

I think the thing that frustrates us is you might say, "that is abhorrent." I find it hard to understand such terms in a world view that considers morality only subjective in nature. When someone brutally murders a victim, we don't think, "they have diverted from the preferred societal codes that have evolved within our species."

From their (hypothetical) perspective, the holocaust was right. What more do you expect me to say? How could the "fact" that the Nazi era Germans embraced a value system with which the final solution comported affect any morality or moral values beyond their own?

Because then everyone is a law unto themselves.

[waynepii]

Wayne, I'll just be as candid as I can. I think you are drifting to a lot of side roads (as Jac has pointed out) because you don't like where the main road leads. I think you admit as much when you say, " I don't see how ontology applies to morality."
Of course you don't see how it applies, because you don't want to believe that morality IS objective/ inherent/whatever. The consequences are devestating to your worldview.

Morality is cultural, and always has been, but let's assume there is an objective morality (beyond the "semi-objective" inputs to morality such as hard-wiring due to being a social being and the GR). Presumably, one characteristic of objective morality would be constancy over the entire world and over all time. Looking at various cultures around the globe and back through history, there is precious little constancy. I brought up the Aztec culture - they engaged in genocide, human sacrifice, and torture as religious practices. Most other ancient cultures were similarly brutal. Some current cultures still are. Where is objective morality in these cultures? Has objective morality changed over time and across cultures? It couldn't have changed or else it wouldn't be objective. So did ALL ancient cultures miss recognizing objective morality? Or maybe THEY got objective morality right and your morality is the misreading of OR.

It must be very hard to discern what is "right" and "wrong" wrt objective morality. What started this discussion was what should have been a very simple question - "where do we go to 'read' objective morality's guidance on any particular issue?" To date, the only answers I have received are to the effect that I will be unable to comprehend objective morality without changing my mindset such that it is based on objective morality.

I think the thing that frustrates us is you might say, "that is abhorrent." I find it hard to understand such terms in a world view that considers morality only subjective in nature. When someone brutally murders a victim, we don't think, "they have diverted from the preferred societal codes that have evolved within our species."

What tells YOU that some act "is abhorrent"? A person's morality comes "prewired" to accept behavioral modification, especially in childhood. Their morality is then formed and refined during early childhood by their parents, teachers, other authority figures, and even by their peers. Further refinement continues to take place throughout life.

The morality of any given culture plays an important role in defining the morality of its members but is also affected by the morality of its members and will change over time as the morality of significant number of members change. Thus, the morality of a society and the individual moralities of its members tend to become refined more or less in sync over time.

I've explained my "worldview" wrt morality. Can you give a concrete example of objective morality?

From their (hypothetical) perspective, the holocaust was right. What more do you expect me to say? How could the "fact" that the Nazi era Germans embraced a value system with which the final solution comported affect any morality or moral values beyond their own?

Because then everyone is a law unto themselves.

No, each society defines the morality by which it expects its members to live. As I've said several times, the holocaust was a product of the Nazi leadership and a repressive regime that violently suppressed dissent. It was not indicative of the German society of the era. The Aztec culture is a far better example, their morality did fully endorse genocide, mass murder, torture, and other "abhorrent" acts.

[jlay]

What tells YOU that some act "is abhorrent"? A person's morality comes "prewired" to accept behavioral modification, especially in childhood. Their morality is then formed and refined during early childhood by their parents, teachers, other authority figures, and even by their peers. Further refinement continues to take place throughout life.

So, nothing is really abhorrent? It is merely a reaction of conditioning. In others words, if you or I lived in a culture that "prewired" us differently, then murder wouldn't be wrong. So, I guess then that you admit that murder is not inherrently wrong. Any abhorrance we might feel is just a reaction to biology and environmental conditioning.

You know Wayne, The term "prewired" is an indicator that someone did the "prewiring."

i totally agree that we are prewired. I just know the divine electrician who wired us.

Presumably, one characteristic of objective morality would be constancy over the entire world and over all time. Looking at various cultures around the globe and back through history, there is precious little constancy. I brought up the Aztec culture - they engaged in genocide, human sacrifice, and torture as religious practices. Most other ancient cultures were similarly brutal.

Wayne, you are only making Jac's point. No one is arguing that cultures and people do brutal and abhorrent things. Jac and I know why these things are brutal and abhorrent. Because morality "Is." Can you say with complete honesty that what the Aztec's did was "right?" I am not asking what you "think" about this. But, in the culture, with the guidelines YOU have laid down, were their actions inherrently wrong/evil?

It couldn't have changed or else it wouldn't be objective.

Exactly.
Just like 2+2=4 can't change. How many people get the answer right or wrong has nothing to do with whether this is an objective truth or not. If everyone in the world agreed that 2+2=5, would it? No. If everyone in America decided that lying was good, (an obviously many do) would it be?
If there is no objective morality, then how can that be?

[Jac3510]

You are being disingenious again, Wayne. You asked:

What started this discussion was what should have been a very simple question - "where do we go to 'read' objective morality's guidance on any particular issue?" To date, the only answers I have received are to the effect that I will be unable to comprehend objective morality without changing my mindset such that it is based on objective morality.

This is simply NOT true. I gave you a rather simple answer a LONG time ago on HOW to know right form wrong: "The same way as I discover anything else about reality. But reason. By observation. By questions."

When I gave you that, YOU complained that it was subjective. THAT is why we had to go back and have the discussion on what ontological morality actually IS. Remember all that? The discussion went like this:

Me: You can't have objective morality without God
You: Yes you can - you can know right from wrong with God's existence
Me: Yes, you can KNOW it, but if God doesn't exist, then it doesn't really exist after all
You: So how would you KNOW it?
Me: The same way you do - by reason. It's just part of reality.
You: But that is not objective, either!
Me: I was answering your question on how to know--we need to look at my assertion that morality can't exist apart from God
You: But it CAN exist apart from God
Me: No, and this is why - [LONG DISCUSSION]
You: Well OF COURSE it can't exist apart from God, but you won't answer my question on how to KNOW it.

You are just being dishonest, Wayne. Bottom line, if morality doesn't exist apart from God's existence, THEN THERE IS NOTHING TO KNOW. What is right and wrong is meaningless. By YOUR definitions, the Holocaust (or, to use your example, human sacrifice for the Aztecs) wasn't just CONSIDERED right, it really was right in and of itself. You won't admit that because you can't get yourself to think straight (or you won't LET yourself).

Beyond that, I have REPEATEDLY said in this thread that atheists are CAPABLE of knowing objective morality. Remember the watefall illustration? You can drink from a stream without knowing its source? Likewise, you can enjoy objective morality (which you do) while being ignorant of (willfully or not) of its source: God.

The fact that you REFUSE to admit the logical conclusions of your own position says far more about either your intellectual honesty or your ability to think clearly than it does about our positions in this thread, and given the fact that you are now--again--repeatedly attributing to us positions we do not hold (that morality is hard to know) and accusing of us of refusing to answer questions we have repeatedly answered (how to know morality) makes me wonder if, despite your claims that you are not being willfully obstinate, if you aren't just arguing for the sake of arguing. Discussion can only happen if both sides are honest, and through this entire discussion, you have been very dishonest from the outset. Again, you are attributing to us positions we don't hold, ignoring answers to questions you asked, refusing to acknowledge the logical conclusions of your own positions, refusing to acknowledge the stated meanings of words . . .

What is difficult is not knowing morality. For the umpteenth-million time, no one here doubts that you know right from wrong. Our whole argument is based on the premise that you ACTUALLY DO, Wayne. If that is the case, then it CAN'T be hard if EVERYONE knows it. What IS hard is getting you to be honest and logical enough to see the necessary conclusions of your OWN position.

Now, do you want to answer my questions or not, or are you going to continue to give non-answers? Are you going to address the ontological nature of your moral system as YOU have defined the words, or are you going to fall back on epistemological questions that are not under discussion? Your choice, Wayne. If you choose to ignore the debate, then fine. Ignore it, but be fully aware (as we all are here) that it is not US who refuse to engage in meaningful discussion, but you. For all the atheists' and agnostics' claims that they just want to be given a reason--any reason--to believe in God or Christianity, it is discussions like this that convince me that you don't mean a word of it. Atheism/agnosticism rational? Hardly. You have a far more blind faith than most Christians I know.

[waynepii]

What tells YOU that some act "is abhorrent"? A person's morality comes "prewired" to accept behavioral modification, especially in childhood. Their morality is then formed and refined during early childhood by their parents, teachers, other authority figures, and even by their peers. Further refinement continues to take place throughout life.

So, nothing is really abhorrent? It is merely a reaction of conditioning. In others words, if you or I lived in a culture that "prewired" us differently, then murder wouldn't be wrong. So, I guess then that you admit that murder is not inherrently wrong. Any abhorrance we might feel is just a reaction to biology and environmental conditioning.

What I said was "A person's morality comes "prewired" to accept behavioral modification, especially in childhood." Nothing cultural about the prewiring.

You know Wayne, The term "prewired" is an indicator that someone did the "prewiring."

Or something - like natural selection.

i totally agree that we are prewired. I just know the divine electrician who wired us.

Yours is one possibility.

Presumably, one characteristic of objective morality would be constancy over the entire world and over all time. Looking at various cultures around the globe and back through history, there is precious little constancy. I brought up the Aztec culture - they engaged in genocide, human sacrifice, and torture as religious practices. Most other ancient cultures were similarly brutal.

Wayne, you are only making Jac's point. No one is arguing that cultures and people do brutal and abhorrent things. Jac and I know why these things are brutal and abhorrent. Because morality "Is." Can you say with complete honesty that what the Aztec's did was "right?" I am not asking what you "think" about this. But, in the culture, with the guidelines YOU have laid down, were their actions inherrently wrong/evil?

I can answer the question from their perspective ("No", they acted "morally" according to their morality).
I can answer the question from my perspective ("Yes", their actions were abhorrent, according to my morality).
To answer from another perspective (objective morality), I to know what is and is not "moral" according to that morality.

It couldn't have changed or else it wouldn't be objective.

Exactly.
Just like 2+2=4 can't change. How many people get the answer right or wrong has nothing to do with whether this is an objective truth or not. If everyone in the world agreed that 2+2=5, would it? No. If everyone in America decided that lying was good, (an obviously many do) would it be?
If there is no objective morality, then how can that be?

If objective morality was constant, why do cultures' morality vary so widely over time and between cultures? Which most closely matches objective morality? How do you know?

[jlay]

Nothing cultural about the prewiring.

OK, so I should have said.

So, nothing is really abhorrent? It is merely a reaction of conditioning based on our prewiring. In others words, if you or I lived in a culture that affects our prewiring differently, then murder wouldn't be wrong. So, I guess then that you admit that murder is not inherrently wrong. Any abhorrance we might feel is just a reaction to biology and environmental conditioning.
so, now please answer. Wait, I think you gave it to us.

I can answer the question from their perspective ("No", they acted "morally" according to their morality).
I can answer the question from my perspective ("Yes", their actions were abhorrent, according to my morality).
To answer from another perspective (objective morality), I to know what is and is not "moral" according to that morality.

Well Jac, he is almost ready to concede that nothing is inherently wrong in and of itself. But keeps trying to find a loophole. Accoridng to Wayne, nothing is inherently wrong, almost. I want to know Wayne, is the Aztecs conducting human sacrifice wrong in and of itself.

If objective morality was constant, why do cultures' morality vary so widely over time and between cultures? Which most closely matches objective morality? How do you know?

what you are actually saying is, i don't beleive morality is objective, because I see so many people getting it wrong. But in saying that you are saying there is a "wrong," because you can look through history and at other cultures today, and see, "that don't jive." It is a self defeating argument. People missing the mark is not proof that OM doesn't exist. The fact that you can recognize when someone or some people fail to abide by OM is proof of OM.

So, is the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a child wrong in and of itself? Yes or no.

[waynepii]

You appear to have missed a few of my questions in my previous post. I've highlighted them in red to make them easier to find.

Wayne, I'll just be as candid as I can. I think you are drifting to a lot of side roads (as Jac has pointed out) because you don't like where the main road leads. I think you admit as much when you say, " I don't see how ontology applies to morality."
Of course you don't see how it applies, because you don't want to believe that morality IS objective/ inherent/whatever. The consequences are devestating to your worldview.

Morality is cultural, and always has been, but let's assume there is an objective morality (beyond the "semi-objective" inputs to morality such as hard-wiring due to being a social being and the GR). Presumably, one characteristic of objective morality would be constancy over the entire world and over all time. Looking at various cultures around the globe and back through history, there is precious little constancy. I brought up the Aztec culture - they engaged in genocide, human sacrifice, and torture as religious practices. Most other ancient cultures were similarly brutal. Some current cultures still are. Where is objective morality in these cultures? Has objective morality changed over time and across cultures? It couldn't have changed or else it wouldn't be objective. So did ALL ancient cultures miss recognizing objective morality? Or maybe THEY got objective morality right and your morality is the misreading of OR.

It must be very hard to discern what is "right" and "wrong" wrt objective morality. What started this discussion was what should have been a very simple question - "where do we go to 'read' objective morality's guidance on any particular issue?" To date, the only answers I have received are to the effect that I will be unable to comprehend objective morality without changing my mindset such that it is based on objective morality.

I think the thing that frustrates us is you might say, "that is abhorrent." I find it hard to understand such terms in a world view that considers morality only subjective in nature. When someone brutally murders a victim, we don't think, "they have diverted from the preferred societal codes that have evolved within our species."

What tells YOU that some act "is abhorrent"? A person's morality comes "prewired" to accept behavioral modification, especially in childhood. Their morality is then formed and refined during early childhood by their parents, teachers, other authority figures, and even by their peers. Further refinement continues to take place throughout life.

The morality of any given culture plays an important role in defining the morality of its members but is also affected by the morality of its members and will change over time as the morality of significant number of members change. Thus, the morality of a society and the individual moralities of its members tend to become refined more or less in sync over time.

I've explained my "worldview" wrt morality. Can you give a concrete example of objective morality?

From their (hypothetical) perspective, the holocaust was right. What more do you expect me to say? How could the "fact" that the Nazi era Germans embraced a value system with which the final solution comported affect any morality or moral values beyond their own?

Because then everyone is a law unto themselves.

No, each society defines the morality by which it expects its members to live. As I've said several times, the holocaust was a product of the Nazi leadership and a repressive regime that violently suppressed dissent. It was not indicative of the German society of the era. The Aztec culture is a far better example, their morality did fully endorse genocide, mass murder, torture, and other "abhorrent" acts.

[Jac3510]

Can you give a concrete example of objective morality?

I cannot believe that after ten pages of this you STILL don't understand the very elementary, BASIC position we are trying to tell you.

Let's take the Aztecs. HUMAN SACRIFICE WAS AND IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

I don't care if they didn't think so. They were WRONG about it. That's why it is not subjective. If nothing is INHERENTLY wrong, Wayne, then human sacrifice wasn't wrong then and it isn't wrong now. YOU can't say it is wrong. You can say that it would be wrong for YOU to do it, but you can't say it was wrong for THEM to do it. You have to say that it was RIGHT for them to do it--not just that they CONSIDERED it right, but that it ACTUALLY WAS RIGHT.

I am telling what you already know--that human sacrifice was WRONG. They OUGHT NOT to have done it. How do I know that? The same way YOU know that. Because it just IS. It is part of what it means to be human. It is part of the nature of reality itself. It is WRONG to sacrifice humans. You know that. You can't deny it. And you know that they were wrong even though they considered it right. That is what makes it "objective" in the original usage of the word (not as you are using it); that is what makes it INHERENT.

But the only way that you or I can say that human sacrifice is inherently wrong is if God exists. If God doesn't exist, then it wasn't wrong. There is NOTHING that is wrong. There is NOTHING that is right. Everything is nothing more than actions according to social custom, and you can't say that any one custom or value is better or worse than another, because the word "better" implies a scale; but there can be no scale, for there is nothing objective--nothing inherent--against which to measure it.

It's a VERY easy argument to see, Wayne. Here's the conclusion:

1. God exists, and you have the right to say that what the Aztecs did (and America slave holders, and Nazis, and Soviets with their gulags, and child rapists, etc.) is WRONG. God exists, and you have the right to say that others don't have the right to impose their view of morality on others. God exists, and you have the right to say that other people ought not act in a manner that contradicts the Golden Rule.

OR

2. God does NOT exists, and you have to say that what the Aztecs did (and every other people group and individual that practiced such abominable actions) was RIGHT, because it ultimately conformed to their own ethical code. God does not exist, and you have no right to tell people that they cannot impose their view of morality on others (what would be "wrong" with that? It's consistent with my ethical code, so who are you to tell me that I am wrong?). God does not exists, and you have no right to tell people that they ought to act in a manner that is consistent with the Golden Rule.

There you have it, Wayne. Your choice. Either things are right and wrong, which means you must accept God's existence; or you can deny God's existence and man up and face the logical conclusion of your position. Stop hiding behind a God you don't believe in. If He doesn't exist, then NOTHING is wrong. Not murder. Not rape. Not killing. Not human sacrifice. Not imposing your view of morality on others. Not cheating. Not lying. Not offending you. Not stealing from you. Not torturing you. All there is are actions that you don't particularly LIKE. Who the heck cares what you do or do not like? You are just a man like the rest of us. Who made you king? If no God exists, your view of morality is no more binding than my dog's.

Either accept that things are right and wrong and with it God's existence, or stop playing the foolish game that anything in human history has been wrong. If you are going to be an agnostic, at least be honest with yourself. But if you believe--rightly so--that things are actually right and actually wrong, then acknowledge the God's existence from whom they flow.

[waynepii]

Can you give a concrete example of objective morality?

I cannot believe that after ten pages of this you STILL don't understand the very elementary, BASIC position we are trying to tell you.

I understand! But I don't buy it.

Let's take the Aztecs. HUMAN SACRIFICE WAS AND IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

I don't care if they didn't think so. They were WRONG about it. That's why it is not subjective. If nothing is INHERENTLY wrong, Wayne, then human sacrifice wasn't wrong then and it isn't wrong now. YOU can't say it is wrong. You can say that it would be wrong for YOU to do it, but you can't say it was wrong for THEM to do it. You have to say that it was RIGHT for them to do it--not just that they CONSIDERED it right, but that it ACTUALLY WAS RIGHT.

As was said several times, by their morality human sacrifice (and the rest of their atrocities) was not wrong. Under the morality of our culture, human sacrifice is abhorrent. Why do most people nowadays consider human sacrifice abhorrent? Because we were brought up in similar cultures with similar views of human sacrifice. Why was human sacrifice so common in antiquity? Because they were brought up in cultures that thought it was required. Why has human sacrifice largely disappeared? Because the world's cultures have refined their codes of conduct to be far less brutal.

If morality was objective (your definition), shouldn't more ancient cultures comported with it? Do you really think the Aztecs had a little voice telling them "human sacrifice is wrong"? Shouldn't they have been able to "tune in" to OM?

I am telling what you already know--that human sacrifice was WRONG. They OUGHT NOT to have done it. How do I know that? The same way YOU know that. Because it just IS. It is part of what it means to be human. It is part of the nature of reality itself. It is WRONG to sacrifice humans. You know that. You can't deny it. And you know that they were wrong even though they considered it right. That is what makes it "objective" in the original usage of the word (not as you are using it); that is what makes it INHERENT.

I know it the same way you do - we were raised in a culture that considers human sacrifice "wrong".

But the only way that you or I can say that human sacrifice is inherently wrong is if God exists. If God doesn't exist, then it wasn't wrong. There is NOTHING that is wrong. There is NOTHING that is right. Everything is nothing more than actions according to social custom, and you can't say that any one custom or value is better or worse than another, because the word "better" implies a scale; but there can be no scale, for there is nothing objective--nothing inherent--against which to measure it.

It's a VERY easy argument to see, Wayne. Here's the conclusion:

1. God exists, and you have the right to say that what the Aztecs did (and America slave holders, and Nazis, and Soviets with their gulags, and child rapists, etc.) is WRONG. God exists, and you have the right to say that others don't have the right to impose their view of morality on others. God exists, and you have the right to say that other people ought not act in a manner that contradicts the Golden Rule.

OR

2. God does NOT exists, and you have to say that what the Aztecs did (and every other people group and individual that practiced such abominable actions) was RIGHT, because it ultimately conformed to their own ethical code. God does not exist, and you have no right to tell people that they cannot impose their view of morality on others (what would be "wrong" with that? It's consistent with my ethical code, so who are you to tell me that I am wrong?). God does not exists, and you have no right to tell people that they ought to act in a manner that is consistent with the Golden Rule.

OR

3. The culture in which we were both raised considers it wrong.

There you have it, Wayne. Your choice. Either things are right and wrong, which means you must accept God's existence; or you can deny God's existence and man up and face the logical conclusion of your position. Stop hiding behind a God you don't believe in. If He doesn't exist, then NOTHING is wrong. Not murder. Not rape. Not killing. Not human sacrifice. Not imposing your view of morality on others. Not cheating. Not lying. Not offending you. Not stealing from you. Not torturing you. All there is are actions that you don't particularly LIKE. Who the heck cares what you do or do not like? You are just a man like the rest of us. Who made you king? If no God exists, your view of morality is no more binding than my dog's.

It's not "my" view of morality, it's my culture's - and that IS as valid as any other culture's.

Either accept that things are right and wrong and with it God's existence, or stop playing the foolish game that anything in human history has been wrong. If you are going to be an agnostic, at least be honest with yourself. But if you believe--rightly so--that things are actually right and actually wrong, then acknowledge the God's existence from whom they flow.

From the viewpoint of our culture, many ancient cultures were brutal, inhuman, and abhorrent - even though I'm sure they considered their actions "right" and "moral". From the viewpoint of our culture, many individuals perform horrific acts which the perpetrators may (or may not) have considered "right" and "moral".

Let's go back to our Aztec friend for a second. What do you think he "knew" wrt to human sacrifice? Although we can't know for sure, I think he was as sure that cutting the beating heart from the chest of his sacrifice was every bit as moral as you are sure it wasn't.

I've expounded on my view in some detail. How would you explain the relationship of OM wrt ancient cultures?