"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
And other than stating love is some kind of undefinable primitive emotion you have nothing else to go on. God IS love, that's what the Bible says. See how easy it is to ground it in objectivity?Spock wrote:Love is the beginning and the end of morality. It is an end in itself. The GR is the logic of love. Simple as that.
That is an interesting interpretation of what Christ MEANT when he said that.Spock wrote: Christ explicitly "hung the entire divine revelation" of the OT (Law on Prophets) on the Golden Rule:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
This shows that the two formulations of the Golden Rule are equivalent.
I get the impression that you were creating confusion by applying my reference to the OT, which was the "entire divine revelation" that had been written at that time, with the later NT revelation. If so, that is nothing but confusion. It should be obvious what I meant from context.
Love is the beginning and the end of morality. It is an end in itself. The GR is the logic of love. Simple as that.PaulSacramento wrote: It is important to understand that the GR is a starting point, not the end or an end unto itself.
I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.jlay wrote:How we determine whether something is correct is different than whether it REALLY is CORRECT. You keep repeating the same thing. People are subjective. They make subjective decisions. So, is everyone correct?
I told you that moral rules don't just appear out of thin air. Societies make up rules. You already have your answer. Look around and tell me the answer for your question.jlay wrote:You aren't answering the questions. Is it equally moral to protect the innocent versus do nothing? Why won't you answer these questions?
How do you define abstract?BryanH wrote:In order to actually prove OM, you would have to actually demonstrate that objective moral values are abstract.
Can you do that?
*considered apart from concrete existenceB.W. wrote:How do you define abstract?
Fine, but you didn't address examples I provided, which puts this to the test.BryanH wrote:I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.
That doesn't logically follow. Sorry. If OM exist, then it exist outside of man. It's like saying, if math interprets objective reality then students will not need instructors.But as a conclusion: there are MORAL RULES which are ENFORCED. Why do you you think we need enforcing? Because people have objective morality right? If they would have that, we wouldn't need enforcing.
Bryan, for the umpteenth time. that is not in question. It isn't debatable whether societies make up rules, they do. The question is how do we KNOW the rules are CORRECT? Saying we know what is correct because people decide what is correct is begging the question. It leaves the word correct (right/wrong/good/bad) devoid of any meaning. Completely arbitrary. What is correct one day maybe incorrect the next.I told you that moral rules don't just appear out of thin air. Societies make up rules. You already have your answer. Look around and tell me the answer for your question.
Yes, people are subjective. They have things they subjectively prefer. Many times we've given the example of vanilla and chocolate. So, I could never say that vanilla is better than chocolate, only that I prefer it. Actually, I could say it, it would just be rhetoric. So, what if everyone in a town likes vanilla and hates chocolate, then a new person moves to town and they like chocolate but hate vanilla. Is this person wrong? Of course not. So, I'm not saying people can't be subjective. However when we say WRONG, what does that word mean? What does it refer to? If there is no OM, then it is simply a synonym for "not preferred." So, is that what we mean when we say that torturing children for fun is wrong? Are we saying, "I don't prefer it. But, someone else may, so it isn't objectively wrong. If the majority prefer it, then it's right." ? Uh, no, we aren't saying that. If you are, then ultimately someone who prefers vanilla is no different than someone who prefers to torture children for pleasure.No matter how you spin it, there is always subjectivity. How can you be objective?
But the most important and funny thing: what's the point of OM if you as a human being are subjective.
You infer a designer? Why? Because if we are in fact designed, then there is something outside of man (a designer), and thus an objective source. And this is the objective sense that is strong. That human existance is not a coincidence of unguided natural forces. If it is, then even if the GR is objective in the weak sense, it is meaningless.You are not designed that way.
Sure. Again it isn't a matter of how we know moral values, but when we use words such as 'right' and 'wrong' just what do those words refer to.The GR basically explains how the education or moral values works in a modern society.
Accountability...BryanH wrote:*considered apart from concrete existenceB.W. wrote:How do you define abstract?
*without reference to a particular example or object
In light of this, I pose this for discussion: denial of accountability toward God is what people and Like BryanH and Spock want and desire above all things as they think this is the greatest moral good there is. So much so that they desire push this and force this view upon all humankind at all cost. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?Beginning of William Lane Craig – Quote:
William Lane Craig – Closing Statement
Before I look at those two contentions that I've defended tonight, let me just be very clear. I did not say that the worth of people lies in their love of Christ. I said it lies in Christ’s love for them, that God loves each one of us enough that He would send His son to die for us, even those of us who do not believe in Him and repudiate Him. That is what I said, and I think that’s important to understand.
(I) I argued that supernaturalism provides a sound foundation for morality, and I think that’s become very clear in tonight’s debate. (1) If you affirm that there is a God, a divine lawgiver, then there is objective right and wrong according to His commands, which flow from His own good, just, loving, and holy nature. Moreover, (2) moral accountability exists because God holds us accountable for what we do.
(II) Does naturalism provide a sound foundation for morality? I argue that it doesn't.
(1) On the naturalistic view, objective right and wrong do not exist. Professor Taylor, in his last speech, tried to confuse the issue by drawing in Fletcher’s situation ethics. Fletcher’s situation ethics were neither conventionalistic, nor were they naturalistic. His ethics were guided by an objective value, the objective value of love. Now how that’s applied in different situations may vary, and will vary from situation to situation; but I agree with that. But the point is that Fletcher’s is an objectivist ethic, not a conventionalist ethic. Love is an absolute moral principle for him. Moreover, Fletcher was a theist, as far as I know. He was a clergyman, so that this is not a naturalistic ethic. What is love on a naturalistic view? It’s a chemical reaction in the brain, an electrochemical impulse, hormones coursing through bodies. Love is denuded of any sort of moral or ethical significance on a naturalistic worldview. And so I don’t think we've seen any basis for affirming that things are really right or wrong, if God does not exist.
(2) I argued that there’s no moral accountability on a naturalistic worldview, and I think that that’s been demonstrated in tonight’s debate.
Then I offered a three point critique of Taylor’s virtue ethics:
(1) His virtues are just amoral. He doesn't deny it, but now he says, "Well, I was just trying to provoke people to think, and the quotations are taken out of context." Well, yes, they are out of context in the sense that I expected Professor Taylor to first present his view in his opening speech, so that my criticisms would apply to it. My criticisms are entirely just and entirely correct philosophically, but they appear somewhat out of context because he didn't give his view first for me to attack. Also, with regard to stirring people to think, I think as philosophers we have to be responsible in what we say and write because we will affect what students say and do. Nietzsche also wrote a book called Beyond Good and Evil, and that book was read by people like Hitler and Stalin and caused some of the gross atrocities of the twentieth century because Nietzsche affirmed that there is no good and evil. And as I read what Professor Taylor said about the superior person, the proud man, I thought of Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the superman. The echoes of Nietzsche ran through that book and troubled me deeply.
(2) I argued that Christian ethics are better than Professor Taylor’s virtue ethics [tape unintelligible] on that point.
And finally, (3) I said Taylor’s virtue ethics are morally repugnant. Notice that he’s never really denied any of the allegations that I've made tonight.
So I think it’s evident that naturalism just doesn't do the trick. We need to have a supernatural basis to provide an objective foundation for our moral lives, for the values that we all hold dear and firm and intuitively sense, and we need God to provide moral accountability for our lives, so that our moral choices become significant and acts of self sacrifice are not robbed of meaning and become just empty gestures.
Therefore, I’d like to close just with a challenge to you. If you have been seeking for a foundation for your ethical life, for what’s right and wrong in life, I’d want to encourage you to look into the Christian world and life view. Pick up a New Testament and read the Sermon on the Mount, read the ethics of Jesus, and ask yourself if this couldn't really be true. I found that this is a principle upon which I can order and guide my life, and I believe you can find this as well, if you look at it with an open mind.
Read More on this Debate Here
End Quote 'from William Lane Craig'
If not, we’ll have to rely upon the changing whims of Spock, BryanH, Nietzsche, Hegel, Society, the ever changing whims of human distortions of what makes right –right and wrong – wrong.(I) I argued that supernaturalism provides a sound foundation for morality, and I think that’s become very clear in tonight’s debate. (1) If you affirm that there is a God, a divine lawgiver, then there is objective right and wrong according to His commands, which flow from His own good, just, loving, and holy nature. Moreover, (2) moral accountability exists because God holds us accountable for what we do.
(II) Does naturalism provide a sound foundation for morality? I argue that it doesn't.
….So I think it’s evident that naturalism just doesn't do the trick. We need to have a supernatural basis to provide an objective foundation for our moral lives, for the values that we all hold dear and firm and intuitively sense, and we need God to provide moral accountability for our lives, so that our moral choices become significant and acts of self sacrifice are not robbed of meaning and become just empty gestures.
You mean, like the Holocaust...sorry but you lost me here.I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.
BryanH wrote:
I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.
neo-x wrote:
You mean, like the Holocaust...sorry but you lost me here.
Well since he already admitted OM doesn't exist, it's all subjective (albeit according to majority rule, which can change and shift with ebb and flow of the tide) I would presume Bryan would have no issue whatsoever arguing that the Holocaust is morally justifiable, at least in Nazi Germany era. That is if Bryan wishes to be consistent with his stance.RickD wrote:BryanH wrote:
I already answered this a few time by now: something is correct if the majority says it's correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.neo-x wrote:
You mean, like the Holocaust...sorry but you lost me here.
Ouch!!! BryanH said, as he tucked his tail between his legs, and admitted defeat.