Ken stated: Now this doesn’t make sense to me. If you can ground your morality in the word of your God, why is it so difficult for you to believe that I could ground my morality in what makes sense to me? I am unable to understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Ken, it's already been shown that your view doesn't make sense. To you or anyone else. You are smuggling in OM and then denying it. That is self-defeating. What I'm saying is that your position is untenable. So, no, I can't understand why someone would espouse a contradictory, self-defeating moral position. Can you?
Yes it does! It is my opinion, it is your opinion, and it is what you claim as your God’s opinion. Now obviously my opinion carries no weight in your eyes, and your claim of God’s opinion doesn’t carry any weight in my eyes, so why is your claim any better than mine?
If your own worldview is correct then your opinion should carry no weight. By your own admission, it is arbitrary and has no objective value. You've also stated that humans have no inherent value. I assume you believe you are human? Therefore, you are saying that your opinion is just that, an opinion and nothing more. (An opinion of a being that has no intrinsic value.) Therefor, morals are illusory and just a result of unguided, biological processes; and human morality is no more naturalistically significant than an elephant fart. So, on what grounds do you ask the question, "why is your claim any better than mine?" Your own claim undermines itself. Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself that question.
When I claim my view has more value, it is because I am actually appealing to OM. A standard that is not my opinion or preference, but supersedes opinion. Whether I'm correct or not, I really do believe that objective moral values and duties exist and that they are grounded in a supreme, transcendent, moral being. You do not.
I decide my standards. I’ve decided my moral view is my standard.
I'd like to see a criminal tell that to a judge. One day, you will stand before the ultimate judge and your claim will look just as ridiculous.
As I said with Paulsacramento; Good/evil, right/wrong does not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings did not exist, neither would good or evil.
And you just made an objective claim about morality.
If you really believe morality is subjective, then please stop making objective truth claims about it. Again, follow that line of thinking to its logical ends.
Of course, God is an intelligent being, therefore.......
The standard you use is only valuable to you and those who agree with you. The standard I use is only important to me and those who agree with me. Now how does the standard you use carry any more weight than the standard I use
Asked and answered.
Ken, I dare you to start living that way. You aren't, and as already demonstrated you don't really believe this. You have contradicted this multiple times in this thread alone. You are either lying to us, lying to yourself, or both. Although, since your moral ethic is arbitrary and only your opinion, I guess lying isn't "really" wrong.
You shouldn’t assume if I followed my world view to its logical conclusions; I would conclude the same thing as you.
We don't have to assume. You aren't. You haven't followed your worldview to its logical conclusions. That has already been demonstrated.
So if I understand you correctly; you believe all moral issues are objective. BTW if morality is objective, why does it need to be interpreted?
Were you born understanding math?
I didn’t ask anything about justice preferred over injustice, I asked if everybody agrees on objective moral issues. In other words; do all reasonable people agree on all moral issues such as sex out of wedlock, interracial, same sex relationships, stem cell research, abortion, etc. Do all reasonable people agree on these things?
First, your question is fallacious and assumes that agreement is proof and truth. Agreement doesn't determine truth. That is an ad populum fallacy. We are talking about the foundation of moral ethics. So, you take situational topics and think that this determines principles of morality. It doesn't. Justice is a principle. Are you saying there are people who think injustice is better than justice? Go and steal from that person and then get back to me.
So, the best way to answer is this; A person who is in favor of abortion honestly believes they are doing the RIGHT thing. A person who is against abortion honestly believes they are doing the RIGHT thing. Both are convinced that there is a way things ought to be. They are both appealing to the same objective principle. However, one has made an interpretive error.
What you are saying is different. You are saying that there is NOT a way things ought to be; that no moral position has any more intrinsic value than any other position. Therefore, if I believe might equals right, then what is wrong with forcing my worldview on someone else? Nothing. You can say you don't like it, but you can't say it's wrong. Why? because your worldview robs the word 'wrong' of any meaning. (Wrong, according to what?)
You've already evidenced that you don't really believe that. If I tried to force my worldview on you, you'd say "That is WRONG." And you'd be using the term wrong in an objective sense. You absolutely believe in objective moral values and duties. You just have no reason to. And sense you have no reason to, you are trying to justify that morality is subjective and a result of the human mind. Why? Because you don't like where it points. You don't like that you are actually accountable to a supreme moral authority.
Sounds to me like you are suggesting objective morality is only for those who believe in God.
Jlay
Ken, if that's what you think then you need to take basic reading comprehension. Let me give you an example. I can't see oxygen. In fact I've never seen it. Have you? Yet, I believe it exist. I believe that my lungs breath in this invisible molecule and absorb it into my bloodstream to keep me alive. Now, if I didn't believe in oxygen, would I suddenly not be able to breathe? Of course not. I can still enjoy the benefits of oxygen even if I didn't understand molecular biology.
As i've shown, you and others who deny OM, actually live as if OM is true. You deny it, but smuggle it in where it suits you.
An atheist, for example, can be a moral person. they simply don't have any reason to do so. When someone says, "I am a moral person," or, "I'm a good person," what are they saying? Good according to what? What they are saying is that there really is a way people OUGHT to behave. And good is better than bad. They are smuggling in a standard.
If nature was all there was; and mankind didn’t exist; neither would morality.
Bald assertion. Ken, no one is saying you aren't entitled to your opinion. But if that is what you really believe then it undermines any reason for you being here. And, as already stated, you certainly don't live your life consistent with that statement.