RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm
(This post was last modified: June 16, 2015 at 12:18 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 16, 2015 at 11:47 am)pocaracas Wrote:(June 16, 2015 at 11:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The question is *who or what* has established this moral law?Would you believe me if I said, most likely, society did it?
(June 16, 2015 at 11:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well, I believe God has. I believe God created human life as a sacred thing, and so to destroy or mistreat or hurt something sacred is always going to be objectively immoral. I do not believe this is subjective. I believe it is a moral truth.
One must first accept that there is a god, before one can delve into the possibility that such a moral system was provided by said god, don't you think?
Atheists, *sort of* don't accept the existence of a god as a given in a discussion... sure, we may, once in a while, use the hypothetical existence just to show that some tale spun around it ends up making little sense...
I believe that that is what you believe.
But society can think some horrific things are moral. Slavery, segregation, etc have all been big things in the past in this very country. But it was still wrong. Look at isis, they think what they are doing is good. They are wrong.
------
Yes, I do think so. That is why I started this thread. To know what you guys thought about morality, since you don't think it comes from God. I have talked about my opinions because I have been asked about them.
(June 16, 2015 at 11:51 am)Rhythm Wrote: At the end of the day it may be that -none- of us are right. Your confidence that one of the answers available is the right answer might be misplaced.
Yes, that is a possibility as well.
That's not the thrust of the thread though, eh, and picking up where we left off last night....so what if the catholics story were accurarate, does that make the catholic story morally right? I don't think that it does. I, like you, am at least capable of assessing the morality expressed in the narrative (as you've done with the OT) and I can reach a similar conclusion about the NT as you have the regarding the prequel. I can do this, I'm doing it now for your benefit just to show you that no objective standard is required to make announcements of ones own moral truths. So, the answer to the OP question would seem to be
"any number of ways"
eh? Hell, could be that the toaster tells me whats right and wrong, subjectively, even -absurdly- and I agree with the toaster. We tend to keep those folks under lock and key but they exist, and they have a way of determining right from wrong that differs from -both- of our ways. It's a wide field.
What "catholic's story" are you referring to?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh