(November 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I think that most objections to an objective morality are more disagreement as to the sense in which a person means the term.  You'll find plenty of people willing to state -both- that sexual abuse is objectively morally wrong...while also acknowledging that morality -is- subjective.  For me, it hardly matters whether it's subjective or objective.  I certainly think that sexual abuse is wrong everywhere for everyone and at all times....but if a person insists that this is "just, like, your opinion...man" then yeah, sure...why not...I'll let em have it regardless of whether or not I agree on it being just my opinion - because, after all...it -is- my opinion.   OFC, after having said such a thing, I would doubt their moral agency, lol.

Too many words are wasted on subtle shifts in frames of reference.

The problem here is that once something has been categorised as sexual abuse, the judgement has already been made. Yet two people may not agree on what is and isn't abuse. I would be pretty sure you, I and most people on the forum would happily agree on what counts. But for our rape apologists and such, they have different ideas.

Does that disgust me? Absolutely. But if any progress is to be made, discussions must be had where this difference of opinion is challenged rather than dismissed. It may be there's just not enough common ground of course.

If someone needs to have that explained to them....-that- rape is bad...they do not possess moral agency and no amount of discussion will ever yield understanding.  You're trying to explain algebra to a rock.

(November 12, 2016 at 8:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Funny how people can tell god what he is and isn't allowed to make "moral".

The common religious mantra: "I'll do what god says as long as I was going to do it anyway".

I think that is not true the people are the ones who tell God what is moral. How did you that the people are the ones telling God what is moral?

(November 12, 2016 at 9:06 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 12, 2016 at 5:29 am)theologian Wrote: 1. First, right and wrong are not made, for right and wrong are based in being with God or being against God, and God obviously is not made, instead He is the maker.

What on earth do you mean right and wrong are not made, you told me earlier, in reference to moral rules, that god created everything objective?  So what did god make, again?  

Not the moral rules, after all, apparently...objective or otherwise. [1]

Quote:Second, to change what is right and wrong is not an ability, but an imperfection, for unchanging is more perfect than what is changing.

It's an inability of god, as you describe it, regardless of whether or not changing it would be imperfection, this is an objection of convenience. [2]  

Quote:So, sexual abuse being wrong is due to being against God Whom is Love, for what His Will and Himself are just one, and He wills what is good, and willing the good is love (and so we know that God wills Himself), and sexual abuse is obviously not love, for sexual abuse is not willing the good, for sexual abuse is against freedom of the abused, and being free is the nature of man, and the nature of man is from God.

If there were no god, all of those statements above about why sexual abuse is wrong would still be equally true, to you, I assume?  [3]

Quote:2. Thank you for your explanation. Let's see. I'll show here what I have understood from your explanation and please let me know if I have understood it correctly.


What you are trying to say here is that there's already objective moral standard and God's opinion is just that, and so God's opinion is not really objective but also subjective.

That's not what -I'm- trying to say, lol, no.  [3]

Quote:However, how do we know that there's already moral standard apart from God? It seems to me that that is the starting point of your objection that I am not consistent regarding my subjective and objective labeling of terms here.

That has nothing to do with why you were inconsistent.  It's english, and not god...that I'm discussing in wondering why you would use certain words as you do, lol. [4]

Quote:On the other hand, I know that what is right is one with God, for God is the end of man whom can know and love the truth and the good respectively, and the true end is what is right, just as the end of the eye is seeing, so what is right for the eye is to see.

You believe, you don't know.  Which is fine, btw, but it helps to be accurate.  [5]

Quote:Now, God is objective, and if God and what is right are one, then moral standard is indeed objective and so apart from God, there cannot be a moral standard. Hence, the problem for atheist asking for just and moral action which is due to ending up imposing their own opinion, for again, if there is no God, then there is no objective morality, and hence only subjective morality and therefore just an opinion.

You told me, just above, that sexual abuse was an affront to freedom, and affront mans nature, that it was against love, that it was not..therefore, good.  Do these statements become any less objective than you thought they were before, just because the word god is omitted?  These are, ofc, just some of the things "the atheist" might say regarding the moral status of sexual abuse.  Are these, then, objective human opinions?  I certainly think they are, even though I may not refer to -exactly- what you've referred to.  They seem to be moral facts of the matter without any need of reference to a god.  

"That's like...just your opinion, man".....?  Ofc it isn't.  I neither made sexual abuse wrong, nor could I make it right.  It may have to do with my nature, or the nature of sexual abuse, it may have to do with the nature of freedom or of love, in short, every argument you offered for "god" above applies equally to -me- and my opinion on the matter.  That it's just my opinion is yet another contradictory objection of convenience.  [6]

Quote:Therefore, it seems to me that your objection to my arguments here stems from the proposition that what is right and what is God are separate which in turn begs the question how to we know that there is an objective moral standards apart from God.

My objection to your argument actually stemmed from your poor grasp of english and atrocious word use choices. [7]

Quote:Well, do you have an answer for that which will end the question begging which we know a kind of fallacy?

Firstly, that's not actually what question begging means...lol..secondly,if it were, you've already explained it up above for me....lol?

In summary, you're attempting to evade the problems with your previous arguments by picking some other fight.  Opining that there cannot be morality, as you conceptualize it, apart from god.  Not only is this wrong, I don;t know why -you- would believe it, since you're more than capable of offering a description of it...and did so in the very post in which you objected to it as question begging.[8]

1. Morality then is both made and not made in different sense. It is made in the sense of being a means and it is not made in the sense of being an end. That is so, because moral actions depend on nature, and nature is made by God, while the end of moral actions is God Himself, Whom is obviously not made.

2. I don't understand what you meant with objection of convenience. Care to demonstrate? Further, being unable to change morality is so compatible with relating morality to God as an end, for if God is the end of morality and God is unchanging, then it follows that nothing can change morality.

3. So, what are you trying to say then?

4. Well, that is simple. Whatever comes solely from the human person are subjective, but whatever comes from God or in God are objective.

5. Care to demonstrate why I believe what I believe regarding morality yet don't know?

6. You got it right that you may want to reference the wrongness of sexual abuse to the nature of man and nature of love etc. However, if we further ask, why do you refer the rightness or the wrongness of actions to nature? If there's no God, it will just be an arbitrary choice again. Hence, without God, there could not be an objective moral standard.

7. I think I'm clear here to prove that even if one relates the goodness or the wrongness of an action to the nature, which is objective, the question why it has to be referred to nature, without appealing to God, will make again morality subjective. Hence, if there is no God, then there will be no objective moral standard.

8. The question begging I was referring doesn't matter anymore, if I am wrong to assume that what you are pointing out is my inconsistency regarding the separation of objective moral standard and God, as what you are really pointing at is that what's the difference regarding explaining morality with or without God. Simple. If there's no God, even appealing to nature will make morality subjective, because one may ask that why appeal to nature and how about not appealing to it. But if there's God, it will be easy to know that what is moral is what makes us keep going to Him Whom is our true end, and so we can appeal to nature objectively, for nature obviously comes from God.

(November 12, 2016 at 10:05 am)Tonus Wrote:

(November 12, 2016 at 5:29 am)theologian Wrote: On the contrary: Morality is based on laws, which are Divine Positive Law, Natural Law and Human Positive Law. But, Natural Law is based from human reason seeing God's will in nature. Therefore, morality is based on human reason too.

Where is each of these laws described and enumerated?  What do you mean by "seeing God's will in nature"? [1]

theologian Wrote:I answer that: The case with Abraham and the Mosaic Law regarding Sabbath are not basis of morality. For, the purpose of those instances are to proclaim the truth to be revealed.

I'm not sure I get this.  Those actions were not moral or immoral because they were being used to preview some future event or lesson?  I don't see how that affects how right or wrong they are.  If the ends justify the means, then morality can be bent to serve those ends.  I do not disagree with the concept-- a man who steals food to feed his starving children may be committing an immoral act with a moral goal.  But it's one way in which theft cannot be objectively immoral. [2]

theologian Wrote:Further, the complete meaning of the Old Testament passage are in Christ. But, the two cases you have mentioned are from the Old Testament and was not interpreted in Christ. Thus, what you have shown are not the complete meaning. But, every incomplete meaning from a non-authority breeds many error.

I don't see where this is relevant.  If morality is objective then good and bad are absolutes.  If they are not absolutes and actions require a consideration of what makes them good or bad that includes such things as context, you can reason them out without relying on God.  Again, it is his power which grants him the authority to state absolutes, not a reasoned examination of any particular action. [3]

1. Divine Positive Law are described and enumerated in Divine Revelation which is revealed through the Catholic Church. Natural Law can be found in Nature which is created by God. And, Human Positive Law, as long as it doesn't contradict law, can be followed and can be seen enumerated and describe in the Government Law of the land.

Seeing God's will in nature is obvious by seeing that nature is created by God. God can't contradict Himself.

2. What I meant there is that the two cases were not to be used as a standard of morality.

Theft can only be theft if the thing gotten is against the reasonable will of the owner. But, with the principle of universal destination of goods, no one must be starved. So the case of getting food for the starving are not theft. This does not affirm then that the end justifies the mean.

3. Well, our difference is here is whether what God has ordained and what can be known by human reason are exclusive or inclusive in terms of morality. You hold that is must be exclusive, and I hold that it can be both/and. Well, the fact that human reason can know what God has ordained by nature and by His revelation, it follows that it cannot be exclusive.

(November 12, 2016 at 10:35 am)robvalue Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I think that most objections to an objective morality are more disagreement as to the sense in which a person means the term.  You'll find plenty of people willing to state -both- that sexual abuse is objectively morally wrong...while also acknowledging that morality -is- subjective.  For me, it hardly matters whether it's subjective or objective.  I certainly think that sexual abuse is wrong everywhere for everyone and at all times....but if a person insists that this is "just, like, your opinion...man" then yeah, sure...why not...I'll let em have it regardless of whether or not I agree on it being just my opinion - because, after all...it -is- my opinion.   OFC, after having said such a thing, I would doubt their moral agency, lol.

Too many words are wasted on subtle shifts in frames of reference.

The problem here is that once something has been categorised as sexual abuse, the judgement has already been made. Yet two people may not agree on what is and isn't abuse. I would be pretty sure you, I and most people on the forum would happily agree on what counts. But for our rape apologists and such, they have different ideas.

Does that disgust me? Absolutely. But if any progress is to be made, discussions must be had where this difference of opinion is challenged rather than dismissed. It may be there's just not enough common ground of course.

The case here is that atheist may feel the wrongness of sexual of abuse. But, feelings are subjective and are just there as indicated by nature. But, nature comes from God. So, without God, there can't be objective moral standard.

(November 12, 2016 at 10:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: If someone needs to have that explained to them....-that- rape is bad...they do not possess moral agency and no amount of discussion will ever yield understanding.  You're trying to explain algebra to a rock.

No. It's just about whether you hold rape is bad a priori either because it's just an opinion which is subjective by denying God's existence, or by considering that God truly exist and therefore one can easily show how moral standards are objective too.

Erm... you said sexual abuse will always be immoral, and so god can't say it's moral. That's telling God how to run shit.

The problem, of course, is when theists try to say morality is about wellbeing and what God wants. If these two happen to be the same, then God is entirely irrelevant. If they differ, God poisons morality.

(November 12, 2016 at 10:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: If someone needs to have that explained to them....-that- rape is bad...they do not possess moral agency and no amount of discussion will ever yield understanding.  You're trying to explain algebra to a rock.

I agree, that is probably true. I expect it's generally more of a cultural thing, and that it's part of a much larger discussion which hopefully will slowly change over many generations.

(Of course I'm now talking about societies that differ from ours. For individuals in our society, convincing them is less important overall because our society already has it right.)

(November 11, 2016 at 3:56 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 3:20 am)robvalue Wrote: Sorry if I misunderstood. Are you saying human happiness is just one proposed goal then? [1]

I agree it is a good goal, but it is incredibly vague and qualifying it is very hard. I don't think it can be objectified in any way. [2]

1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

This seems like a semantic sleight of hand. Happiness and fulfillment are not the same thing. While humans may value fulfillment, it's not clear whether this valuation depends on something intrinsic to fulfillment, or whether fulfillment is desirable because of the absence of stress and anxiety in the state of fulfillment, and in states leading to it. My theory of human behavior does not recognize a place in decision making for any "desire for fulfillment." We have an aversion to states that are not fulfilling, but it's less clear whether we are motivated by the feelings which accompany fulfillment. Regardless, fulfillment doesn't equal happiness, which is another commonly presumed 'goal' which doesn't seem to motivate our moment-to-moment decisions.

(November 13, 2016 at 2:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Erm... you said sexual abuse will always be immoral, and so god can't say it's moral. That's telling God how to run shit.

The problem, of course, is when theists try to say morality is about wellbeing and what God wants. If these two happen to be the same, then God is entirely irrelevant. If they differ, God poisons morality.

Erm... Sexual Abuse will always be immoral, for it is against God's will which is unchanging. So, it is based from God and not based from people.

It is not true that if well being and God's will are the same, then God is entirely irrelevant, for we can argue soundly that the source of well being is God. So, if there's no God, then there's no well being. But, there is God, per sound theistic arguments like the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. To deny the conclusions in Five Ways that God exists is to both deny things which are evident, (for the Five Ways starts with the things that are evident), and to deny laws of logic (for the Five Ways utilized valid logical forms).

(November 13, 2016 at 1:59 am)theologian Wrote: 1. Morality then is both made and not made in different sense. It is made in the sense of being a means and it is not made in the sense of being an end. That is so, because moral actions depend on nature, and nature is made by God, while the end of moral actions is God Himself, Whom is obviously not made.

I think that you're tying your god dick into knots now, when it's probably best left in your pants to begin with.  Is all of the above your subjective opinion, or your objective opinion?

Quote:2. I don't understand what you meant with objection of convenience. Care to demonstrate? Further, being unable to change morality is so compatible with relating morality to God as an end, for if God is the end of morality and God is unchanging, then it follows that nothing can change morality.

Clearly you don't, since you're fielding yet another post chock full of them.

Quote:3. So, what are you trying to say then?

That you need to learn to speak english. You just keep butchering it.

Quote:4. Well, that is simple. Whatever comes solely from the human person are subjective, but whatever comes from God or in God are objective.

It's simple, alright.  

Quote:5. Care to demonstrate why I believe what I believe regarding morality yet don't know?

It's rather the reverse that's lacking.  You believe, but don't know, because you cannot demonstrate.  

Quote:6. You got it right that you may want to reference the wrongness of sexual abuse to the nature of man and nature of love etc. However, if we further ask, why do you refer the rightness or the wrongness of actions to nature? If there's no God, it will just be an arbitrary choice again. Hence, without God, there could not be an objective moral standard.

If you think that rape would only be arbitrarily bad, as a matter of choice, if there were no god...then I see little sense in having a discussion with you about morality.  You do not possess moral agency.  You merely obey what you believe to be a gods rules.  

Quote:7. I think I'm clear here to prove that even if one relates the goodness or the wrongness of an action to the nature, which is objective, the question why it has to be referred to nature, without appealing to God, will make again morality subjective. Hence, if there is no God, then there will be no objective moral standard.

You probably think you're right alot of the time.  In fact, it could even be a useful heuristic for you.  Anytime you start to think that you've proven anything about a god or morality, you should take that as an indication of just how wrong you are.  Meanwhile, I'll be over here, in easy possession of my own moral standard that tells me that rape is bad - regardless.  

Quote:8. The question begging I was referring doesn't matter anymore, if I am wrong to assume that what you are pointing out is my inconsistency regarding the separation of objective moral standard and God, as what you are really pointing at is that what's the difference regarding explaining morality with or without God. Simple. If there's no God, even appealing to nature will make morality subjective, because one may ask that why appeal to nature and how about not appealing to it. But if there's God, it will be easy to know that what is moral is what makes us keep going to Him Whom is our true end, and so we can appeal to nature objectively, for nature obviously comes from God.

You weren't referring to any question begging in the first place.  They aren't magic words, you know, lol.  If theres no god, you just keep saying.  Let me show you how to properly leverage the identification of a logical fallacy.  What you have, above, is a textbook appeal to consequences.  If there's no god, then so what?  Morality would be subjective? So what?  

Would rape be any less subjectively bad than it is objectively bad, in your opinion, if it turned out you were just a superstitious cretin?

Quote:No. It's just about whether you hold rape is bad a priori either because it's just an opinion which is subjective by denying God's existence, or by considering that God truly exist and therefore one can easily show how moral standards are objective too.

Meh, who cares about god...we're discussing morality?  I'm not the one that needs there to be a god for rape to be bad.  That's your bag.

(November 13, 2016 at 2:49 am)theologian Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 2:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Erm... you said sexual abuse will always be immoral, and so god can't say it's moral. That's telling God how to run shit.

The problem, of course, is when theists try to say morality is about wellbeing and what God wants. If these two happen to be the same, then God is entirely irrelevant. If they differ, God poisons morality.

Erm... Sexual Abuse will always be immoral, for it is against God's will which is unchanging. So, it is based from God and not based from people.

It is not true that if well being and God's will are the same, then God is entirely irrelevant, for we can argue soundly that the source of well being is God. So, if there's no God, then there's no well being. But, there is God, per sound theistic arguments like the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. To deny the conclusions in Five Ways that God exists is to both deny things which are evident, (for the Five Ways starts with the things that are evident), and to deny laws of logic (for the Five Ways utilized valid logical forms).

But who is telling us what is god's will? You are. So if God turned up and said that actually his will is that sexual abuse is moral, what would you do then?

Is he allowed to speak for himself? Because you're far from the only person telling us what god's will is, and when you guys disagree, at least one of you is just making it up.

My position is a lot clearer. God turns up and says "Having sex against someone's will is moral". I'd say, "Please explain how that is". If he had no argument to persuade me, then I'd dismiss him. I don't take moral judgements from anyone. It seems unlikely there is any such argument to be had, but I'm always open to discussion.

What would you say to him? If an atheist can entertain a hypothetical, surely you can.

(November 13, 2016 at 2:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 3:56 am)Ignorant Wrote: 1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment [a]) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

This seems like a semantic sleight of hand.  Happiness and fulfillment are not the same thing. [1] While humans may value fulfillment, it's not clear whether this valuation depends on something intrinsic to fulfillment [2], or whether fulfillment is desirable because of the absence of stress and anxiety in the state of fulfillment, and in states leading to it. [3] My theory of human behavior does not recognize a place in decision making for any "desire for fulfillment."  We have an aversion to states that are not fulfilling, but it's less clear whether we are motivated by the feelings which accompany fulfillment. [4]  Regardless, fulfillment doesn't equal happiness, which is another commonly presumed 'goal' which doesn't seem to motivate our moment-to-moment decisions. [5]

1) That's fine if that's how you'd like to use the terms. I am using them in the same way the classical philosophers and Catholic theologians up to at least Thomas uses the term happiness. I fully recognize that today the term has been reduced to different understandings, but I explicitly mentioned that I have been using the term in the classical sense (see above marked "a"). You may find that use of the term "happiness" unhelpful, and that is fine. It isn't "fine" if you are trying to tell me I'm "wrong" for using it this way.

2) Correct, which is why I think it is clearer if the valuation depends on something intrinsic to the nature of humanity/"being" human. In other words, the object evaluated is the human being, and the moral life depends on how completed the human-life-lived has become. The more moral the human life lived, the more complete/full/fulfilled the life is in a specifically "human way". Human completion/fulfillment are synonymous with happiness on my account.

3) Fulfillment, on my account, is identifiable WITH the more proximate purpose/intention/end of any moral action, and therefore, the universal desire of humanity, i.e. to live in a fully human way. Different people have different understandings of what a-fully-human-way means, and everyone struggles with reconciling and recognizing this ideal with the more immediate daily desires and actions. But whatever it means for them and however intense the struggle to achieve it through their free action, that desire is the ultimate desire directing their life. The closer their understanding corresponds to the real object of human nature, the closer their actions correspond to the real actions which fulfill human nature, and the more aware they are of these correspondences and the more able they are the bring them about through their action, all determine the quality of the moral life, and therefore the freedom and fulfillment they find in living it. At least that is my assessment.

4) That's fine. But let me be clear: I do not think we desire "the-feelings-which-accompany-fulfillment". I think we desire the fulfillment itself, which is to say that we desire to BE whole.

5) Could you explain the difference between fulfillment and happiness, as you understand the terms? Thanks!