(November 7, 2013 at 10:42 am)Stimbo Wrote: How do you determine the morality of those instructions? What mechanism are you using? This is a vital question to everything you are contending, because unless you are suggesting that old canard "might makes right", which you do appear to be, you have to make the determination of whether the instructions you are given, or feel you are given, conflict with your own innate moral sense.

For instance, Mother Teresa (that old fraud of Christopher Hitchens) tells you to kill a child. You refuse, because to you that would be deeply immoral. That child later acquires power and influence and is responsible for the death and suffering of millions. Your refusal to kill him when you were given the opportunity becomes the immoral act.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler orders you to feed a starving man. You do so eagerly, as this is a moral act and makes you feel good to help. It transpires that the man was carrying information of Hitler's genocidal ambitions to the powers able to prevent them; the meat you fed him was laced with strychnine. Do you still consider your complicity in the act a moral one?

I'd like to know what is fraudulent about dedicating your life to the poor, for one.

And you are making point. You see, if Mother Teresa asks me to kill a child and I refuse, and then the child gains power and becomes a horrible tyrant, the question is - Was that the INTENT that Mother Teresa has when she told me to commit the murder. Unless she had direct access to a "supernatural" source that could foretell the future with absolute certainty, her intent to kill that person is in question.

The same for the situation you present with Hitler. There is not way for Hitler to foresee what the future actions of any one person would be, so it would be impossible to say that the original reason for Hitler to tell me to feed the man are in question.

MY intentions in both cases should be and only can be (again, outside of supernatural cause) based on what I know, which is neither of these people, Hitler and Mother, are in direct access with an ultimate authority that is able to see the future and the intentions off people.

Now, if God takes a life, He is able to see the intentions of all people, to see the complete ramifications of all acts, and is in the only position to determine what life is taken and what life continues.

THis is a question of authority - Mother Teresa and Hitler both share the same authority over morality that you and I do, which is restricted to our direct experience and very limited knowledge. God does not have these restriction.

---

(November 7, 2013 at 11:03 am)Tonus Wrote: Would you agree that there are no absolute morals, then? That is to say, no action is intrinsically moral or immoral, it depends on whether the being who carried out or ordered the action can back his position with strength. God is so far above man that no one can thwart his will, therefore he can judge an act as being moral or immoral based on his ability to enforce his will and the inability of anyone else to stop him. In the same manner, there is no right and wrong, or good and bad. There is what god wills.

THIS is a great question!

Absolute morals?
Short answer: YES

With three aspect that need to be considered when looking at them:
1) the object of the action - or the act of the will
2) the end intention - the reason the will acts
3) the circumstances - outside forces on the will

Now, when these three things are not all in line with the ultimate good (God's will) they start to slip into evil.

So, I am in charge of some men and we are caught in a snow storm, I send a man out into the cold to save another man (my act being sending him out into the cold, my intention being to save the man, the circumstances being my authority in the situation and my full confidence of the men's abilities). As a result, they both die.

Is this moral? My intent is to help, my action is what I considered to be the best in the situation, and the circumstances put me in a position where I was to make the best decision possible, I could not foresee any excess troubles beyond the two mens capabilities that might have arisen.

Now, change my intent, I send the man out to save the other knowing that the man that I am sending out is not trained to deal with the situation in question.

The circumstance changed. I knew that the man was not able to deal with the snow and its challenges. This is immoral.

Now, change my intent. The untrained man that I am sending out i recently found out has been sleeping with my wife and I am hoping that he just won't come back. But here is the twist, THEY BOTH COME BACK.

The fact that they lived does not change the fact that I had the intention of letting the one I sent out die. This is very immoral.

Now, coming to God's will. There is only God's will, I agree, but we are free to act in line with His intentions for us, or against His intentions for us. God has the power, though, to take those things that are out of line with His intents for the individual and turn them to the good of others.

Judas was responsible for his actions when he acted of his own free will and turned Christ over to the authorities. Judas acted out of the will of God's intent for all individual, but in His knowledge He was able to turn the act to the good of all mankind. Judas' act needs to be measured against the three aspects of morality - his action (to turn Christ over to the authorities ) his intent (to get money) and his circumstance (his special knowledge of where Christ would be and the trust he had gained with the apostles). His actions were immoral.

God took the situation as separate from Judas and turned it to good.

(November 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: THIS is a great question!

Absolute morals?
Short answer: YES

With three aspect that need to be considered when looking at them:

But that seems to indicate that the morality of an action is conditional, which is what I was saying. You are admitting that there are occasions when an action can be moral, and when that same action can be immoral. Lying is typically considered an immoral act, but I think that many people would consider it moral if a person lied in order to protect innocent people from wicked people who sought to harm them. Therefore, lying cannot be moral or immoral in and of itself; it is dependent on context.

(November 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(November 7, 2013 at 10:42 am)Stimbo Wrote: How do you determine the morality of those instructions? What mechanism are you using? This is a vital question to everything you are contending, because unless you are suggesting that old canard "might makes right", which you do appear to be, you have to make the determination of whether the instructions you are given, or feel you are given, conflict with your own innate moral sense.

For instance, Mother Teresa (that old fraud of Christopher Hitchens) tells you to kill a child. You refuse, because to you that would be deeply immoral. That child later acquires power and influence and is responsible for the death and suffering of millions. Your refusal to kill him when you were given the opportunity becomes the immoral act.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler orders you to feed a starving man. You do so eagerly, as this is a moral act and makes you feel good to help. It transpires that the man was carrying information of Hitler's genocidal ambitions to the powers able to prevent them; the meat you fed him was laced with strychnine. Do you still consider your complicity in the act a moral one?

I'd like to know what is fraudulent about dedicating your life to the poor, for one.

And you are making point. You see, if Mother Teresa asks me to kill a child and I refuse, and then the child gains power and becomes a horrible tyrant, the question is - Was that the INTENT that Mother Teresa has when she told me to commit the murder. Unless she had direct access to a "supernatural" source that could foretell the future with absolute certainty, her intent to kill that person is in question.

The same for the situation you present with Hitler. There is not way for Hitler to foresee what the future actions of any one person would be, so it would be impossible to say that the original reason for Hitler to tell me to feed the man are in question.

MY intentions in both cases should be and only can be (again, outside of supernatural cause) based on what I know, which is neither of these people, Hitler and Mother, are in direct access with an ultimate authority that is able to see the future and the intentions off people.

Now, if God takes a life, He is able to see the intentions of all people, to see the complete ramifications of all acts, and is in the only position to determine what life is taken and what life continues.

THis is a question of authority - Mother Teresa and Hitler both share the same authority over morality that you and I do, which is restricted to our direct experience and very limited knowledge. God does not have these restriction.

---

(November 7, 2013 at 11:03 am)Tonus Wrote: Would you agree that there are no absolute morals, then? That is to say, no action is intrinsically moral or immoral, it depends on whether the being who carried out or ordered the action can back his position with strength. God is so far above man that no one can thwart his will, therefore he can judge an act as being moral or immoral based on his ability to enforce his will and the inability of anyone else to stop him. In the same manner, there is no right and wrong, or good and bad. There is what god wills.

THIS is a great question!

Absolute morals?
Short answer: YES

With three aspect that need to be considered when looking at them:
1) the object of the action - or the act of the will
2) the end intention - the reason the will acts
3) the circumstances - outside forces on the will

Now, when these three things are not all in line with the ultimate good (God's will) they start to slip into evil.

So, I am in charge of some men and we are caught in a snow storm, I send a man out into the cold to save another man (my act being sending him out into the cold, my intention being to save the man, the circumstances being my authority in the situation and my full confidence of the men's abilities). As a result, they both die.

Is this moral? My intent is to help, my action is what I considered to be the best in the situation, and the circumstances put me in a position where I was to make the best decision possible, I could not foresee any excess troubles beyond the two mens capabilities that might have arisen.

Now, change my intent, I send the man out to save the other knowing that the man that I am sending out is not trained to deal with the situation in question.

The circumstance changed. I knew that the man was not able to deal with the snow and its challenges. This is immoral.

Now, change my intent. The untrained man that I am sending out i recently found out has been sleeping with my wife and I am hoping that he just won't come back. But here is the twist, THEY BOTH COME BACK.

The fact that they lived does not change the fact that I had the intention of letting the one I sent out die. This is very immoral.

Now, coming to God's will. There is only God's will, I agree, but we are free to act in line with His intentions for us, or against His intentions for us. God has the power, though, to take those things that are out of line with His intents for the individual and turn them to the good of others.

Judas was responsible for his actions when he acted of his own free will and turned Christ over to the authorities. Judas acted out of the will of God's intent for all individual, but in His knowledge He was able to turn the act to the good of all mankind. Judas' act needs to be measured against the three aspects of morality - his action (to turn Christ over to the authorities ) his intent (to get money) and his circumstance (his special knowledge of where Christ would be and the trust he had gained with the apostles). His actions were immoral.

God took the situation as separate from Judas and turned it to good.

I'll try to just address the upper portion of this since Tonus has a good response to the latter.

If you trust that all actions by God must be moral, then everything God has ever done and will ever do (or will ever ask anyone to do) must then be moral, no?

(November 11, 2013 at 10:24 am)Tonus Wrote: But that seems to indicate that the morality of an action is conditional, which is what I was saying. You are admitting that there are occasions when an action can be moral, and when that same action can be immoral. Lying is typically considered an immoral act, but I think that many people would consider it moral if a person lied in order to protect innocent people from wicked people who sought to harm them. Therefore, lying cannot be moral or immoral in and of itself; it is dependent on context.

Lies:

Lies have to do with the truth and who has the right to that truth. In the situation where someone is trying to harm a group of people and you lie to protect them it is arguable that the person trying to do harm does not have a right to know where those people are.

Another way to look at this is having to do with our own privacy. A form of a lie is the withholding of a truth. But again, it comes down to whether or not the person you are withholding the truth from has the right to know. I am trying to learn piano, but I have not been practicing they way I should. Does this mean that every conversation I get into with everyone I meet I should tell them that I haven't been practicing the piano?

No.

I have a right to my privacy, to withhold that truth from people on the street. Now, if someone is paying me to learn the piano and has hired some great pianist and is expecting me to perform for some reason and if this is something that I have agreed to and promised that I will be doing then that person has the right to know what my practice habits are and if I have been slacking.

So, if we are looking for some common ground between us, I would that the morality of certain actions can conditional on the intent, circumstances, and consequences. But certain acts are absolutely immoral (lying to someone who has a right to the truth).

Is there any of this that you disagree with?

---

(November 11, 2013 at 11:20 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'll try to just address the upper portion of this since Tonus has a good response to the latter.

If you trust that all actions by God must be moral, then everything God has ever done and will ever do (or will ever ask anyone to do) must then be moral, no?

This is me taking the bait in all good will:

Yes

(November 11, 2013 at 7:03 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 10:24 am)Tonus Wrote: But that seems to indicate that the morality of an action is conditional, which is what I was saying. You are admitting that there are occasions when an action can be moral, and when that same action can be immoral. Lying is typically considered an immoral act, but I think that many people would consider it moral if a person lied in order to protect innocent people from wicked people who sought to harm them. Therefore, lying cannot be moral or immoral in and of itself; it is dependent on context.

Lies:

Lies have to do with the truth and who has the right to that truth. In the situation where someone is trying to harm a group of people and you lie to protect them it is arguable that the person trying to do harm does not have a right to know where those people are.

Another way to look at this is having to do with our own privacy. A form of a lie is the withholding of a truth. But again, it comes down to whether or not the person you are withholding the truth from has the right to know. I am trying to learn piano, but I have not been practicing they way I should. Does this mean that every conversation I get into with everyone I meet I should tell them that I haven't been practicing the piano?

No.

I have a right to my privacy, to withhold that truth from people on the street. Now, if someone is paying me to learn the piano and has hired some great pianist and is expecting me to perform for some reason and if this is something that I have agreed to and promised that I will be doing then that person has the right to know what my practice habits are and if I have been slacking.

So, if we are looking for some common ground between us, I would that the morality of certain actions can conditional on the intent, circumstances, and consequences. But certain acts are absolutely immoral (lying to someone who has a right to the truth).

Is there any of this that you disagree with?

---

(November 11, 2013 at 11:20 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'll try to just address the upper portion of this since Tonus has a good response to the latter.

If you trust that all actions by God must be moral, then everything God has ever done and will ever do (or will ever ask anyone to do) must then be moral, no?

This is me taking the bait in all good will:

Yes :cookie:

Then morality is a failed concept in religion. Because the flood was an act of immense evil and if religion views it as moral, then religion (and god) pursue a standard for good and evil that make it impossible to distinguish between the two.

Ergo, God is more evil than any persons living or dead combined (I'll include the supposed existence of Satan too)

(November 11, 2013 at 7:32 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Then morality is a failed concept in religion. Because the flood was an act of immense evil and if religion views it as moral, then religion (and god) pursue a standard for good and evil that make it impossible to distinguish between the two.

Ergo, God is more evil than any persons living or dead combined (I'll include the supposed existence of Satan too)

Your conclusion begins with the presupposition that God = Man

It also supposes that physical murder is the absolute worst thing that you could do to a person in the spiritual realm (since you decided to throw in Satan).

Can you please show to me how God, an omnipotent and supreme creator of all things, is equal to man? And remember: we are already under the assumption that God does in fact exist.

(November 11, 2013 at 9:32 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: Can you please show to me how God, an omnipotent and supreme creator of all things, is equal to man? And remember: we are already under the assumption that God does in fact exist.

Well, if morals are absolute, then it shouldn't matter if god is equal to man or not, right? An absolute moral system doesn't change depending on who is performing the action. What you're pimping for here is a might makes right system, which is just scary, not to mention relativistic.

See

(November 11, 2013 at 9:32 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 7:32 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Then morality is a failed concept in religion. Because the flood was an act of immense evil and if religion views it as moral, then religion (and god) pursue a standard for good and evil that make it impossible to distinguish between the two.

Ergo, God is more evil than any persons living or dead combined (I'll include the supposed existence of Satan too)

Your conclusion begins with the presupposition that God = Man

It also supposes that physical murder is the absolute worst thing that you could do to a person in the spiritual realm (since you decided to throw in Satan).

Can you please show to me how God, an omnipotent and supreme creator of all things, is equal to man? And remember: we are already under the assumption that God does in fact exist.

I'm not presupposing that God = man

But I am presupposing that a moral system from a god would mean man striving to be like God as a way of achieving equal morality. A tyrant like Stalin or Hitler would therefore be quite godlike (Abrahamic God at least, probably Greek and Roman gods too)

(November 11, 2013 at 7:03 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: So, if we are looking for some common ground between us, I would that the morality of certain actions can conditional on the intent, circumstances, and consequences. But certain acts are absolutely immoral (lying to someone who has a right to the truth).

Is there any of this that you disagree with?

I will agree with that, yes. There are specific acts which are always immoral, and therefore absolute morals exist. Killing an innocent person without cause or necessity would strike me as an inherently immoral act. Would you agree with that?

(October 21, 2013 at 9:27 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: So, without further ado.

If god commanded you to kill someone (for all intents and purposes let's assume we both agree that it is in fact god itself/himself/herself who did indeed tell you to do so), is following god's orders and killing them a moral action? Why or why not?

The trick with this, is that God telling you to kill someone decent would make you question the nature of God. The authority that is given to God presupposes some level of benevolence towards man. That our interests are of consequence to said God.

But if in the hypothetical, you know he's the good loving God from the stories with the grand plan and sacrificing his son for us, and whatnot, yeah, you go ahead and kill the person. Eternal salvation is allegedly in the cards for all involved, so there's no real harm if you got the thumbs up from the person who makes the rules.

The question itself, though, hits on one of the big problems of religion and God in general. People are asked to believe a lot of stuff based on a lot of assumptions.