My views on objective morality

[Whateverist]

Don't see anymore meat on those bones? If anyone wants to talk about objective morality perhaps they should frame what they think is an interesting angle for it. I find the notion of objective morals a non starter. Even I am not flexible enough to attach anything meaningful to it.

[LadyForCamus]

In other words, if such a judgement of gratuitous versus necessary evil can never be considered objectively morally acceptable here amongst us humans, is it not special pleading to give God allowance to do it for reason unknowable to us?

Hmm. I don't think so. God is sufficiently different from us by definition that it's not necessarily special pleading to hold God to a different standard. A mortal can be taken to account and, if necessary, forced to explain their reasoning. Whether real or imagined, that's impossible with God.

Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so. I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky. I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:

"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency." (From RationalWiki)

So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.

Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption? In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?

Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.

[brewer]

Don't see anymore meat on those bones?  If anyone wants to talk about objective morality perhaps they should frame what they think is an interesting angle for it.  I find the notion of objective morals a non starter.  Even I am not flexible enough to attach anything meaningful to it.

I don't see the subject being discussed. Feels like damage control now. Maybe something can be learned from that. I have my doubts.

[LadyForCamus]

Don't see anymore meat on those bones?  If anyone wants to talk about objective morality perhaps they should frame what they think is an interesting angle for it.  I find the notion of objective morals a non starter.  Even I am not flexible enough to attach anything meaningful to it.

I don't see the subject being discussed. Feels like damage control now. Maybe something can be learned from that. I have my doubts.

I've made my apologies where I felt they were warranted. People can take it or leave it. There is no point in harping on what I can't go back in time and undo.

[Tiberius]

Seriously, you really aren't doing CL, nor this forum any good by protecting her against criticism when she has it coming!

I think you may have a big misunderstanding of why people came to her defense. It wasn't because we necessarily agree with her points or way of arguing them, but because she was being repeatedly told that she was a rape apologist, or a supporter of rape, as well as a barrage of other insults. None of those were valid forms of criticism of her arguments; they were just rude comments and combined together they took on a rather nasty form of bullying.

I personally disagree with Catholic_Lady's views. I'm not a Catholic, I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in objective morality. However I at least will have the decency to listen to them and try to discuss them with her in a polite manner, without resorting to strawmen arguments and insults that try to paint her as someone who supports rape.

Maybe I'm sympathetic because in the past I've been called a racist, a wannabe member of the SS, etc. for some views I have regarding personal property and business. People jumped to my defense back then, and I'm doing the same to someone who has also been unfairly characterized.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Strawmen, you too are good at shitting out, Whateverist! If you don't have a negative attitude toward theistic beliefs too, then I have to ask what are you here for as an atheist (or for that matter, how can you even be an atheist)? I don't hate CL, nor do I hate anyone just for sharing her beliefs or similar beliefs. But she opened up a can of worms by starting this thread with her OP, and we were entitled to respond as we saw it.

Seriously, you really aren't doing CL, nor this forum any good by protecting her against criticism when she has it coming!

I'm not a nothing-but atheist but I don't believe in an external god, much less an omni-anything god.  In my own thinking I don't make any use of the notion of a god but I'm flexible enough in my thinking to attach meaning to such a notion and give the bible an interesting allegorical reading as well.

You seem to think we are in some drastic war with a zombie horde intent on bringing down civilization.  I don't count myself as part of any community which thinks this way.  Lets just say that being an atheist is a very, very provisional thing for me entirely dependent upon the definition of 'god' .. and just way down on the list of attributes I think define me.

Fair enough. But I hope you will seriously consider allowing everyone to argue their own position, or be called out when they make one which they cannot make a valid case for. That's everyone here, including those who are cute and nice. I can see that CL is still following this thread.

[Whateverist]

Not sure how to say this politely -fuck you comes to mind- but I have no authority to allow or disallow anyone from saying anything they like. What I said I said because I wanted to and have no regrets about any of it. But you too must deal with my freedom of speech and no I don't think I will concede what you ask. On second thought, "fuck you" cuts to the chase better.

[bennyboy]

Hmm. I don't think so. God is sufficiently different from us by definition that it's not necessarily special pleading to hold God to a different standard. A mortal can be taken to account and, if necessary, forced to explain their reasoning. Whether real or imagined, that's impossible with God.

Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so.  I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky.  I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:

"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency."  (From RationalWiki)

So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.

Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption?  In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?  

Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.

+1

This is the essence of the whole argument.  God is special, and therefore he gets a special moral privilege-- of allowing babies to die in pain, for example-- because he knows what's best, supposedly.

I'm not online with this.  I say if God is not a personal God-- i.e. that there's no benefit for us, then there's really no point worshipping God or even thinking about It.

What I can't understand is this-- how many people have to die in war, or from cancer, or be raped, or watch their dreams stolen, for them to say that whether there's a God or not, it's not really doing much for our lives.  Perhaps such a God, if real, deserves to be told to fuck off.  Maybe a race of Lucifers would be better than a race of Pollyannas, no?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Seriously, you really aren't doing CL, nor this forum any good by protecting her against criticism when she has it coming!

I think you may have a big misunderstanding of why people came to her defense. It wasn't because we necessarily agree with her points or way of arguing them

I can't believe you don't know I gave no reason for you to believe that. I know it's because you like CL, and sympathize with her because she appears to be so genuinely nice. I don't know her outside of this forum, but still I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt too, so to speak (I really have no reason to doubt her).

What I'm appealing for is that this site should not let personal prejudices get in the way of fair and open discourse when there's a disagreement between members. Some people got very rude with CL in this thread, and that's unfortunate, but passions escalate when somebody makes a position and then hides behind her ignorance while still maintaining that position. Anyone else who said what she did would be suspected of feigning ignorance, which I believe is what set others off, although that's hard to really believe of CL.

..., but because she was being repeatedly told that she was a rape apologist, or a supporter of rape, as well as a barrage of other insults. None of those were valid forms of criticism of her arguments; they were just rude comments and combined together they took on a rather nasty form of bullying.

I personally disagree with Catholic_Lady's views. I'm not a Catholic, I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in objective morality. However I at least will have the decency to listen to them and try to discuss them with her in a polite manner, without resorting to strawmen arguments and insults that try to paint her as someone who supports rape.

Maybe I'm sympathetic because in the past I've been called a racist, a wannabe member of the SS, etc. for some views I have regarding personal property and business. People jumped to my defense back then, and I'm doing the same to someone who has also been unfairly characterized.

I do understand the above, and I believe my point still stands.

Although I once lost it on CL over her stand on abortion early on, I don't recall ever calling her nor you a "racist", "a horrible person", and certainly not a wannabe member of the SS. I've told a few people here to "fuck off" when they got aggressive with their own shit, but I simply could not say that to one with CL's sweet disposition.

Her statements were supportive of a god who allows rape - now if you were to say that's OK for another human to do, then what, honestly, would it make you? I was just trying to explain that to her, as I think was the case with LFC.

All I'm asking of those who love CL is to keep it fair for everyone else here.

[Ryantology]

Tell that to your friends Rythm and Rob, regarding tone. They are both men who I have great respect for, but they are also the guys who started this fire, they are your fellow mods, and I doubt it ever would have come to this if they had avoided being so blunt before they walked off.

I'm not singling you or anyone else out (indeed, I've done a lot of it myself). I'm just replying to what you are saying.