What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Cyberman]

It has been said that there's no such thing as foul language, only foul people; and they can be foul in any language.

I was referring to profanity and name calling.

I'm not an idiot; I know what you meant. But consider this:

What would you think of someone who used perfectly inoffensive, reasonable language to express the view that other people are deserving of torture? We've already established that thoughts and opinions are at least as bad as deeds to you even if they're never actually carried out - would you consider this person foul and profane?

[Bob Kelso]

Sorry; I know I said I'd stop, but I need to share this story:

When I was twelve, I paid for my piano lessons by babysitting my piano teacher's three-year old while she was teaching other kids' lessons.  One day, there was chaos in my neighborhood, with sirens and cops, etc.

Turns out, my piano teacher had gotten home from Mother's Day mass, and found her husband bludgeoned to death in their bed.  He was an attorney for the FBI and had many enemies, so the cops turned to them.  It wasn't until two weeks later, she called the cops and confessed to beating her husband to death.  She led them to where she had thrown the baseball bat, and they arrested her.  Apparently, she had walked in on her husband molesting their son, and she just lost it on him.  She had been molested as a foster child earlier in her life, and between that and finding her son in danger, she just lost it.

Two years later, she was cleared on temporary insanity.

Do you really see immorality there?  Can you really not see how there was nothing moral or immoral about that?  If not, I really am done here.  I thought you were a nice person, C_L, but if you can really say, after that story, that what she did was immoral, I have real problems with your version of morality.

I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

A Catholic believes that losing your mind on a pedophile during the molestation of your own child is an immoral action? Forgive me if I don't gasp in surprise.

[Cyberman]

Maybe Catholics have to say that. Could start a nasty precedent otherwise.

[Brakeman]

I believe He created morality, and if it weren't for Him, there would be no such thing. But a person does not need to believe in God to make moral choices. Does that make my position more clear to you?

The second part I have address numerous times all throughout this very thread. Even as recently as just a few pages back, if you want to look.

So how do we as humans know about this "god originated" morality? Is our only source a bunch of stitched together stories we call the bible?

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” Genesis 3:22 NASB

It appears that according to the bible, we "magically" attained the perfect skill of knowing right from wrong by eating a magic fruit. God had tried to keep it from us, but our Hero Eve snatched that skill right from behind god's back, making us on equal footing with god. If our hero Eve had been able to grab the other magic fruit in time... we'd all be gods!!!


So silly.. sooo sad..

[Catholic_Lady]

We can have different morals and values. Most people do! It just doesn't mean we can both be right. She thinks she's right, I think I'm right. I would never kick someone to the curb for believing differently from me.

But how can that mean there are objective moral values?

Because like I have explained, I believe they have been defined by God. I don't believe they just are whatever we say they are.

[Longhorn]

But how can that mean there are objective moral values?

Because like I have explained, I believe they have been defined by God. I don't believe they just are whatever we say they are.

Defined by god = subjective

What now?
How do you know you're right?

[Thumpalumpacus]

2. Hm? No. The state of mind is completely relevant to culpability, just as the sentence above says. Remember, culpability and moral responsibility are the same things. Just different ways of addressing it.

Then you do accept that morality is relative. You may not wish to admit it, but that is what your words above say.

I think we need to get through the misunderstanding in question 2 before we can go any further.

No misunderstanding here, your words are perfectly clear.

[Nope]

I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

Considering the damage that sexual abuse does to a young child, the mother might have saved her son's life further down the road. This sounds like self defense to me.

[Catholic_Lady]

CL: this will be my last ride round the merry go round, and feel free to not answer any of my questions. This is curiosity, not an interrogation I shall leave you in peace whether or not you answer these.

1. So... what does it matter if something is "inherently wrong"? What is the point of this phrase? Who is it inherently wrong to? Clearly not to us as humans, as we take the situation into account before deciding how wrong it was. If God thinks it's inherently wrong but even he makes allowances, what is left? What does it matter if it's inherently wrong, why not call it inherently cheesecake? At best you can say it's probably wrong before considering mitigating factors. Would you agree?

2. Objective means it applies to everyone and everything and is not dependent on anyone's opinions or perspective. A commandment about morality from God is therefor not objective. You seem to be wanting to make god's opinion objective. But he can have whatever opinion he wants, right? Or is his opinion ultimately bound by something else?

3. As for Jesus, it appears that because he said, "Treat others as you want to be treated" that we can just assume he meant whatever we like about other subjects whether he says so or not. That is quite clearly projecting your own morality onto the bible, not the other way round. Now don't get me wrong, that is great! I'll take your morality over the bible any day of the week.

numbers, mine

Ok, here are my opinions:

1. It matters that we know something is inherently wrong so that we can act accordingly by not doing it. As is evident by what some societies have done to one another (slavery, killing infidels, burning rape victims, etc), believing that we can just make up whatever we want to think is moral can be dangerous and harmful.
It is not inherently wrong to anyone in particular. It just is. The definition of inherent means "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." So I can say the Earth is inherently a sphere. This does not mean it is spherical just to some people. Or it depends on who's asking. It means it is, in and of itself, spherical because it was made that way. Some people can think it's flat, but they are incorrect. It is round. So, like the earth is inherently spherical, rape is inherently immoral. Those 2 things just are, regardless of whether another person says otherwise.
I do not think God makes "allowances." I think He just judges a person based on the state of their mind at the time that they commited an act. This does not mean the objective act ceases to be immoral, it just means the person can have varying levels of guilt depending on what was going on in their heads when they committed such acts.
Look at my example about the insane man who murdered 10 shoppers. The act of going into a mall and murdering 10 people is immoral and illegal, but due to the man's state of mind, he did not get the same verdict as a sane man who premeditated and committed the same act.

2. It is objective. I know you do not believe in God, but if you're trying to understand my views, you have to look at it through my lenses here. God is not just some person with an opinion about morality. God created morality. He created the concept of morality and it is because He created it a certain way that it is so, and that it is what it is. Let's go back to the Earth. He created it (though evolution) as a sphere. The Earth is what it is and it is a sphere because it was made that way. Same with morality. The Earth being a sphere is an objective reality just as rape being immoral is an objective reality. And God made it that way.

3. Well since I believe Jesus is God, I believe He spoke as the entity who created this law in the first place lol. But I agree with you, this is a blanket statement because, while us normal folks want to be treated well, who's to say there aren't people out there who legitimately want to be treated poorly? Who legitimately want to be treated with disrespect? (I'm not talking about a fetish here where this is consensually agreed upon, I'm talking about an individual who, as a general rule, wants to be treated in a nasty way by the people around him. I've never known of a person like that, but there are crazies for everything).
So yes, treat other the way you want to be treated is a good general rule, but because there can be some pretty "interesting" individuals out there, it is not the end all be all. Which is precisely why Jesus got more specific and repeatedly commanded us to love. On multiple occasions He told us to love, and love no matter what. And He said that this commandment to love is one of 2 of his greatest and most important commandments. That trumps whatever questions a person may have about the possible subjectivity of "treating others the way we want to be treated."

Ok Rob, good questions. Hope that helps you better understand my views!

[Cyberman]

Because like I have explained, I believe they have been defined by God. I don't believe they just are whatever we say they are.

All you're doing is using the term "God" as a placeholder for a moral source, which does nothing to actually address what that source is. It's the ultimate conversation stopper, a kind of reverse Pandora's Box in which you've locked away your moral compass where it can no longer be questioned; because you've defined the placeholder as being beyond accountability. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how unbelievably dangerous that can be; because now you (in a general sense, not you specifically) are no longer accountable for your own morality. I happen to think that you are better than that. It's why you've been contorting yourself over the examples of your own special book as the detestable document it truly is, desperately trying to accomodate its injunctions with your own inbuilt sense of decency.