Objective Morality?

[Captain Scarlet]

So is it morally wrong because ethicists tell you so or do ethicists tell you it is wrong because it is morally wrong? The dilemma applies to you too.

Go ahead attack a strawman I didn't say. I said objective moral systems can be produced by natural systems; ergo they are also free of the subjective will of ethicists minds as well. If you are going to respond deal with the actual issue and not a "you too nah nah ne nah nah strawman".

But I'll grasp the nettle because I think what you were trying to say is if naturalism is true, then we have two options…
1. Are things good because we say they are good, or
2. Do we say things are good because they are good ?

And then naturalism ends up with the same horns: ie either morality is subjective, or it is intrinsic and humans have nothing to do with it. In both cases it can be argued that naturalism is ultimately defeated. But in naturalism, we do have a third option. We do have facts to rely on, facts that are beyond our choice and that are objectively true about reality. This is not a subjective proposition, or an intrinsic one, but rather knowledge gained by observation and reasoning based on them. The theist has no viable third option and lives in a cartoon universe that cannot be relied upon given gods arbitrary whims. Only a self contained block universe can account for induction, despite the protests of the xtian presuppositionalists.

- to commit genocide

In the new convenient yes.

Firstly thank you for grasping the nettle from the xtian standpoint and not avoiding the issue. However, I refer you to Jesus (assuming he existed). He was a Jew: who came to fulfill the law, fully condoned the teachings of the OT, did not expunge any of it and where Genocide is explicitly ordered by 'the father' part of the same trinity.

- to hold someone guilty for the crimes of our ancestors

For people to hold other people guilty of crimes they themselves did not commit, yes.

Is the bible wrong or can these crimes be visited on the descendents of these ancestors according to xtianity because god wills it arbitrarily and you therefore must submit to that will and bypass your own moral judgement?

I refer you to xtian concepts of original sin (well documented). According to your theology we are descendents of sinners and we are guilty because of their ‘crimes’.

Matthew 27:24-25, "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'His blood is on us and on our children!' " This instantiated the Russian Orthodox pogroms fuelled by belief in Jewish deicide

In 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Jesus punishes David by telling him his wives will be raped in public for his sins. When he repents, God says he will spare his life, but his child must die.

- to claim that babies are born evil

Nothing wrong with that.

Well that speaks for itself.

- to hold that the worth of a man is not based on his actions but his beliefs

Who even says this?

Apparently Jesus. It is the xtian proposition. As long as I come to believe in salvation through Jesus at any time in my mortal life, as long as it is sincere, I can receive my reward in heaven. Now this apprantly applies to all, I could have rendered total carnage to all of humanity through my whole life even up to 1 minute before I died, but still repent. Becuase of my sudden conversion to a beleif all actions are wiped clear. There is plenty of precendent for this including your own bible. Matthew 20:1-16 The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard makes it very clear (even though it is an economically bankrupt idea).

- that you should receive infinite punishment for finite 'crimes'

Any crime against a being of infinite authority justly deserves infinite punishment.

Again xtian morality laid bare for all to see. For the thought crime of non-belief it is just that an all powerful being orders my infinite punishment. Asymmetric morality if ever there was one, no wonder that fundmentalists are even seeking to re-write what hell really is and make it sound not so nasty. Although one should expect religions to evolve like everything else.

- to rape victims of war crimes

That’d be wrong yes.

Same question then. Is the bible wrong or are these permissible because god wills it, and therefore bypass your own moral judgement?

Isaiah 13:15-18 15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 explains how female captives are to be raped. It's not that we can just go up and rape them, there are rules to raping them.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 In a particularly sick verse, God tells us that if a betrothed girl gets raped in a city, and does not cry out loud enough to be heard (as far as I know, it's customary to cover or tie the mouth during rape to prevent this) they must both be killed. Kill the rape victim? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 In this one, God allows us men to marry any girl we want, even against her will, (and we must have money) simply by raping her. The downside is that we must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Gives the outline for making war, or "loving your enemies" in modern Christianese. If they do not submit to becoming slaves, then you kill all the men and take the rest for 'plunder.' (See rules on raping a captive.)
Numbers 31 tells us the happy story of Moses being angry at his men for sparing the women of the Mideonites after slaughtering all the men. He orders them to go back and kill all non-virgin women and keep the virgins for themselves.

I think secularists have more difficulty answering those questions than you imply. After all, if morals are based on our ability to live as a society, then it would not be morally wrong to commit genocide against the members of another society since it benefits your own society.

I dont and above I have demonstrated why. Until you can demonstrate why natural ethical systems cannot be objective, are flawed, or why xtianity is superior then I'm afraid its just bluster and can be dismissed.

There is no moral decision to become a Christian, so what on God’s green earth are you talking about?

Again you are attacking a strawman of your own creation. I said the would-be xtian decides to use his/her judgement to become an xtian. Part of that decision will be based on whether they are attracted to the moral codes of the xtian faith. But they must invoke morality as a standard to decide whether they can conform, are attracted to etc.

The Christian never decides to surrender anything, so again what are you talking about?

That’s clearly false. You must surrender your will to that of a believed super being outside of spacetime. His will overrides your own moral autonomy, such that his commands even if judged by yourself as dubious must be followed. You have made that clear in some of your responses. The argument from moral autonomy is quite involved but if you wish I can express it in a more structured way, but the above gives you a flavour.