Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

Intent does properly have a place in discussions of morality. This doesn't constitute "thought crime" since thoughts were accompanied by corresponding action.

Nope, you can have the same action and have two completely different intentions, intent is purely thought, so punishing it would be a form of thought crime. Punishing thought crimes is completely fine in my worldview, but I’d be interested to see you reconcile it with yours.

It would be morally wrong to drive a car recklessly, in ways that wantonly disregard safety.

Why? How does that differ from the person who runs over the child who runs out in front of their car? Both behaviors risked causing harm to others. If I don’t drive, I will never run someone over with a car, am I acting more morally pure in your eyes than someone who drives and runs the risk of running someone over someday?

Ever heard of lie by omission? And if he pledged to be faithful or fidelity was an understood agreement between the two, then breaking that contract is deceptive.

That just begs the question though, why is it morally wrong to lie about something in a secular world? You seem to be just passing the water from one leaky bucket to the next.

You struggle with problems that only exist in your head. Attempted crimes are still crimes, even if they weren't successfully carried out, and can easily be prosecuted as such.

Who said we were talking about attempted crimes? We are talking about someone cheating and never getting caught.

Nice. Another non sequitur. You really do run through the list of fallacies quickly. A free thinker is one who thinks freely, as opposed to getting your answers from scriptures or institutions. It does not follow that a free thinker is necessarily rational.

So you are admitting you are an irrational free thinker? Nice. I’d rather be a rational non-free-thinker than an irrational free-thinker. Fortunately for me though I am both a rational thinker and a free thinker.

In any event, we've rode this merry-go-round as many times as I care to. The "problem" that you see is an artificial one, just as artificial as your "GodWillsIt" solution. The problem and the validity of the solution only exist in your head. No matter how many times you bring up this issue, this will continue to be my answer. Let's just agree to disagree and let the reader decide which one of us is making a better case.

That sounds fair to me, as long as you allow me to use this, “the problem is only in your head” defense next time someone tries to point out a problem with my reasoning. Thanks! Don’t worry, I’ll give you credit for the approach.

Every theist always thinks that the god they just so happen to have believed in all along is the only one out there. Every theist can pick apart someone else's religion. That's why we say that we are all atheists. It's just that some suspend their atheism and fail to apply that critical thinking to their own religion.

You’re not really trying to use that “one less god” canard are you?

Prove it.

You already did for me when you accepted the truth of assumptions that you could not give account for but I could.

---

Condemned by your own words. Here for all to see is xtian morality. The greatest moral issue you see of your day is homosexuality (which isn't a moral issue). And you have no repsonse to the moral questions I have posed, which are of far greater importance. Of course homosexuality is part of nature, it may be abhorrent to you and that is your own subjective view, but that does not make it objecvtively wrong. The individual has the right to pursue their own life and maximise their own self worth, desires, aspirations as long as they do not adveresly impact other. They should be free to pursue this without being vilified and persecuted by narrow minded views that gave birth to the Inquistionan and Witch Trials. Or are you advocating the return to these xtian practices as well? Pathetic.

---

How is homosexuality not a moral issue?

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.

You have presented a false third option. If these truths are learned through observation and reason then they are still subjective since humans observe and interpret what they observe differently. Humans do not all reason the same either. Saying something is wrong because God wills it is not arbitrary though, so the dilemma does not really apply to the Christian God.

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.

You must have missed the part where Jesus set up the New Convenient which supersedes the Mosaic Covenant.

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’.

Ok, but you’ll notice that I said it is wrong for people to hold other people accountable for the crimes of their ancestors. These verses all speak of God holding people accountable for the crimes of their representatives or descendents, two different matters.

Well that speaks for itself.

No it doesn’t, demonstrate how that would be morally wrong.

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).

Yes I understand that, but you obviously don’t understand what the Bible teaches about these things. When you say belief I assume you mean faith, which is a gift from God. A person are saved by grace through faith. So if God chooses to apply that saving grace to that person, that person will believe and have faith and there will be fruit resulting from this faith. None of it was that person’s choice though, so I reject the premise of the original question.

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.

Does this constitute as an argument in your mind? “Ew I don’t like your answer therefore it is wrong!”

Crimes against the President justly warrant greater punishment because he holds greater authority, crimes against God justly warrant infinite punishment because He holds infinite authority over mankind. It’s logic, has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.

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

…like I didn’t see this one coming from a mile away :-P If God said rape was morally acceptable then it would be, but that is an absurd hypothetical though because he never said it was morally acceptable, in fact he forbids any form of fornication.

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.

Prophecy about the Medes taking over the Babylonians.

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?

You must be getting these from some atheist website, they understand scripture about as well as I do Swahili.

"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
25"But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

Notice anything? The first passage is talking about willful adultery because the woman was not seized and didn’t even attempt to cry out (it never says she tries to cry out but was stopped from doing so) this stipulation was designed to stop woman from falsely accusing men of raping them only after they had been caught committing adultery. The question could just be asked, “If you were being raped, then why did you not cry for help even though you were in the city?” The second passage has the man seizing her and raping her, even though she cries out nobody hears her to help her. The rapist is killed and the girl is not punished in any way for being raped.

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.

I like how you throw your own little commentaries onto these verses. The verse states that if a man and woman lie together casually and are caught, they must marry one another and divorce is not an option. This would greatly reduce the amount of “casual sex” in the Jewish community and make STDs a complete non-issue.

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.)

So just because they took plunder it means they raped them? So did they also rape the “children, livestock and everything else in the city” since they also took those things as plunder? I am not quite seeing your steps in logic here.

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 thought we were talking about rape here…where does it say anything about rape in Numbers 31?

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.

I already did, observation is subjective.

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.

It is not the teaching of scripture that anyone “decides” to become a Christian, so it is actually you who are attacking a straw man.

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.

Again, not the Biblical teaching, so it’s a straw man. People only “choose” to become Christian after God has chosen them and renewed their will, so you have it backwards.

I'm still waiting for some Christian to answer my question as to why love is evil when the body parts are similar.

Homosexuality is an act; the act of having sexual relationships with someone of the same sex is what the Bible forbids. Love has got nothing to do with it.

Why do you need such a solid answer? Why isn't 'you wouldn't want your spouse to commit adultery, even if you would never know about it' enough? Empathy may not be a cosmic principle, but that and fear are all that keeps us from being assholes. Without those, it doesn't matter how firmly based your moral code is, you won't follow it.

So as long as the person committing the adultery doesn’t really care whether the wife they are cheating on ever cheated on them then it is ok? You are just moving water from one leaky bucket to another. I need a clear and solid reason as to why the act of adultery is morally wrong even if the person is not caught given an unbeliever’s worldview.