Objective Morals+

[Whateverist]

I would note that an omniscient creator god would have better information at his disposal on which to make judgments. In the end, though, it's his subjective judgment.

It sounds like you're advocating for option #2, that God has such wisdom and knowledge as to evaluate each situation and the character to make the right conclusion in his/her/its moral evaluation. So God evaluates that something is good because it is good.

That being the case, good is good with or without God saying so. Good would continue to be good if God were to ever not say so, or go away, or say otherwise, or turn out never to have existed. Right?

(Right.) I think this must be the position of any reasonable theist. If life is a test for morals then I suspect theists must believe that they can short cut actually developing their own capacity for moral judgment by sneaking a peek into the bible. It is like they are sneaking a peek at the test paper of the smartest kid in the universe, God. Or perhaps they believe this smartest kid is whispering the answer in their ear when they pray?

I wonder if any theists hold the position that it is morally better not to look for help from the smartest kid in the world. Do any theists here believe that there is merit in doing the best you can and suffering the consequences or am I just being terribly old fashioned here?

I guess what I really want to know is if any theist actually think their god wants them to develop their own moral judgment .. or did He design you to remain forever dependent upon himself? Which kind of sky-parent do you suppose you have, the stage mother who mouths the answers to you -or- the kind who encourages you to jump into his arms but then lets you fall just to teach you to be more self-reliant?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm with you Whatevs, do your best, let the chips fall, and then whatever consequence or value judgement made upon your actions you will have at least deserved in the deepest and most meaningful way. Good with the bad. If, on the other hand, one fault in my actions or character nullifies any virtue I may also possess I no longer care for the score-givers opinion. The same holds true if the situation were reversed, where one virtue erases any fault. Perhaps this is the easiest way to explain why I can't sign on with salvation through belief (or any of the other attachments to that salvation), to my mind, this sort of system completely erodes the basis for any such redemption or condemnation. I'm personally capable of considering the relative weight of the "good" and "bad" in a much more complex and thorough way, and it would be highly disappointing to find out that the cosmic arbitrator of all that is good or evil has a concept of those two things that is indistinguishable from that of my three year old's appraisal of the same.....

Similarly, the mind swims as to how we ended up in a situation where "the smartest kid in the universe" creates a being which appears to be able to consider these things in such an exhaustive manner relative to that "smartest kid". It would seem that even if the smartest kid in the universe got the answer right - it has no idea -how- it came to the correct conclusion (or at the very least, it isn't showing it's work or telling anyone else), whereas we are capable of explaining -how- we came to a conclusion, right or wrong. Personally, I'll take my C- over that dunces A+ all day long.

[John V]

Predictably and on-cue, the Christian apologist responds with the old retort of who-are-you-to-judge-(my)-god with a dash of who-can-really-be-sure-of-anything-anyway Solipsism.

That’s an interesting preface, considering that plenty of atheists believe that morality is subjective.

Why is rape or slavery or genocide or child-abuse wrong? Because they violate the rights of another as defined by The Social Contract. We do not wish to be raped. We do not wish to be enslaved. We don't want our families killed. We would not wish to be subject to being stoned in the public square for disobedience as children. So we don't allow it for others, not just for my own sake and protection (for what is allowed to happen to another could happen to me) but also to avoid hypocrisy, for how can you prescribe for another what you would not tolerate yourself? The Social Contract is reinforced by our own sense of empathy. We are community animals who depend on one another for survival and so we naturally feel and relate to the pain of others.

The fact that there are such things as rape show that the social contract is not universally recognized as correct morality.

Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings, acting with empathy and integrity as we would wish to be treated by others. Secularists have the clearest understanding of this point, which is why our focus is the rights and well-being of others.

First, do you mean sentient or sapient? Second, why is that the cutoff, and why isn’t that cutoff subjective?

Reading the Bible cover-to-cover allows the reader to notice that most references to "evil" or "abomination" are over such victimless activities that are injurious only to the religion and not to any fellow beings or else these references are to violations of arbitrary taboos such as working on the Sabbath, eating pork or loving someone with similar body parts.

That’s not really relevantm, but it’s interesting. What are the counts?

[DeistPaladin]

That’s an interesting preface, considering that plenty of atheists believe that morality is subjective.

I happen to be one of them. See my previous posts because I think once again you're confusing "subjective" with "solipsism". I hope we don't need to rehash our discussion that subjective morality does not mean all opinions share an equal footing or that "anything goes".

The fact that there are such things as rape show that the social contract is not universally recognized as correct morality.

...or that some people are amoral.

You do realize, I hope, that the absence of X isn't an alternative version of X, right?

Bald isn't an alternative hairstyle. Clear isn't an alternative color. Amorality isn't an alternative moral code.

First, do you mean sentient or sapient?

I mean what I wrote.

Second, why is that the cutoff, and why isn’t that cutoff subjective?

What alternative would you suggest? Moral obligations to rocks?

That’s not really relevantm, but it’s interesting. What are the counts?

Actually it is relevant, considering it relates to my entire point of religion's conflict of interest.

The count for the 10 Commandments is 6/10 or 60% relate to victimless crimes.

[John V]

...or that some people are amoral.

If there are people completely without morality, you now have to prove that your morality is better than no morality, as well as any other moral system. Or did you mean immoral?

You do realize, I hope, that the absence of X isn't an alternative version of X, right?

Er, yes.

Bald isn't an alternative hairstyle. Clear isn't an alternative color. Amorality isn't an alternative moral code.

See above. If people can be amoral, you must prove morality is superior to morality.

I mean what I wrote.

Is it immoral to eat meat, and kill ants and such? Why or why not?

Actually it is relevant, considering it relates to my entire point of religion's conflict of interest.

I thought the point was for you to prove that one system of morality was the correct one.

The count for the 10 Commandments is 6/10 or 60% relate to victimless crimes.

I asked about the count for the entire Bible. Were you just making that up? How does that fit into your morality?

[DeistPaladin]

you now have to prove that your morality is better than no morality,

Done.

Is it immoral to eat meat ... Why or why not?

Sometimes morality is just doing the least possible harm. Eating meat is part of the natural order and some may argue a requirement. Others who are vegetarian or vegan are so for moral reasons. I'll allow them to make their case.

I thought the point was for you to prove that one system of morality was the correct one.

Actually, you originally asked me to prove secular morality was superior to Biblical morality and hence the relevancy of the fact that religious morality (the Bible included) has a conflict of interest.

I asked about the count for the entire Bible.

The official count in the 10 Commandments should be good enough for you.

[John V]

Done.

No, expressing your opinion as to why you prefer a certain system of morality does not prove that such system is better than amorality.

Sometimes morality is just doing the least possible harm. Eating meat is part of the natural order and some may argue a requirement.

Rape is part of the natural order. Unless you’re saying humans are supernatural, everything they do is part of the natural order. So…anything goes.

Others who are vegetarian or vegan are so for moral reasons. I'll allow them to make their case.

You can’t tell me if it’s wrong to kill other sentient creatures, but claim that your morality is superior to the Bible’s?

[CleanShavenJesus]

[quote='DeistPaladin' pid='414130' dateline='1363195593']

Others who are vegetarian or vegan are so for moral reasons. I'll allow them to make their case.

You can’t tell me if it’s wrong to kill other sentient creatures, but claim that your morality is superior to the Bible’s?

Are you saying that morality has to be a definite thing? And that you can only follow the morales of the Bible because it is written down and set in stone (until the next translation completely changes it)?

Morals change per situation and per person. According to the Bible, your wife is your property, like a slave. Is that moral?

[DeistPaladin]

No, expressing your opinion as to why you prefer a certain system of morality does not prove that such system is better than amorality.

No, I offered you logical proofs.

Let me know if you have a logical argument to offer against anything that I offered.

Rape is part of the natural order.

Rape is a choice. Eating is not. Next fallacious Reducto Ad Absurdum argument please?

You can’t tell me if it’s wrong to kill other sentient creatures, but claim that your morality is superior to the Bible’s?

In a surprise turn of events in this discussion, I'll tell you I don't know everything and don't have all the answers.

*Dramatic Music Plays*

hock:

...and this is the part where you prance around taunting, "Ha ha, you admitted it! You don't know everything! Therefore, Jesus!"

[John V]

No, I offered you logical proofs.

All I saw was assertion of opinion.

Rape is part of the natural order.

Rape is a choice.[/quote]
It's part of nature. You suggested that things which are part of the natural order are moral. That leads to anything goes, as everything is part of the natural order, unless you give man some supernatural aspect. Christianity does that - the soul, or man being made in god's image - and so can distinguish between killing people and killing other sentient creatures. So far, you haven't given reason for that distinction.

Eating is not.

Eating animals is. Vegans get by without killing animals. And you sidestepped the fact that many of us kill animals just because they annoy us, even though we're not going to eat them and they pose no threat to our health.

You can’t tell me if it’s wrong to kill other sentient creatures, but claim that your morality is superior to the Bible’s?

In a surprise turn of events in this discussion, I'll tell you I don't know everything and don't have all the answers. [/quote]
We're talking about whether it's moral to kill sentient creatures. This isn't a case of not knowing everything. You can't answer one of the most basic questions of morality.