What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[robvalue]

Thanks for your reply

The thing is, you are assuming that the messages in the bible must be consistent. They do not have to be, and they are not. This is pretty clear from the schisms and the difference of opinion even within each denomination. Following Jesus to the letter is impossible; you have to choose one or the other when he contradicts himself in different places, or when he contradicts the Old Testament.

The obvious explanation for this is that he didn't actually say those things, or if he did, the account is no longer accurate. This is not surprising given the accounts were written decades after his death by people who are generally considered to have never even met him.

By talking about slavery and not saying one tiny thing against it, in the only opportunity he would ever have it seems, Jesus is at least saying it is "Ok" in my opinion. The bible is very quick to tell you what to do and what not to do on other matters. His refusal to do so here is easy to understand when you consider that slavery was simply not seen as immoral back then.

[abaris]

"the people who think this is moral are wrong."
"The people who think this is moral don't know any better."
"The people who think this is moral made a mistake."

It's about 12 hours and who knows how many pages, but here goes.

1) Yes, the people who think this is still moral are wrong, according to our society - and I'm a product of this society - and I'm in support of thinking this to be wrong. It's still not objective, since I'm a person agreeing with what my society says on that matter.

2) They didn't think this to be wrong, meaning the old societies, who had a different code of conduct and didn't have examples of handling things in a different way. Again, subjective morality of an old society that didn't stand the test of time.

3) Going by what the society we live in ingrained into ourselves, they made a mistake. And I added that I don't know what society will take as moral in another 2000 years. My views may be judged as equally wrong and full of mistakes by a coming generation.

I'm sorry, but things are constantly in motion. The only things that stood the test of time are the basic ideals, such as not to kill and not to steal. But for one, these are the very basics of creating an environment where people can live and work together. Secondly, even these basics are relative in how they were interpreted over time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A fig tree drew his wrath for not producing fruit out of season, but slaveowners don't get the throwdown?

Odd sense of priorities for the Big Guy, don'tcha think?

[Mr.wizard]

Do I think they are wrong? Yes and no. Yes because my morality is different from theirs and no because they are doing what their morality tells them is right. Who am I to judge their morality when I can't prove that mine is more correct. I certainly don't think they're moral from within my moral framework. They don't think you and I are moral from within theirs (how dare you go out without covering you hair) and that is the point. Neither of us thinks the other is moral and neither of us can prove the other wrong because all morality is subjective.

Ok. I appreciate you having the patience with me here, so thank you.

So my take away from this in regards to your views is, there is no concrete, real right/wrong. There is only whatever a particular society deems fit. If a society thinks an act is moral, it is moral. If a society thinks an act is immoral, it's immoral.

Even something like setting a little girl on fire for getting raped cannot be considered objectively immoral, according to your views.

I obviously don't agree, but I can honestly say that I understand why someone who doesn't believe in a higher being would think this. In fact, it makes more sense that you do think this way if you don't believe in a higher power.

Fair enough. Thank you for the discussion on this, and I respect your views.

---

If morality were truly objective, he would have had no basis for saying that they shouldn't stone her. He would have had no alternative morality to present in in place of the current morality, especially considering what they were doing was in line with what gawd said.

Well, first it obviously wasn't in line with what God said because Jesus is God and Jesus told them to stop.

Second, I'm really embarrassed by this but I still don't understand lol.

Youre saying that if morality was truly objective and those men were indeed in the wrong for stoning the woman, Jesus would have no basis for telling them they were in the wrong? I don't get it.

Randy Carson, do you understand?

---

I like the idea of calling Becca rexboccarox.

---

Oh gosh... I'm sorry  

---

Mike-

This is not an answer to your question, but since you have joined the discussion (and because I think you are one of the few here who might actually read and appreciate this), I provide the following link to the section of the Catechism which deals with moral law:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1950

YES. This is what I wanted to post but didn't know if it would be against the rules.

You seem to still be missing the point, if morality were truly objective you would not have two different societies with different sets of morals. The fact that you have two groups of people who cant agree on the morality of raping and burning people only proves that morality is subjective.

[Mr.wizard]

I think the question of "How do we determine what's good?", should be a question religious people are asking themselves, not atheists. Since religious people are claiming to get their morality through divine command, how could they possibly know what information they are getting is correct? How do they know god is a good guy without any moral compass of their own to make such a judgement.

[robvalue]

I think CL wants to say that one society has it right and another has it wrong. But of course, both societies will say they have it right, and often divinely so. Neither has any "proof" that they are correct.

Morality can be discussed and improved, but it can't be commanded. After all, morality is a matter for each individual as well as society. Everyone will value things slightly differently and have varying opinions. Something doesn't become "moral", as far as any individual is concerned, because someone says that it is.

A list of "objective morals" makes no sense. For one thing, how can it possibly handle complex situations where various different moral factors must be considered? For example: practically everything! Every situation is different, and we're often dealing with the "lesser of two evils". That can't be covered by, "Do this, don't do that." And it's just arbitrary; to find out if these commands are actually harmful or helpful we'd have to think about them and judge them moral or immoral. Or else we'd have no idea if we're helping or hindering anyone and are amoral agents. To be objective they must be somehow inherent to reality itself, and apply as much to god as to anyone. If "god" is subject to different morality than us, then clearly it's not objective!

I can understand people feeling uncomfortable at the idea that morality is ultimately a matter of opinion. But that doesn't stop it being true. However, if we can agree as a society on some fundamental values then we can find the best ways to accomplish those values.

The opinion of "a god" is still an opinion. And an opinion on morality can't be objective. Those who presume to speak for god can never agree either!

[Won2blv]

This is the definition parsing that I think is such bullshit. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone. If you kill someone is self defense its not murder. You can twist the words and definitions all you want but it doesn't change the principle. Suicide would be an unjustified self murder. Jesus did not murder himself. He gave himself up to die for a morally justified cause

Since you want to call m e out for twisting a definition:
Suicide
noun
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects:
   Buying that house was financial suicide.
3.a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
verb (used without object), suicided, suiciding.
4.to commit suicide.
verb (used with object), suicided, suiciding.
5.to kill (oneself).
Source
I see nothing there about your claim that suicide is "an unjustified self murder."


Taking your own life is suicide, no matter how you dress it up.

So would you classify every soldier in that has died as a suicide? No? Because it wasn't intentional? What if a soldier was surrounded by the enemy and had no way out but to take down as many of them with him and just stormed out with guns blazing? There are instances where you could say that the soldier was committing "suicide" but no one would even think to imply that to his grieving family. And even if you could parse and find a way to say that the soldiers death by definition was a suicide it would not change the fact that his death had a justified cause. Jesus did not kill himself and he never would have. Saying it was a suicide is like saying every soldier that has died in combat committed suicide since they knew of the possible outcome

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why we're bickering over the status of the crucifixion as suicide, murder, or any other sillyness.  It is -sickness-, and that's the problem, not that it's "sinful".
(try not to disrespect soldiers and soldiering by likening them and their profession to vicarious redemption, btw...lol)

[Mr.wizard]

Since you want to call m e out for twisting a definition:
Suicide
noun
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects:
   Buying that house was financial suicide.
3.a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
verb (used without object), suicided, suiciding.
4.to commit suicide.
verb (used with object), suicided, suiciding.
5.to kill (oneself).
Source
I see nothing there about your claim that suicide is "an unjustified self murder."


Taking your own life is suicide, no matter how you dress it up.

So would you classify every soldier in that has died as a suicide? No? Because it wasn't intentional? What if a soldier was surrounded by the enemy and had no way out but to take down as many of them with him and just stormed out with guns blazing? There are instances where you could say that the soldier was committing "suicide" but no one would even think to imply that to his grieving family. And even if you could parse and find a way to say that the soldiers death by definition was a suicide it would not change the fact that his death had a justified cause. Jesus did not kill himself and he never would have. Saying it was a suicide is like saying every soldier that has died in combat committed suicide since they knew of the possible outcome

Jesus came to fulfill sacrificial law, that was the whole point of him being sacrificed. This means that jesus came to earth to be sacrificed and knowing that he would be sacrificed, it was his intention, so that would be suicide.

[IATIA]

So would you classify every soldier in that has died as a suicide? No? Because it wasn't intentional? What if a soldier was surrounded by the enemy and had no way out but to take down as many of them with him and just stormed out with guns blazing? There are instances where you could say that the soldier was committing "suicide" but no one would even think to imply that to his grieving family. And even if you could parse and find a way to say that the soldiers death by definition was a suicide it would not change the fact that his death had a justified cause. Jesus did not kill himself and he never would have. Saying it was a suicide is like saying every soldier that has died in combat committed suicide since they knew of the possible outcome

The soldier was in a position that they could not avoid death, else they would have. As to jesus, he allowed himself to be put in that position and could have pulled out at anytime, unless god would not allow it, in which case it would then be murder on god's part.