What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I would defend your god, on trial...under precisely the same grounds.

"Your honor, my client is clearly deranged.  I submit to the courts, The Holy Bible..............."

[Catholic_Lady]

The act of stealing, in and of itself, is an inherently immoral action.

But if you steal because it is the only way you'll be able to save a person, your culpability will be greatly lessened, if not completely eliminated.

What about this is objective, then?

The act. Stealing is inherently wrong.

---

I give you my interpretation of that paragraph, and you respond with telling me you don't believe that this is actually my honest interpretation and that I'm deliberately cherry picking.

I'm not saying your cherry-picking is deliberate.  We all suffer bias, at one level or another.

I don't know what else to tell you. We cannot have a discussion about this if you don't believe I am being honest. At least I questioned your honesty and asked you to correct me if I'm wrong, rather than just assuming you were being dishonest and using that as my argument.

I'm sorry if you thought I was doubting your integrity.  I am not.  I am saying that you can cherry-pick without understanding it to be happening.

No problem. I am not looking for apologies. I am merely saying that I cannot have a productive discussion with someone who assumes I am being dishonest and using that as an argument.

I haven't done this.

I will point out that you never did answer my questions about the slapping of the cheek and the stealing of the coat.

I've been largely on my phone the last couple of days, and I often miss more posts because of that.  Might you point me to those questions that I may answer them for you?

will do.

I tried to register there, and got the message that they were not accepting new registrations:

I appreciate the apology. Sorry I was being short. 

Hopefully registration will be re enabled soon. I have no idea what the deal is.

[rexbeccarox]

What about this is objective, then?

The act. Stealing is inherently wrong.

Because you say so? Because the Catholic church says so? You can't think of any situation in which it is morally right to steal?

Also, I replied to your short list of objective morals; will you respond to that, please?

[SteelCurtain]

So the Catholic Church runs into the inescapable fact that sometimes murder is less wrong (or not at all), and therefore invented this "subjective culpability." Nice.

[Catholic_Lady]

How do you define "culpability", if not in terms of moral responsibility?

Actually, that is a great way to put it. Culpability = a particular individual's moral responsibility.

However, the ACT itself is inherently immoral. While culpability may vary between the 2 offenders in my example, the objective act of killing 10 people at the mall remains an immoral act.

Let's use the American justice System as a metaphor for God's laws:

Murder is a crime in the US. (think of this as murder being inherently immoral in our universe)

However, there are varying degrees of responsibility we put on the murderer. There is guilty and there is innocent by reason of insanity. (think of this as the different levels of culpability of a person who has committed an immoral act)

So, if a person gets innocent by reason of insanity, does this change the fact that murder is a crime? No. Murder is still a crime. And that person has still committed a criminal act. But because of varying factors, this person's moral responsibility was lessened to innocent by reason of insanity verses a guilty.

This may not be the most perfect analogy, but I hope it helps you better understand what I mean by objective acts and personal culpability.

---

The act. Stealing is inherently wrong.

Because you say so?  Because the Catholic church says so?  You can't think of any situation in which it is morally right to steal?

Also, I replied to your short list of objective morals; will you respond to that, please?

No. Stealing from someone else, in and of itself, is an immoral act. What changes is the individual person's culpability.

I appreciate your response. I will get to it.

---

So the Catholic Church runs into the inescapable fact that sometimes murder is less wrong (or not at all), and therefore invented this "subjective culpability." Nice.

No. Murder is always immoral. What changes is the person's culpability. For a better understanding see my reply to Parkers Tan where I make an analogy to the American justice system.

[Huggy Bear]

So it's still your position that since I quoted you in my post, that I was referring directly to you, even after making it very clear I was speaking generally and not about you personally?

Lets just say we prefer to interpret what fundamentalists say literally.

I'm the farthest thing from "fundamentalist" as you can get (without being a heathen that is).

[Catholic_Lady]

It is understandable why rape and slavery are part of your list but why theft? I could imagine situations in which stealing would be more moral than letting your children starve.

Oh, gosh, C-L; I'm really sorry I missed your reply.

Murder: so, when God does it, it's not immoral?
Rape: when God condones it it's not bad?
Theft: do you really think that theft is an objectively immoral thing to do?  You can't think of any reasons why you might condone theft?
Adultery: My grandmother was dying with Alzheimer's for a LONG time- she wasn't herself for the last six years of her life.  Do you think it was objectively immoral for my 80-year-old grandfather to seek out companionship elsewhere while still devoting most of his time and energy to my grandmother?
Slavery: when God condones it, it's not immoral?
Calumny: what if your god slandered Satan to make sure he didn't have more people to rule over in hell?  Would that be immoral?

1. Are you referring to the stories in the OT? If so, all I can say is that I 100% believe they were written allegorically. Meaning I don't believe God's hand ever came down from Heaven and murdered someone. When God became man and came to live as a human, He did not kill anyone. I cannot speak for those who believe these stories were written literally, so I have no idea what they would say about this.

2. See above lol.

3. No. I believe the act of stealing something from another person is an inherently immoral act.

4. I understand why he did and believe his culpability may have been greatly lessened, if not totally eliminated given the circumstances. I would never judge him as a bad person. I believe the objective act of cheating on your spouse by having sex with someone else is still an inherently immoral act.

5. See above. ;-)

6. Yes. I believe that being dishonest and lying about someone is inherently wrong. God wouldn't have to make false claims about Satan. The true claims are bad enough.

I know you don't agree, but I hope I helped you better understand my views.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, that is a great way to put it. Culpability = a particular individual's moral responsibility.

However, the ACT itself is inherently immoral. While culpability may vary between the 2 offenders in my example, the objective act of killing 10 people at the mall remains an immoral act.

Let's use the American justice System as a metaphor for God's laws:

Murder is a crime in the US. (think of this as murder being inherently immoral in our universe)

However, there are varying degrees of responsibility we put on the murderer. There is guilty and there is innocent by reason of insanity. (think of this as the different levels of culpability of a person who has committed an immoral act)

So, if a person gets innocent by reason of insanity, does this change the fact that murder is a crime? No. Murder is still a crime. And that person has still committed a criminal act. But because of varying factors, this person's moral responsibility was lessened to innocent by reason of insanity verses a guilty.

This may not be the most perfect analogy, but I hope it helps you better understand what I mean by objective acts and personal culpability.

And what you're saying here is that the morality of the act is dependent upon the mindset of the actor because -- in a point you elide -- there is no such thing as a moral act without an actor, or moral judge.

That, in and of itself, renders morality subjective. You're making my case for me, every time you bring up these instances where you say an objective moral claim is modifiable by certain extenuating circumstances. The is right, just, and normal. Why would you deny doing it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So the Catholic Church runs into the inescapable fact that sometimes murder is less wrong (or not at all), and therefore invented this "subjective culpability." Nice.

Semantics FTMFW!

[rexbeccarox]

Oh, gosh, C-L; I'm really sorry I missed your reply.

Murder: so, when God does it, it's not immoral?
Rape: when God condones it it's not bad?
Theft: do you really think that theft is an objectively immoral thing to do?  You can't think of any reasons why you might condone theft?
Adultery: My grandmother was dying with Alzheimer's for a LONG time- she wasn't herself for the last six years of her life.  Do you think it was objectively immoral for my 80-year-old grandfather to seek out companionship elsewhere while still devoting most of his time and energy to my grandmother?
Slavery: when God condones it, it's not immoral?
Calumny: what if your god slandered Satan to make sure he didn't have more people to rule over in hell?  Would that be immoral?

1. Are you referring to the stories in the OT? If so, all I can say is that I 100% believe they were written allegorically. Meaning I don't believe God's hand ever came down from Heaven and murdered someone. When God became man and came to live as a human, He did not kill anyone. I cannot speak for those who believe these stories were written literally, so I have no idea what they would say about this.

2. See above lol.

3. No. I believe the act of stealing something from another person is an inherently immoral act.

4. I understand why he did and believe his culpability may have been greatly lessened, if not totally eliminated given the circumstances. I would never judge him as a bad person. I believe the objective act of cheating on your spouse by having sex with someone else is still an inherently immoral act.

5. See above. ;-)

6. Yes. I believe that being dishonest and lying about someone is inherently wrong. God wouldn't have to make false claims about Satan. The true claims are bad enough.

I know you don't agree, but I hope I helped you better understand my views.

No... I really don't. I don't understand how someone as seemingly *good* as yourself feels any of that is ok or that you can possibly be fine with it. I'll let others take it from here; your responses make me incredibly sad.