My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

Personally, I don't understand how any of you can say raping children, for example, is morally subjective and just a matter of opinion.

Because God is good, and God allows it.  If it is objectively evil, then a God which allows it is evil.  Therefore, it is NECESSARILY TRUE that either: 1) God is not good; or 2) rape is not objectively evil.

/thread    *drops the mic*

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, catching up on all the comments, looks like I'm still being accused of "excusing the complicity of rape", or whatever the new way of wording it is. So I'm going to leave this thread. Feeling extremely sour about the whole forum in general right now and the people in it. I only hold people to the same standards as myself, and I would NEVER mind fuck anyone the way I'm being mind fucked here in regards to my position on rape. There are a lot of things I would never do/say to another person that get said to me quite often here, and I brush it off and make excuses for people all the time, but this in particular crosses a line for me. Thank you to the several people who defended me. To everyone else here who is continuing to tell me I think rape is anything other than what I actually said it is (objectively immoral, inherently evil) frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with you.

[Tiberius]

Honestly, if someone says they aren't defending rape, I'll take their word for it over anything else.

I feel that Catholic_Lady was trying to explain the Catholic position on God and how he can be considered "good" whilst rape still happens. There may be an argument against her use of logic there, but I highly doubt she thinks that rape is something which is OK.

[Mystic]

I'm gonna say this one more time, and this goes to everyone.  

I believe God allows nature to take its course. I believe He allows people to have free will. He let's things happen as they would, naturally. 

He does not resort to divine intervention to micromanage the world.  

From that, there are good and bad consequences. One of the bad consequences is rape. However, I trust God to know that the good consequences of His decision to give us free will and to not be a micromanager, outweigh the bad consequences of it. Im not saying the bad consequences aren't bad. I'm not saying rape, specifically, has good consequences. I'm saying I trust that the good consequences in general, of giving us free will, in general... of not resorting to divine intervention, of letting nature take its course, etc, etc, outweigh the bad.  

What are the "good consequences?" That I do not know. I'm just a little human, living in a tiny section of the universe, for a tiny amount of time. I'm not God. I can't see everything.   

Also, I believe that if God did become human like us He would stop a rape if it came to it. After all, He did stop the stoning of an adulteress. But He is not human right now. And stopping bad things from happening would require divine intervention, taking away free will, micromanaging. Which are all things that He, for whatever reason that we can't see right now, has deemed would do more harm than good in the grand scheme of things. (Also, I never said rape goes unpunished so I'm not sure where that straw came from.)    

So, that's it. That's all there is to it. You may not like it, but at this point I honestly don't give a fuck. It's your decision whether you choose to accept my differences and still be cool with me, as I accept yours, or not. But there is nothing else I can say on the subject that hasn't already been said. So take it or leave it.

+1

I think if God would prevent rape, he should prevent murder. If he prevents murder, he should prevent wars. If he prevents wars, he would force everyone to accept his representative on earth.  

The reward of sticking to God's Guide and guidance on earth would that have little reward or merit. The trial being harder makes the reward more rewarding.

And to what end would God interfere? Should he prevents kids from getting bullied, should he prevent everyone from stealing so much so we don't even need cops, does he set our wages for work, does he command then all of us what to do in life, why or why not? If God was interfering like crazy, what would be the limit.

Obviously sending Messengers time to time, or appointing guides or guiding in the unseen journey or revealing words from himself to humanity, serves an important and vital purpose in the design of the system.

To me, we do need God's guidance and interference, but it cannot be guidance by compulsion or force or the reward/merit would be meaningless, and the lovers of God would have little way of showing devotion.

[IATIA]

He does not resort to divine intervention to micromanage the world. 

But the bible god does "micromanage the world".  The bible god lead armies into battle, led Moses around killing off every one and not only allows rape, but condones it.  The bible god struck down a man for stumbling then touching the ark and the list goes in and on and on ...  The whole of the OT is a record of micromanagement.

Not intending to be condecending but, have you actually read the WHOLE bible?

[Mystical]

Personally, I don't understand how any of you can say raping children, for example, is morally subjective and just a matter of opinion.

Because God is good, and God allows it.  If it is objectively evil, then a God which allows it is evil.  Therefore, it is NECESSARILY TRUE that either: 1) God is not good; or 2) rape is not objectively evil.

/thread

I'm going to call it a night. But, Catholic Lady, I'd like to invite you to stay here in your own thread and work this out with us because you've made it such a big deal. It would be a pity to lose a member such as yourself over misunderstandings.
Maybe the others are mistaken. Obviously you mean a lot to a lot of members here personally, and that is why this is so difficult a subject to talk to you about--but, you brought it up. Maybe there's some straw man argumentation going on from other members of this forum, or maybe you just don't understand what it is you are arguing and the ramifications of such beliefs. Or maybe more! Lots of us here have intensely talked this very scenario out with other theists, and if it seems harsh to you; maybe it just is! Maybe the bible says what you don't believe in, but it does say it and you do seem to have come here as a "representative" of Catholicism.

You're the one with the name "Catholic lady" so it is assumed you follow Catholic doctrine. And Catholic doctrine is what those who are disagreeing with you, are addressing. Additionally you've re-inforced your opinions in my mind, by referring back to your post #618 which implicitly states that you condone gods will, whatever it may be, based upon the free will argument. Please do note that neglect is a form of abuse. Neglecting to stop your dogs from fighting and tearing each others' ears off, for instance, is immoral and illegal where you live, for instance.

Perhaps you could start over with what it is, exactly, that you believe?

Personally I like pertinent discussions and this line of thought and think it's a healthy discussion for you to have. No one (and I will personally see to this as a moderator) will put words into your mouth as to what you believe. From what I've seen, people have been reacting to the fact that you can't believe in god or Catholic doctrine and not believe X Y Z. But, maybe you don't believe in those things. It's a slippery slope that the Catholic Church (and it's many victims) have had to come to terms with. What they believe and what they profess to believe in, can sometimes be two very separate things! 

You may not realize what it is you are saying to us fully, and so I' wont fault you for it (I don't know you I'm just an outsider looking in), but  I think everyone here would like a chance to re-evaluate what it is, exactly, that you believe and try to show you how we reconcile what you believe with what we've been arguing and perhaps come to an understanding that befits you? 
Lady Camu, for instance, has done her best as far as I can see to be respectful and understanding and I don't believe you understand her, actually.  

Secondarily I know it can be quite a shock to find out the reality of god, the implications of his involvement (or lack thereof), and the ramifications of re-evaluating your own beliefs. So, take some time, however long you want, and please do return.

[Cecelia]

Morality can be universally agreed upon, and still not be objective. There doesn't even need to be an example where you'd think something would be 'right' for it to be subjective.

I can hardly imagine a scenario where I'd think that child rape was moral. I'm sure most people here can agree to that. But that doesn't make it objective. It's still subjective. In a world where pain and torment are valued, then child rape would be considered moral. Of course we would find such a world immoral. They might find acts of kindness immoral.

Morals are ever changing and evolving. What we think of as immoral today may not be considered immoral 1000 years from now.

Morality is subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't agree that certain things are (from our point of view) never acceptable. Even religious morality is subjective. If there were objective morality then I think that we'd see a much different world (God or no God). Most people would agree on moral values. It wouldn't need to evolve because most people could see for themselves that something is objectively wrong. It would be a fact. I don't think God's existence suddenly would make morality objective. Christian Morality would then just be subjective to his will. But it would still be subjective.

One set of morals can be better than another, but it's still subjectively better. Each individual would have different preferences. That's why we have such different morals between different cultures. Maybe there's an ideal culture that we don't have, but I imagine each person's ideal would be different and what they consider moral and immoral are different.

[Joods]

CL is a good, decent, kind and empathetic person who happens to believe in god, but her belief, in no way makes her responsible or accountable for god or what he does. Period. She is entitled to have her faith. She's entitled to have her beliefs. It is painfully obvious to anyone reading this thread, who possesses so much of an ounce of common sense, that she does not and has never condoned rape, murder or any other horrible act. And just because CL chooses, as is her right, to have a belief in a god, does not in any way imply that she accepts the evil acts that people do. Does god stop those things? Nope. He sure doesn't. But to repeatedly accuse her of condoning rape, after she's stated her stance on it several times, makes some of you no better than some of our worst theists on these forums.

No one knows what god would actually do, if he were to appear in human form and encountered a rape in progress. CL doesn't know, has stated such and it is not fair to continue this browbeating of her character. It is fine to debate and disagree, however, no matter how strongly atheists feel about the fact that god chooses to ignore bad things and how much CL believes in her god, it doesn't give anyone the right to go on a full-on attack of CL's character in the way that has been done on this thread.

One thing I can say for CL is that she has NEVER forced her beliefs on anyone here. CL has had to work twice has hard to earn respect here because she is a theist on an atheist forum. She's never preached to anyone here. She's never tried to force her beliefs on anyone here. She's never done anything that amounts to one tenth of the bullshit that we have encountered from other theists who have been straight up pushy, aggravating assholes where their beliefs are concerned. Some of the people here have sunk to a new level of low and it is sad that you would treat a respectable member of these forums in this manner. Knock it off already.

[bennyboy]

Well, catching up on all the comments, looks like I'm still being accused of "excusing the complicity of rape", or whatever the new way of wording it is. So I'm going to leave this thread. Feeling extremely sour about the whole forum in general right now and the people in it. I only hold people to the same standards as myself, and I would NEVER mind fuck anyone the way I'm being mind fucked here in regards to my position on rape. There are a lot of things I would never do/say to another person that get said to me quite often here, and I brush it off and make excuses for people all the time, but this in particular crosses a line for me. Thank you to the several people who defended me. To everyone else here who is continuing to tell me I think rape is anything other than what I actually said it is (objectively immoral, inherently evil) frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with you.

awwwww. 

1)  Makes a thread about objective morality in a philosophy thread.
2)  Claims some things, like rape, are objectively evil.
3)  People point out that God allows rape.
4)  Claims she was attacked totally unprovoked, despite having done no actual philosophy, and providing no counter to any of the attempts at logic done by anybody participating.

CL, I've said this before: your chosen religious institution's ideas are not compatible with your own feelings about how life should work.  Ditch the baggage, or live in a state of illogic.  That's up to you.  But you don't get to start this kind of thread, in this kind of forum, and get upset when people use examples of immorality to show why your ideas aren't coherent.

[abaris]

There may be an argument against her use of logic there, but I highly doubt she thinks that rape is something which is OK.

There always is. And I'm using all of them, trying not to attack her personally.

The mistake most people here are making, is to conflate catholic with evangelical and protestant. Catholics, going by my own experience, never put as much stock in the letter of the bible as evangelicals do. So this wouldn't even be something CL could answer, since she probably didn't really reflect on it.

As I said, I consider that to be an emergency exit for catholics to not have to look at the uglier parts of the narrative. But it's as it is. The OT isn't part of her belief system.