My views on objective morality

[Whateverist]

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.

Lets examen your response:

1)  Reads an avowed Catholic claim that rape is objectively evil in a philosophy thread.
2)  Points out that God allows rape.
3)  Assumes that it is illogical for God to allow what is objectively immoral.
4)  Assumes that everyone who believes in said God must be a big time fan of rape, objective evilness and all.
5)  Calls the Catholic an enabler and engages in a mob mind fuck of the Catholic.

CL, I've said this before: your chosen religious institution's ideas are not compatible with your own feelings about how life should work.

Yeah come on Cathy, as ultra logical atheists you should just take our word on this. Who really is in a better position to know what you feel and what that means than us?

[Mister Agenda]

Well obviously it is to me.

A logical argument is testable, and when you make any argument it is either logical or it is not - it's not a matter of opinion.

I don't think testable is in the requirements for an argument being logical, but I get your broader point. What is the testable logical argument that if God is real, God can't have a reason for non-intervention sufficient to justify not intervening in rape?

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Lets examen your response:

1)  Reads an avowed Catholic claim that rape is objectively evil in a philosophy thread.
2)  Points out that God allows rape.
3)  Assumes that it is illogical for God to allow what is objectively immoral.
4)  Assumes that everyone who believes in said God must be a big time fan of rape, objective evilness and all.
5)  Calls the Catholic an enabler and engages in a mob mind fuck of the Catholic.

CL, I've said this before: your chosen religious institution's ideas are not compatible with your own feelings about how life should work.

Yeah come on Cathy, as ultra logical atheists you should just take our word on this.  Who really is in a better position to know what you feel and what that means than us?  

::bold mine:: Are you saying special pleading is not illogical?  Not being wise, I am trying to understand here.

[Whateverist]

Nope. Just irrelevent.

[Mister Agenda]

Well obviously it is to me.

No.

You might BELIEVE it.  But you don't get to say it's "logical to me."  Either it is logical or it isn't.  And it isn't.  And to be blunt, if you can't see the logical inconsistencies in your religion, you are (at least in this area of your life) not thinking logically.

The idea of an all-knowing, all-loving God who allows child rape isn't logical, because as YOU YOURSELF have repeatedly stated, child rape is objectively evil.  If there is good in it, like the child's rape will somehow allow God to keep the Earth from falling into the sun or something, then it is in fact NOT objectively evil.  If rape is, in fact, objectively evil, and God allows rape, then God is failing to remove evil from the universe, and is doing so deliberately.  Such a God cannot be called good.  Therefore, one of the following must be true: 1) morality is not objective; 2) God is not good.

I'd mention, by the way, that your religious ideas aren't consistent with either the Catholic faith, or the Bible, or with any mainstream religious tradition.  I get the sense that you haven't studied the Bible or any academic arguments, and that instead you focus on a couple religious ideas that make you feel warm and fuzzy-- while ignoring 99% of the doctrines of your religion.  Again, we are back to you being a generally good person, and IDENTIFYING with an institution which you cannot actually fully support (since you haven't worked to fully understand it).  Am I wrong about this?

Even with objective morality, it is possible to have conditions in which you can't have one good without allowing a greater evil. That is the position CL thinks God is in, if I'm understanding her right. I'm pretty sure the Catholic version of God's omnipotence doesn't include overcoming paradoxes. God can't make a square a circle without making it 'not a square'.  I'm sure CL accepts the leg of theodicy that says God is omnibenevolent, probably the 'maximally benevolent' version. It therefore follows that God cannot, due to his nature, do anything in a given situation that is not the maximally benevolent thing. That means in every situation where it might appear that God is not doing so, it is because we do not have all the information; which God, in his omniscience, does.

[Whateverist]

Seems likely but I can't speak for her.

[LadyForCamus]

Nope. Just irrelevent.

Okay...perhaps irrelevant in regards to our personal relationships with CL, but is it not relevant to the subject of the thread?

[Mister Agenda]

Good on you for cyber-bullying her enough to get her to agree with anything you say rather than waste her time trying to defend herself. You're a credit to something, I'm sure.

Why don't you read the entire thread before passing judgement Mister.  

I did.

[LadyForCamus]

Why don't you read the entire thread before passing judgement Mister.  

I did.

Well, then I think you are being unfair. I never said she is a fan of rape, or that she condones the act. I said that I think she is making excuses for a God who, real or not, I don't think deserves it. That is my opinion. I stand by it.

[Jackalope]

Even with objective morality, it is possible to have conditions in which you can't have one good without allowing a greater evil. That is the position CL thinks God is in, if I'm understanding her right. I'm pretty sure the Catholic version of God's omnipotence doesn't include overcoming paradoxes. God can't make a square a circle without making it 'not a square'.  I'm sure CL accepts the leg of theodicy that says God is omnibenevolent, probably the 'maximally benevolent' version. It therefore follows that God cannot, due to his nature, do anything in a given situation that is not the maximally benevolent thing. That means in every situation where it might appear that God is not doing so, it is because we do not have all the information; which God, in his omniscience, does.

This. CL isn't necessarily operating under the same set of assumptions that some of you are. Her position may or may not be logically consistent, depending on what those assumptions are, and her assumptions may or may not be correct - the same as anyone else.