Philosophical question? (4 Viewers)

[magnifier661]

ha, then you get into a chicken and egg sort of thing almost, I kill for good, defined by someone who killed for good, and who defined what was good, and what was ok to do in the name of it. It's ok to kill in the name of good defined by X, by killing for good in the name of y? not good. Defined and followed by someone who got extremely jealous and killed.

Lol sounds really complicated.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well my opinion is that I don't really see how you can. What exactly would you be basing them on? I mean without God or a moral law-giver can you really determine what's "right" or "wrong".

referring to a higher power for right or wrong doesn't make morality any more objective than deriving it from any other source. the only way specifics of morality would truly be objective in the sense you mean is if they were mind-independent - true independent of what god or any other mind thought.

philosophers have been arguing over whether moral statements can be true independent of minds or not (as they have with math axioms) for thousands of years, so good luck with figuring that out.

Yes, I'm biased, but let's say we're all here by chance and there really was no rhyme or reason for our existence: how can you objectively say that a human life has more value than that of a worms? We're just slightly more complex rearranged molecules and we all came from the same place and are going to the same place. That may seem extreme but is it not true?

except as a sentient species we tend to value our own existence and well-being much more than worms tend to value theirs, so it's simple common sense that human lives have more value than the lives of worms. as far as we know worms don't really have much of a moral perspective : )

I think the fact that people are born with an innate moral code and general empathy for others is proof that God's basic law of right and wrong is written on the heart. I believe we are all born with a moral compass.

or we are born with evolved survival instincts and suppliment them with moral knowledge gained through experience as we grow, and empathetic behavior in a social context is part of this. everything sane humans would universally agree on as moral behavior (the golden rule etc) reduces to common sense for the well being or survival of the species, group, or invidivual in some way. in the context of evolution there's nothing mysterious about how we feel about moral behavior.

 

[MadeFromDust]

referring to a higher power for right or wrong doesn't make morality any more objective than deriving it from any other source. the only way specifics of morality would truly be objective in the sense you mean is if they were mind-independent - true independent of what god or any other mind thought.

philosophers have been arguing over whether moral statements can be true independent of minds or not (as they have with math axioms) for thousands of years, so good luck with figuring that out.

I disagree, God's laws have already been established for what can be deemed as right or wrong in this world. It may be a mystery for a godless society, sure. But not for people who know the Lord and the laws He's already given us.

except as a sentient species we tend to value our own existence and well-being much more than worms tend to value theirs, so it's simple common sense that human lives have more value than the lives of worms. as far as we know worms don't really have much of a moral perspective : )

So let's say an atheist woman from PETA disagrees with you. Is she wrong? If so, how would you determine it? From a purely naturalist viewpoint I don't see how a human life can be objectively more valuable than a worms. We're all made of the same "stuff" which resulted from a random cosmic accident. So worms don't have the capacity for moral values, that makes them worth less than you? Based on what? I'm sure a worm would value it's fellow worms more than it would value you, same goes for any other animal. What gives your opinion more merit? Afterall, we are seen as animals by evolutionists.

or we are born with evolved survival instincts and suppliment them with moral knowledge gained through experience as we grow, and empathetic behavior in a social context is part of this. everything sane humans would universally agree on as moral behavior (the golden rule etc) reduces to common sense for the well being or survival of the species, group, or invidivual in some way. in the context of evolution there's nothing mysterious about how we feel about moral behavior.

That's all good and well, but you must admit that it's based entirely on an assumption. People from different cultures may have different values than you, and may steal and lie or even kill in order to survive. Is that wrong? How so? Survival of the fittest right? Natural selection? Let's say you're a serial killer and your genetic makeup compels you and drives you to kill people. Can you fault him? After all he's simply acting on what his genes tell him to do. You may not like it, you may put him in jail for breaking your laws, but you can't call it "wrong" because there's really nothing "wrong" about it. Another extreme example, but I hope you see my point.

 

[magnifier661]

referring to a higher power for right or wrong doesn't make morality any more objective than deriving it from any other source. the only way specifics of morality would truly be objective in the sense you mean is if they were mind-independent - true independent of what god or any other mind thought.

philosophers have been arguing over whether moral statements can be true independent of minds or not (as they have with math axioms) for thousands of years, so good luck with figuring that out.

I can agree with this thinking. What if it is truly independent? You would think that civilization would just accept the outcome or laws presented before them; yet you see government take-overs, people like you that is against the existence of "God"; therefor you will not agree to follow his laws. I may have a reading comprehension issue here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

except as a sentient species we tend to value our own existence and well-being much more than worms tend to value theirs, so it's simple common sense that human lives have more value than the lives of worms. as far as we know worms don't really have much of a moral perspective : )

I think I'm going to have to agree with OdenRoyLMA2 on this point. If we are going to put the "Non-creationist view"; then the worm would have just as much merit for the worm.

or we are born with evolved survival instincts and suppliment them with moral knowledge gained through experience as we grow, and empathetic behavior in a social context is part of this. everything sane humans would universally agree on as moral behavior (the golden rule etc) reduces to common sense for the well being or survival of the species, group, or invidivual in some way. in the context of evolution there's nothing mysterious about how we feel about moral behavior.

So your opinion is, our moral "footprint" is encoded in our DNA? That would be so crazy if it's true. Almost "supernatural".

 

[Rastapopoulos]

There are university courses you can take on this if you REALLY want to know. They're called "Ethics". Although you might also be interested in Metaethics.
One point to consider when you're evaluating the relationship between God and morality. There's something called the Euthyphro Dilemma, so called because it comes up in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. To paraphrase to fit the god of the Pentateuch/Old Testament:
"Are the 10 Commandments true because God decreed them, or did God decree them because they were true?"
The first option is called Divine Command Theory and it has been rejected by great theologians and philosophers from Plato through St. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and onwards. It has several problems, the most serious being:
(a) It makes God's commandments completely arbitrary. He could have said "Thou Shalt Rape and Pillage" (well, he pretty much does elsewhere in the OT, but that's besides the point) and then THAT would've been morally right. But we don't believe that. (If you say "But God wouldn't have commanded that" then explain why not. It can't be that rape and pillaging are antecedently wrong, because that's the SECOND option, not divine command theory.)
(b) It makes God completely whimsical. If you ask "Why did God pick THOSE commandments" the answer has to be: for NO REASON AT ALL. Because if there was a reason, then it would imply that things are good or bad before God decrees them, which, again, is the other option.
(c) It means the statement "God is good" is meaningless, because there is no standard of goodness outside of God by which we can assess him/her/it. It would be like saying "God is God" Well, duh. And so what?
So, the generally accepted view is that if what God commands is good, it's because it already was. He's good at recognizing good from bad, but he doesn't MAKE it good or bad.

So, how do we tell what's good and what's bad? Well, the three major theories (none of which suggest that what's good is subjective, by the way) are Utilitarianism, most famously laid out by Jeremy Bentham and then John Stuart Mill; Kantianism (the theory of Immanuel Kant), and Virtue Theory, which dates back to the Ancient Greeks, and the most sophisticated version of which is probably Aristotle's.

Hope that helps.

 

[magnifier661]

There are university courses you can take on this if you REALLY want to know. They're called "Ethics". Although you might also be interested in Metaethics.
One point to consider when you're evaluating the relationship between God and morality. There's something called the Euthyphro Dilemma, so called because it comes up in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. To paraphrase to fit the god of the Pentateuch/Old Testament:
"Are the 10 Commandments true because God decreed them, or did God decree them because they were true?"
The first option is called Divine Command Theory and it has been rejected by great theologians and philosophers from Plato through St. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and onwards. It has several problems, the most serious being:
(a) It makes God's commandments completely arbitrary. He could have said "Thou Shalt Rape and Pillage" (well, he pretty much does elsewhere in the OT, but that's besides the point) and then THAT would've been morally right. But we don't believe that. (If you say "But God wouldn't have commanded that" then explain why not. It can't be that rape and pillaging are antecedently wrong, because that's the SECOND option, not divine command theory.)
(b) It makes God completely whimsical. If you ask "Why did God pick THOSE commandments" the answer has to be: for NO REASON AT ALL. Because if there was a reason, then it would imply that things are good or bad before God decrees them, which, again, is the other option.
(c) It means the statement "God is good" is meaningless, because there is no standard of goodness outside of God by which we can assess him/her/it. It would be like saying "God is God" Well, duh. And so what?
So, the generally accepted view is that if what God commands is good, it's because it already was. He's good at recognizing good from bad, but he doesn't MAKE it good or bad.

So, how do we tell what's good and what's bad? Well, the three major theories (none of which suggest that what's good is subjective, by the way) are Utilitarianism, most famously laid out by Jeremy Bentham and then John Stuart Mill; Kantianism (the theory of Immanuel Kant), and Virtue Theory, which dates back to the Ancient Greeks, and the most sophisticated version of which is probably Aristotle's.

Hope that helps.

You are a very Fart Smella! You did a wonderful job on the explaination. Thank you very much.

 

[porkchopexpress]

You are a very Fart Smella! You did a wonderful job on the explaination. Thank you very much.

Don't trust him. He seems smart, but it's all part of his plot to get Tintin!

 

[ABM]

"Are the 10 Commandments true because God decreed them, or did God decree them because they were true?"
The first option is called Divine Command Theory...

Personally, I'd still go with what you've described, above.

When the Scriptures say "all" things were made by/through Him, I believe that to be all commands and moral absolutes, as well:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ~John 1:1-5

 

[Rastapopoulos]

You are a very Fart Smella! You did a wonderful job on the explaination. Thank you very much.

No prob.s. Somebody has to fill in for Wikipedia, since it's on strike today...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Don't trust him. He seems smart, but it's all part of his plot to get Tintin!

Not at all! He's a delightful little urchin. Remarkably lucky, too...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Personally, I'd still go with what you've described, above.

When the Scriptures say "all" things were made by/through Him, I believe that to be all commands and moral absolutes, as well:

Suit yourself. Does that mean that killing was NOT wrong before God decreed it? Are we still waiting for his decree on cloning, and if so, does that mean that's not wrong (yet)? Or did he make up his mind on everything before the universe was created, he just takes his sweet time in letting us know? (Oh, and has he changed his mind about the eating-shellfish-being-an-abomination yet?)

 

[ABM]

Suit yourself. Does that mean that killing was NOT wrong before God decreed it? Are we still waiting for his decree on cloning, and if so, does that mean that's not wrong (yet)? Or did he make up his mind on everything before the universe was created, he just takes his sweet time in letting us know? (Oh, and has he changed his mind about the eating-shellfish-being-an-abomination yet?)

My opinion is, it comes down the point of: Do I believe in God and the Scriptures, or not? If so, which I do, then I choose the believe in Him/Them wholeheartedly.....and "accept" the fact that He's God...and I'm not. My morality is really no morality at all in light of His ways and commandments. I believe in God, Jesus, the whole shebang. Sure, lots of stuff (this side of Heaven) doesn't make sense.

However, I'm still reminded..

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. ~Isaiah 55:8

 

[TripTango]

There are university courses you can take on this if you REALLY want to know. They're called "Ethics". Although you might also be interested in Metaethics.
One point to consider when you're evaluating the relationship between God and morality. There's something called the Euthyphro Dilemma, so called because it comes up in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. To paraphrase to fit the god of the Pentateuch/Old Testament:
"Are the 10 Commandments true because God decreed them, or did God decree them because they were true?"
The first option is called Divine Command Theory and it has been rejected by great theologians and philosophers from Plato through St. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and onwards. It has several problems, the most serious being:
(a) It makes God's commandments completely arbitrary. He could have said "Thou Shalt Rape and Pillage" (well, he pretty much does elsewhere in the OT, but that's besides the point) and then THAT would've been morally right. But we don't believe that. (If you say "But God wouldn't have commanded that" then explain why not. It can't be that rape and pillaging are antecedently wrong, because that's the SECOND option, not divine command theory.)
(b) It makes God completely whimsical. If you ask "Why did God pick THOSE commandments" the answer has to be: for NO REASON AT ALL. Because if there was a reason, then it would imply that things are good or bad before God decrees them, which, again, is the other option.
(c) It means the statement "God is good" is meaningless, because there is no standard of goodness outside of God by which we can assess him/her/it. It would be like saying "God is God" Well, duh. And so what?
So, the generally accepted view is that if what God commands is good, it's because it already was. He's good at recognizing good from bad, but he doesn't MAKE it good or bad.

So, how do we tell what's good and what's bad? Well, the three major theories (none of which suggest that what's good is subjective, by the way) are Utilitarianism, most famously laid out by Jeremy Bentham and then John Stuart Mill; Kantianism (the theory of Immanuel Kant), and Virtue Theory, which dates back to the Ancient Greeks, and the most sophisticated version of which is probably Aristotle's.

Hope that helps.

Nailed it. Repped.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

However, I'm still reminded..

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. ~Isaiah 55:8

If God's ways are not our ways, why should we listen to him? I happen to think burning babies for kicks is wrong. Suppose an incredibly advanced alien came along and said "My ways are not your ways, and I say burning babies is okay" - should I change my ways? After all, this is a being that could get to our planet AND talk our language, so he/she/it must be pretty damn awesome.
Also: if God's ways are not our ways, how do we know he's not fucking with us? It might not be wrong to make shit up, according to "his ways".

 

[crowTrobot]

I disagree, God's laws have already been established for what can be deemed as right or wrong in this world. It may be a mystery for a godless society, sure. But not for people who know the Lord and the laws He's already given us.

see rasta's post. if you define right and wrong as nothing more than god's will they are effectively arbitrary - no less someone's opinion than if you or i wrote down our own moral code.

So let's say an atheist woman from PETA disagrees with you. Is she wrong?

yes, and insane.

If so, how would you determine it? From a purely naturalist viewpoint I don't see how a human life can be objectively more valuable than a worms.

i don't think morality necessarily exists at all indpendent of sentient minds, but either way it's simple logic that sentient life that DOES value it's own existence (as we do) SHOULD value it's own existence over that of non-sentient life. unlike humans a worm isn't even aware it's alive, wouldn't be aware if you tortured it etc. you might as well say the life of a human and a rock have the same value. a worm and a rock lack the capacity to care about such things.

That's all good and well, but you must admit that it's based entirely on an assumption. People from different cultures may have different values than you, and may steal and lie or even kill in order to survive. Is that wrong? How so? Survival of the fittest right? Natural selection? Let's say you're a serial killer and your genetic makeup compels you and drives you to kill people. Can you fault him? After all he's simply acting on what his genes tell him to do. You may not like it, you may put him in jail for breaking your laws, but you can't call it "wrong" because there's really nothing "wrong" about it. Another extreme example, but I hope you see my point.

again i don't think objective values exists in the sense you are referring to, but i do think a form of objective right and wrong behavior emerges from evolution and common sense just as a matter of utility. in the case of murder it IS objectively wrong in the sense that humans almost universally value their own survival, and murder is objectively detrimental for the social structures we rely on for survival. and on a personal level if it weren't viewed as wrong it would make it much more probable that you would be murdered (the golden rule is quite utilitarian).

 

[ABM]

If God's ways are not our ways, why should we listen to him?

I listen to Him because that's what he instructs through His Word. In the final analysis, Jesus has paved the way:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ~John 14:6

Therefore, what Jesus says, goes. It's what I believe. It's my testimony. It's my life.

Many others may choose to believe otherwise, but that's their decision, their life.

 

[crowTrobot]

So your opinion is, our moral "footprint" is encoded in our DNA? That would be so crazy if it's true. Almost "supernatural".

not at all. IMO there is no reason to believe what you think of as inherent moral instincts are anything more than evolved or learned emotional response to particular behavior. there's nothing supernatural about emotions.

 

[crowTrobot]

I listen to Him because that's what he instructs through His Word. In the final analysis, Jesus has paved the way:

if the bible instructed you to murder non-christians would you follow that?

 

[MadeFromDust]

see rasta's post. if you define right and wrong as nothing more than god's will they are effectively arbitrary - no less someone's opinion than if you or i wrote down our own moral code.

That is only a valid point if you give God's moral laws and values the same weight as you'd give that of a mortal man's. I don't agree with that notion, not in the slightest. I view God as the sovereign Lord over this existence and He decides what's right or wrong.

yes, and insane.

There are many people out there who value animals like dogs or cats or endangered species higher than that of a humans, but I don't see how that makes them insane from a naturalist viewpoint. Why would it?

i don't think morality necessarily exists at all indpendent of sentient minds, but either way it's simple logic that sentient life that DOES value it's own existence (as we do) SHOULD value it's own existence over that of non-sentient life. unlike humans a worm isn't even aware it's alive, wouldn't be aware if you tortured it etc. you might as well say the life of a human and a rock have the same value. a worm and a rock lack the capacity to care about such things.

So humans are the only creatures that value their own lives? I guess that's why a zebra lays down and gives up when it gets chased by a lion then? Or a million other examples like that in the animal kingdom. And you could make a case that a human life doesn't have more value than a rocks from a naturalist point of view. What redeeming quality does a human being have over a rock? I mean let's get down to the nitty gritty here, a hundred years from now every human alive today will be dead and all memory of them will be lost forever more through eternity. And when the earth is destroyed nothing we ever said or did will matter one iota.

again i don't think objective values exists in the sense you are referring to, but i do think a form of objective right and wrong behavior emerges from evolution and common sense just as a matter of utility. in the case of murder it IS objectively wrong in the sense that humans almost universally value their own survival, and murder is objectively detrimental for the social structures we rely on for survival. and on a personal level if it weren't viewed as wrong it would make it much more probable that you would be murdered (the golden rule is quite utilitarian).

Humans value their own survival, so does a cow. But does that make it wrong to kill either one? God gave us dominion over the beasts of the earth, and we slaughter cows every single day. But we know it's wrong to kill a fellow human being, and most people feel terrible when it happens. I know where right and wrong come from, I'm just curious how an atheists or evolutionist can have grounded moral values. You can also look at the death of people and animals in other ways too, it leaves more food and supplies open for the remaining population. And those that are weak and unfit to survive would die off, aka "natural selection".

 

[ABM]

if the bible instructed you to murder non-christians would you follow that?

It doesn't.

 

[crowTrobot]

That is only a valid point if you give God's moral laws and values the same weight as you'd give that of a mortal man's.

weight is irrelevant. if morality is simply a matter of god's will and nothing more, morality is arbitrary and subjective.

There are many people out there who value animals like dogs or cats or endangered species higher than that of a humans, but I don't see how that makes them insane from a naturalist viewpoint. Why would it?

why wouldn't it? someone would have to be mentally disturbed to think it was in principal their moral duty to save a dog's life over a human's.

So humans are the only creatures that value their own lives?

humans are the only creatures that are aware of the concept of values.

And you could make a case that a human life doesn't have more value than a rocks from a naturalist point of view. What redeeming quality does a human being have over a rock? I mean let's get down to the nitty gritty here, a hundred years from now every human alive today will be dead and all memory of them will be lost forever more through eternity. And when the earth is destroyed nothing we ever said or did will matter one iota.

you're arguing about meaning here, not morality.

I'm just curious how an atheists or evolutionist can have grounded moral values.

do you think it's preferrable to be alive rather than dead? do you think it's preferrable not to suffer?

 

[crowTrobot]

It doesn't.

hypothetically if it did : )

 

[ABM]

weight is irrelevant. if morality is simply a matter of god's will and nothing more, morality is arbitrary and subjective....

...or, rather, absolute.

In my line of reasoning, the inventor/creator entirely has the prerogative to lay down the rules/precepts....all of them.

 

[ABM]

hypothetically if it did : )

IMO, it's just such a preposterous question, it doesn't deserve an answer. Sorry.

 

[magnifier661]

hypothetically if it did : )

Actually no it didn't.

 

[crowTrobot]

IMO, it's just such a preposterous question, it doesn't deserve an answer. Sorry.

so god's commands to his followers in the OT are morally preposterous. we agree : )

 

[MadeFromDust]

weight is irrelevant. if morality is simply a matter of god's will and nothing more, morality is arbitrary and subjective.

Arbitrary and subjective to who and what? God's laws are absolute and what He says is wrong or is a sin is our reality. Since this is HIS creation, He makes the rules.

why wouldn't it? someone would have to be mentally disturbed to think it was in principal their moral duty to save a dog's life over a human's.

Why?

humans are the only creatures that are aware of the concept of values.

So that automatically makes them intrinsically more valuable or worth more than "other" animals. For what reason?

you're arguing about meaning here, not morality.

OK, from a naturalist view why is a human being more important or valuable than a rock in this grand existence of ours? And from who's point of view?

do you think it's preferrable to be alive rather than dead? do you think it's preferrable not to suffer?

I'd say it really makes no difference whatsoever. If death is just blackness then you're not even aware you're dead. Suffering would have no justice or rectification so it's utterly meaningless, just like everything is. Plus it can just be chalked up to perception and chemical reactions taking place, or an illusion that's no more relevant than being in a state of euphoria.

 

[magnifier661]

so god's commands to his followers in the OT are morally preposterous. we agree : )

That isn't the case; which is why I just didn't use "Religion". There is "extremests" in every moral concept. In fact, Musselini supported Darwinism and mass murdered thousands of Italians and Africans to purify their race; Adopting of the "Survival of the fittest". Stalin adopted this same concept and killed millions. And there are many "Extreme Factions of Patriots" that killed for what they feel is morally right.

 

[crowTrobot]

...or, rather, absolute.

In my line of reasoning, the inventor/creator entirely has the prerogative to lay down the rules/precepts....all of them.

but the rules are still subjective. if god told you murdering children was moral, you'd have to agree.

 

[magnifier661]

but the rules are still subjective. if god told you murdering children was moral, you'd have to agree.

Yes, but fortunately he doesn't. So it's moot