A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

Dear seer

I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.

I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.

You wrote:
Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.

You wrote:

First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.

[Charles]

Tass, are you stalking me? Perv!

Why don't you just answer? He made some fair points, and if you can prove him wrong, I'd be very interested.

[Charles]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450770

[seer]

Dear seer

I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.

Be well Charles, I really mean that...

I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.

You wrote:

Charles, like I said earlier these questions must stop somewhere, I will get into this more below.

You wrote:

God is self-definied Charles, we know that God is good because he declares it so. And like I said earlier your moral sense could not rise above his any more that a stream could rise about its source. And men don't need a god to follow to justify killing - the atheist Communists did fine without one. If such a God is real how do you object to His acts? Based on what? Knowledge? But our knowledge would be severely limited compared to an omniscient being. Our moral sense which if often culturally induced and relative? Logic? When logic is only as good as the facts it has to work with? Being limited we could never know all the long term consequences of our good choice or bad.

You wrote:

My point here is if there is a God, akin to the God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam there would be a right way for man to be - morally. We were designed for a purpose. That option is lost with materialism, or your with position. What we are, how we act, morally or otherwise is at botton the result of the haphazard forces of nature.

You wrote:

Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.

This is the problem Charles, logic or reasons, no matter how consistent, can not get you where you need to go. I'm no scholar but I can not find any good reason to rationally accept one system over another, as a matter of fact I have found Moral Skepticism to be about the most logical and consistent meta-ethical theory out there. I know you will not admit it Charles but you hold to Deontology because it appeals to you. Yes, there are logical justifications - but other, contrary theories, claim equal justifications - perhaps even better ones.

You wrote:

First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.

No Charles, God is not arbitrary. His moral character in immutable, and He can not act out of character - God can not lie for instance, His very nature is truthful. And again Charles, you have no real ground from which to launch an attack against the acts or commands of God. Not based on your culturally indoctrinated moral sense, not based on knowledge, and certainly not based on logic - as I have demonstrated.

[seer]

This is the problem Charles, I could make an exception to just about all of his maxims, so they are not maxims in fact. They are suggestions.

The point needs to be stressed, and this point bother Kant. In this world wicked men often prosper and die a good old age. There is no enforcement agency, if you can get away with it (whatever it is) you win. In other words for any moral theory to be rational it must be just. But the world is full of injustice with the wicked often winning. Hence Kant's need for God.

Charles, we are all created in the image of God, and God's law is written on our hearts. This is universal, therefore we should expect to find moral truths throughout different cultures and times. Of course sin and selfishness often cloud our moral senses.

[Charles]

[seer]

Charles, of course we have some concept of goodness since we are created in His image, and you don't have to be personally told by God to have this intuitive moral sense.

To claim that God is good is meaningless, unless you expect the reader to have an idea about goodness. It seems however, that you do not think I can possibly have such an idea. When I say that eternal punishment of babies in Hell (which quite many Christians believe in) is unfair, I am told that I basically have no idea. So then we are back at the God can be anything, which you put some limits to, because your God himself points to them in your subjective understanding of him.

But what do you have Charles? How do you define goodness, and why should any one accept your definition?

You wrote: But our knowledge would be severely limited compared to an omniscient being. Our moral sense which if often culturally induced and relative? Logic? When logic is only as good as the facts it has to work with? Being limited we could never know all the long term consequences of our good choice or bad.

If this is how little we know, I wonder how you can be so certain that you are right and I am wrong. You point to the limits of logic, but then go straight ahead to you use it to support the idea that we should believe in God. This hardly strengthens your case.

Charles, you are the one who pointed to "logic" as the defining reason for acceptance or non-acceptance. But my point again is, on what basis could you possibly launch an attack against the moral character or commands of God.

I wonder what your take on the following words from the Romans (Romans 2:14-15) would be:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

It appears that this appeals to a law written in every ones heart by God. Some kind of human nature? It appears that men can somehow act as a law unto themselves, that they reflect, that they have a conscience and are thus actually able to concern themselves with ethical thinking, even if they do not know God.

Basically I get the impression that your line of claiming is not strictly in line with the Bible, since here even Gentiles can actually reflect and act as a law unto themselves. You seem to think that if you have no God to point to, there is really nothing to point to at all. That is not what I read in the Bible.

Right, I agree 100%, with that caveat that this moral sense is God given.

Charles it is not merely what I think, it is where we are in fact. You have not offered real justifications for your view that are anymore compelling or right than the justifications used for theories that are completely contrary to yours. I understand that in the end Deontology appeals to you, it does to me too, but let's not pretend that you are on a higher rational ground - you are not. And Charles, it is not that He would not lie - but He can not lie - immutability.

We discussed this earlier - and though this discussion has become a lot more meaningful - what I just quoted seems to support my assumption that you have a line of thinking in which the conclusion is given beforehand and cannot possibly be changed.

Or, if we are to continue, I think it would be more useful if you could make us any the wiser as to why we should believe not only in some god, but in your God in particular. Because you refuse to give us an ethical justification, but go for the claims about his nature and expect us to believe them. Then if they cannot be justified as ethical claims there must be some other way.

I can't argue you into believing in God Charles, but I will say this. With God we live in and have a moral and just universe (even if we can't always quantify that), and not an amoral, unjust universe. And because were are created in His image our best and most clear morals ideals are tied to something universal, transcendent and permanent - certain. Now these considerations may not be important to you, but they mean the world to me.

[Charles]

I can't argue you into believing in God Charles, but I will say this. With God we live in and have a moral and just universe (even if we can't always quantify that), and not an amoral, unjust universe. And because were are created in His image our best and most clear morals ideals are tied to something universal, transcendent and permanent - certain. Now these considerations may not be important to you, but they mean the world to me.

[seer]

I think this undermines our very different approach. You are basically going for something, that you cannot argue anyone into believing. While some may find that my line of reasoning wrong, you do not provide one. You point to a something, in which we have to believe.

Charles it is not merely that one may find your reasoning wrong, but that there is no rational way to know if it is correct. So in essence we would just "have to believe." This is why moral skepticism is such a powerful, and logical, meta-ethical theory. I really don't think you understand how shaky your moral foundation is. Or if it is a foundation at all.

And Charles what have you done but make claims? Is the plank in your own eye completely eluding you? And I'm not just making stuff up - this has been basic theistic theology for centuries. And yes, men have been making up ideas of right and wrong or ethics for most of our history - like Kant, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, et al...

Of course it is my belief that God and His moral law exist. And that we live in a just and moral universe. It is your belief that we don't.

[Charles]

It is important to note that the fact that different and even contradiction theories on moral reality exist, of course, does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. The fact that seer sees no way to determine which one is true does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. Even if I cannot convince anyone but myself to go for one instead of the others, it still does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true.

Contradicting views are consistent with the existence of moral realityA conclusion without any premisesAnyone could point to whatever as the indisputable fact about moral reality (it would make it any more true though)
It would be quite easy to just claim that Kant or any with an opposing view were completely right and when anyone opposed just claim that their view was actually not justified, because it was inconsistent with the truth and that no knowledge or logic could justify the view that they held against the great truth. I could even tell seer that there exists no God who has been given the task of telling which of the religious views we should follow. Now most religions will claim their God tells them so. But most ethical theories also argue that they are true, and it does not convice seer at all.

[seer]

It is important to note that the fact that different and even contradiction theories on moral reality exist, of course, does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. The fact that seer sees no way to determine which one is true does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. Even if I cannot convince anyone but myself to go for one instead of the others, it still does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true.

Of course you would apply that to different ideas of God

Contradicting views are consistent with the existence of moral reality
There seems to be only one philosophical way of ruling out the possibility that one of them could be true. That is to prove, not just make likely, but actually prove, that moral reality could not exist in any way, shape or form. Despite many attempts and many interesting theories in which one points to the influence of different cultural, religious and historical factors in our evaluation of the basic ethical questions, I am still to see a convincing proof that moral reality could not exist at all. In all fairness I will have to admit that skepticism can appeal, while there is still extremely many miles to go in order to prove that moral reality could not possibly exist.

Of course as a Christian I do believe that morality exist. And I think in the larger picture I would say that we are moral beings, I mean even the moral relativist believes in ethics - only that they relative to the culture. Skepticism is another story.

Well Charles, yes it is fair. You have not offered a reason why the reasons for your view is correct. It is an assertion, a belief. And Charles I gave you reasons why I believe that God is the best or ultimate foundation for ethics. And that is what we are discussing. And let me go back to Kant - morality must be rational, but if there isn't justice (the wicked prosper) then morality is not rational. Therefore God...


Yes, and I'm sure that the Maoist and Stalinist reflected on the greater good as they slaughter millions of dissidents. In other words Charles one does not have to believe in God to be extreme or murder their fellow man.

Like I said Charles, in the end moral questions must stop somewhere. In other words someone or something must define right or wrong. Who is that? You, Kant, Aristotle, Epicurus? Who. No matter your logical reasoning this question must be paramount.

Anyone could point to whatever as the indisputable fact about moral reality (it would make it any more true though)
It would be quite easy to just claim that Kant or any with an opposing view were completely right and when anyone opposed just claim that their view was actually not justified, because it was inconsistent with the truth and that no knowledge or logic could justify the view that they held against the great truth. I could even tell seer that there exists no God who has been given the task of telling which of the religious views we should follow. Now most religions will claim their God tells them so. But most ethical theories also argue that they are true, and it does not convice seer at all.

Charles, tell me one moral truth and why it is a moral truth and I will show you why it does not obtain.

[Charles]

Charles, tell me one moral truth and why it is a moral truth and I will show you why it does not obtain.

[Charles]

I just read this blog: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013...y-is-nonsense/

[seer]

I just read this blog: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013...y-is-nonsense/

Charles, you have not seen me argue for "objective morality" but universal moral truths, God's moral sense is subjective to Him, but universal and authoritative. And again, if you have a different ethical opinion than God's on what basis would/could your opinion be more correct than His? Knowledge? But He is all knowing. Logic? He would be the very source of a rational universe. Your personal moral character? His moral nature is immutable, yours is mutable, culturally informed and flicked (like all humans). So Charles from where do you launch your attack? I have asked this a number of times now.

[Tassman]

Tass, are you stalking me? Perv!