Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[Charles]

I have Charles on ignore until he repents, but I think his point is that anyone who has firm beliefs is a danger.

Another simplification. I believe anyone who has an extremist approach is a danger. You would know that if you did not ignore ideas that challenge your worldview.

[carpedm9587]

I have Charles on ignore until he repents, but I think his point is that anyone who has firm beliefs is a danger.

Not that it's my business, but until he repents what?

[carpedm9587]

Yes, I am thinking about all sorts of religious extremists. It could be ISIS or it could be religious extremists of any sort who refuse to discuss moral values because they believe there is nothing to dicuss at all and we just have to do what God says. And they have got no reflection on the fairness of it.

So not specific people, just a general category?

BTW, I do not put ISIS in the category of "religious extremists." Everything I have read about them makes them more akin to a large street gang than a religious group. They claim the banner of Islam, but follow few of its tenets. Instead, they use the cover of religion to justify their gang-like activities. They are more akin to the KKK and MS-13 than to religious fundamentalists.

[carpedm9587]

Another simplification. I believe anyone who has an extremist approach is a danger. You would know that if you did not ignore ideas that challenge your worldview.

I have exchange many posts with Seer. I do not agree with his conclusions and, like many others here, he can sometimes be a bit ridiculing in his responses, but I have not experienced him igoring me because I disagree with him or hold different views. Perhaps the reason you are being ignored is not about the specific views you hold, but rather the way you present/defend them?

[seer]

Not that it's my business, but until he repents what?

Repent for not giving me a straight answer, while demanding answers from me. He kept accusing me of circular reasoning when defining "good." Good according Christians is that which conforms to God's commands and nature - so he asked why is God good - well I said because He defines good. Therefore the circle. So I asked Charles to define good in a non-circular fashion. I asked a number of times and he did not answer. I'm willing to bet he can't.

[Tassman]

Repent for not giving me a straight answer, while demanding answers from me. He kept accusing me of circular reasoning when defining "good." Good according Christians is that which conforms to God's commands and nature - so he asked why is God good - well I said because He defines good. Therefore the circle.

The problem with this definition of “good” is that nobody can agree upon what constitutes "God’s commands and nature". It is a question of subjective interpretation and demonstrably, the interpretation of God's "commands and nature" has changed considerably over the millennia.

So I asked Charles to define good in a non-circular fashion. I asked a number of times and he did not answer. I'm willing to bet he can't.

Society defines what is acceptable and good according to the social mores of specific communities.

[seer]

The problem with this definition of “good” is that nobody can agree upon what constitutes "God’s commands and nature". It is a question of subjective interpretation and demonstrably, the interpretation of God's "commands and nature" has changed considerably over the millennia.

That doesn't change anything I said about my discussion with Charles.

Society defines what is acceptable and good according to the social mores of specific communities.

Right and that is a circular argument... What is something good? Because a society deems it as good, but why does a society deem it as good because it deems certain behaviors as beneficial for certain goals. But why are those goals good? Because we say so...

[carpedm9587]

Repent for not giving me a straight answer, while demanding answers from me. He kept accusing me of circular reasoning when defining "good." Good according Christians is that which conforms to God's commands and nature - so he asked why is God good - well I said because He defines good. Therefore the circle. So I asked Charles to define good in a non-circular fashion. I asked a number of times and he did not answer. I'm willing to bet he can't.

Interesting. As an adjective I find:

1. to be desired or approved of ("we live at peace with each other, which is good"), synonyms: with healthy, fine, sound, tip-top, hale and hearty, fit, robust, sturdy, strong, vigorous
2. having the qualities required for a particular role ("the schools here are good"), synonyms: fine, superior, quality

As a noun:

1. that which is morally right; righteousness. ("a mysterious balance of good and evil"), synonyms: virtue, righteousness, goodness, morality, integrity, rectitude
2. benefit or advantage to someone or something ("he convinces his father to use his genius for the good of mankind"), synonyms: benefit, advantage, profit, gain, interest, welfare, well-being

The adverbial definition confuses "good" and "well," so I omit it.

I'm surprised he had a hard time finding a definition of the word. I'm also a bit surprised to hear "repent" used in this context.

As for circular, many definitions are inherently circular. Because we use words to define other words, we often end up coming back to the beginning.

[carpedm9587]

Right and that is a circular argument... What is something good? Because a society deems it as good, but why does a society deem it as good because it deems certain behaviors as beneficial for certain goals. But why are those goals good? Because we say so...

This is a bit contrived. Why is something seen as good? Because it is deemed desirable by society or an individual. Why is it deemed desirable? Because it furthers either the happiness or existence of the society or individual in question. Why is happiness/existence desirable? We are back to the start of our previous discussion - to exist and to be happy (for sentient beings) are intrinsicly desirable. That each thing seeks its own existence and each sentient being seeks to be happy is self-evidently true.

But I think we have already ridden that car around the track several times.

[seer]

This is a bit contrived. Why is something seen as good? Because it is deemed desirable by society or an individual. Why is it deemed desirable? Because it furthers either the happiness or existence of the society or individual in question. Why is happiness/existence desirable? We are back to the start of our previous discussion - to exist and to be happy (for sentient beings) are intrinsicly desirable. That each thing seeks its own existence and each sentient being seeks to be happy is self-evidently true.

Yes, because by nature we have preferences (generally) for peace and order and happiness. Just as God, by nature, would have certain preferences. If one is circular so is the other. If one isn't, then neither is the other. This was my beef with Charles.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, because by nature we have preferences (generally) for peace and order and happiness. Just as God, by nature, would have certain preferences. If one is circular so is the other. If one isn't, then neither is the other. This was my beef with Charles.

It's not clear to me either is circular. Each simply starts at what the believers find to be a self-evident truth, though I may be guilty of putting words in your mouth. I am assuming your personal experiences have led you to believe god's existence is self evident. True?

[seer]

It's not clear to me either is circular. Each simply starts at what the believers find to be a self-evident truth, though I may be guilty of putting words in your mouth. I am assuming your personal experiences have led you to believe god's existence is self evident. True?

Yes, but my problem with Charles was his double standard. Accusing me of what would equally apply (or not apply, depending on the case) to his views.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, but my problem with Charles was his double standard. Accusing me of what would equally apply (or not apply, depending on the case) to his views.

Understood.

[Charles]

Understood.

You may have understood what seer has said, but that does not mean you have understood the case properly since he has - once again - given you a very, very simplified version of the discussion. Time and time again he has misrepresented my view and I get the feeling he is doing so on purpose. Anyway I gave a much longer and much more detailed account of my view and answered quite many questions in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

seer's idea that the one who has answered most questions and given a more detailed account should repent would be rather funny if it was not for the fact that he seems to seriously think it is a fair approach.

[carpedm9587]

You may have understood what seer has said, but that does not mean you have understood the case properly since he has - once again - given you a very, very simplified version of the discussion. Time and time again he has misrepresented my view and I get the feeling he is doing so on purpose. Anyway I gave a much longer and much more detailed account of my view and answered quite many questions in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

seer's idea that the one who has answered most questions and given a more detailed account should repent would be rather funny if it was not for the fact that he seems to seriously think it is a fair approach.

I think you may have misunderstood my "understood." It did not mean that I agreed with Seer or was taking his side. It merely indicates I understand his perspective. I have no basis for having any opinion on what you have said or done because I was not privy to that discussion and I only have Seer's perspective on it. If I get a moment, I'll wander the thread you linked, rather than having you post it all again.