A thought about our significance

[seer]

Yes, well you keep saying if god's knowledge is contingent, but gods knowledge can't both be omniscient and contingent. You need to either make up your mind, or explain yourself.

How do you know that? How do you know what is possible for a Being that is outside of time? Or how it would affect our relations or acts.

[carpedm9587]

Look at it this way, if you don't believe that gassing Jewish children is universally and objectively wrong then yes, I question your moral sanity.

So therein lies your error: I believe gassing Jewish children is universally wrong - it is wrong for anyone who does it. I do not believe it is "objectively" wrong - because nothing is objectively wrong. It is wrong in so far as it threatens/compromises a dearly held value (e.g., life)

I do not believe that everyone in every moral framework comes to that same conclusion. Hitler obviously didn't. Did Hitler not value life? Did Hitler value life but use faulty reasoning to arrive at his moral framework? Did Hitler actually see gassing Jewish children as morally wrong and simply ignore the dictates of his own moral code? I have no clue and will probably never know.

You make a second error, Seer - unilaterally assuming that anyone who does not think as you do is not "morally sane."

And the third error - you are making an argument from outrage - not reason. Gassing Jewish children is outrageous...so you return to it over and over again because subjective morality means some people may come to the conclusion it is wrong, and you want to be able to stamp that out 100%. You forget that I can subjectively say, "it's wrong."

[carpedm9587]

Ooops...

I accidentally commented on my own post...

[seer]

I have noted, multiple times, that individual moral frameworks are strongly influenced by many factors, including religious/social influences. You declare those "god given," and that aligns with your belief in a god. From the perspective of a subjective moralist with no belief in a god - it's just another group influencing the moral framework with widely held moral norms...which have changed over time.

But you can not escape the fact that your moral sense was informed in a largely Christian culture.

Actually - I have pointed out multiple times how the presence or absence of a god does not make morality any less subjective. Moral codes are derived by sentient minds based on what they value. If your god exists, your god has a moral code subjective to it. I have a moral code subjective to me. You have one subjective to you. One of the things you value is your god - and you apparently value this being beyond anything else, so there is little surprise that your moral code is strongly influenced by the moral code you think arises from this god. It is still YOUR choice to align your moral code to this god's code. It is a subjective choice. It cannot be otherwise. No one chose your moral framework but you.

From my perspective, of course, you are aligning your moral code to the documented subjective code of a particular religious community.

Which brings us back to the absurd. Where a man born in the US would be considered "good" if he followed general Christian principles. But if the same man was born in Nazi Germany he would have been considered "morally upright" as he shuffled Jews into the gas chambers. To me this is absurd.

[JimL]

How do you know that? How do you know what is possible for a Being that is outside of time? Or how it would affect our relations or acts.

Ever hear of the law of non-contradiction? Now, you can assert that one can both know the future and that their knowledge is also contingent on the future, but that's simply asserting a contradiction which is simply an unreasonable argument to make and not one to take seriously.

[JimL]

Ooops...

I accidentally commented on my own post...

I hope you were in agreement with it.

[seer]

So therein lies your error: I believe gassing Jewish children is universally wrong - it is wrong for anyone who does it. I do not believe it is "objectively" wrong - because nothing is objectively wrong. It is wrong in so far as it threatens/compromises a dearly held value (e.g., life)

But that is merely your opinion, which is not a universal truth. There is nothing universal about it. Again, if another man does not believe that it is universally wrong there is no objective way to decide between the two opinions.

I do not believe that everyone in every moral framework comes to that same conclusion. Hitler obviously didn't. Did Hitler not value life? Did Hitler value life but use faulty reasoning to arrive at his moral framework? Did Hitler actually see gassing Jewish children as morally wrong and simply ignore the dictates of his own moral code? I have no clue and will probably never know.

No Hitler believed he was doing a moral good by removing Jewish parasites from the world. Along with stealing all their wealth and property for his war effort. This is no secret.

And the third error - you are making an argument from outrage - not reason. Gassing Jewish children is outrageous...so you return to it over and over again because subjective morality means some people may come to the conclusion it is wrong, and you want to be able to stamp that out 100%. You forget that I can subjectively say, "it's wrong."

But Carp, it is not really outrageous to all men. Have you read some of the literature coming out of the Muslim world? What makes you right and them wrong? Absolutely nothing...

[JimL]

But that is merely your opinion, which is not a universal truth. There is nothing universal about it. Again, if another man does not believe that it is universally wrong there is no objective way to decide between the two opinions.



No Hitler believed he was doing a moral good by removing Jewish parasites from the world. Along with stealing all their wealth and property for his war effort. This is no secret.



But Carp, it is not really outrageous to all men. Have you read some of the literature coming out of the Muslim world? What makes you right and them wrong? Absolutely nothing...

Consequences.

[Sparko]

Yes, it might be that you are intellectually disposed to believe anything, whether you can make sense of it or not.

So you must not believe in a whole lot of stuff then.

[Sparko]

Perhaps, but unless and until you can point out the logical fallacy, the error in my reasoning, then your point is, well, pointless.

Again, knowing what someone will do doesn't equate to making them do it. It's that simple, Jim. What God knows you will do is because he knows what you will freely choose to do. The fact that you will choose to dismiss this explanation from me again, and that I know you will do so, doesn't mean I am making you do it. You will dismiss this explanation of your own free will, even though I know that you will.

[carpedm9587]

But you can not escape the fact that your moral sense was informed in a largely Christian culture.

Of course not. Some of those moral codes are still part of my framework, and some I have rejected in the light of further experience outside that community. Some of the moral codes I hold are influenced by other sectors of my community, some by family. Christianity played (and plays) a significant role. No question about it.

Which brings us back to the absurd. Where a man born in the US would be considered "good" if he followed general Christian principles. But if the same man was born in Nazi Germany he would have been considered "morally upright" as he shuffled Jews into the gas chambers. To me this is absurd.

I'm not sure why you think this is "absurd." If German Nazis did not value life; valued life and had flawed moral reasoning; or valued life, had rational moral reasoning, and failed to live up to their own moral code - the result would be the same. Do you think your "moral absolute" would have changed the dynamic? After all - history shows us that prior to the beginning of World War II, Germany was about 66% Protestant and 33% Catholic. The other 1% was mostly Judaism, with a smattering of other religions. Yet this "dominant influence" didn't do much to stop the carnage.

Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming Christians for German attrocities. I am pointing out that "dominant influence" is no guarantee of anything. Why? Because our moral frameworks are subjectively formed as a result of multiple forces - just as yours were.

[JimL]

Again, knowing what someone will do doesn't equate to making them do it.

Nor have I ever made that argument, even though you all somehow seem to think that to be my argument.

It's that simple, Jim. What God knows you will do is because he knows what you will freely choose to do.

That is not even a sensible statement, Sparko. That's equivalent to saying that "what god knows is because of what god knows."

The fact that you will choose to dismiss this explanation from me again, and that I know you will do so, doesn't mean I am making you do it. You will dismiss this explanation of your own free will, even though I know that you will.

Wrong, you have a good idea that I will dismiss your illogical explanation because I have already dismissed it a thousand times before. If I told you what I was having for dinner tonight, then you'd have a pretty good idea what I was having for dinner tonight as well. According to your argument, god, being eternal and omniscient, knows our future choices before we even exist.

[seer]

I'm not sure why you think this is "absurd." If German Nazis did not value life; valued life and had flawed moral reasoning; or valued life, had rational moral reasoning, and failed to live up to their own moral code - the result would be the same. Do you think your "moral absolute" would have changed the dynamic? After all - history shows us that prior to the beginning of World War II, Germany was about 66% Protestant and 33% Catholic. The other 1% was mostly Judaism, with a smattering of other religions. Yet this "dominant influence" didn't do much to stop the carnage.

Right, it didn't make much of a difference because they stopped following general Christian principles, that is obvious. But the point remains, having completely opposite moral behaviors being both right or good depending on cultural circumstances is absurd to me. I don't find it morally rational.

[Sparko]

Nor have I ever made that argument, even though you all somehow seem to think that to be my argument.



That is not even a sensible statement, Sparko. That's equivalent to saying that "what god knows is because of what god knows."



Wrong, you have a good idea that I will dismiss your illogical explanation because I have already dismissed it a thousand times before. If I told you what I was having for dinner tonight, then you'd have a pretty good idea what I was having for dinner tonight as well. According to your argument, god, being eternal and omniscient, knows our future choices before we even exist.

See I was right. I knew what you were going to do. I guess I made you do it.

Jim, the problem you have is in not understanding space-time conceptually. To you the future doesn't exist. That is the hangup we have when discussing this. Your lack of understanding of the concepts involved. I suppose you don't believe in quantum mechanics because you don't understand that either.

[carpedm9587]

But that is merely your opinion, which is not a universal truth. There is nothing universal about it. Again, if another man does not believe that it is universally wrong there is no objective way to decide between the two opinions.

So you're back to "subjective moral frameworks are not objective." To which I can only say - you're right! And your moral framework is your opinion, because in your opinion one ought to align their moral framework to that believed to be condoned/endorsed/originated by your god. And you have no more ability to convince me that your opinion is right that I have to convince you.

No Hitler believed he was doing a moral good by removing Jewish parasites from the world. Along with stealing all their wealth and property for his war effort. This is no secret.

I know what Hitler wrote and what Hitler said - which aligns what you have outlined. I do not know what Hitler actually thought or believed. I have too many experiences with myself to think that what is said is always what is thought. You seem to be making an attempt to "read the heart." I think the Christian principle is that only god can do that. You will know them by their actions, however, is true - and there is no doubt that Hitler engaged in some reprehensible actions - as measured by most of our moral frameworks.

But Carp, it is not really outrageous to all men. Have you read some of the literature coming out of the Muslim world? What makes you right and them wrong? Absolutely nothing...

Nothing makes them "absolutely right" and me "absolutely wrong" or vice versa. But all you have done is, again, complain that subjective morality is not objective. And most of the Muslim moral framework is bvery closely aligned to the Christian framework. The extremists have twisted this moral code to their own ends - and again, I have no idea if it is because they do not value what I value, reason badly, or are ignoring their own moral code. As with the qualia discussion, I cannot see into their minds to know which it is. I do know, by reason, that it is one of those things.

And there are many other examples. More and more people do not endorse the moral position espoused about homosexuality by many here. You like to take the most egregious, outrageous examples (hence an argument from outrage), but the fact is moral frameworks differ person-to-person, culture-to-culture, religion-to-religion, etc. They do so because they are subjectively derived - even yours.