Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[The Pixie]

That is a non-answer.

You can say that about any response. If you cannot say why it is a non-answer, I am not going to add to it. People seeing this thread who are undecided can make their own decisions about who is making sense, and who has contrived to get himself tied up in knots.

The evolutionary process also gave us the ability to be extremely selfish with the ability to slaughter our fellow man for personal gain and power. Why do you find one natural behavior acceptable and the other not?

Again and again you miss the point that we are moral agents. Yes we have that capability, but mostly of us understand that that sort of behaviour is wrong.

How are ethics not relative in your universe?

Because in my universe all moral agents are equal. The same rules apply to all moral agents. If it is wrong for me to do X, then it is wrong for everyone.

So you just made that up?

Ah, I see what you did there. Sneaky!

I did not just make it up. Equality for all is an abstract concept embraced by many people.

And in your universe when someone violates this rule what happens to them?

It is interesting that you equate morality with punishment. In your universe people only behave when violators of the rules can expect punishment. There is no right and wrong, there is only behave that leads to punishment and behaviour that does not.

That sort of morality is fine for toddlers; I would expect more from a grown-up.

[seer]

Again and again you miss the point that we are moral agents. Yes we have that capability, but mostly of us understand that that sort of behaviour is wrong.

Ok, so moral questions are now reduced to what the majority decides. So if the majority decides that homosexual behavior, for instance, is immoral then it is immoral.

I did not just make it up. Equality for all is an abstract concept embraced by many people.

And not embraced by many people - so who is correct?

It is interesting that you equate morality with punishment. In your universe people only behave when violators of the rules can expect punishment. There is no right and wrong, there is only behave that leads to punishment and behaviour that does not.

That sort of morality is fine for toddlers; I would expect more from a grown-up.

So there is no good reason to follow your subjective ethical system, especially if violating it gains one power and wealth. Thanks.

[seer]

Why is harming people wrong? It just is. That is the answer to a question you have not been asking, but perhaps should consider.

And there it is - "It just is." Thanks for your culturally relative moral opinion.

[Enjolras]

And there it is - "It just is." Thanks for your culturally relative moral opinion.

It's not culturally relative. It is a moral foundation.

Your moral foundation amounts to "do what my particular interpretation of my particular god says to do, or my god will punish you after you die for eternity."

Which one makes more sense? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

[The Pixie]

Ok, so moral questions are now reduced to what the majority decides. So if the majority decides that homosexual behavior, for instance, is immoral then it is immoral.

That is not what I said.

I was pointing out that most human beings are capable of telling right from wrong. Do not take my word for it, talk to a few; ask them if they can tell right from wrong.

And not embraced by many people - so who is correct?

Sure some people disagree. Nazis felt that Jews were inferior. The white man at one time felt blacks were inferior. If you want to identify with those people, you go right ahead.

Mean while, in my morality, all people should be considered equal.

So there is no good reason to follow your subjective ethical system, especially if violating it gains one power and wealth. Thanks.

Sure, in your view there is no good reason to do the right thing unless there is the threat of punishment or the hope of reward.

You and I are clearly very didfferent in our morality. I do the right thing because it is the right thing. You do the right thing for selfish reasons.

[seer]

It's not culturally relative. It is a moral foundation.

Of course it is culturally relative. How could it be anything else? You claiming that it is a "moral foundation" does not tell us anything.

Your moral foundation amounts to "do what my particular interpretation of my particular god says to do, or my god will punish you after you die for eternity."

Which one makes more sense? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

No, my moral foundation is grounded in an immutable, perfectly good God. Which it both objective and authoritative, and transcends mere human opinion.

[Enjolras]

No, my moral foundation is grounded in an immutable, perfectly good God. Which it both objective and authoritative, and transcends mere human opinion.

You share that in common with the Crusaders, the leaders of the Inquisition, the witch burners, Osama bin Laden and ISIS.

[seer]

That is not what I said.

I was pointing out that most human beings are capable of telling right from wrong. Do not take my word for it, talk to a few; ask them if they can tell right from wrong.

No, that is exactly what you are saying. If there is no God, then we decide what it right or wrong. Period. And if the majority says that A is good and B is bad then that is all there is. Morality by majority.

Sure some people disagree. Nazis felt that Jews were inferior. The white man at one time felt blacks were inferior. If you want to identify with those people, you go right ahead.

Mean while, in my morality, all people should be considered equal.

Again, a non answer. Even if I agree with you, that does not get us anywhere - we are still right back to morality by majority. Most people believe that A is bad - therefore A must be bad. It is a non sequitur.

Sure, in your view there is no good reason to do the right thing unless there is the threat of punishment or the hope of reward.

You and I are clearly very didfferent in our morality. I do the right thing because it is the right thing. You do the right thing for selfish reasons.

But there is no "right thing." There is only opinion. Let me again bring up this point - we live in a purposeless, meaningless, amoral universe. We are, in essence, biological accidents living on an inconsequential planet - yet somehow our moral choices have real significance. Nonsense...

[seer]

You share that in common with the Crusaders, the leaders of the Inquisition, the witch burners, Osama bin Laden and ISIS.

Really, that is your come back? So Enjolras, I answered the question you wanted me to - so let me ask again - do human beings have free will?

[Enjolras]

Really, that is your come back? So Enjolras, I answered the question you wanted me to - so let me ask again - do human beings have free will?

It is a fact. Feel free to refute it.

Yes, I believe humans have free will.

[Kelp(p)]

So who is morally culpable?

All of us. Everybody who has ever thumbed their nose at God. Everybody who has refused to help their brother or sister in need. Every fat cat politician who pours more money into useless spending to appease their lobbyists than into schools and hospitals. Every idiot who votes them into office. Every corporate executive, every global warming denier. You, me, Adolf Eichmann, and Neville Chamberlain. We get the world moral world that our actions create. We are all sinners of whom I am chief.

Adam and Eve, unable to tell right from wrong, and so mislead into eating a fruit?

It's not the fruit, but the disobedience. Adam was told straight up not to eat and that he would die if he did so. He listened to the lies of the serpent he'd never seen over God whom he had no reason to distrust. Then instead of owning up like he had balls, he tried to pin the blame on his wife.

Not that I take the story literally at all, but the lesson it teaches is clear. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

And to anticipate your next argument regarding natural evil: to summarize my arguments from the current thread on the topic-

1. The natural world would be vastly different without bacteria that can also cause harm to humans, predation and anti-predatory defenses, volcanism, tectonic activity and all the other things that cause human suffering. The onus is on the skeptic to show that a natural world that could not possibly harm humanity could even evolve it in the first place, much less be half as fascinating a world to live in. Omnipotence does not mean that God can make a square circle.

2. The miracles of Christ show us a glimpse of a world in which morally perfect humans would have had command over nature and death. So, yes, it really is our fault as a species that babies die of cancer.

Someone would appear to have chosen to engineer a system where his own temporary death on a cross had some great significance. That some, being all-powerful, could have chosen to do it with the temporary death on a cross.

The Incarnation is the crowning achievement of God's activity on earth. It is the "marriage" of Creator and creation on the most intimate level possible. Christ would have become man even in a world where no human ever sinned.

To quote the Easter Troparion of the Orthodox Chruch, "Christ is risen from the dead/Trampling down death by death/and on those in the tombs bestowing life"
Since we could not do so ourselves, Christ came to earth in order to draw all of what we are into Himself. He was born, He grew and studied, He suffered the ordinary aches and pains and temptations that we all do, He had friends and family, He ate and slept and relieved His bowls, He had a job, He went to synagogue, He experienced the hatred and unjust treatment of others, and He died a brutal death- experiencing the wrath of humanity at some of its most depraved in history. And finally, He rose from the dead, transcending the most common of all human experiences.

So, yes, Christ was a sacrifice, but only metaphorically. The Jewish Temple cultus was only ever a type and shadow of the death that God the Son would die- not to meet some legal blood sacrifice ordinance, but to conquer death in Himself. To quote St. Gregory the Theologian, "He was a ransom for us to death itself."

[seer]

It is a fact. Feel free to refute it.

Sure, and I could turn around and say that your relative ethics have a lot in common with the murderous Communists of the last century.

Yes, I believe humans have free will.

Really, so you pretty much disagree with the prevailing scientific view.

[Enjolras]

Sure, and I could turn around and say that your relative ethics have a lot in common with the murderous Communists of the last century.

Is that right? Did they hold the view that harming other humans is unethical?

[David Hayward]

Yes, I believe humans have free will.

Actually, Seer, most atheists are Compatibilists, and have no problem with accepting both determinism and free will. Here's virulent Incompatibilist Jerry Coyne saying as much on his blog:

I think you might be confusing Enjolras' position with what seems to be the minority atheist position of Incompatibilism.

[NormATive]

JPH seems to back me up http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/mar09scr.html

Oh. You're one of them.

NORM