Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

Seer, how do you define the word moral?

Probably use the standard dictionary definition:Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

[robertb]

Probably use the standard dictionary definition:Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

Okay, good. Would you agree that a behavior is right or wrong based on the amount of harm caused by the behavior, or do you base right and wrong on some other metric?

Just trying to get a good grasp on your meaning so I can try to answer the question in your OP.

[seer]

Okay, good. Would you agree that a behavior is right or wrong based on the amount of harm caused by the behavior, or do you base right and wrong on some other metric?

Correct, I do use another metric, as a Christian I follow the general moral principles found in the New Testament. What one considers harmful can be rather subjective. For instance, I do not support Gay marriage, I believe that is a deeply immoral institution - but homosexuals would see my position as harmful.

[robertb]

Correct, I do use another metric, as a Christian I follow the general moral principles found in the New Testament. What one considers harmful can be rather subjective. For instance, I do not support Gay marriage, I believe that is a deeply immoral institution - but homosexuals would see my position as harmful.

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

[seer]

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.

[The Pixie]

Ground means simple where do moral questions stop as I explained in the OP.

Do they stop? Is the moral question of same-sex marriages now decided?

It might be that you have your opinion on it, but other, even other Christians, have a different opinion. So in what sense has that mioral question stopped?

Indeed, perhaps we should conclude that as that and other questions continued that there is no stop.

And hence, there is nop God.

You vote for relativism...

News to me.

I wish I had your ability to read minds. You should do a show. You can predict what number a volunteer is thinking of - and then point out he was wrong when he tells you something else.

... and I'm not dealing with specific moral questions...

Of course not. If you did that, everyone would realise this was just a load of nonsense. The last thing you want to do is allow your argument to get grounded by reality!

... but the fact that most men really do believe that some things are always wrong, despite cultural differences. That there is such a category.

Right. And if you can keep the discussion focused on the easy moral questions, it will kind of look like you have a point.

Then someone will raise slavery. Will all agree that is always morally wrong, okay? Oh, except you supposed moral grounding condones slavery.

[Jichard]

Yes I know that is is your opinion. Can you finally offer a behavior that is objectively wrong and why?

Congratulations on, once again, evading questions that expose the folly of your position.

Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?

Feel free to honestly address the question, this time.

[seer]

Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?

Of course not... Not objectively.

[The Pixie]

Of course not... Not objectively.

Given the Bible condones slavery, is it your view that slavery is not objectively morally wrong?

[Jichard]

Are there actions that are morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists?

Of course not... Not objectively.

So, just to recap, you do not think any of the following is morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists:

• raping for fun
• the practices of South Africa's apartheid government
• slavery

and so on.

Your position is ridiculous, seer.


First, your position is version of moral subjectivism since (as you've been told countless times, even though you deceptively evade the point every time) it's a form of moral subjectivism to claim that actions are morally right or morally wrong because God says so. So please stop acting as if you have anything of relevance to say about whether actions are objectively morally right or morally wrong. You don't think there are any such objective right or objectively wrong acts.

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.

Second, you've been told before that there are plenty of positions on which there are objectively right and objectively wrong actions, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists. You never address these positions, but instead always pretend they don't exist. That is dishonest of you.
Once again:

"So, what is moral realism about? It's about what sort of thing makes moral beliefs, moral statements, etc. true or false or false. That's what meant by "moral facts"; not "moral truths", but the truth-makers for moral claims. To take a non-moral example: scientific realists can point to things like "cats", as being the sort of things that make scientific claims like "cats exist" true. You'd have to be deeply confused to treat that as meaning the same thing as "the truth that cats exist must exist apart from minds". Similarly, the moral realist can point to things like character traits (as per virtue ethics), effects of welfare (as per welfare utilitarianism), etc. as being the sort of things that make moral claims true or false. You've already been given examples of such positions:

(http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil12...ctivism.html):

[Jichard]

Given the Bible condones slavery, is it your view that slavery is not objectively morally wrong?

He doesn't think that anything is objectively wrong, including slavery.

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.

He's basically a subjectivist who'd think that slavery, genocide, rape, murder, etc. would be morally right, if God commanded them.

I just hope that he doesn't one day come to think that God commands that people be killed for His glory

[JimL]

Jim, then you would choose option two and relativism.

I'm not really sure what you mean by grounded seer. Morals serve the best interest of life and human society. That would mean that they are a natural consequence relative to the nature of life and its envronment.

[seer]

So, just to recap, you do not think any of the following is morally wrong, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists:

• raping for fun
• the practices of South Africa's apartheid government
• slavery

and so on.

Your position is ridiculous, seer.

Actually no it's not. I said they would not be objectively wrong. Culturally, perhaps.

Second, you've been told before that there are plenty of positions on which there are objectively right and objectively wrong actions, regardless of what God says and regardless of whether God exists.

Yes I generally don't entertain fantasy. I asked you this in the past - try making your case in your own words. Show me one objective moral fact and why it is objective.

[seer]

He doesn't think that anything is objectively wrong, including slavery.
He's basically a subjectivist who'd think that slavery, genocide, rape, murder, etc. would be morally right, if God commanded them.

I just hope that he doesn't one day come to think that God commands that people be killed for His glory

I get it, if you can get more people to agree with your moral position it becomes objective! Nice, that....

[Jichard]

I get it, if you can get more people to agree with your moral position it becomes objective! Nice, that....

That's not at all what I mean by "objective", as you well know, since I've told you that on other occasions. Is there some reason why you're pretending otherwise?

But really, seer, you should own your position. Take responsibility for it: you don't think any actions are objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong, since you don't think there are any objective moral facts.

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.

So you don't think what Pol Pot did was objectively wrong. Same for Stalin, Hitler, and the apartheid government in South Africa. You don't think there's ever been an objectively wrong abortion, nor an objectively wrong murder.

Own your position, seer. This is what your subjectivism has led you to.