Originally posted by jimbo

~bump~

So no Christian on the TWEB apologetics board can explain how an objective, God-given morality works? If so, it isn't a surprise.

Jimbo

Did you even read AP's post?

I've been out of town for a few days, so sorry for not immediately continuing our 'discussion'...

Originally posted by jimbo

Hello,

On another thread I started here, starting on page three or four, Max Vel devoted numerous, extensive posts to interrogating me and attacking what he percieved to be or misinterpreted to be my moral views or values.

I haven't (AFAIC remember) attacked your moral values per se. What I have said is that your actions (posting complaints that 'God is evil'; quoting verses from the Bible that you seem to think show that God is morally objectionable) are inconsistent with your self-declared moral worldview. If all morals are subjective, then there is no such thing as an objective moral judgment that 'God is evil'. So what you are doing is no more than attempting to impose your personal moral opinions on others who have different ones, as if your ones were somehow superior. That’s both irrational (inconsistent with your worldview) and chauvinistic.

Originally posted by MaxVel

Yesterday several other Christians joined in the fun. I have tried to answer their questions as best I can, and have repeated myself numerous times for the benefit of Max Vel, who asks me essentially the same question over and over again. I wouldn't really call this much of a discussion because the word discussion implies that there is some sort of give and take, a fair and balanced exchange of ideas. Instead questions are piled on me, I answer them as best I can and ask one or two questions in return, and my questions are ignored or dismissed and more questions are piled on me.

Poor Jimbo.

Originally posted by MaxVel

I don't claim to be a moral philosopher, and my explanations of morality perhaps leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that human morality is based on values that exist in people's minds and these values are shaped by upbringing, family, culture, life experiences, logic, instincts (that are bred into us by evolution), and so on.

In our discussion I have granted you that thesis as true. My question is: are you acting consistently as if that were the case? I don’t think you are.

Originally posted by Jimbo

In others words, morality has a natural basis and the goal of it, generally speaking, is happiness.

I take it by this you mean that the goal – for those who choose to set this as their goal – is happiness. With the corollary that other goals are just as valid for those that choose them.

Originally posted by Jimbo

Furthermore, there is a commonality of moral values which results from similar needs, wants, desires and instincts. Anyway, all this seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone over these ideas again and again with my interogators on that thread and I am repeatedly told that if my view of morality is correct--that is, if morality is subjective as opposed to objective (which in this case seems to mean natural and human-based as opposed to outside-of-humanity and God-based, or, as my Christian interrogators would say, personal, subjective opinion versus God-given "truth) then no moral statement I make necessarily has any force or power or meaning to anyone else.

Do you think it necessarily does? If so, why?

{for clarity, here I am using ‘necessarily’ in a logical sense: that is, if (as Jimbo thinks) morality is subjective does it then logically follow that his moral statements (‘God is evil’ etc) have power or meaning for others?}

Originally posted by Jimbo

If I say that the biblical god is immoral, for example, I am told that-if my worldview is true-this statement is equivalent to the statement that I like a particular flavor of ice cream and the statement is of no real consequence or importance to anyone else.

It’s entirely up to them whether they choose to take your statement to have consequence or not, surely. Your statements about morality are ‘true’ only if they choose to accept them as true. You aren’t making a claim to an objective fact that is true even if they don’t believe it to be true.

Perhaps you could show an example of another area of subjective beliefs where one person’s subjective view holds objective logical consequence for other people?

Originally posted by Jimbo

I have tried to explain that my moral statements are based on and are made in the context of shared cultural and societal moral values, and that there doesn't seem to be any higher or more inclusive level of morality available, at least as far as I can tell. I have repeated this information to my chat board Christian buddies numerous times in about every way I can think of, and have made a simple request to them to provide me with a factually-supported, coherent, logical explanation of their alternative to a human based morality. It seems to me that if they think my morality is so awful and meaningless, surely they would be eager to provide me with their amazingly wondrous alternative. However, instead of providing me with this alternative "objective" morality-even after several posts with repeated requests for them to do so-they ignore my requests and continue piling on the questions and attacking my moral position.

Because you have {still} yet to grasp what your position entails. Because you (still) act as if your moral statements are in some way, by their nature, binding on others, which, if your worldview is true, they cannot be. What’s the point of trying to get you to grasp a different moral worldview when you can’t grasp and act consistently with your own view?

Originally posted by Jimbo

I am eager to know as much as I can about this perfectly wonderful God-given morality that my interrogators are so convinced exists, and I am sure these TWEB Christians would want as many people as possible to know about it too. Therefore I have decided to provide this thread to them so they can broadcast to the world the Good News about their God-based, perfect morality. If they are so absolutely certain that they possess a God-given objective morality, they will surely be eager to tell as many people as possible about it in as explicit detail as they can manage. Here their chance to do so!

To kick things off, I have decided to repeat three simple questions that I asked Max Vel on the other thread. Since he and the other Christians on the other thread are convinced that human morality is God-based and objective and because they make is appear that they know all about this type of morality, I would like to have them explain to me if the following actions are objectively moral wrong or objectively morally right:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?


If they say that any of these actions is objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right, I would then want them to explain, in explicit detail, the process that they went through to make that determination.

Finally, if any Christian wants to continue to ask me questions about how I think morality works, they should go to the other thread I mentioned at the beginnning of the OP. I would like to keep this thread focused on the supposed God-given objective morality that Max Vel and my other Christian interrogators champion.

Thanks.

Jimbo

As AP has said, until you can grasp the basics of moral ontology, it’s pointless to discuss specific applications.

Not only that, but your questions are flawed:

Originally posted by Jimbo

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

Please clarify precisely what you mean by the term “Slavery”. Do you mean forced transformation from the status of an independent human being into the status of an item of property wholly belonging to someone else?

Originally posted by Jimbo

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

Why do you use the words ‘little’ and ‘cooing’ in this question? Is it not merely for rhetorical effect, to attempt to get the reader to make an emotional response to your question (a response that suits you) rather than a logical one?

Do you think that slaughtering crying babies is OK? Are you just not interested in what happens to them? Likewise big babies… is slaughtering them a matter of moral indifference to you, that you have specifically excluded them from your question?

Originally posted by Jimbo

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

Despite your attempts to ignore the fact that you have a strawman here, that is precisely what you have: A Christian can answer ‘Yes’ to this question and still affirm that the Christian doctrine of hell is objectively morally OK. So what’s the point of this? It can only be another attempt to elicit an emotional response against Christianity and in favour of your position.

If your position were logically stronger, or you were more honest and less manipulative, you wouldn’t need to resort to the kinds of slanted questions you choose to use.

Urban Monk,

Jimbo, what if I told you that humans have the same morals as their maker?

I would ask you how you know there is a maker and how you know that we have the same morals as it.

Cheers,

Jimbo

AP,

Sigh. You still don't get it. Before you determine if X is objectively right or wrong, you have to determine what that means. I cannot know if Fido is a dog unless I know what a dog is. You want to switch straight to applications. We start with the ontology of morals instead.

Feel free to give me an education. I say that human beings determine what is right or wrong based on their values. For example, most people value little cooing babies, so they agree that slaughterig them is morally wrong. In the Bible, the biblical god doesn't seem to value little cooing babies all that much since he condones, commands of commits the slaughter of little cooing babies not a few times.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Jimbo

Carricacture,

Out of curiousity, what gives rise to objective features such as morals in your opinion?

There is this idea we get that certain things are just wrong regardless of what anyone says about it. I get that. But I attribute this to common values and common instincts that human beings have, not to some supernatural objective morality creator.

Cheers,

Jimbo

ENeGMA,

Carrikature: Out of curiousity, what gives rise to objective features such as morals in your opinion?
What gives rise to morals in a theistic universe?

ENegma: Well, God presumably, but what about God?

Usually the answer is something like "his nature" or "his intrinsic goodness" which is just another way of saying that what's good is necessarily good.

As far as I can tell, that's the only plausible answer for anyone: good things are good because that's what they are.

And there's no more fundamental explanation, nor can there be.

Yeah, this the problem. Many Christians on these boards will say that an objective morality-which in this case seems to mean all the wonderful, rock-solid morals values that everyone (or almost everyone shares)-comes from their god, and they will contrast this with a human-based morality which they say is based on a confusion of personal, individual opinions and does not obligate anyone to follow it. I say that all these widely shared moral values are based on evolution, instincts, compassion, empathy, shared desires and needs, culture, psychological, social dynamics, etc. In other words, they can be attributed to purely natural factors and not some supernatural being up in the sky. We can explain how human morality works using natural explanations, but I don't think theists can explain a god-given morality beyond just saying "God did it."

And of course no one here has yet attempted to explain this idea in this thread, which of course surprise me.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Max Vel,

I will get to you post later as I am about to go to work. But for now I would like to explain the basic point of this thread. You (and other Christians) tell me that my view of morality would mean that my morality is essentially my opinion and therefore cannot be said to be better or worse than anyone else's. However, as I have tried to tell you numerous times, my moral values reflect the shared moral values of our society and most human cultures, just as yours do. Most people agree that whether a morality is better or worse depends on how well it improves or harms life, health and welfare. Neither one of us can appeal to a higher context of morality, as far as I can tell. You are free to convince me otherwise, but I don't think there is a higher or greater context than this.

I have put up this thread for theists who believe in a God-given "objective" morality to explain how this particular type of morality works. My view is that no one can say how it works because it is a nonsensical concept.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Sorry for my spelling and grammar errors in the previous posts that make the posts hard to read-I was in a rush before work and just dashed them off.

Jimbo

Originally posted by jimbo

Max Vel,

I will get to you post later as I am about to go to work. But for now I would like to explain the basic point of this thread. You (and other Christians) tell me that my view of morality would mean that my morality is essentially my opinion and therefore cannot be said to be better or worse than anyone else's.

Yes, that's one way of putting it.

Originally posted by Jimbo

However, as I have tried to tell you numerous times, my moral values reflect the shared moral values of our society and most human cultures, just as yours do.

OK. So if there are no objective morals, what is happening here is that a bunch of people's subjective opinions are coinciding. Say like if a bunch of people happen to think that forest green is the most beautiful colour. I don't see how the number of people holding a subjective opinion changes the truth value of that opinion, with colours, music, moral values or anything else.

Originally posted by Jimbo

Most people agree that whether a morality is better or worse depends on how well it improves or harms life, health and welfare.

OK. But if your view of morality is true, there is nothing inherently more correct or morally better about evaluating morality on that basis or on any other basis. One could evaluate morality on the basis of how convenient it is for you, or how little it impinges on your freedom to do whatever you want, or ... etc. All of those evaluations of morality appear to be equally valid under your worldview. That is why your constant harping on about the morality of the OT, God etc is both irrational and unfair. You are claiming that your morality is objectively better than another morality, something which is not possible in your worldview.

Think of some other matter of subjective matter - say taste in colour - and how you would react if someone said to you "Your taste in colour is awful, just horrible. Pink and black are the colours. Anything else is just wrong." I suspect you might say something like 'So what? That's just your opinion. I have my own opinion. Those colours don't suit me." If they also said "Not only that, but almost everyone else agrees with me. Pink and black, Jimbo, pink and black.", would you now be convinced that you are logically wrong, and should change your taste in colours?

Originally posted by Jimbo

Neither one of us can appeal to a higher context of morality, as far as I can tell. You are free to convince me otherwise, but I don't think there is a higher or greater context than this.

I have put up this thread for theists who believe in a God-given "objective" morality to explain how this particular type of morality works. My view is that no one can say how it works because it is a nonsensical concept.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Then we're stuck with two apparently nonsensical concepts of morality - yours and mine.

If one simply understands that the idea of ontological morality is a logical error based on the incorrect equating of a concept to an entity, then the confusion simply disappears.

Originally posted by jimbo

AP,



Feel free to give me an education. I say that human beings determine what is right or wrong based on their values. For example, most people value little cooing babies, so they agree that slaughterig them is morally wrong. In the Bible, the biblical god doesn't seem to value little cooing babies all that much since he condones, commands of commits the slaughter of little cooing babies not a few times.

And if that was really the case, then all you could say is "Well those are his value and they differ from mine but all they do is differ. They are neither good or evil."

You sure don't act like that however with your 50 verses you constantly cry out.

This is the problem. You talk about determining what is right or wrong. I want to know if there is any truth-content to that position. Can I say "X is wrong" and be wrong in my belief? If not, then there's really no point discussing it. You also speak of our values. Well tell me, if you want to use little cooing babies, are they really valuable in themselves or do we just perceive them that way even though they're not really valuable?

Until you understand basic ontology, it is pointless to discuss application.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

And if that was really the case, then all you could say is "Well those are his value and they differ from mine but all they do is differ. They are neither good or evil."

You sure don't act like that however with your 50 verses you constantly cry out.

This is the problem. You talk about determining what is right or wrong. I want to know if there is any truth-content to that position. Can I say "X is wrong" and be wrong in my belief? If not, then there's really no point discussing it. You also speak of our values. Well tell me, if you want to use little cooing babies, are they really valuable in themselves or do we just perceive them that way even though they're not really valuable?

Until you understand basic ontology, it is pointless to discuss application.

A dog is not the same thing as the concept of a dog.

Originally posted by robertb

A dog is not the same thing as the concept of a dog.

Um. Yeah. One has reality. One doesn't. That's the question. Do moral precepts have any reality or are they just rules we made up that don't really apply at all?

And if they don't, why should I live like they do? (and as soon as you give a reason why I should, you are pointing to a moral precept.)

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

Um. Yeah. One has reality. One doesn't. That's the question. Do moral precepts have any reality or are they just rules we made up that don't really apply at all?

And if they don't, why should I live like they do? (and as soon as you give a reason why I should, you are pointing to a moral precept.)

Really apply in an aboslute truth sense, no.

Really apply as in a we are human beings and have evolutionarily (is that a word, lol) developed a sense of right and wrong, based on various naturalistic factors. Then yes.

Let me ask you this question.

Is it more ethical to return a wallet because you may be rewarded for your effort, or to simply return it because it is the right thing to do?

volcano rocket,

J: On another thread I started here, starting on page three or four, Max Vel devoted numerous, extensive posts to interrogating me and attacking what he percieved to be or misinterpreted to be my moral views or values. Yesterday several other Christians joined in the fun. I have tried to answer their questions as best I can, and have repeated myself numerous times for the benefit of Max Vel, who asks me essentially the same question over and over again. I wouldn't really call this much of a discussion because the word discussion implies that there is some sort of give and take, a fair and balanced exchange of ideas. Instead questions are piled on me, I answer them as best I can and ask one or two questions in return, and my questions are ignored or dismissed and more questions are piled on me.

I don't claim to be a moral philosopher, and my explanations of morality perhaps leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that human morality is based on values that exist in people's minds and these values are shaped by upbringing, family, culture, life experiences, logic, instincts (that are bred into us by evolution), and so on. In others words, morality has a natural basis and the goal of it, generally speaking, is happiness. Furthermore, there is a commonality of moral values which results from similar needs, wants, desires and instincts. Anyway, all this seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone over these ideas again and again with my interogators on that thread and I am repeatedly told that if my view of morality is correct--that is, if morality is subjective as opposed to objective (which in this case seems to mean natural and human-based as opposed to outside-of-humanity and God-based, or, as my Christian interrogators would say, personal, subjective opinion versus God-given "truth) then no moral statement I make necessarily has any force or power or meaning to anyone else. If I say that the biblical god is immoral, for example, I am told that-if my worldview is true-this statement is equivalent to the statement that I like a particular flavor of ice cream and the statement is of no real consequence or importance to anyone else.

I have tried to explain that my moral statements are based on and are made in the context of shared cultural and societal moral values, and that there doesn't seem to be any higher or more inclusive level of morality available, at least as far as I can tell. I have repeated this information to my chat board Christian buddies numerous times in about every way I can think of, and have made a simple request to them to provide me with a factually-supported, coherent, logical explanation of their alternative to a human based morality. It seems to me that if they think my morality is so awful and meaningless, surely they would be eager to provide me with their amazingly wondrous alternative. However, instead of providing me with this alternative "objective" morality-even after several posts with repeated requests for them to do so-they ignore my requests and continue piling on the questions and attacking my moral position.

I am eager to know as much as I can about this perfectly wonderful God-given morality that my interrogators are so convinced exists, and I am sure these TWEB Christians would want as many people as possible to know about it too. Therefore I have decided to provide this thread to them so they can broadcast to the world the Good News about their God-based, perfect morality. If they are so absolutely certain that they possess a God-given objective morality, they will surely be eager to tell as many people as possible about it in as explicit detail as they can manage. Here their chance to do so!

To kick things off, I have decided to repeat three simple questions that I asked Max Vel on the other thread. Since he and the other Christians on the other thread are convinced that human morality is God-based and objective and because they make is appear that they know all about this type of morality, I would like to have them explain to me if the following actions are objectively moral wrong or objectively morally right:

1. Is putting people into slavery for life objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

2. Is slaughtering little cooing babies objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?

3. Is toturing people for eternity for their opinions objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right?


If they say that any of these actions is objectively morally wrong or objectively morally right, I would then want them to explain, in explicit detail, the process that they went through to make that determination.

Finally, if any Christian wants to continue to ask me questions about how I think morality works, they should go to the other thread I mentioned at the beginnning of the OP. I would like to keep this thread focused on the supposed God-given objective morality that Max Vel and my other Christian interrogators champion.

Thanks.

Jimbo

V: 1. Humans putting people into slavery is objectively morally wrong because God created humans with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you very much for your reply. I think that you are the first Christian on this thread to actually attempt to respond to my OP directly and answer my questions. So congratulations.

Now, I know that you believe what you say, but can you explain to me how you know that the biblical god created human beings with "inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" I mean, is that written in the Bible somewhere and if it is, why should anyone besides a Christian think it is true? Furthermore, I hope you are aware that the reason I posed this specific question of my good buddy Max Vel is because the biblical god actually seems to support putting people into lifelong slavery. Let's take a look at Leviticus 25:44, shall we?

Christian god: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Here is a related quotation:

Christian god: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

Exodus 21:20

Based on these direct quotes from the Christian god (well, they are at least attributed to the Christian god by the Bible writers), does it really make sense to say that the biblical god created human beings "with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" How does that idea jibe with these pronouncements that are attributed to the biblical god?

2.Humans slaughtering little, cooing babies is objectively morally wrong because God created human babies with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The reason I posed this specific question is because-like the previous question-it points to a problem with the Christian claim that a wondrous, perfect, objective morality comes from the biblical god. In the Bible the Christian god repeatedly orders the slaughter of little cooing babies and massacres little cooing babies himself. Here are some pertinent quotes:

"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken."

Christian god-Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17

"Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 6:21

"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."

Deuteronomy 2:33

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15



"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5

If little cooing babies are created and imbued "with inalienable rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" then why is it not objectively morally wrong for the biblical god to order them slaughtered and to slaughter them himself? There seems to be a contradiction here.

3. Humans are incapable of torturing people for eternity. I do not understand this question.

Of course humans cannot torture humans for eternity. But humans can make up stories about all-powerful beings called gods and they can claim that these gods will torture people for all eternity for not accepting this or that religious claim. This idea of a god torturing or tormenting or making things really, really uncomforable for people for eternity for their opinions can be a powerful tool for changing opinions, for converting people to one religion or another. And this is probably why this idea is incorporated into both Islam and Christianity, two of the world's largest religions.

So the Christian god is said to send people to a place of eternal suffering for not believing in Jesus, for not having the opinion that Jesus is a magic-working godman who came to earth 2000 years ago. If Christians want others to believe that they derive a perfect, wondrous, objective morality from the biblical god, is seems to me that they need to explain the objective moral goodness of their god torturing people for eternity for their thoughts.

My view is that the biblical god is a made up being and as such it cannot function as a source of objective morality and that the belief that it is a source of a perfect objective morality can actually be harmful and dangerous.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Jimbo,

One point of contention. You are actually referring to the Jewish god.

Just to be clear.