God can Ground Objective Morality

[Cavebear]

But THEY are.  Without that bit of childishness they've got nothing.

There is a massive gulch between how atheists think and how theists think.  Stating the obvious, atheists "think" and theists "believe".  But it matters so much.  The "gulch" is nearly unbreachable.  It is so frustrating to try to talk to a theist who believes that all reality exists (and is changeable) by a deity while I am thinking that there are immutable laws of physics that seem to apply everywhere.    

[Rhythmcs]

Magic is immune to self correction or criticism.

[Minimalist]

Magic Books say you can permissibly fight back (cynically, they say you can preemptively strike) - but it also tells you that you should turn the other cheek.

I found it enlightening to learn that Latin had different words for different types of enemies.

Hostis is a public enemy, a foe.

Inimicus is a personal enemy, someone who is hostile to you or to whom you are hostile.

The church was quick to make use of this by saying that this turn the other cheek shit only referred to personal enemies.

As far as the Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Germans were concerned, they were hostis and only fit for killing!

[Cavebear]

Is doing objectively wrong by stealing out weighed by the doing objectively wrong by letting the kids die because it is the first wrong? Or do we now back track and critique the circumstances that lead up to the stealing and identify the instigating as the objective wrong? Is society now the objective wrong?

From where I stand everything you said makes it sound like something less than objective.

If the facts dictate that we backtrack to identify the source of the specific harm, then there is no alternative to that from a metaethically objective viewpoint.  We would have to conclude that stealing was bad..and that being compelled to steal by synthetic circumstances was Moar Bad.

I saw an episode of an animated TV show once where a storeowner saw a guy steal "something" and chased down the guy. At the end, it was a can of soup for his starving children. He forgave and brought more food. There is "moral objectivism" and there is "ethical subjectivism". I differentiate the two ideas. Morals come from a deity and cannot therefore be dismissed in any detail. "Thou shall or thou shall not". Ethics are more a matter of human experience and subject to decisions of degree. As strange as it may seem, you can be forgiven a can of soup, but not so easily a can of caviar. A loaf of bread, but not a prime steak.

This is how morals and religious deity commandments differ from human ethics and practical experience.

[Rhythmcs]

Magic Books say you can permissibly fight back (cynically, they say you can preemptively strike) - but it also tells you that you should turn the other cheek.

I found it enlightening to learn that Latin had different words for different types of enemies.

Hostis is a public enemy, a foe.

Inimicus is a personal enemy, someone who is hostile to you or to whom you are hostile.

The church was quick to make use of this by saying that this turn the other cheek shit only referred to personal enemies.

As far as the Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Germans were concerned, they were hostis and only fit for killing!

-and look how that worked out, lol.

[Rhythmcs]

If the facts dictate that we backtrack to identify the source of the specific harm, then there is no alternative to that from a metaethically objective viewpoint.  We would have to conclude that stealing was bad..and that being compelled to steal by synthetic circumstances was Moar Bad.

I saw an episode of an animated TV show once where a storeowner saw a guy steal "something" and chased down the guy.  At the end, it was a can of soup for his starving children.  He forgave and brought more food.  There is "moral objectivism" and there is "ethical subjectivism".  I differentiate the two ideas.  Morals come from a deity and cannot therefore be dismissed in any detail.  "Thou shall or thou shall not".  Ethics are more a matter of human experience and subject to decisions of degree.  As strange as it may seem, you can be forgiven a can of soup, but not so easily a can of caviar.  A loaf of bread, but not a prime steak.

This is how morals and religious deity commandments differ from human ethics and practical experience.

Yeah, and this has come up alot, right?  While you make a distinction between the two I do not, and whenever I talk about moral objectivism I'm (appararently) talking about the same thing you mean when you say ethical objectivism.

I don't think that morality, with a big or a small m, comes from gods. Convenient, since there aren't any...gods I mean.... and so it would be a real mystery if moralities existed...rightly or wrongly...when gods didn't - if that underlying contention were true. I think that moral systems come from moral agents apprehending their moral relationships to the moral reality.

[brewerb]

Is doing objectively wrong by stealing out weighed by the doing objectively wrong by letting the kids die because it is the first wrong? Or do we now back track and critique the circumstances that lead up to the stealing and identify the instigating as the objective wrong? Is society now the objective wrong?

From where I stand everything you said makes it sound like something less than objective.

If the facts dictate that we backtrack to identify the source of the specific harm, then there is no alternative to that from a metaethically objective viewpoint.  We would have to conclude that stealing was bad..and that being compelled to steal by synthetic circumstances was Moar Bad.

Isn't that making it subjective?

I'd be ok with the term 'ideal' but that's not objective, at least not to me.

[Minimalist]

-and look how that worked out, lol.

Actually, by the time the Goths and Vandals invaded the Western Empire they were xtians.  Arian xtians thanks to Ulfilas, one of  history's most prolific missionaries, the Goths ad Vandals were converted.

Must have pissed off the fucking pope something royally!

[Rhythmcs]

If the facts dictate that we backtrack to identify the source of the specific harm, then there is no alternative to that from a metaethically objective viewpoint.  We would have to conclude that stealing was bad..and that being compelled to steal by synthetic circumstances was Moar Bad.

Isn't that making it subjective?

I'd be ok with the term 'ideal' but that's not objective, at least not to me.

Not metaethically, no.  A metaethically objective system includes whatever facts are pertinent and present.....how could it -not-...and still be objective?

[Rhythmcs]

Meanwhile "ideals" are often not objective, and just as often antithetically so...so an "idealistic morality" may preclude an objective one..no matter what terms we choose. Cutting to the chase...most of the people here will express their moralities as objective..and only object to the objective insomuch as they've been told...by the religious...that the objective will inexorably lead to that particular religion. It's a poor reason to objectict to objectivism..and isn't even true in our personal experience, rightly or wrongly.

For example. Consider the worst and most detestable thing you can think of. Do you think it's detestable only in opinion, or only by cultural fiat..or do you believe that this thing is detestable in-fact? Is there something wrong with rape..or are there simply people who don't like rape and societies that don't promote rape?

[Rhythmcs]

If the facts dictate that we backtrack to identify the source of the specific harm, then there is no alternative to that from a metaethically objective viewpoint.  We would have to conclude that stealing was bad..and that being compelled to steal by synthetic circumstances was Moar Bad.

I saw an episode of an animated TV show once where a storeowner saw a guy steal "something" and chased down the guy.  At the end, it was a can of soup for his starving children.  He forgave and brought more food.  There is "moral objectivism" and there is "ethical subjectivism".  I differentiate the two ideas.  Morals come from a deity and cannot therefore be dismissed in any detail.  "Thou shall or thou shall not".  Ethics are more a matter of human experience and subject to decisions of degree.  As strange as it may seem, you can be forgiven a can of soup, but not so easily a can of caviar.  A loaf of bread, but not a prime steak.

This is how morals and religious deity commandments differ from human ethics and practical experience.

I would do the same.  I often joke in the context of americana that there are many people who believe they need an assualt style rifle to protect their wallet....but if someone wanted to take mine..it would just be practice, and I'd give it to them even if they didn't have a gun, in the end. There will be no firefights in my dry-walled house full of children over the contents of my wallet - period.

Morals don't come from deities. That's just a claim that the religious make..and if you agree with that and them then you're just as wrong as they are...and for the same reason. Congratulations.

[brewerb]

Isn't that making it subjective?

I'd be ok with the term 'ideal' but that's not objective, at least not to me.

Not metaethically, no.  A metaethically objective system includes whatever facts are pertinent and present.....how could it -not-...and still be objective?

I don't care about metaethics.

[Rhythmcs]

You don't care about metaethics but asked a metaethical question?

[Cavebear]

I saw an episode of an animated TV show once where a storeowner saw a guy steal "something" and chased down the guy.  At the end, it was a can of soup for his starving children.  He forgave and brought more food.  There is "moral objectivism" and there is "ethical subjectivism".  I differentiate the two ideas.  Morals come from a deity and cannot therefore be dismissed in any detail.  "Thou shall or thou shall not".  Ethics are more a matter of human experience and subject to decisions of degree.  As strange as it may seem, you can be forgiven a can of soup, but not so easily a can of caviar.  A loaf of bread, but not a prime steak.

This is how morals and religious deity commandments differ from human ethics and practical experience.

Yeah, and this has come up alot, right?  While you make a distinction between the two I do not, and whenever I talk about moral objectivism I'm (appararently) talking about the same thing you mean when you say ethical objectivism.

I don't think that morality, with a big or a small m, comes from gods.  Convenient, since there aren't any...gods I mean.... and so it would be a real mystery if moralities existed...rightly or wrongly...when gods didn't - if that underlying contention were true.  I think that moral systems come from moral agents apprehending their moral relationships to the moral reality.

I differentiate morals and ethics from the source. And for ease in discussion. Commandments from a deity are "morals" (as "from above"). Decisions by humans are "ethics" (which can change over time, cultures, and by situations).

[Cavebear]

-and look how that worked out, lol.

Actually, by the time the Goths and Vandals invaded the Western Empire they were xtians.  Arian xtians thanks to Ulfilas, one of  history's most prolific missionaries, the Goths ad Vandals were converted.

Must have pissed off the fucking pope something royally!

According to Wikipedia, "The Gothic tribes converted to Christianity sometime between 376 and 390 AD". And Gothic Christianity is the earliest instance of the 'Christianization of a Germanic People', completed more than a century before the baptism of Frankish king Clovis I.

OK, that actually surprised me. I thought it was some decades after the sack of Rome. Well, sometimes you think you know somethings and are wrong.

[brewerb]

You don't care about metaethics but asked a metaethical question?

From an applied ethics mind set. Metaethics, meh. I don't find it practical in my life. I find it an interesting exercise and little more. There is rarely an objective anything outside science and math in my world.

If you're a philosopher (and it sounds like you are) no offense.

[SYZ]

The so-called practice of "philosophy" has no place
in any debate about objectivity.  It's nothing more
than the ramblings of academics spewing bullshit
from their pretentious ivory towers.

As one ages, one finds—by worldly-wise osmosis—that
philosophy as such has no place in the real lived world.
It survives only because far too many people are afraid
to admit publicly that they have no time for it.

And it's a certainty that philosophy—for what it is—is an
exercise of pointless mental effort in the 21st century.

     

[Paleophyte]

Subjective belief in an ineffable and indetectable deity or deities is not an objective basis for morality. Or anything at all.

I don't know why that's so tricky for some people.

[Rhythmcs]

Yup, ultimately, you don't even have to have a position on the moral question to understand why a gods nature or desires or shitlist, or a persons belief in said god with a nature, desires, and a shitlist, is categorically subjective. It would be subjective even if it were true.

[Minimalist]

I don't know why that's so tricky for some people.

They are terrified of the idea of being all alone.

Religitards always remind of this quotation from Sallustius.




Failing to get a "just master" they settle for a petty tyrant in heaven.

[Alan V]

I don't know why that's so tricky for some people.

They are terrified of the idea of being all alone.

Humanity likes shortcuts, and our greed betrays us again and again.

[brewerb]

From what I can tell I'd classify most religions as death cults.

[Rhythmcs]

There aren't exactly alot of religions left...a death cult already got to them.

[brewerb]

There aren't exactly alot of religions left...a death cult already got to them.

Maybe not, but the one's left have enough numbers to make it disturbing.

[SaxonX]

Almost sounds subjective.

This completely sounds wrong