What about people who murdered someone? They don't necessarily agree with you.
The point is, if just one thing is ABSOLUTELY right, or ABSOLUTELY wrong, then there must be a God who made is so. Otherwise, it is just your opinion against mine. Or the majority opinion against the minority opinion.
God is a Majority!
That's why he Rules.
Thanks for asking. I came away with an A. The best course I ever took and it should be required for all human beings. We had three books to read outside of the regular textbook which was a general history written by our proffesor. They were Night by Elie Weisel
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Oprahs-B...8451518&sr=8-1
Your name is Renee by Rith Hartz (who actually visited us in class)
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Name-Rene...8451566&sr=1-1
and Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning
http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-C...8451634&sr=1-1
The course was eye opening....we studied other genocides as well (Sudan, Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc) I am a history buff and so this course brought things more into focus for me. More than that, I came away convinced that all men are capable of great evil. I get sick of people trying to find evil where it isnt (Harry Potter, Rock and Roll, etc)
Read the Lucifer Effect and you will know what I mean:
http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect...8452070&sr=8-1
As for God allowing Evil? to me it boils down to this: God’s incarnational love is most purely manifested in God’s gift of free will. (I.e., if choosing NOT to love God and one another is NOT a hard-wired option of our createdness, then our love is not genuine.) Our freedom to choose allows us to act selfishly and even cruelly—thus we are able, even within the scope of God’s perfection, to harm one another even to monstrous, global degrees.
My original question, of course, conveniently overlooks what some have called “natural evil”—the hurricanes and tsunamis and earthquakes and such that also cause suffering. That, for me, is the bigger “why.” In my better moments (rare as they are) I’m able to frame that question as one of my limited human perspective: I may not be able to see the loving-kindness in the hurricane, but I trust that for eyes not so firmly rooted in flesh as mine, these questions are more moot.....
Just a nickel’s worth....
: )
D
--
"'Nonviolence has never worked' is not a logically honest conclusion when there has never been a serious mobilization for it, with planning, strategy thinking, and education like the military does, with budget for strategic studies and training, with investment in building skills and esprit de corps, and with readiness to sacrifice lives in the struggle."
--John H. Yoder
What makes one think Hurricaines, Tsunamis, Earthquakes and Volcanoes are evil. They are just occurances that happen on this planet. Same is true of Floods (except one of note). Evil is in the hearts of men, not the working of God or the events of the planets and stars.
You could say people dying is evil. It isn't it's just an occurance there have been very, very few people who did not die recorded. For most of us it's just something that will happen, only the where and how varies.
Chip
Since when does knowing right from wrong prevent someone from acting in contradiction to that knowledge?
You are asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective. However, it is only your opinion that the validity of that assertion is true.
It doesn't. Yet some people's definitions of right and wrong differ from yours and mine.
That's not at all what I'm saying.Originally Posted by 1968
I'm asking you if right and wrong itself are objective or subjective.
Objective: existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Subjective: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
If it is subjective, then it can be neither right nor wrong, just opinion.
If it is objective, then who says it is objective? Who/what makes it objective?
This is a very deep topic and I applaude the originator of the thread.
Does right and wrong exist only in the human mind? Or does it also exist outside the human mind? Does it exist in the physical world? In another world?
Think about the consequences of this question. If it exists only in the human mind, and all minds cannot agree on what is right and wrong, then is anything right or wrong?
To bring this full circle, it appears that you were asserting that definitions that do not include "God" are merely arbitrary.
So, you are NOT asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective?
I believe that there is an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong.
By definition, something is objective if it is founded in reality. Reality is that which exists.
Morality is a human construct. It doesn't float around in the ether.
What other worlds exist?
I think you need to re-think what it means for a person to think objectively. For example, addition exists only in the human mind, but not all minds are able to calculate the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Does that mean that everyone is correct or that no one is correct?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not. I'm not that arrogant.Originally Posted by 1968
Who/what makes that standard?Originally Posted by 1968
What if two people disagree on what reality is? Can absolute reality be known?Originally Posted by 1968
If so, do I have to follow some other human's morality? Or can I make my own?Originally Posted by 1968
None that I know of.Originally Posted by 1968
I'm willing to do that. I'm not trying to be right. I'm only seeking the truth.Originally Posted by 1968How do you know that? Doesn't one apple plus one apple equal two apples regardless of human minds?Originally Posted by 1968
I am not sure where we are going with all of this, so I’m going to back up for a moment. Earlier you stated: “If there were no God, then there would be no evil, or good, no right or wrong. There would just be our own personal opinions.” You then asked: “Without God, who is to say that murder is wrong?” One could infer at least two premises from that question and the brief statement that preceded it. The first is that a belief in God is necessary to have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. The second is that those who do not believe in God do not have an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong (i.e. their moral code is merely arbitrary or subjective). Are those two inferences correct?
An objective standard of morality is not made, but rather one that is founded in reality. Reality is that which exists.
People routinely disagree on what reality is or what exists, but does that mean that everyone is correct or that no one is correct? Of course not. On the other hand, asserting that you cannot know anything except that you cannot know anything is a contradiction in terms.
You possess free will so you can do whatever you choose to do. If you choose to live, then there are certain things that you should do and not do.
How do I know that addition exists only in the human mind? I know the difference between “abstract” and “concrete”. Apples exist independent of human minds, but addition does not.
Actually those 2 inferences are the same. But yes, that is what I believe. However, I am willing to listen to your viewpoint and answer your questions. And I am willing to be proven wrong. Can you do the same? Are you able to answer my previous questions?
Originally Posted by 1968This is rather vague. Can you please explain? Morality is reality?Originally Posted by 1968
On this, we agree.Originally Posted by 1968
Once again, why should I believe you?Originally Posted by 1968
Originally Posted by 1968
Einstein might disagree with you.
So then, it does appear that my earlier comment (i.e. “You are asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective.”) was indeed very close to what you were saying. (You had initially replied: “That's not at all what I'm saying.”)
The implication that I have not listened to your viewpoint or answered your questions is false.
I’ll try. This discussion revolves around what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Independent of a standard, things cannot be judged as “right” or “wrong”. Some believe that standard to be God's word... it is right to behave a certain way because God wants them to behave that way. Others believe that standard is life... it is right to behave a certain way because it allows them to live. If we believe that our behavior has relevance only in reality (i.e. that which exists), then we should follow the standard that is founded only in reality. No doubt that both sides would present an argument as to what is real (i.e. that which exists) and whose standard is founded in reality.
You are implying that you have asked this question previously. You need to clarify on which point(s) you disagree.
Is this your way of stating that you believe abstractions do not exist? If not, you need to clarify on which point(s) you disagree.
Last edited by 1968; 12-27-2007 at 02:19 AM. Reason: sp
Credit: http://the-malaysian.blogspot.com/
Is there a recurring theme here? That the landmarks of civilization (i.e. ethics; altruism; morality; justice; "do unto others as you would have them do unto you") can be explained only upon the foundation of God? That's like inferring the existence of Michelangelo from the observation that "my house is nicely painted, inside and out." It's absurd.
If certain posters were more confident in their avowed faith or religious convictions, they would be less in the habit of slinging words around like the morning's hashbrowns; less dedicated to the waterboarding of the English language through the posting of opaque constructions and deadend syllogisms, all in pursuit of their holy grail of "proving" God.
If God could be proved, they wouldn't call it "faith"; i.e. we wouldn't use "faith" as a customary shorthand for "religious conviction".
But there's never a shortage of Plato wannabes ...
For those questions that are small enough (like the origins of altruism), look to Darwinism for the answers ...The hidden cost of heroism; Christopher McDougall; November 2007; MSNBC."It could very well be that altruism is a behavior that has been held over from a much earlier time," explains Lee Dugatkin, Ph.D., a professor of biology at the University of Louisville and the author of The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness. Specifically, a time when the only people you saw [during] your entire life were the members of your own hunter-gatherer clan.
"If you saved someone's life under those conditions, you were very likely saving a blood relative," says Dugatkin.
Prove God? Not feasible, for those who perceive that "everything from rape to religion is bred in the bone through the process of [Darwinian] evolution" ...Genes as gods; blog entry; March 2005; BrothersJudd.In the 1970s, evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers published five immensely influential papers that braided genetics into behavioral biology, using a gene's-eye view of evolution to explain behaviors from bird warning calls to cuckoldry to sibling rivalry to revenge. According to David Haig, a Harvard professor of biology and a leading genetic theorist, each paper virtually founded a research field. ''Most of my career has been based on exploring the implications of one of them,'' says Haig. ''I don't know of any comparable set of papers.''
Trivers's ideas have rippled out into anthropology, psychology, sociology, medicine, even economics. His work provided the intellectual basis for the then-emergent field of sociobiology (now better known as evolutionary psychology), which sought to challenge our conceptions of family, sex, friendship, and ethics by arguing (controversially) that everything from rape to religion is bred in the bone through the process of [Darwinian] evolution ...
Trivers's work grew out of an insight made by the Oxford biologist William D. Hamilton, who died in 2000. In a 1964 paper, Hamilton proposed an elegant solution to a problem that had rankled evolutionary theorists for some time. In a battle of the fittest, why did organisms occasionally do things that benefited others at a cost to themselves? The answer, Hamilton wrote, emerged when one took evolution down to the level of the gene. Individuals were merely vessels for genes, which survived from generation to generation, and it made no difference to the gene which organism it survived in.
According to this logic, the degree to which an organism was likely to sacrifice for another should vary in direct proportion to the degree of relatedness: Humans, for example, would be more likely to share food with a son than a second cousin, and more likely to share with a second cousin than someone wholly unrelated. Hamilton called the concept ''inclusive fitness.''
In 1976, the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins would popularize Hamilton's ideas in his book ''The Selfish Gene.'' But more than anyone else, it was Trivers, then a graduate student, who grasped the profound implications of Hamilton's work. In a way, Trivers's legendary papers of the early 1970s were simply a series of startling applications of [Hamilton's] logic ...
Ends with a thud.
What's more fun than a barrel of fatwas? How about OptiBoarders weighing in on the CIA waterboardings of terror suspects . . . "Git" some here.
Last edited by rinselberg; 12-28-2007 at 08:17 AM.
Yes, and I'm trying to figure out if there is an absolute standard from any source, or if it is open to opinion. You said morality is a human construct. I am human, can I construct my own morality?This is where you lose me. Can you use another word instead of life?Originally Posted by 1968This leaves things pretty wide open.Originally Posted by 1968If that's all there is to morality, then nothing stops me from making up my own morality.Originally Posted by 1968
You're equivocating on the use of "construct". “Human construct” = an abstraction (i.e. does not exist as a physical entity).
“Living”, “being”, “existing”? Not merely living, being, or existing, though, but rather the action of self-perpetuated existence. Reminds me of something Shakespearean...
Really? I think you underestimate what it means to be founded in reality. How long do you think you could live to follow your moral code if you ignored reality? To the extent that you follow reality, you live. Don’t believe me? Try eating rocks for dinner or ignoring gravity.
I'll rephrase the question. Is there a moral standard? If so, what is the source?
It sounds very complicated. Is this your own theory?Originally Posted by 1968
You say that I cannot make my own morality because morality is founded in reality. Is that what you're saying? Can you clarify just a bit more? I'm beginning to understand you.Originally Posted by 1968
A “moral standard” is that by which “right” and “wrong” are judged. Is there a single moral standard? No. I think it is obvious from our discussion that our standards are different. Consequently, the “source” of our standards are different. Are you attempting to clarify why I choose to follow my standard and not the one you have chosen?
I believe we are starting to experience thread drift. I’ve re-read the thread for context and I’m not clear on what you think I’m presenting as theory.
I think it would be more accurate to say I’m saying this: "Free will gives you the capacity to follow the moral code of your choosing (at least for a brief time); however, if you choose to live in this world, you should choose a moral code that will allow you to live in this world."
I think we're getting somewhere.Do you know the source of your standards? If so, what is it?Originally Posted by 1968Thanks for your direct responses. I'm really understanding you now. You say there are many different moral codes and it is up to you to choose the one that works for you. There is no single moral standard.Originally Posted by 1968
I'm still in doubt though, as to how you know you are CHOOSING the right moral code. I think part of the problem with our society today is that we have taken your viewpoint too far. Almost every group or individual chooses their own definition of what is right and wrong. There must be something that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, regardless of what we think.
Is abortion right or wrong?
Is birth control right or wrong?
Is assisted suicide right or wrong?
Is gay marriage right or wrong?
Is drug use right or wrong?
Is free speech right or wrong?
Is spanking children right or wrong?
Is divorce right or wrong?
Is murder right or wrong?
Is pornography right or wrong?
Is war right or wrong?
If I'm not mistaken, 1968 is an existentialist- at least a lot of the viewpoints seem to fit into that philosophy.
I happen to believe in absolute right and wrong- the best phrase I've found to describe it is "Only truth is true, just like 2+2 can only equal 4."
The caveat that I've learned over 39 years (and am still learning), is- although only truth can be true- my understanding of truth is fallible. Therefore, I would say I'm an "absolute existentialist" (my own term). While I reject that right and wrong is actually defined by my experiences and viewpoints, I would agree that my understanding of right and wrong is. Its not unlike math- which is precise and absolute. Equations can only result in one correct answer- my ability to arrive at the actual right answer, however, is limited by my experience with the mechanics of mathematics.
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Yes. That which is real (see below). Do you know the source of yours?
People have different moral codes and follow different moral standards, but I never said: “It is up to you to choose the one that works for you.” I said that if you choose to live in this world, you should choose a moral code that allows you to live in this world. Whether or not you feel that they are “right” to do so, do you believe that people have different moral codes and follow different moral standards?
If you think my viewpoint is that people should arbitrarily define what is “right” and what is “wrong”, then you are sorely mistaken. I’m not sure how many times we have to go over this but things are not right or wrong independent of a standard. You cannot determine what the right moral code is independent of a standard by which to judge right or wrong.
You have one fundamental choice in this world… to live or not to live. If you choose not to live, then the only thing you need do is die. If you choose to live, then there are things that you must do to maintain your life (i.e. that which is “right”) and there are things that you must not do to maintain your life (i.e. that which is “wrong”). Prior to knowing what is right or wrong when dealing with other people, you need to know what is right and what is wrong when dealing with the world around you. You need to know, or at least try to know, that what is real and that what is not real. Fundamentally, what is “absolutely right” or what is “absolutely wrong” depends on what is real and what is not real. And, yes, I think we can know that which is real… and I believe you agreed to that in post #87.
With such epistemological differences, do you really think we are ready to discuss this many examples all at once? Why not start with something easy first: Is it right or wrong to separate that which is real from that which is not real when faced with moral decisions?
Although I think the various well-known existentialists are all over the map, I can see how there might be some overlap. I think you've made a great observation. You, Landlord, and I all appear to agree that truth is not subjective, but still we may come to different conclusions on what is true because we are not omnipotent and our means of knowing and understanding is fallible.
Originally Posted by 1968Those statements are clear, but appear to contradict your next statement:Originally Posted by 1968Can you solidify your opinion in one short sentence?Originally Posted by 1968I'm still having trouble understanding this statement.Originally Posted by 1968God.Originally Posted by 1968Taken literally, this statement allows me to do anything I want aside from killing myself. If not meant literally, then how?Originally Posted by 1968
Amen. Now, what is the source of this standard?Originally Posted by 1968
I have to be honest, you don't seem too sure of what you are saying.
Don't get me wrong, 1968. I'm not arguing with you. I'm assuming you are more educated than I am. I also assume that you have at least a 50/50 chance of being right in your opinion. The problem is, you don't seem to know what you believe. Or at least, you can't state is plainly enough for me to understand.
I want you to convince me that I am wrong. But until then, I still must believe this:
1. The moral laws of this earth were created by God.
2. Without God, there can be no moral law, only moral opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks