Keith

I'll parody your moral views and then you can point out where I'm off target with respect to your moral views.

Yes, my own subjective values make it personally wrong for me to drive a Rolls Royce. In addition, the consensus moral standards of our society make driving a Rolls Royce wrong within this society. This is possible because most people in this society share similar subjective values, based on the same practicality and empathy/compassion as mine.

Of course during WW2, the British government suddenly began to encourage the public to drive Rolls Royce's. Suddenly--almost overnight, it seemed that everyone was driving a Rolls Royce. Do I personally approve of that British behavior? No, I don't agree or approve of it, but UNDER THEIR MORAL SYSTEM AT THE TIME, it was morally right FOR THEM, even though I disagree with the morality of it.

Keith

Already done.

winstonjen

Good. Now throw the bible out the window for a moment and think for yourself.

Mageth

I don't quite get the part about the British government suddenly encouraging the public to drive Rolls Royces. But yes, there may be a society with a different moral system and, under that moral system, there may be things that are considered morally right that I, under my personal moral system, and/or under the moral system of the society that I live in, are considered morally wrong. And vice versa.

In fact, if you look at the different societies around the world, you can see many examples of just that. For example, there are many things that are considered morally right in Islamic countries that are considered morally wrong in the U.S., and vice versa.

You gave an illustration of these differing moral principles with your claim that some if not all of the OT laws were applicable to a particular people but not to you. As a specific example, you claimed that, under your moral standards, killing your child who curses you would be morally wrong, but seemed to support the notion that, if an OT Israelite did just that, under their moral system it would not be morally wrong, and indeed would be the morally right thing to do.

And here I'll quote myself from earlier on the thread:

"If we want a moral system that's "correct" for all societies, then we'll have to reach a global consensus on what that moral system is."

And note that in your parody I could take your argument from earlier in the thread and substitute "What if God suddenly ordered the British people that it was moral for them to drive Rolls Royces and immoral for them to drive any other car?" By your own arguments, if you were not British, it would not be immoral for you to drive something other than a Rolls Royce. Nor would it have been immoral for the British to drive other cars before receiving God's command.

So I don't really get your seeming problem with the different morals under different moral systems argument. You yourself have made a very similar, if not the same, argument.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by Keith
The sad thing is that because you feel that only your standard for what constitutes a convincing explanation is acceptable,

Well, I think that probably goes without saying. If I'm not convinced by an explanation, I'm not convinced by it, and there is very little I can do about that.

and you have assumed that God owes you an explanation, you can't get what you say you want. How can a person claiming to be autonomous (in effect claiming one's self to be a god) ever really get to know God? It is impossible for God to change His own nature and bow to your demands.

If God regenerates your soul causing you to become willing to believe in Him and trust in Him, it will be because of God's mercy on you. God can't fail to save even one of His elect, and grace can neither be demanded by man or owed by God.

So what you're saying, if I've understood you correctly, is that your god won't explain his actions to me, even tho' he loves me and wants me to be saved, because a) he doesn't want to and b) I'm not one of his favourites.

Well, that's not very loving imo. But I suppose you'll just see that as more of my unregenerate nature.

TW

Keith

The purpose of the parody is to help me find the strawman that everyone is referring to. Next, can you tell me how it is significant that YOU personally don't consider it morally right for the British to drive RR's even though you agree that it is right for them, under their own system. How does it help us understand the morality of driving RR's to know what you personally think? Isn't it enough that the British think its morally right?

Keith

How do you get from noting that a clear consensus exists that murder and child molestation are morally wrong for everyone, to the conclusion that this consensus was created by humans, without relying on God?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
The purpose of the parody is to help me find the strawman that everyone is referring to.

The following is one of the strawmen which you've constructed more than once:

Why do your subjective values determine what is right for society?

I've never claimed that - that's why it's a strawman. You're attributing a position to me which I do not hold

Next, can you tell me how it is significant that YOU personally don't consider it morally right for the British to drive RR's even though you agree that it is right for them, under their own system.

I don't really understand why you must capitalize YOU in this case. It smells like that strawman argument.

It's quite simple, Keith. Others may adhere to a moral system that considers an action morally right that I, personally, and/or a societal moral system that I adhere to, consider morally wrong. Heck, a societal moral system that I adhere to may consider some action morally wrong that I or others, personally, consider morally not wrong.

As an example, take nudity. The prevailing moral system in the U.S. considers public nudity morally wrong. But there are a lot of Americans that don't consider nudity morally wrong. But most of those honor the societal moral standard by not parading around nude in public. In some places, that could even get you arrested. But there are places where people can express their nudity - nudist communities, nude beaches, their own homes, etc. Further, nudity may be considered taboo on certain TV channels or at certain hours of the day on TV, but OK on other channels and at other hours.

Societal moral systems tend to be complex, no doubt, due to the wide range of personal moral standards. That's why your apparently black-and-white "objective" Biblical standard, if it exists (which you have not demonstrated) is impractical.

I want to further address your statement:

you agree that it is right for them, under their own system

What I said is that under their moral system, it is considered morally right. This does not mean that I don't think there may be an overriding moral system, say humanitarianism, under which I and other adherents consider something morally wrong in any society - slavery and genocide, for example - and under which we, as a society that adheres to the overriding moral system, may be justified in taking action to end the practice we consider morally wrong (preferably by persuasion, but by force, if necessary, as in the Civil War and WWII).

How does it help us understand the morality of driving RR's to know what you personally think?

Do I smell that strawman again? Have I said that what I personally think is the answer to such morality questions?

What someone personally thinks may or may not significant in defining societal moral standards. Consensus of a group (a society) is - the combination of what many people personally think. Got it?

Now, it may happen that what one person personally thinks is significant. That one person, if persuasive or in power, may convince a group, or even a society, to agree with him or her. This can happen for the good of humankind or, unfortunately, for the bad. Or that one person could be someone in a position of influence, say the Pope, or a dictator, that can by persuasion or force establish his or her personal moral thought on a group or society. (BTW, one of the humanitarian moral standards that I and many others hold is that it is usually wrong to force moral standards on people, though obviously there may be exceptions, as in forcefully opposing those practicing slavery or genocide).

Isn't it enough that the British think its morally right?

For some moral issues (such as driving Rolls Royces), yes. These moral issues are ones which may be merely a matter of preference, and which tend to do no harm. Who cares if the British drive Rolls Royces? Who would it harm? They can choose to drive them, and I can choose not to. I can consider it morally right for them and morally wrong for me.

For other moral issues for which there is an overriding humanitarian concern, such as slavery and genocide, no, it's not enough that some society considers it morally right.

And once again to complicate matters, many moral issues are not so black-and-white, and it may take a lot of thought, effort, and cooperation to come to a moral consensus on the issue. Often, there ends up being a rather complex, compromising moral system around a particular issue, such as with nudity in the U.S., where it's morally OK to do the action under some conditions but not morally OK to do it in others.

If you give it a little thought, I think you'd see that this is a pretty good, if brief and perhaps incomplete, description of how the world works in regards to morals.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
How do you get from noting that a clear consensus exists that murder and child molestation are morally wrong for everyone, to the conclusion that this consensus was created by humans, without relying on God?

Well, we had to. The Bible doesn't clearly teach that either murder or child molestation are morally wrong for everyone, that's for sure. You even admitted that when you argue that what God says to do is morally right, even if that action is something like murder which I personally consider morally wrong (as in a parent killing a rebellious child, which you admitted is morally wrong). Under the bible's OT moral system, I would be committing a moral wrong not to kill my son if he was rebellious and cursed me. I find that repugnant and thus find the Bible worthless as a moral guide. Since the Bible is supposedly provided to us by your God, your God is therefore worthless as a moral guide. I consider it wrong for someone to do something they consider morally wrong like murder just because a God supposedly tells them to. Apparently, you have no problem with that.

And I and others have already explained several times on this thread how such a consensus is reached by humans. Practically, most humans, including myself, don't want to be murdered and don't want their children molested. Through empathy and compassion (human traits which don't need to be attributed to God), those desires can be projected to extend to others. If I don't want to be murdered or to have my child molested, then Joe down the street doesn't either, and neither does Abdul in Arabia, Mary in Australia, Somsak in Thailand, etc. So it's in my best interest, and in the best interest of like-minded people with which I interact, to construct a consensus moral system under which we can live together in relative peace and harmony.

Keith

Thanks, Mageth for your patience. I think you've shown me that my strawman was in my suggesting that YOUR own subjective values had somehow determined what is/isn't morally right. I was just puzzeled as to why you kept inserting your own personal views which made me think it was part of the moral reasoning for calling something right or wrong.

Which brings me to my next point. Are "humanistic" values (the golden rule and others) morally superior to "antihumanistic values", and if so, why, and who's idea of what is/isn't "humanistic" ought to be accepted as the standard?