Mageth

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Keith
You seem to be expressing your own subjective views about what would be "better" for society and inferring that this must be true for society. I can't tell if you were just giving me your own opinion, or if you meant that society OUGHT to be that way for another reason (other than what seems "better" to you).

Of course I've been giving you my own opinion. And I said society IDEALLY would be that way, not OUGHT, and that it was VOLUNTARY on each person's part.

How much clearer could I have made it? You're preaching the OUGHT side for some other reason - but that, too, is your own subjective view, your own opinion, and is what would seem better to you.

Normal

Why? You are picking and choosing which laws to follow. If the Bible represents god's objective morality, you are in violation of it by not killing rebeillious children. Either follow the objective morality that the Bible teaches, or admit it is false. Which is more moral to you?

Mageth

Umm, OK. I don't recall saying that it would have anything to do with Nazis at all.

I do recall saying that it was voluntary and obviously idealistic to expect everyone to voluntarily follow such a system, that due to human nature the real world doesn't work that way, and that's why we have to have codified systems to encourage or enforce "moral" behavior.

Mageth

It has nothing to do with "political correctness." You're constructing another strawman.

Apparently you haven't been listening.

Societies agree upon and adopt moral standards that declare certain actions as morally wrong under that moral standard. In the case of murder and rape, a society's moral standard may include "murder and rape are morally wrong for all humans, under all (or depending how you define "murder", under most) conditions". Obviously, not all people consider themselves under that moral standard, or may for other reasons violate the moral standards, so the society has a "moral" that says "it is right to punish those who violate our moral standards, including those who commit rape and murder" and may codify laws to enforce at least some of the society's moral standards.

[Edited to add: that's why we call it "civilization"]

Outside these human-invented moral standards, there is no moral wrong. You yourself implied this when you said that if one does not "know" or "realize" an action is morally wrong, then one, in doing the action, is not committing a moral wrong. (And there isn't anything "written on our hearts". If you've had children, you should know that one has to teach them what to do and what not to do).

And please provide this objective moral standard. If it's objective, you should be able to.

Keith

The fact that people are willing to fight wars over their religious disagreements isn't proof that God's moral law is unclear to us all. How can YOU decide what is right for others?

Keith

Are you saying that the bible commands me that I must kill a rebellious child? Where in the bible does God command this to me?

Keith

You said that a society's moral system is right for that particular society. Each society decides what is right for itself. This leads inescapably to the conclusion that if the Nazi's decide that Jews have no rights, and that they ought to be sent to the camps, then that is "right" for that (the Nazi) society.

Mageth

The fact that people are willing to fight wars over their religious disagreements isn't proof that God's moral law is unclear to us all.

Once again, if it's so clear, state this moral law that is clear to all Christian religions.

Many (and I mean many) religious disagreements are over moral issues. It's clear that various Bible-based religions have interpreted the alleged moral laws of God differently, with both sides using the Bible to defend their side. For example, most Protestants do not think birth control is immoral, but the RC Church officially does. Some Protestants think one or more of gambling, drinking, and dancing are immoral; the Catholic Church has fewer if any moral restrictions on those. The RC church uses the Bible to defend not allowing women priests, as do some other Protestant denominations; other Protestant denominations use the bible to defend allowing women ministers. Some Christians use the Bible to defend the stance that executions are morally wrong; other Christians use the Bible to defend the stance that executions are morally right. In the 19th Century, some Americans used the Bible to show that slavery was morally wrong; others used the Bible to defend slavery. The list of moral disagreements based on the Bible goes on and on. Is it right to use a rod to discipline your child? Should wives be "submissive" to their husbands? What does "submissive" mean? Should women be silent in church? Should women cut their hair? Should women wear makeup? I've seen serious disagreements on all these issues. Clearly, the Bible is not an objective guide for determining morals.

How can YOU decide what is right for others?

Who said any of us should decide what's right for others? What I've been saying is that we, as groups, get together and decide what's right for the group. That's the way it's always worked; that's the way it works in religious groups and secular groups.

Keith

Then it wasn't morally wrong for Pol Pot to murder, rape, and exterminate his countrymen for the "crime" of being literate. Sounds like a wonderful way to build a "civilization."

Once again, you can find the objective and right moral standard in the bible. Its source, is God.

Keith

If there is no standard by which we can OBJECTIVELY know what is inhuman, incomplete, arbitrary, incoherent, and evil, then all this can only be just your own personal opinion, no?