Hired Gun

Finally. Very nice to make your thoughtful acquaintance, Defiant. I'm glad that you are above chasing after frisbees and I have complete confidence that you will know what I mean by that. :-)



I believe that this is a more complex way of stating, 'Do unto others as you would want done unto you'.

I am in complete agreement with point #1 because it reflects reality as I know it; Everyone personally decides what is moral and immoral.

While point#2 makes logical sense, (I can't see why a person would decide to create a moral code that they had no intention of following), it doesn't take into account the prospect that a person would not think hypocrisy to be wrong. Why must a person follow his code of conduct if that code allows for hypocrisy? In other words, "Murder is wrong, unless someone gets me really mad."

Such a code wouldn't necessarily violate #3, if the person one murdered also had the same moral code.

The fault with point#3 lies within its impracticality if any justice system is to be implemented. What if my personal code says that murder is wrong, but that a murderer should be forgiven, not incarcerated? I then go on to commit a murder and you imprison me. You think that it is moral to punish a person who breaks their own moral code, but I consider it immoral. (Hey, we all make mistakes!) At this point, aren't you forcing your own code upon me?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that "Do unto others" is a very practical and compelling code of self government. But I recognize that others will disagree with this code, and at that point, who am I to tell them that their code is wrong? Your proposal contains two assumptions; it assumes that people will agree that hypocrisy is wrong and that forcing one's morality (or lack thereof) on another is also wrong.

I copied this from my post at T-web to save time:

Why would God's 'opinion' be any less subjective than the opinions of men? God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to interpretation. To deny this would be like saying to another, "We know what you think you mean, but we disagree."

The only way that morality can be conceptualized is through the actions of free will agents. The Christian God, by definition, has created the free will agents and has established a purpose and a plan involving the resulting morality of these free will agents. Therefore, God, and only God, is in a position to be the objective moral authority.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

Um...I believe that you have just answered your own question.



The 'Spirit' generated by the text that describes Jesus Christ in the New Testament, provides me with the objective reason to think infanticide to be wrong; I don't think that Jesus would approve of infanticide and my love for Him supplies me with the motivation to seek His approval. (I know where you are going next; OT vs NT, same God, yadda yadda. My reply; Same God, progressive revelation, God can morally take an infant's life, If I thought that the OT God was complete, I would be a Jew, not a Christian, etc..) Without belief in God, Peter Singer logically sees that there is no compelling reason to refrain from infanticide and that logically, there are very good reasons to support the moral acceptance of infanticide. I agree with him completely. Fortunately, however, I believe in a god who disagrees with him.

[quote]
It's also pertinent to note that the analogical comparison of human parenting with the god/man relationship is clearly flawed. Children are not capable moral agents and therefore parents are justified in treating them differently than adults. This is not the case with adults...[quote]

God allegedly designed us as moral agents to carry out his moral plans. Compared to God, who is by definition, without sin, men are hardly 'capable' moral agents. Thus, God is justified in treating humans differently than He would Himself. When man manages to be without sin, I'm sure that God will treat them as His equal. I don't think that is about to happen any time soon.

A.S.A. Jones

Jinto

The problem with your board game analogy is this: suppose someone designs a board game. Then someone else comes up aith a way to use the same equipment in a different game. How then, are we to decide that we must play one game over the other? Is poker any more or less valid a use of cards than blackjack?

In short, there is no reason why the intent that someone had when designing a system is the only right use of that system. What a system is designed to do is irrelevant, what is relevant is what it can do.

By the way, if humas were truly designed for moral behavior, then why is it that they seem to be so bad at it? This would seem to falsify the premise that God intended us to be moral.

Bill Snedden

Um...no. Positing god as a "valuer" doesn't immediately render his values objective. They are no less subjective than yours or mine. They're simply his preferences; who says he gets to make all the rules?

How can you argue that "...God can morally take an infant's life..." and that god disagrees with Peter Singer, when the definition of infanticide is "taking an infant's life"?

It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too...

Unfortunately, one's status WRT sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is a moral agent. God is most assuredly not justified in treating us differently than he would himself. You said something similar in an earlier post:

You then go on to indicate that you would answer these both in the negative.

But from the standpoint of modern, democratic societies, this is clearly the wrong answer. No one is above the law; it exists to equalize. Those in authority gain it by consent of the governed, but they have no right to exceed the specific grant of power which includes the rule of law. That's the whole point of democracy and the force of the social contract that lends legitimacy to modern democratic societies.

If god is able to break every rule he creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, then morality is a farce...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

QitALL

[QUOTE

(I know where you are going next; OT vs NT, same God, yadda yadda. My reply; Same God, progressive revelation, God can morally take an infant's life, If I thought that the OT God was complete, I would be a Jew, not a Christian, etc..)

A.S.A. Jones [/B]

[/QUOTE]

How can an incomplete OT God establish an objective, ultimate morality? If OT God's morality is incomplete, does this mean that Jews are by definition immoral?

Jobar

Hello, Hired Gun.

First, an observation, and a question. It seems to me that your justifications for your Christian belief are all moral arguments. As such, this discussion would be more appropriate in our Moral Foundations and Principles forum. I am not a moderator in this, the GRD forum, but I would suggest that one of them should transfer this thread to MF&P.

The question- solely from curiosity- do I understand correctly that you are a woman? I normally have no trouble distinguishing men from women by their posting style, and you have an extremely masculine style. I keep wanting to address you as 'Mr. Jones'! (This makes no difference to your arguments, of course- I think they are mistaken. )

I want to ask you why you think your system of moral absolutes are really absolute. You used 'thou shalt not kill' as an example. Do you truly believe that under no circumstances should one human kill another? If this is so, you do not consider war or self-defense extenuating circumstances, correct? And therefore you consider any church which grants absolution for killing in those circumstances, to be immoral and breakers of God's commandments? (Are you a Quaker, or a Mennonite? You don't sound like one.)

I also would like to take a stab () at providing you with a workable system of relativist ethics. Ah, for clarity, I'm just going to list the famous 'metal rules'-

Golden Rule- Do as you would be done by.

Silver Rule- Do not to others what you would not have done to yourself.

Brass Rule- Do to as you are done by.

Iron Rule- Do unto others as you will, and can.

The system I try to live by starts by applying the Golden Rule- I attempt to treat others, at first interaction, as I want to be treated. I try to be honest, and honorable, and as generous as my circumstances allow.

If I am treated so in return, wonderful- I prefer to live by the Golden Rule, and in the company of others who prefer it too. BUT- if I am instead treated as a means, and not as an end- my response is to switch to the Brass Rule. And as long as I am being screwed, I try to screw back, applying the Iron Rule to the best of my ability. Ah, but not always- sometimes I attempt to offer good for bad. Not often. And not on any set schedule. But sometimes I will extend the olive branch, and if it is accepted I will switch to the Silver Rule- I will not betray, unless betrayed.

If you are familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, you may recognize this as the winning strategy for extended games. I first read it in an essay by Isaac Asimov, many years ago, and I find that it allows me to live in a society where not all men are as honorable as I, with a minimum of victimization, and a minimum of anger. It requires no God, no absolute font of morality- which is a good thing, as no such font exists.

Cipher Girl

Hi Hired Gun

If you take all of the bible as literally true, "Everthing god commands is right and moral", then don't you have the morals of a 5 year old? A 5 year old says "I had better do as I am told, otherwise I'm in big trouble".

If you don't take every word in the bible as the literal word of god, then you would have to interpet the bible. Where do you get the guidance to select the parts of the bible that make up your moral code? It can't be within the bible, because you would then select everthing as true, even the the verses advising infanticide and genecide.

Just my 2 cents worth. I'm no philosophy student or anything.

AquaVita

Jobar is right...this thread is migrating more and more towards discussion of morality. Off to MF&P!

Secular Pinoy

Jobar, that reads like something from Carl Sagan's last book, Billions and Billions. And Hired Gun said that Sagan is completely lacking in any substance of profound thought. So it might be of little worth to him/her.

KnightWhoSaysNi

I think the opposite can be true for theism or an acceptance of Christianity too. A loss of compassion can result from that as well. You may recall the rationale that Socrates/Sarfati gave at TheologyWeb for his attitude towards non-believers and fellow Christians who disagree with him. He charitably refers to fellow Christians who disagree with his approach as WFJ's (Wimps for Jesus):

From: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthr...6&pagenumber=4

It does in fact appear that his desire to serve Christ has actually led him to lose compassion and empathy for others. After all, he's just taking what he thinks Christian theology teaches to its logical conclusion. Being nasty towards the heathen makes God happy. (On a personal note, I think someone like him would turn more people away from Christianity as opposed to bringing them in. E.g., becoming a Christian means becoming someone like that? The fact that he was voted poster of the month at Tweb I think reflects badly on conservative Christians (at least at Tweb).

To a more extreme case, you may remember when I mentioned Christian Reconstructionism. I once corresponded with a CR who wrote this to me:

from: http://www.errantyears.com/1996/old/000149.html

Yes, I'm sure you can bring up example of how a secular worldview can bring up a lack of compassion or downright evil beliefs too. But my point with Socrates/Sarfati and the CR is that a commitment to Christ rather than atheism doesn't always lead to gaining a sense of compassion and can even lead to just the opposite (and even a walk towards the darkest abyss, like the CR example).

Here's something to consider also. Regardless if you think that non-theists or humanists cannot rationally justify good deeds, why is it that many non-theists do in fact behave morally anyway? Personally, I volunteer at a homeless shelter every week and feel a sense of altruism and satisfaction from helping people. One II poster here, LadyShea, actually donated her healthy kidney so a friend of hers could survive. What do you think motivates many non-theists to act compassionately towards others? Why aren't we all evil hedonists on a rampage?