Peter Kirby

Since morality has no objective reality according to your philosophy, you don't know that the Buddha or Hitler or Jehovah has a correct morality, as there is no independent standard for comparison, and indeed you can't know anything about morality because there is nothing real to be known. Of course, maybe that is not a problem to you.

best,
Peter Kirby

yguy

Excuse me?

To say that it is moral subjectivism to believe that a person can be the source of objective morality is not comparable in the least to moral subjectivism in the normal sense, because the Person in whom such authority is vested is God. His POV is necessarily moral subjectivist, but from the POV of a human being who believes in Him, it is objectivist.

The error you make is turning God into a personage comparable to those other historical figures. You betray your bias by comparing the others with Jehovah, whom you seem to view as merely a more powerful version of other tyrants.

The Other Michael

Perhaps Peter is making the additional distinction of Jehovah being an imaginary "more powerful version of other tyrants"? At least with real tyrants you have the chance of finding out what they actually thought on a subject.

cheers,
Michael

Peter Kirby

You have said that there is no standard of morality that is independent of existing beings, particularly (but not limited to) Jehovah. That means that morality does not have an objective reality, but is dependent (to the extent that it exists at all) on the character and/or say-so of these beings.

I agree that you do not promote moral subjectivism in the more usual sense; your brand is much more insidious, which is why I call it an ultimate form of moral subjectivism. Instead of spreading the subjective "authority" to construct morality around to include the people who are using this morality to get along, as normal subjectivists would do, you take the highly abnormal yet subjectivist stance that morality corresponds to the dictates of a single entity (Jehovah) who is not even himself bound by morality. The abnormality of this view is revealed by your very phraseology that "authority is vested" in Jehovah, as if (though you would deny this, as you are a subjectivist) there were some independent standard that gave authority to the moral pronouncements of Jehovah.

"I'm just making this up as I go along, but you pretend like it has objective authority?" Why would anyone take such a claim seriously? If morality does not have objective reality from the perspective of Jehovah, then morality does not have objective reality for anyone, as objectivity means that it applies equally to all.

Moreover, if you do not have a standard of morality that is independent of Jehovah, then how do you come to know that Jehovah is good or that Jehovah knows what he is talking about when he makes moral dictates? Why would you think that Jehovah is privy to objective truth about morality, which you believe does not exist, any more than Siddharta Gautama or Karl Marx? What makes Jehovah right and these others wrong, if there is no objective way for you to tell?

No, the error that you make is assuming that logic does not apply to every being.

Since when is the Buddha a tyrant? Why were you drawn to compare Jehovah with Hitler and not with Siddharta? Is it because of your own view of God as an amoral dictator, one to whom right and wrong do not apply?

best,
Peter Kirby

yguy

Why would its dependence on this Being make it non-objective?

Do you mean by this that morality is best determined by consensus? If so, how do we exclude the criminal element from tweaking any moral code to its advantage, as has happened in every civilization?

If that single individual were like you or me, that would obviously be a problem, as absolute power corrupts us absolutely, because we don't know how to handle that kind of power. God does.

I don't think that can be properly inferred from my statement. I know you're having a problem with the idea that a Person can BE an objective standard, but I don't see why, unless you are projecting your own inadequacies onto the Creator.

No, it means it applies to everything that can be objectified, that can be called a thing. God cannot.

If there were such a standard, how would you know THAT was good?

I don't believe their was much truth in Marx, but let us stipulate that there was for the sake of argument? Where did he or other "luminaries" get it?

To say logic applies to God is like thinking you could get information about the sun by using a mirror to reflect its own light back at it.

Since you threw in Hitler, I was guessing, perhaps wrongly, that you see the Jehovah of the Bible as a tyrant.

Right comes from Him. Wrong does not influence Him. Technically, it could indeed be claimed that He is amoral if by that you mean there is no higher moral standard that can be applied to Him - but it is a semantic illusion which makes Him out to be a Stalin. You might as well try to apply Newtonian physics to the motions of electrons as apply humanistic moral dynamics to the Creator.

kctan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yguy
So far all kinds of morality societies based upon are determined by consensus. Even if criminal elements wants to temper with the moral code, they'll have to be in the majority in the first place or at the ruling end of the populace.

How can you be so sure that we'll definitely be corrupted by absolute power ? How can you be so sure that your god won't be ? From your POV, your god is as corrupted as any tyrant.

Every individual has an 'objective' standard. That's why morality is relative. By basing your morality upon that of another, you're just giving up your own to duplicate another's. In your case, some primitive guide developed by some primitive society.

Yes god can be called a thing. So does you & me.

Same as where your god get it's.

Which means your god is illogical right ? Or you don't know the answer ?

Prove that right comes from your god. Prove that wrong does not influence it. These kinds of assertions are easily made. I can prove that no rights came from your god as all the perceived evil in the world are occuring even as I type this message. Either naturalistic or human caused. Likewise the above does shows that wrongs are coming forth & the source can be attributed to your god. If you wish to leave out the human caused wrongs, by all means but there's still the naturalistic ones.

If your god wants to judge us by our humanity, then it's only right that we judge your god by our humanity as well. If your god can't live up to our standard of humanity, then it's in no place to judge any humans at all. This is like people saying that this animal don't have this or don't have that. This is like saying a computer you built isn't up to standard. If you ain't that computer, how can you know that it's not up to standard ?

BTW Ignoring moi already ?

Am I annoying you yet ?

Nowhere357

I am aware that technical correctness is of little value to you, but I appreciate that you address the point.

I concede that a feeling of moral rightness increases our ability to confront and resist immoral acts.

Very good.

Are you aware that a feeling of moral rightness does not require belief in the xian god?

I had said: "But the xian god practices might makes right. Now, evade away."

You failed to address this (!). The xian god, according to the bible, punishes people for eternity, if they fail to "accept" jesus.

Clearly then, our morality is not important here, only our subserviance. God, is not interested in "right", she is interested in acquiring mindless slave-drones.

I am not a slave. I can be enslaved, but will resist until I am free or dead. How about you?

yguy

Not a feeling, a knowing. And yes. You can have that knowing without ever having heard of the "Christian God", or even having such a belief. I maintain, however, that you cannot have it without God, whether He is acknowledged or not.

That is a literal interpretation favored by Hypochristians. You can hardly be justly punished for failing to accept someone you don't know. Perhaps you've rejected Jesus because He has been misrepresented to you, in which case you're really rejecting the hypocrisy of bigots. God knows the difference, I have no doubt.

Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, when you are doing the best you know how, God takes you to have meant better than you knew.

There is no such thing as a person who is not enslaved either to good or to evil. There are Christians who are slaves to the latter, and atheists who are slaves to the former - they just don't know it yet.

winstonjen

Really? Does he implant that information into us at birth? If that were true, wouldn't we all agree to be his slaves?

And I think you FEEL that you know - how can you absolutely know for sure?

Nowhere357

Feeling vs knowing: a sematics question for some other thread.

You maintain that god is required for feeling/knowing morality. Assertion, of course, and I would counter with the assertion that if god is required for this, there is no reason to suppose that the xian god is the source.

Haven't heard that term before! I like it. Pronounced "hippo-christians"?

I agree with this, except for the notion that god is the xian god. Here's why:

Your position must rely on your personal interpretation of the bible. Once we have escaped the fundamentalist interpretation, and decide to accept the good from the bible, and reject the evil, we are no longer talking about the xian god.

Other religions/philosophies may contain all the good we have accepted, and none of the evil we have rejected. For example, without the concept of hell, the concept of the "light of jesus" filling us with love, sounds just like the "enlightenment" of many eastern philosophies.

This is the only god that makes sense to me. I think it is NOT the xian god.

In the sense that we are all "slaves" to our brains, I agree.

If I understand your interpretation correctly, god is interested in our morality, and not necessarily our religion. Is this right?

Thanks for the good post, yguy.