Technos

Hehe, well Tercel, if you have no argument to give, that's fine by me. You've shot yourself in the foot enough trying to argue with other anyway

The Lost Number

Even if Objectivism was the only fair solution and it "required" a God, this would not in any way prove that God existed or that if he did he cared about human actions, anymore than crows need for a scarecrow to be moral and not eat the farmer's corn proves that the scarecrow is in fact a real person. How a given society reacts to something does not automatically determine it's truth.

But further, relative morality does exist, and this is blatantly obvious. For example, in most industrialized countries today, it would be wrong to support organizations of untrained vigalantes that "enforce" the law instead of qualified law enforcement personnel. The former group would clearly be highly unreliable and dangerous. The latter would be far better. But was this always so? No. In the past, in frontier days, there was little to no "law". People had to rely mostly on themselves and other untrained civilians for it. At that time, support of vigalante organizations was certainly the right thing to do, as without them, total anarchy would have ensued.

Or consider the nature of war. In the past, one could have little concern for wars happening in a different land. People killing each other with black powder, manually operating weapons, bayonetts and horse-riding soldiers was hardly a nightmarish threat to all of the human race. This attitude was true for most of our history. However, recently weapons have been developed--chemical, biological, nuclear and probably more to come or which may already exist but that we aren't told about--that could turn an otherwise irrelevant war into a very big threat for lots of other people, if not everyone. It is therefore important that we break the milennia old, practically worldwide tradition of not caring about wars which are unrelated to us. Nowdays, one little flaw in them could take us all out.


There are many more examples but these will suffice for now.

BTW the "atheists are immoral or too prone to immorality" argument, which you clearly believe in, has been debunked ad naseum, and furthermore it doesn't say much for the morality of theists when, logically, they confess to being incapable of ever caring for anyone other than themselves, thinking its ok to hurt innocent people just for personal gain, and that the only reason for not doing any of this is the fear of punishment (from God). Atheists actually give a damn about other people. Using your reasoning, theists don't.

Pomp

Uh-oh. I've got an unanswered post from Tercel here! I'm sorry, I'll get back to you tonight, Tercel.

Tercel

Of course. However I am presuming consistency in beliefs is important. Since, in general, it is necessary to act as if there existed real morals, hence consistency demands that it is necessary to have beliefs that are consistent with those actions and thus we must actually believe there exist real morals. If the existence of real morals implies the existence of God (as I would argue it does), then we must believe in God.
It doesn't prove God exists, only that we should believe in him.

The idea of Moral Relativism that I am referring to here, involves more than the idea that different cultures see different things as right and wrong. That is obviously true. Moral Relativists are people who say that every culture's way of thinking is equally valid. It's a version of political correctness. In reality it's utterly meaningless: How can two different cultures be "equally right" unless there is really no such thing as right and wrong? Frankly, I see Moral Relativists as Nihilists pretending they're not.
To take the attitude that the Morals of one culture might be better or more correct than the morals of another culture, or that throughout time human morality has progressed or improved, implies Moral Objectivism since you are comparing each system to a hypothetical "best".

My argument is not that Moral Objectivism is true, but that people act as if it is. There is little getting around the idea that to have a stable society, the people in it have to act morally. And ultimately (over any reasonable length of time), there needs to something in that society to justify the people acting morally, otherwise they won't.
Hence my argument that it is necessary to have God as a justification for morality.

I don't clearly believe in it at all, since I don't believe it to be true. Atheists can be extremely moral. However, my argument is that there is an inconsistently at some level (be it between their beliefs and actions, or within their beliefs) when they act morally.
Or perhaps you would like to explain to me what logically justifies an atheist acting morally? (It can't be done, of course)

That is not true.

You give a damn about other people? Why?
Explain to me why you think other people should be given a damn about.
I've got my reasons for justifying it: They are the creation of God in His image, Christ died for them, God commands us to love them.
I don't deny that you think caring for other people is good: I agree it is. However I do not believe you can actually justify your position on the matter without appealing to God.

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Anunnaki

I`m sorry to barge in here,but I just can`t help myself after reading what Tercel just said. This might have already been mentioned,but I didn`t read the whole thread,I just saw what Tercel said at the end and wanted to make a simple observation.

Tercel said:
Why do you need to be commanded to do whats right and care about people? I don`t mean to be rude,but if I didn`t know you I`d think you might be mentally handicapped and have no concept of right from wrong on your own.
It would really be a sad state of affairs if everyone was being kind to people just because it`s what the boss told us to do. You make it sound as though you`d be a monster if you didn`t think God was watching you.

I don`t see why you feel we can`t justify human nature without looking towards some God for instructions. How did the human race manage not to totally self destruct for tens of thousands of years before your God revealed himself and gave his commandments telling us how to live together?

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Theli

Tercel...

Are you back? It's been awhile since I saw you here.
Anyway, let's start the fistfight.

This brings me back to a question I asked you before, but never got a real answer.

What moraly justifiable reason can you give me to act benevolent assuming god exists that you can't give me assuming he doesn't exist?
A problem here is that you reffer to god, not as a living being capable of changing it's mind but rather just a set of moralcodes.
And I don't see why we would need god to tell us not to go kill each other.
What aspect of god would make an individual act extra morally?

Theli agrees, Theli will keep scrolling.

Well, as a society we tend to emphesize the rules that makes our society peacefull and livable. Ofcourse there will always be "rouges" who goes against those rules, no matter who or what set those rules.

Qeh?

And by what standard do you judge right from wrong regarding others moral standards?

Howcome? If they have a moral standard, how can they be nihilists?

I would say that the objective "best" is reffered to by almost all people as peace and prospherity. If a society fails in that manner, the people in it suffer. Isn't that good enough?

Yes, we do have a moral sense that most people follow. I don't see why we would need god as an extra wheel.

Living in a stable socitety has it's own merits. I think many people around Isreal would agree to that right now.

And just how does god justify morality?
By offering candy as a reward?
Or by buring people who sidestep?
What does this god have to offer?

Apperantly we can be moral (nice ) without expecting to get rewarded for it. Isn't this proof that god is not a necessity?
As I believe that "god's decree" was ultimatly writen by humans and it shows that humans can have moral values without some moralcode from outer space.

I believe that violent acts commited to other people will eventually bounce back at yourself. Not all the time ofcouse. But I guess the same goes with god, alot of sinners is forgiven for their acts, you know.
Objective morals has a way of becoming elitism.

Guilt? Is that what drives you? Not guilt for your possible victims but for a guy in a book you never knew. If god has to command a person to love other people then perhaps that person belong in hell.
And why should you listen to him?

Atheists appealing to god? That would be the day.

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Tercel

I don't. It's simply one reason among many.

Because experience in discussing and thinking about the issue has taught me it's impossible to justify moral behaviour sensibly without appealing to God. You can try if you like. I'm happy to poke holes in anything you care to try.

Vorkosigan

Tercel, that's just stupid. Do you think a billion Chinese Confucianists, Buddhists and folk religionists have no justification for their moral behavior?

In any case, experience in discussing and thinking about the issue has taught me it's impossible to justify moral behaviour sensibly by appealing to God. Christian morality is nihilistic, inhuman, authoritarian, incoherent, incomplete and largely evil. Where Christians have learned to behave, it is because they have adopted secular or other non-Christian values.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

I thought I did answer that.
I see the important thing is that God is responsible for creating and sustaining us. We owe everything to God, everything good we have, our life, our existence, everything. If we owe everything to God, then it seems to me that we have somewhat of an obligation back to him. And hence, the commands he gives for how we should be we have an obligation to obey.

Okay, I've edited that to clarify. It now reads:
"How can two different cultures be "equally right" unless there is really no such thing as right and wrong?"
Clearer?

Peace and prosperity for who? The rich? The slave-owners?
I presume your answer will be: Everyone.
But you see, even such a basic definition already incorporates moral ideas of equality etc.


However, it is to my advantage that I live in a society where other people are moral. But it is never to the individual's advantage to act morally: Morality, almost always involves putting myself out for others (or for some hypothetical good) which is hardly to my own advantage.

Vorkosigan

This is an extremely naive view of morality, one that no doubt grows from the characteristically inhuman, authoritarian, nihilistic Christian view of moral behavior as either self-denial or penning in the animals. There's nothing in Christianity that suggests humans can be responsible social beings. That's probably why civil society had to wait for secular types to emerge in order to be invented.

The fact is that moral behavior is generally to one's advantage, especially in situations where long-term relationships are being cultivated. That is one reason why most people behave morally most of the time. Moral behavior does not involve putting oneself out for others; what it involves is the deferment of a short-term gain in favor of a long-term one, or a concrete personal gain for a diffuse social one that also represents a personal gain in the long run.

Vorkosigan

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>