Rusting Car Bumper

The "objective standard" of when a particular act falls in the bounds of a moral proscription (i.e. "Thou shalt not murder") can be discussed without connecting it to the standard by which the proscription is chosen to be a proscription in the first place. That is, I can objectively say that person Y comitting action X is "murder" objectively without necessarily having an absolutist basis for deciding that Y is murder in the first place.

That is often demonstrated to be a problem when theists discuss morality. They miss the deeper problem that there different aspects to moral questions and each aspect MAY or MAY NOT require "objective standards."

The deeper aspects being, "How does one decide what is moral", "Why be moral in the first place" and "How does one decide that one is actually being moral, either in general or under particular circumstances, in a practical sense once one has decided on moral standards?"

The question of objectivity vs subjectivity is different for each of these. Thus, your claims about morality and objectivity are at best very unclear and at worst hopelessly muddled.

The statement is vague. What does it mean specifically that "God by his very nature is the moal standard?"

This is where we get into the aspects of Euthypro's Dilemma.

That is if I know that God is moral then clearly I already understood moral principles well enough to make that decision. If I can say "God is good because he is just, compassionate, etc" then I already know what good is apart from god. If so then I don't need God to know what is Good.

On the other hand, if I say that morals arise from god and don't exist apart from Him, then clearly I know what properties of God apply to morality and which are not. ("compassion","Forgiveness" as opposed "infinitness", "all-knowing") Clearly, we don't say that one needs to be "infinite" or "all knowing" to be moral but expressing compassion and forgiveness is commonly said to be part of moral frameworks. Thus, we still have to have knowledge of the properties of morality apart from god.

So in either case God isn't necessary to know what is Good.

If it's simply a matter of "God said and that is that" then morality is arbitrary and meaningless.

I think I've just demonstrated otherwise. You simply havent argued ypour case at all. You have merely asserted it.

DC

Pyrrho

Here I must disagree with you. Christianity has, at its basis, as much hate as Nazism. If you don't believe me, read the Bible. It is full of pretty horrendous stuff, including genocide, approved by the Christian God.

Now, if you say that some Christians don't pay any attention to such details, the same may be said of Nazis. There was a rather famous German conductor who became a Nazi in order to further his career (though it was a disadvantage right after WWII), but he never had any interest in politics. All he was interested in doing was conducting. And he was very good at that. (He's dead now, after making many fine recordings.)



To say that people are stupid and ignorant and unworthy of one's friendship does not entail the belief that they lack value as human beings. Carrie has not, for example, even hinted that Christians should be rounded up and killed. (She would need to indicate that something like this would at least be acceptable before one would be justified in saying that she believes that Christians lack value as human beings.) She just has said that she does not like them, she regards them as stupid, and she does not want them for friends.

Perhaps it would be useful to consider an analogy. Suppose we were to consider all adults who believe in Santa Claus. What would you say about them? Would you say that there must be something seriously wrong with their thinking? Do you want to have adult friends who believe in Santa Claus? Seriously, do you want to have adult friends who believe in Santa Claus? Of course, belief in Santa Claus is just as reasonable as belief in god, so they would be no sillier than Christians.

Now, it is true that they may be reasonable about other things in their life, but they certainly have a serious defect in their thinking, regardless of how reasonable they might be about everything else. And, one is justified in believing that they all have a serious defect in their thinking. Whether one applies the label "stupid" or not is likely to be purely a matter of the precise definition of that term that one employs.

For my part, I want friends with as few silly beliefs as possible. And I have met more than a couple of atheists with silly beliefs, too, whom I have no interest in befriending.



I was going to say something about this, but I see that Ensign Steve has already satisfactorily responded. And has made additional comments that further clarify the matter. (Though I disagree with Ensign Steve about people all having the moral right to believe whatever they want; see The Ethics of Belief.)

brighid

Absolutely!


No, I don't believe that is what she said. She stated that she felt that theists, specifically Christians were ignorant, et al because they believed and hence she questioned whether they are worthy of friendship. She also clearly stated her anger and hatred for Christians for little more then a belief in Christ.

I base this moral code on the Golden Rule so to speak. If I do not want to be judged improperly due to the fact that I lack a belief in Gods, I must, in order to remain morally consistent extend the same principle to all others (regardless if that principle is returned.) If I do not extend that principle then I am a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is immoral and therefore it is immoral to judge people in a way I do not wish to be judged. Furthermore I believe in the value of the individual and the totality of character above all other things, most specifically labels, even self-identifying labels unless those things can be determined to be accurate character indicators.

Although I do not believe in Gods, find the notion rather silly and even think organized religion to dangerous I cannot view a person who believes in a God as being without value with no more then the information regarding this God belief.

To say that ALL Christians are ignorant, stupid, rude, and arrogant is wrong because it is not accurate, and then to base a decision about all people one will meet based on inaccurate information to morally justify that anger, hatred and dislike is wrong.

As I have stated before I believe one has the right to associate with whomever one chooses, but the point of this moral discussion (imo anyway and why this is in MF&P and not MD) is to determine the rightness or wrongness of the reasoning behind this disassociation, anger and hatred (as asked for in the OP.)

Brighid

Brighid

Shadowy Man

Well then thank God that we can touch it, weigh it, scatter light off of it, measure its temperature and pressure, ionize it, mix it with other chemicals, and even liquify it, or we might
believe it doesn't exist at all!!

Keith

Well for one, because our society isn't closed and isolated. We live both locally and globally. What should our response be to terrorist acts against us such as on 9/11/01?

If murder is only morally wrong for our society but it is morally right for Arab terrorists, then on what basis do we respond?

Pyrrho

In point of fact, many vegetarians believe that eating meat is immoral. So, my question for brighid is this: Do you believe it is acceptable to reject a class of people as possible friends who are, according to you, immoral? If, for example, you believe that child molesting is immoral, would you, with people you know to be child molesters, reject them as possible friends? If so, then I think you are being inconsistent. However, you might say that each should be judged individually....

In my opinion, Clifford is quite correct when he says: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (The reasoning, in brief, is this: Our beliefs affect our actions, and our actions affect others. Thus, we ought to be careful about our beliefs in order to avoid harming others. For more details, click on the link above.) Thus, I believe all Christians are immoral, as I believe they fail to have sufficient evidence for their beliefs.

brighid

I agree with you and have read the bible. However we aren't discussing Christianty, but the intrinsic value of one who believes in Christ. You and I both know (or should know) that many Christians don't actually read the Bible. Many self-identified Christians don't even believe the Bible to be absolutely true and a majority do not even follow the biblical obligations set forth in the Bible. Some do and some are rather viscious and hateful, but that is an individual choice that is inspired by their interpretation of Christianity. Given that Christians can't even agree on their own theology it is incredibly difficult to accurately define the beliefs of any given Christian by the MERE label of "Christian." THIS IS my point.

Yes, but I would say that the philosophy (if you can call it that) of Nazism is very narrow and focused, whereas Christianity is not. In general one must believe very specific things (and rather hateful at that) in order to gain membership into Nazism (at least as it is today). Christian belief and the actual practice of an individual Christian can and are separate. One must only believe in Christ to be called "Christian."

Now if one were to go and say that I do not like those Christians who support the bombing of abortion clinics, the picketing of gay funerals, and actually act arrogantly, and with malice one could be justified in saying I dislike said person. All Christians do not fit this bill and "Christian" is too broad a category to be valuable in actually defining a person beyond God belief.



I have never said she desired them to be rounded up and killed, so I am not sure where you are going with this. She has said that she hates them, finds them ignorant, stupid, etc. Yes, she says she finds their belief in God to be ignorant, stupid, etc. as well as hates them for judging her to be something she is not. She then asks if she should avoid all Christians or if she should learn to look past their ignorance. I argued for looking past their ignorance on this ONE point and view them as more then this one characteristics.

I also did not say SHE did not value them as human beings, but rather they have value beyond their ignorant belief in a God.



I would say there was something wrong with their thinking on THIS subject, but not that they were somehow mentally deficient and thereby "ignorant and stupid" in all other departments.

I have adult friends who believe in God, actually quite a few who believe in various Gods and Goddesses and therefore yes, I would be open to the possibility of being friends who an adult who believed in Santa Claus if we share many other common thoughts, goals, etc. I am a "liberal" Democrat, but two of my closest friends are tarred and feathered conservative, Republicans. We disagree on many things, but I don't want to be surrounded by only people who share all my point of views. I think that would be literally impossible. They are more then their political views, or their views on God. They are kind, generous, thoughtful, gracious, respectful, wonderful people who I share many other things in common. I would be devastated to lose their friendship. Action is far more important then belief, or even disagreement on what is the correct belief to have.


Yes, but only on their thinking on THIS point - belief in Gods, or Santa Claus. This makes them ignorant, or stupid (although I find that rather offensive) about a particular subject just as I am ignorant about quantum mechanics, but I am not stupid because I am ignorant about quantum mechanics and Carrie did not appear to make any distinction but labelled Christians as stupid (and therefore deserving of her anger and hatred) because they believe in a God.

Brighid

dangin

With fire from the sky that makes the wrath of allah look like a squirt gun.

You are missing the point.

We are a society within our family, within our neighborhood, within our town, village, or city, within our state, province, county, or parrish, within our country, and within our world. And we have authority at each level that in one way or another mediates in all of our actions.

And to turn your argument around on you, what should the christian response be to the acts of those who derive their morality from another form of god, with another holy book of bullshit to guide them? And no matter what you say, I will be able to point to a christian, using the same book as you, who acts differently. Unless you are George W. Bush, and mother Theresa, and the Pope.

Mageth

Well for one, because our society isn't closed and isolated. We live both locally and globally.

I think I clearly made that point in my post. Are we to subject the entire world to your subjective interpretation of god's moral standards?

What should our response be to terrorist acts against us such as on 9/11/01?

The "morals" of the "world court" or consensus of most nations in the world is that terrorism is wrong, and our response should be to bring those responsible to justice. That seems pretty obvious (and we didn't need God to tell us that).

If murder is only morally wrong for our society but it is morally right for Arab terrorists, then on what basis do we respond?

See above. And I don't recall ever saying that different people/groups do not have different, and often conflicting, moral standards. That's why it's important, in today's global society, to reach a consensus on morality that is generally applicable to all societies - note that no religion offers such.

And note that the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Murder" in the 10cs seems to have only applied to murdering fellow Jews, and many other laws commanded killing in situations that I would assume today you would probably label "murder". (e.g. killing homosexuals, adulterers, children that curse their parents).

Now answer me: what made it morally "right" for the OT Israelites to destroy the Canaanite cities, killing all inhabitants (or occasionally taking the young women as slaves and forced wives)? What made it morally right in B.C. Israel to kill a child that cursed his parents? On what basis do you now find it morally wrong, if you do?

Ensign Steve

I said:
brighid said:
WHY?!

Earlier, I asked:
I'm really interested to know upon what you are basing your answer of "Absolutely!" If it is supposed to be obvious, I'm missing it. Can you please explain?