Keith

Not so fast! I'm not admitting that my (Christian) moral system is a subjective one. I've been saying that the standard comes from God, and everyone has been given sufficient knowledge of...A) God's existence, and B) God's moral precepts, which he has "written on our hearts." This being the case, the bible doesn't need to (and can't) list, one by one, the infinite number of ways that God's moral precepts can be broken by man. But make no mistake--we are all bound by God's moral law.

winstonjen

Exactly. It comes from the moral dictates of an arbitrary being, and if they WERE "written on our hearts," don't you think that we would all agree on what morals were?

Except for god, naturally, who is an evil dictator, above his own laws.:boohoo:

Pain Paien

Originally posted by Keith:
This is not consistant with your earlier comment.

You said that if one does not see an act as wrong, it is not wrong (a "sin").

Therefore, if one doesn't see murder as wrong, it's not a sin.

Which, of course, leads to the conclusion that your moral system is subjective.

Keith

I think we have a definitional problem here, and perhaps a few other ones as well. By definition, murder is a moral wrong, so I don't see any possibility that anyone could see murder as NOT wrong. There was obviously a time when Abraham didn't know that it was morally wrong for him to sleep with Hagar, so unless sleeping with someone other than a spouse is (or was) BY DEFINITION morally wrong, both your logic and your conclusion do not appear to be valid.

Keith

You seem to be assuming that since there is some disagreement (among humans) on moral issues, God's moral law is arbitrary. The conclusion doesn't follow, and the premise is weak because what little moral disagreement there is among humans almost always involves minor details. IOW, even Osama knows that the attacks on America were morally wrong and cannot be justified. Osama won't be let off the hook at his judgement if he says..."Heck, I thought terrorism against the American infidels was the right thing to do."

winstonjen

Minor details? You mean the vast Catholic/Protestant split and the Mormons? Wars have been fought over these disagreements because they couldn't agree to disagree - religion leads to bigotry, intolerance and genocide. And of course it's arbitrary. Just because GAWD said it doesn't make it any less so than if I decided what was right.

Queen of Swords

I'm still not clear on what Keith expects an atheist to do when a religious person tries to convert that atheist.

1. Be a doormat and convert to whatever religion it is.
2. Keep silent. Religious person : "Aha! You can't refute what I said!"
3. Defend his/her point of view. Religious person : "Aha! You spent so much time making your case that you must obviously believe in my particular god!"

Vorkosigan

He's saying the opposite -- that humans disagree because "god's" ethics are inhuman, incomplete, arbitrary, incoherent and downright evil. They are simply a projection of the authoritarian yearnings of their inventors for power and control over the backward and chaotic people they ruled.

And to answer your questions about Bin Laden and the Nazis, if you see someone else doing something you think is wrong, you ignore them, unless something nonconsensual involving third parties is going on. Then you negotiate. Talk-talk first. If that fails, you have to fight them. On the level of individual societies, we don't fight, we send the police to arrest them.

That is why your ethical stance is so evil. You simply declare that you are right, all others are wrong, God says so and to hell with the negotiation process that enables people to live together peacably. Join or die! Living in a society with people holding your beliefs (Nazis, Muslims, Nationalists, Facists, Communists, etc) is extremely difficult for us more tolerant and flexible types. Your "ethics" is really just an ugly authoritarianism bent on controlling the minds and bodies of others, and your claim of "objectivity" nothing more than a rhetorical trick to short-circuit both discussion and thought. All authoritarianisms, Islamic, Christian, Nazi, Communist or whatever, use this trick; which is why they are crime-ridden, strife-infested hells that people cross the trackless oceans on boats to escape from. Time to come in from the bitter inhuman nihilism of Christianity, Keith, and adopt a more open, tolerant, loving and socially-minded view of the world.

Vorkosigan

contracycle

Rather like 'bringing democracy to Iraq, eh?

And in todays Pot-Kettle news...

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
I don't think its possible for a person today, not to know that cheating on one's spouse is morally wrong. But if such a person exists, then that individual could cheat and yet not commit a moral wrong.

But your question, posted earlier, was:
So, as long as someone doesn't think it's morally wrong to cheat on their spouse, it is morally right?

And then you said:
As I said, when a person does wrong without realizing that it's wrong, that isn't sin. It could be wrong in some other way, but not in the moral sense.

If a person doesn't think it's morally wrong to cheat on their spouse, then that person doesn't doesn't realize it's morally wrong. They might know it's defined as being morally wrong under a moral system such as Christianity, but that person may not hold themselves to be responsible under that particular moral system and thus don't realize or recognize that they're committing a moral wrong.