Believing it is not proving it

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

So it is fruitless to project the concept of human morality onto a process that makes no conscious decisions.

​

If God does not exist, of course it is fruitless.

---

So we agree on this point, although I would say it is fruitless whether God exists or not.

quote:

---

If moral rules are just ideas "decided on" by somebody or some group, then these rules are subjective, of no more significance than my preferring blue to green, the violation of which cannot possibly constitute "sin" in the theological sense. That's why, if one is a Christian, one has to believe in objective morality, which would be as objective as 2 plus 2 make 4.

---

I don't feel that comparing the importance of human morality with color preference to be a just comparison. Although through the ages there have probably been some rules just as ridiculous. (Deut 22:11)Your objective math example: If you have two apples in one hand and two apples in the other, then you have four apples. No matter what you have two of in each hand or by what language you call the items, you will still have four items. Same in the plant and animal world.So let's look at human morality. People probably feel that the base elements of our morals are objective, but I don't think they would be considered as universally objective as the math example.Our definitions today.
Do not kill (to cause the death of, to destroy life)
Do not steal (to take another's property dishonestly, esp. in a secret manner)Still assuming there is no God, can these very simple rules be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?

Minus a God, they are subjective. They lack a ground. Suppose I had this old obnoxious aunt with a lot of money who planned to leave it to me when I died. Nobody likes this person, whereas I am very popular and would do lots of good with her money. Why not kill her and get the money now?What answer can one give? I shouldn't kill her because it's wrong to kill her? That's begging the question. Why is it wrong? Oh, well, because I wouldn't want somebody to kill me? What do I care about that, I reply. Nobody is going to kill me, and at any rate I can take care of myself.All moral reasons beg the question. All one can come up with is that it's wrong to kill her because it's wrong to kill her.

So you're saying that these very simple rules cannot be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms or that one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules. Correct?

quote:

---

What answer can one give? I shouldn't kill her because it's wrong to kill her? That's begging the question. Why is it wrong? Oh, well, because I wouldn't want somebody to kill me?

---

Exactly. Objectively it would make sense to do away with her and make good use of the money, but if you put yourself in her shoes your view would change. So is the original decision really objective?Now let's look at human morality with a God in place. The same two rules listed in Message 256 which are also listed in the Bible. Assuming that there is a God, can these very simple rules be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

We must make a distinction between subjectivity and circumstantiality. There are various moral rules and they might conflict with each other in a given situation, so one has to decide which rule takes precedence in a given case.IF A =B
and IF B=C
Then it follows without a doubt that A=CSuppose there were a God and we knew his objective moral rule was, "Thou shalt not murder." There might be certain cases, such as in a desperate battle with a powerful and vicious army, that killing would not be considered murder.Murder is an unjustifiable killing. So IF the killing was in fact unjustifiable, then it follows without a doubt that such a killing would be wrong.So it's based on a conditional "if," but that's due to circumstantiality not to subjectivity, in the same way that the logical expression above is based on an "if."If the killing is unjustifiable it is murder.
This killing was unjustifiable.
Therefore, this killing is murder.

Ya know, I have been asked on here before why theists equate atheism with immorality. I wasn't really able to answer the question. But now, with the descussion your having, I think its easy to see where it, at least, comes from.

One might be very sensitive morally and yet accept the idea that there are no logical grounds that can be adduced for moral rules.Morals are based on feelings.

quote:

---

We must make a distinction between subjectivity and circumstantiality.

---

Why? We are dealing with the very basics.

quote:

---

Suppose there were a God and we knew his objective moral rule was, "Thou shalt not murder."

---

The question is:
Assuming that there is a God, can these very simple rules be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?Your math example: 2+2=4
If you have two apples and I bring you two more you will have four. It doesn't matter if I hand them to you, roll them to you or throw them at you, you will still have four. It doesn't matter what color the apples are or their condition, you will still have four. It doesn't matter if it is a dog, a horse, or a person who brings you the two apples, you will still end up with four. It doesn't matter if it is in war, peace, flood or famine; you will still have four apples.So given your example of objective, answer the questions?Assuming that there is a God, can these very simple rules (do not kill and do not steal) be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?Are they truly objective? I would say no. Human moral rules are made to deal with human interaction with each other.Let's look at the apples again. You have two and I give you two. You have four apples. So 2=2=4, but I stole the apples to give to you and now you are an accomplice. We both go to jail. That doesn't change that 2+2=4.

quote:

---

So IF the killing was in fact unjustifiable

---

What is justifiable and what isn't is also subjective. The person doing the killing may consider it justifiable, whereas someone judging may not.Rules may be added or changed due to circumstances, but does that make them any less subjective? Deciding someone's fate is not always cut and dried.The circumstances don't change that 2+2=4, but our actions can change whether we enjoy eating them together or possibly spend time in jail.So are the two rules in their most basic form, objective?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

If we knew there was a God and we knew that God wrote in our hearts those two rules, then yes they would be objective.But as things stand, they are not.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-05-2006 03:04 PM

quote:

---

If we knew there was a God and we knew that God wrote in our hearts those two rules, then yes they would be objective.

---

Why does that make it objective?What do you mean written in our hearts? I assume you realize that the heart muscle has nothing to do with decisions and following rules. I know what the Bible writers mean by it, but if we are to determine objectivity we need to avoid inaccurate ancient terms. Hopefully I haven't done that before now. Plus you said you weren't pulling from the Bible.Did God apply those two rules to all living things?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

A variation of Jars correct logic about the existance of God being independant of what we think, believe or feel (either for or against his existance). Objective morals don't rely in any way on what we believe or know. Objective morals rely only on the existance of God. A case of having to speak for oneself. God writes his laws on the hearts of those he makes his sons - no one else. Such folk are in a position to know (which is not diminished by not being able to prove it to another). If your not a son Gods law won't be written on your heart. They will either remain as rules to be followed (if one is a Jew (Religious) or rules to be ignored or a-la-cartedly referred to if one is a Gentile (unbeliever)

Oh, please. My use of the word "heart" is quite common in conversation and literature. However, I will substitute the word "conscience" or "mind" or whatever if you like. Well, I don't think God exists, so no. But if God existed, at least the type of God I'm thinking of, we would know what's right and wrong just as we know arithmetic. There would be no doubt about it.

I thought Jar said morality was subjective.

---

"It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made, that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man."--Emerson

Sound like something Jar would say. But I was referring to something which he said which I thought was logical. To do with Gods existance or no not being reliant on what we think or feel or even know.

Well, of course it's not. But if one wants to find out if there's a God or not, one way to try to do so is to investigate the matter, which involves what "we think or feel or even know."

---

"It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made, that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man."--Emerson

I agree... I was referring to this point of yours. By "as things stand" I presume you to mean "I don't believe" or "I don't know. But objectivity of morals is something which exists or otherwise externally to us. We can find out okay but we don't affect moral obejectivity by our finding out that morals are objective.At least we can find out whether they are objective. We cannot find out that they are not."But as things stand I don't know" would be a more correct statment