Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Joel]

One wouldn't expect a bridal shop to stock men's suits, but one would expect cakes shops that cater for weddings to cater for all weddings, not just heterosexual weddings, which is the point.

People have mistaken expectations all the time. A person could walk into a book store expecting it to be a general book store, not realizing that it is a niche book store. E.g. a Jew, thinking he's entering a general book store, only to find that he's walked into a Christian-book store, where he is perhaps unlikely to find any products he is interested in buying. Or someone entering a deli expecting to be able to purchase ham, and then discovering that it's a kosher deli, and the person is not able to purchase ham. That could probably be corrected by improving the store's signage. So I'm not sure why peoples' uninformed, mistaken expectations are relevant to this issue. It would be horrific (and contradictory) to try to impose everyone's expectations about everything.

(And I note that in Abigail's example, the store would willingly bake cakes for all weddings. The store just wouldn't stock same-sex figurines. You are only worried about random peoples' uninformed, mistaken expectation about how niche the store's stock of figurines is. Which, if you insisted, could be corrected by something like putting up a sign.)

[Joel]

Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. Since life that is able to suffer introduces the moral element into the picture. Maximum suffering would be the maximum evil, and yes, that would be objective, but no requirement.

Your third sentence does not follow from the first two. "Maximum suffering is good" is also logically consistent with your first two sentences.

If it's an objective standard, than it is a standard that exists independently of god.

That doesn't follow. If there exists an objective standard, there is no reason why that standard cannot be God.

So answer this: Why is loving good?

It's not clear what you are asking.
If you are asking where is the ground of that truth, it is God.
If you are asking what is its efficient cause, the answer is that God is self-existent and has no external efficient cause.
If you are asking what is it in the nature of loving that implies that it is in the category "good", then you are really asking for a definition of "good". In which case you are getting into an area of moral philosophy that's not necessary for this discussion of the alleged "dilemma". We can discuss it if you want, but it is a different question. It is a difficult question because the answer is something we all naturally understand but is difficult to explain, perhaps like trying to describe sight to a man born blind or three spatial dimensions to a 2-dimensional creature.

The laws of logic do not depend on a being existing for them to be true, they are simply the result of certain things not being possible and relationship between the possible and impossible.

If no being existed, nothing would be possible.
Where is the ground of the truths about what is possible and impossible? It must be somewhere.

Defining god as the source of “logic” is mere theological wordplay.

No, it's not by definition. It follows necessarily from basic premises about God, such as that God is the only necessary being. The laws of logic are necessary, so they must then have their reality in God.

It doesn't demonstrate that “logic” cannot exist independently of god.

That's beside the point. The goal of the "dilemma" is to show an inconsistency in Christian theology. The alleged "dilemma" fails at that goal.

Even if "logic" is an essential property of god, it is a property that can apply to other things independently of god’s existence. Just think of how being hot is an essential property of fire – fire must be hot, it cannot be cold. But “hot” can apply to many other things independently of fire. For example, microwaves cause things to be hot and so does friction.

For the Christian, nothing can exist independently of God's existence. Thus nothing can have any property at all independently of God's existence.

But aside from that, the idea is to image an atheistic world where all things being equal. There would be no difference that "loving is good" as nothing good relies on the existence of a deity. Some atheists like myself don't think the classical god is logically coherent, and so we have to do the same thing when we entertain hypotheticals about god existing.

This would do nothing to show that the "Euthyphro dilemma" is any problem for Christian theology. My goal in replying to you was to refute that it is a problem, not to prove that Christianity is true.

All I'll point out here is that if you as an atheist suppose that there exists something good, and suppose that that something's existence doesn't rely on the existence of a diety, it still does imply that there exists a moral standard, without which it would be meaningless to say that the something is good.

It is a problem for the Christian and for the divine command theorist. The problem is not that different people have different ideas on morality, the problem is that on DCT there is no way to know what the "ultimate, objective standard" is, and so epistemically speaking, claiming that objective moral duties are revealed by god while there is no way to discern or determine it shows the whole theory to be problematic. DCT will always result in relative morality in practice.

I'm not supporting the divine command theory.

[Starlight]

Yes Star, men are wicked - what is your point?

My point is that they, explicitly advocating your moral ideal, believed those things to be morally correct.

I agree with you that people today generally have to make a choice between which moral system they will follow: Yours, following God's commands; or mine, valuing human well-being. We've seen that manifest itself most recently in the debates over gay rights. What we've seen happen is ever-increasing numbers of people abandoning your moral view in favor of mine on the grounds that they think my one is better.

In your world, as we have seen, there is no certain justice, a Mother Teresa and a Stalin come to the same end.

Sure, but that sounds like a general argument against atheism.

Human brings are the accidental by product of evolutionary processes - no inherent worth.

Conscious beings attribute worth to things. Because conscious beings are the ones who experience the world, have values, and assign meaning. Human beings are conscious beings who attribute worth to all sorts of things, themselves included. I don't even understand what your phrase "inherent worth" is supposed to mean... do you mean "valued by God"?

And moral ideals are relative and subjective.

I'm happy to agree that the definition of the word "morality" is relative and subjective, because the definition of all words is. The things themselves which the word refers to might be relative or not depending on the definition.

Also, you don't believe in the well-being of all humans - certainly not unborn children.

Well it's reasonable to cite abortion as an edge-case for progressive morality. Holding to my moral view doesn't really provide any clear best stance on abortion, because there are competing goods and evils in that circumstance, and it is not self-evident exactly how much moral relevance should be assigned to a conscious being who lacks significant mental capacity like a fetus or an animal.

It is you progressives that have ushered in the slaughter of millions and millions and millions of babies.

Cultures throughout history were practicing abortion and infanticide on a regular basis long before the modern age. But yes, the topic of abortion is one that significantly differentiates your morality from mine in the modern world. So anyone thinking about choosing between our two moral systems could incorporate that into their choice.

[JonathanL]

As such, I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it. If I was writing a law, I would probably want to draw the line in the sand at 3 months post-birth . . .

. . . which moral system they will follow: Yours, following God's commands; or mine, valuing human well-being.

[Starlight]

"Maximum suffering is good" is also logically consistent with your first two sentences.

If I may butt in, my response to that would be that a given person could label maximum suffering with the English word "good" if they so desired. Though I don't think many other people would join them in that word usage. But, imagining they did, and everyone swapped the words "good" and "evil", then it would follow that everyone would value maximizing "evil" because people's values wouldn't have changed - they would still value their own well-being and that of their friends and family and other people in their society, and want to see that well-being increase, so they would then want to maximize "evil". They would say "maximizing 'evil' is a good thing" (good in the sense of achieving outcomes they ascribe greater value to)... which seems to show that labeling it that way around is not a sensible choice to make with the labels.

That doesn't follow. If there exists an objective standard, there is no reason why that standard cannot be God...
For the Christian, nothing can exist independently of God's existence. Thus nothing can have any property at all independently of God's existence...
It follows necessarily from basic premises about God, such as that God is the only necessary being. The laws of logic are necessary, so they must then have their reality in God.

Even if all logic, and all math, ultimately finds its existential basis in God, we still find ourselves perfectly able to use logic and do math as atheists, because those truths have an obvious necessary and objective existence. You can say they're "part of God" if you like, and that has no relevance: From our perspective it doesn't matter whether they are a part of God or not, as they're just obvious necessary truths. The situation is the same for morality... if it's a necessary truth then the atheist can use it every bit as much as the theist, and whether or not it's "part of God" has no relevance.

I am, however, mighty skeptical of the extent to which many Christians show no concern whatsoever about attributing any number of arbitrary-seeming attributes to God and claiming they are "necessary truths". I just sit there skeptically thinking "Your pile of alleged 'necessary truths' is looking both awfully large and also awfully arbitrary, and this is making your 'God' less believable not more believeable."

[Starlight]

For Chrawnus and the other mentally impaired in these forums: In the 'progressive' system of morality which values sentient beings, fetuses & animals etc which are conscious but are significantly lacking higher mental functions, are assigned less moral value. There is no universal agreement over exactly how much less. This means people holding to this system inherently think that both eating meat, and abortion, involve a certain level of wrongdoing. However they may think that that small level of wrongdoing is acceptable or justifiable due to greater goods.

[Cow Poke]

For Chrawnus and the other mentally impaired in these forums: In the 'progressive' system of morality which values sentient beings, fetuses & animals etc which are conscious but are significantly lacking higher mental functions, are assigned less moral value. There is no universal agreement over exactly how much less. This means people holding to this system inherently think that both eating meat, and abortion, involve a certain level of wrongdoing. However they may think that that small level of wrongdoing is acceptable or justifiable due to greater goods.

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

[seer]

My point is that they, explicitly advocating your moral ideal, believed those things to be morally correct.

You mean like progressives who say they value all of humanity, but support the slaughter of the unborn?

I agree with you that people today generally have to make a choice between which moral system they will follow: Yours, following God's commands; or mine, valuing human well-being. We've seen that manifest itself most recently in the debates over gay rights. What we've seen happen is ever-increasing numbers of people abandoning your moral view in favor of mine on the grounds that they think my one is better.

Yes, your values that were born out of the Christian west. These changes take time, let's see what the West looks like 50 years from now. and I already showed how damaging your sexual revolution was.

Sure, but that sounds like a general argument against atheism.

Right, you are not an atheist?

Conscious beings attribute worth to things. Because conscious beings are the ones who experience the world, have values, and assign meaning. Human beings are conscious beings who attribute worth to all sorts of things, themselves included. I don't even understand what your phrase "inherent worth" is supposed to mean... do you mean "valued by God"?

Right, I'm sure a German Jew valued his life in the 1930s, but those in power did not. You like lobster, I like steak.

I'm happy to agree that the definition of the word "morality" is relative and subjective, because the definition of all words is. The things themselves which the word refers to might be relative or not depending on the definition.

OK

Well it's reasonable to cite abortion as an edge-case for progressive morality. Holding to my moral view doesn't really provide any clear best stance on abortion, because there are competing goods and evils in that circumstance, and it is not self-evident exactly how much moral relevance should be assigned to a conscious being who lacks significant mental capacity like a fetus or an animal.

Are not human unborn - well - human? If you can minimize their humanity based on an arbitrary criterion, why not political dissenter?

[Zymologist]

I find the killing of infants highly objectionable. I must be mentally impaired.

[JonathanL]

For Chrawnus and the other mentally impaired in these forums: In the 'progressive' system of morality which values sentient beings, fetuses & animals etc which are conscious but are significantly lacking higher mental functions, are assigned less moral value. There is no universal agreement over exactly how much less. This means people holding to this system inherently think that both eating meat, and abortion, involve a certain level of wrongdoing. However they may think that that small level of wrongdoing is acceptable or justifiable due to greater goods.

Objecting to Starlight's morally repugnant views = being mentally impaired.

[seer]

I find the killing of infants highly objectionable. I must be mentally impaired.

No, you just need a good dose of progressive re-education...

[JonathanL]

Also, since I and anyone else who objects to Starlight's travesty of a moral system are apparently mentally impaired we must obviously be "lacking higher mental functions", which if I'm reading Starlight right, means that killing us off wouldn't be as bad as killing off such a paragon of justice and wisdom as the eminent Starlight himself. I mean, obviously Starlight has far more well-developed cognitive abilities than we could ever hope to achieve.

[Cow Poke]

Also, since I and anyone else who objects to Starlight's travesty of a moral system are apparently mentally impaired we must obviously be "lacking higher mental functions", which if I'm reading Starlight right, means that killing us off wouldn't be as bad as killing off such a paragon of justice and wisdom as the eminent Starlight himself. I mean, obviously Starlight has far more well-developed cognitive abilities than we could ever hope to achieve.

Sounds like a creature developed by Gene Roddenberry!

[Starlight]

I mean, obviously Starlight has far more well-developed cognitive abilities than we could ever hope to achieve.

Well that one goes without saying.

And just for the record, whenever I read one of you guys raving about abortion, I just substitute in "I hate abortion! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!" in my head as I skim your post. I live in a country where there's no public controversy about abortion and hasn't been for decades, so I find all you people's utter obsession with the topic quite idiosyncratic and hilarious.

[JonathanL]

Well that one goes without saying.

And just for the record, whenever I read one of you guys raving about abortion, I just substitute in "I hate abortion! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!" in my head as I skim your post. I live in a country where there's no public controversy about abortion and hasn't been for decades, so I find all you people's utter obsession with the topic quite idiosyncratic and hilarious.

I wasn't talking about abortion, even though I find that to be morally repugnant as well, I was talking about your views on infanticide. Whatever the public controversy on murdering your offspring while it's still in your womb I'm pretty certain that there would definitely be a public controversy if people such as you started to push for the right to murder your offspring after they've already left the womb and (ideally) should be safe from you 'progressives'.