So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[Tassman]

God's law is objective to humankind because it does not depend on our subjective view. It exists whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not. And is universal.

[crepuscule]

Let me try one more time. My point is it would not necessarily be unjust for a state to execute a witch. That would not violate Biblical principles. It certainly does not violate OT principles or NT principles. Except for Romans 13, the New Testament does not deal with what a state can or can not do, the focus is on personal behavior.

But apparently not

Then what is your point? If I violate social norms for personal pleasure - what is the big deal?

You

How do you know it even holds here? If I follow your reasoning I think it would logically lead to solipsism.

If this is correct how can the moral realist claim that ethics are objective? You seem to think that they have an argument.

God's law is objective to humankind because it does not depend on our subjective view. It exists whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not. And is universal.

universally good or bad?

[seer]

But apparently not

Yes it is... Well until Christ returns.

You

.

Why was it a big deal for me to embrace promiscuity even when the culture generally frowned on it? What is the logic here?

So you hold out the possibility that the law of non-contradiction does not hold universally.

OK, I tend to agree with that.

In a sense I agree. His law is subjective to Him, except His moral character is immutable, unlike ours, and it exists independently of humankind. And has ultimate authority.

And that God's law is universal seem nonsensical: is executing witches universally good or bad?

Witchcraft is still immoral regardless of what penalty is applied or not. And universal since that immoral status applies universally. It is sin on earth or on Mars.

[Tassman]

In a sense I agree. His law is subjective to Him, except His moral character is immutable, unlike ours, and it exists independently of humankind. And has ultimate authority.

Interesting, where is this moral law spelt out unambiguously? Don't say the bible, nobody can agree on that.

Witchcraft is still immoral regardless of what penalty is applied or not.

There is no good reason to believe that witches exist. If you believe they do exist why aren't you lobbying the government to have them put to death as God commands?

And universal since that immoral status applies universally. It is sin on earth or on Mars.

What about super-intelligent artificially intelligent creatures, does this universal immoral status apply to them? Or highly intelligent aliens in other parts of the universe?

[seer]

Interesting, where is this moral law spelt out unambiguously? Don't say the bible, nobody can agree on that.

Tell me which Christian would dis agree with these, be specific please:

New Testament moral wrongs:

Adultery, fornication, witchcraft, lust, drunkenness, unjustified taking of human life, stealing, lying, unbelief, rage, covetousness, greed, idolatry, unbelief, pride, kidnapping, prostitution, bearing false witness, unforgiveness, blasphemy, deceit, fraud, envy, sorcery, hypocrisy, etc...

New Testament moral goods:

Loving God, loving our fellow man, being kind, following the golden rule, forgiving, being generous, helping the poor, being self-controlled, gracious, being honest, or refraining from all of the moral wrongs above...

There is no good reason to believe that witches exist. If you believe they do exist why aren't you lobbying the government to have them put to death as God commands?

No, it would be just to execute witches, but we Christians also believe in mercy.

What about super-intelligent artificially intelligent creatures, does this universal immoral status apply to them? Or highly intelligent aliens in other parts of the universe?

Of course, it would apply to all of God's creatures, lying for instance would be wrong everywhere. The artificially intelligent would not be morally responsible, those who created them would be. Unless they were truly self aware.

[carpedm9587]

Actually, Tass - I would say it is the other way around. Although we are all influenced by society, religion, family, friends, etc., each of us determines our moral compass. What we call the "social moral norm" is nothing more than the collective moral norms of the individuals in that society. This is why we see moral norms change within societies. For a long time, everyone accepts X as "moral" because it has always been that way. Then a few individuals begin to question why it is that way, and begin to make their case. If their case resonates with people, more and more adopt that new moral norm until it eventually becomes the prevailing view.

Although I am influenced by society, religion, etc., I would never cede my moral authority to that of the herd. I would hope none of us would, and that we would all be constantly reviewing and re-evaluating our moral precepts, and listening to the voices of dissent to see if they are making any sense. That certainly does not make me a sociopath or psychopath. Do we "make up" our moral codes? That's just Seer trolling again. Yes, strictly speaking, our moral codes derive from what we value, and what we value is a matter of personal preference. But we tend to reserve the word "moral" for the things we most deeply value (relating to life, liberty, etc.). The fact is, preference is a continuum, from the most trivially valued thing to the most deeply valued thing. The deepest ones don't change on a whim, and are mostly stable for most of our lives. We share many of these in common due to our shared state as humans living on this planet. Seer just likes to toss out the "say so" and "preference" as a mechanism for trivializing what is, for most of us, a fairly serious consideration.

[seer]

Seer just likes to toss out the "say so" and "preference" as a mechanism for trivializing what is, for most of us, a fairly serious consideration.

Well "say so" is a term I picked up from JimL using it. And your moral musings have about the same inherent value that you do, which is zero... But feel free to pretend that you or your moral view have value.

[Tassman]

Actually, Tass - I would say it is the other way around. Although we are all influenced by society, religion, family, friends, etc., each of us determines our moral compass. What we call the "social moral norm" is nothing more than the collective moral norms of the individuals in that society. This is why we see moral norms change within societies. For a long time, everyone accepts X as "moral" because it has always been that way. Then a few individuals begin to question why it is that way, and begin to make their case. If their case resonates with people, more and more adopt that new moral norm until it eventually becomes the prevailing view.

Although I am influenced by society, religion, etc., I would never cede my moral authority to that of the herd. I would hope none of us would, and that we would all be constantly reviewing and re-evaluating our moral precepts, and listening to the voices of dissent to see if they are making any sense. That certainly does not make me a sociopath or psychopath.

. Do we "make up" our moral codes? That's just Seer trolling again. Yes, strictly speaking, our moral codes derive from what we value, and what we value is a matter of personal preference. But we tend to reserve the word "moral" for the things we most deeply value (relating to life, liberty, etc.). The fact is, preference is a continuum, from the most trivially valued thing to the most deeply valued thing. The deepest ones don't change on a whim, and are mostly stable for most of our lives. We share many of these in common due to our shared state as humans living on this planet. Seer just likes to toss out the "say so" and "preference" as a mechanism for trivializing what is, for most of us, a fairly serious consideration.

[carpedm9587]

Well "say so" is a term I picked up from JimL using it. And your moral musings have about the same inherent value that you do, which is zero... But feel free to pretend that you or your moral view have value.

Seer, we've been around this horn several times, and your arguments repeatedly shown to have no content. Unless you have new ones...I'll pass on another round. You're just trolling.

[carpedm9587]

At no point do I disagree with this. There is a strong feedback loop. As I noted, we are influenced by many things. Some we are not even aware of, which is why we need to continually be checking and rechecking our norms. But primacy is on the individual - not the society. We see this all the time, and I think you can see it within yourself as well. I seem to recall you support the LGBTQ community. Have you always done so? If so, and you are anywhere near my age, there was a time in the not too distant past when that view was the minority position. The social norm was that homosexuality was wrong/bad - strongly influenced by religion. We've seen a massive change in this view over the past decades - though not uniformly across the world.

That is how morality works. The herd exerts enormous influence - but the individual is primary in determining what they find to be moral or immoral.

We are part of the herd - but we are not a mindless part of the herd. A social norm is that exactly because most of the individuals in that society hold that view. Norms change under the influence of individuals. The question we need to ask is simple: which has primacy.

I know that if society says "X" and I evaluate it as "Y," I am going to adopt my evaluation over society's. Throughout history we have lauded men and women who have stood against what "society says" even at the cost of their own lives. That tells me that the individual has primacy.

The OP has all the earmarks of trolling. This topic is a favorite of Seer's (as best I can tell). He keeps coming back to it over and over again. When the conversation slows down in one thread, a few days latter another one pops up somewhere on TWeb. It is a favorite of mine as well, to be honest. But I have yet to see him put forth an actual argument for his position. His three approaches are to continually repeat the definitions of objective/absolute and subjective/relative, find ways to mock, or find ways to appeal to outrage. I've concluded he doesn't actually have an argument - just a position.

[seer]

Seer, we've been around this horn several times, and your arguments repeatedly shown to have no content. Unless you have new ones...I'll pass on another round. You're just trolling.

Carp, that is fine, you are free to believe that you or your moral opinion have value, based of course on your say so. And BTW - I only responded because you felt the need to bring me into to your response to Tass.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, that is fine, you are free to believe that you or your moral opinion have value, based of course on your say so. And BTW - I only responded because you felt the need to bring me into to your response to Tass.

Pretty much everything that is said is said by someone, Seer - so all arguments are essentially "say so."

As for bringing you in - I'm pretty sure it's your thread.

[seer]

The OP has all the earmarks of trolling. This topic is a favorite of Seer's (as best I can tell). He keeps coming back to it over and over again. When the conversation slows down in one thread, a few days latter another one pops up somewhere on TWeb. It is a favorite of mine as well, to be honest. But I have yet to see him put forth an actual argument for his position. His three approaches are to continually repeat the definitions of objective/absolute and subjective/relative, find ways to mock, or find ways to appeal to outrage. I've concluded he doesn't actually have an argument - just a position.

See you are doing it again! And I am not trolling, just stating what follows from your worldview. You are an insignificant speck, on and insignificant planet, in a completely apathetic pitiless universe. But some how your, or our, moral musing have significance? Cognitive dissonance.

[seer]

Pretty much everything that is said is said by someone, Seer - so all arguments are essentially "say so."

As for bringing you in - I'm pretty sure it's your thread.

No you slammed me, that is why I responded. And if it all comes down to say so why did you chide me for saying just that?

[carpedm9587]

No you slammed me, that is why I responded. And if it all comes down to say so why did you chide me for saying just that?

Not sure exactly where I "chided" you for using the expression "say so." Your moral position is your say so. My moral position is my say so. You've selected your interpretation of the so-called "Christian moral framework" as your moral basis. I prefer to take each moral issue as it arises and assess it independently. But ultimately, each of us "says" what we believe to be moral or immoral. I don't see a problem.