Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Kelp(p)]

Kelp, you made a couple of posts that I want to address because they fit into my discussion with seer.

No prob

Exactly what is murder is a difficult question. There are some things, like those you cite, that we will all agree are murder, there are some that are not so clear. I acknowledge that I have kind of hidden all that under the word, though I do not think that affects my arguments. Some killings are morally wrong, and that is intrinsic to their nature.

The reason I wanted to bring this up is to consider how we decide what killing is moral and what is immoral. The method seer appears to advocate is to use God's opinion, as we see it in the Bible. If God seems to say it is okay, then it is moral, if he says it is wrong, then it is morally wrong. The Bible says God condoned various genocides, therefore we can conclude that genocide against the unrighteous is not murder, is not morally wrong (I appreciate you, Kelp, do not believe the genocides happened, but the moral guidance of the Bible does include them, whether as history or myth).

My bad. I should have been more clear. It's not important to me whether any of the slaughters in the Bible correspond to historical events. I meant to say that I don't believe they happened as God ordained events. I think that the Bible contains some genuine messages from God (primarily located in the Prophets, Poetry, and New Testament), but much of it is just the words of well-meaning and intelligent but badly mistaken men. My moral instruction is mostly derived from Jesus and the Apostles and I'm a strong advocate of interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New, but I don't hold them infallible either. So, my idea of the "moral guidance of the Bible" is first and foremost the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables of Christ. My God is first and foremost a God of love, and genocide is not part of that love.

All that being said, I'll use the common theological idea that God sometimes commands what would otherwise be sin such as mass killings.

The alternative is to think, to consider what is actually right and wrong. If you want to do what is right because of God that is fine, but you decide for yourself what is right based on your own moality. Genocide is wrong because you are taking people's lives for your own profit.

Agreed. My ethical theory is kind of a theological version of virtue ethics. God commands what He does to keep us flourishing and happy (in the long wrong, if not in the immediate).

For the sake of Seer as well as readers I'll go over some common ground in theological ethics.

So, you are correct that what is classically termed Divine Command Theory is classified as an Ethical Subjectivism. Morality is based on somebody's opinion, in this case God's. The classic logical objection to DCT is Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma. Does God command what is good or are things good because God commands them? If the former, so Plato's reasoning went, then there is a higher law than God. If the latter, then God is arbitrary and it makes little sense to obey Him.

The Classical Theist and Christian response has to claim that since God is, by definition good, then "God's opinion" will always naturally be what is good. The moral law is within God. This is a view to which I am sympathetic by default, but I feel like in putting the locus not in deontology, where an act must be right or wrong by definition, but in the goal of human flourishing, that I have a better chance of being able to justify my morality.

Seer is obviously seeking for a deontological right and wrong, likely rooted in that same Classical answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. You seem to be like me in defining that "intrinsically wrong," (a phrase that I personally find a bit too clunky) as "that which promotes human flourishing."

The problem I see for Seer (no pun intended) is that in clinging to the wide away of contradictory Biblical accounts of God's commands and wanting to defend them all as deontologically right, he's hoisted on his own petard. Seer accuses atheists of having no coherent method for distinguishing right from wrong while at the same having no ability to truly portray a consistently acting God who gives commands that are unfailingly ethical. He's as lost in the land of ethical arbitrariness as he accuses you of being. Your example of Euro-American chattel slavery is especially apt.

And perhaps the best way to do that is to promote religion?

You're right in that the Problem of the Free Rider does cut both ways. I should not have used it so quickly.

[ChaosRain]

The true real question is: is your reason clouded?

Perhaps it is; I have no way of knowing that. However, from what I have seen, it does not appear to be clouded.

Isn't this a response?

Touche.

I'm not the one who thinks it's ok to bash a newborn baby's brains out as long as the umbilical cord wasn't cut.

Neither am I. Again, you make a false generalization - except this time, you rely upon an extreme straw man, because you have no rational way of dealing with body rights, or my points. Abortions don't involve bashing a newborn baby's brains out. I can't think of a single method that employs such brutality (except extreme methods in parts of the world that ban abortions; a problem with your mindset is that it causes more abortions and problems than it solves).

Canada, for example, allows abortions within the First Trimester. The UK allows it up to the Second Trimester. I don't know how other parts of the world do it, but most women that want to get an abortion (not strictly atheists, and certainly not because they like getting them) decide within the first month or so. I do maintain, however, that the fetus is well within the body rights of the woman carrying the fetus. You didn't really provide anything against this particular point of mine.

Seriously; get educated. If you have to lie and straw man your opponent's position, then clearly you need to think of a better argument for your side of the story.

[seer]

The problem I see for Seer (no pun intended) is that in clinging to the wide away of contradictory Biblical accounts of God's commands and wanting to defend them all as deontologically right, he's hoisted on his own petard. Seer accuses atheists of having no coherent method for distinguishing right from wrong while at the same having no ability to truly portray a consistently acting God who gives commands that are unfailingly ethical. He's as lost in the land of ethical arbitrariness as he accuses you of being. Your example of Euro-American chattel slavery is especially apt.

Not quite. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Even there are gray areas in our understanding, there still would be an objectively correct answer (i.e. God's law). There is not, nor can there be, such an objective standard or rule in a godless universe.

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps it is; I have no way of knowing that. However, from what I have seen, it does not appear to be clouded.

Not only is it obvious that it's clouded but it's not even ambigous enough to claim otherwise. There's simply no comparison between the British Empire and modern England.

Neither am I. Again, you make a false generalization - except this time, you rely upon an extreme straw man, because you have no rational way of dealing with body rights, or my points. Abortions don't involve bashing a newborn baby's brains out. I can't think of a single method that employs such brutality (except extreme methods in parts of the world that ban abortions; a problem with your mindset is that it causes more abortions and problems than it solves).

Canada, for example, allows abortions within the First Trimester. The UK allows it up to the Second Trimester. I don't know how other parts of the world do it, but most women that want to get an abortion (not strictly atheists, and certainly not because they like getting them) decide within the first month or so. I do maintain, however, that the fetus is well within the body rights of the woman carrying the fetus. You didn't really provide anything against this particular point of mine.

Seriously; get educated. If you have to lie and straw man your opponent's position, then clearly you need to think of a better argument for your side of the story.

You said earlier: "The fetus is well within the body rights of the mother. It is not its own entity, until that umbilical cord is cut."
I never said it's a common abortion method, just that it's something you support, based on your own words that a baby is within the body rights of the mother (which according to you include termination) and thus it's ok for the mother to bash its brains out because it still has the umbilical cord attached. Quoting your own words is hardly a lie.

[The Pixie]

OK, so which group of atheists are correct?

Sorry, I forgot you cannot work out morality for yourself, I should have said.

Those atheists who believe murder is necessarily wrong are correct.

Nope, not the point of this thread and it had been answered a number of times. If you want an in depth study go here:

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Do your own homework

I want to know your view, seer. Why do you personally think slavery is wrong?

In fact, what I want to do is show that actually you have no view, to show that all you can do is repeat what others have told you to say, which is, I guess, what you have done here.

But that is the point Homer - why do you, we, find perfectly natural acts immoral?

We find them immoral because (a) they are immoral and (b) some of us are capable of realising they are immoral.

[seer]

Then they acted according to their best interests. To us, however, it would seem rather abhorrent and unnecessary. The real question here is: was their reason clouded?

They got what they wanted, what they perceived to be in their best interest. And who decides whose reason is clouded? Perhaps your is.

Reason, as I've already stated. Repeating the same answered question because you didn't like my answer won't earn you any credit. In the case of the Tutsi versus the Hutu, natural selection seems to have had an effect. Reason doesn't always win, when it comes to humans.

No, they only thing you have shown is a difference of opinion. You define reason one way and the Hutu another. I suspect they thought it was quite reasonable to destroy a majority of the Tutsi tribe and take their goods and property.

[seer]

Those atheists who believe murder is necessarily wrong are correct.

Why? Because you say so?

I want to know your view, seer. Why do you personally think slavery is wrong?

I don't think think that all forms of slavery are necessarily wrong, after all I'm a slave to Christ. What was practiced in the West certainly was.

We find them immoral because (a) they are immoral and (b) some of us are capable of realising they are immoral.

Talk about a completely circular argument. So you basically have no idea.

[ChaosRain]

I never said it's a common abortion method, just that it's something you support, based on your own words that a baby is within the body rights of the mother (which according to you include termination) and thus it's ok for the mother to bash its brains out because it still has the umbilical cord attached. Quoting your own words is hardly a lie.

If you think it's a method that I support, then you'd still be wrong. I support the right to have or not to have an abortion, not needless brutalization of the fetus in question. It is not OK for the mother to bash its brains out, because it is both extremely unnecessary, and simultaneously uncalled for.

[The Pixie]

Why? Because you say so?

No, because murder is wrong.

I don't think think that all forms of slavery are necessarily wrong, after all I'm a slave to Christ. What was practiced in the West certainly was.

What was practiced in the West was pretty similar to how the Hebrews treated gentile slaves. It was based on race (though not on colour), it was harsh, it was for life. And it was legalised by rules from God. And yet you say it was wrong.

How can it be wrong if it follows God's rules?

How can you even make that judgement call? Your whole argument in this thread is that we mere mortals cannot tell right from wrong, that we need God to tell us. Well God has told us. God has told us that sort of slavery was morally right.

And yet somehow you have managed to work out that actually it is wrong. That is a great relief to me; it tells me that you are capable of understanding right and wrong. Hopefully you do understand that murder is wrong, at least on some level.

[ChaosRain]

I don't think think that all forms of slavery are necessarily wrong, after all I'm a slave to Christ. What was practiced in the West certainly was.

And you're OK with being a slave? Why? Does thinking for yourself sound that unpalatable to you?

[The Pixie]

You said earlier: "The fetus is well within the body rights of the mother. It is not its own entity, until that umbilical cord is cut."
I never said it's a common abortion method, just that it's something you support, based on your own words that a baby is within the body rights of the mother (which according to you include termination) and thus it's ok for the mother to bash its brains out because it still has the umbilical cord attached. Quoting your own words is hardly a lie.

That is the Christian way, not the atheist way.

Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

[ChaosRain]

That is the Christian way, not the atheist way.

Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

Ouch.

[Kelp(p)]

Not quite. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Even there are gray areas in our understanding, there still would be an objectively correct answer (i.e. God's law). There is not, nor can there be, such an objective standard or rule in a godless universe.

Maybe in theory but not in practice when you believe that God could at any moment order you to kill your dog and it would then be wrong not to do so. You might as well be a relativist.

[pancreasman]

Maybe in theory but not in practice when you believe that God could at any moment order you to kill your dog and it would then be wrong not to do so. You might as well be a relativist.

And whether its you THINKING God is ordering you to kill your dog, or God actually ordering you, makes no practical difference. It's a dangerous place to be surrendering your conscience to an outside agency.

[Jesse]

That is the Christian way, not the atheist way.

Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

Looks to me that the Atheist way is to be totally ignorant of ANE languages. I figure if we give them a few more years to catch up we will see less of these posts? Doubtful.