Morality Without Justice

[seer]

goal-directed, eternally significant

No Tass, not only are we not eternally significant, we are not significant period. No more than a common housefly.

[JimL]

Well as Christians Jim, we first do good to glorify God. To please God. And when we do love God and our neighbor that has a good effect on society. But that is not the main goal or concern since following Christ can upset the social order, as Christ and the early Christians did.

You've just made my point seer, which is why I wanted you to answer the question. When you love your neighbor it has a good effect on society, and that is true whether you attribute your good acts to obedience to a god or not, and if everyone adhered to the golden rule it would have a good effect on society whether a god existed or not, that is what is objective about the nature moral rules.

I will ask again Jim, why is your moral view objectively more correct than the Nazis, the Communists, the Hutus or Jihadists? Why should they care about "the rest of humanity?"

And I will explain to you again that my, your, or anyone elses particular moral views have nothing to do with what the proper objective morals are. If my moral view happens to be correct then it isn't due to my believing it to be correct. Being murdered, for example, is not in anyones personal interest, nobody wants to be murdered, therefore my personal opinion has nothing to do with the fact that objectively speaking, murder is not good. That has nothing to do with authoritative law, it just a natural fact.

[Tassman]

No Tass, not only are we not eternally significant, we are not significant period. No more than a common housefly.

[seer]

You've just made my point seer, which is why I wanted you to answer the question. When you love your neighbor it has a good effect on society, and that is true whether you attribute your good acts to obedience to a god or not, and if everyone adhered to the golden rule it would have a good effect on society whether a god existed or not, that is what is objective about the nature moral rules.

But somethings that Christian do cause friction in society. And Jim, I have said in the past, more than once, that if men, from their hearts, follow the golden rule we would have heaven on earth - the problem is they don't. And that what I consider heaven on earth may not be what the Communists or Nazis or Jihadists consider heaven on earth - and in a godless universe their opinion is no less valid than mine.

And I will explain to you again that my, your, or anyone elses particular moral views have nothing to do with what the proper objective morals are. If my moral view happens to be correct then it isn't due to my believing it to be correct. Being murdered, for example, is not in anyones personal interest, nobody wants to be murdered, therefore my personal opinion has nothing to do with the fact that objectively speaking, murder is not good. That has nothing to do with authoritative law, it just a natural fact.

That makes no sense. Murder can be good for the murderer, especially if he gains from it. Like what the Europeans did to the Indians in the Americas. Survival of the fittest.

[seer]

And you know what we do to house flies...

[Cornell]

Ok, but when you say "mosquito" what exactly do you mean?

In other words when I swat a mosquito am I swatting something that represents an entity that reflects "mosquitoness" or is "mosquito" just a term humans made up to speak about some subjective human representation of an object that doesn't really reflect the thing itself?

[JimL]

But somethings that Christian do cause friction in society. And Jim, I have said in the past, more than once, that if men, from their hearts, follow the golden rule we would have heaven on earth - the problem is they don't. And that what I consider heaven on earth may not be what the Communists or Nazis or Jihadists consider heaven on earth - and in a godless universe their opinion is no less valid than mine.




That makes no sense. Murder can be good for the murderer, especially if he gains from it. Like what the Europeans did to the Indians in the Americas. Survival of the fittest.

None of anything you said above matters seer if their are objective morals that if adhered to could bring about that heaven on earth that you believe would exist if they were adered to. By agreeing with that, you are agreeing that there are objective morals and that those morals need have nothing to do with authority, they only have need of being adhered to. You are agreeing with that, you just can't get yourself to admit that you are agreeing with that because you would then have to concede being wrong about the need for a God. You have lost this argument, so as far as i'm concerned we can end it here. You believe in God, but your argument that a God is needed for objective morals to exist has been defeated even by your own words.

[Psychic Missile]

No PM, you suggested that there was a moral law built into the universe. So does this moral law effect all creatures, like say gravity would? So if a lion kills another lion and takes his females - is he morally accountable?

I was trying to demonstrate that morality could exist without a mind, not that a moral law was built into the universe.

I would think that the moral law you refer to only effects animals of higher intelligence, like humans, great apes, dolphins, etc.

And historical knowledge.

Sure. How would you differentiate between the three?

[Tassman]

Ok, but when you say "mosquito" what exactly do you mean?

I mean those buzzy, annoying little insects that sting, Cornell, what did you think I mean?

In other words when I swat a mosquito am I swatting something that represents an entity that reflects "mosquitoness" or is "mosquito" just a term humans made up to speak about some subjective human representation of an object that doesn't really reflect the thing itself?

And you know what we do to house flies...

See above re mosquitoes...your point?

[seer]

I was trying to demonstrate that morality could exist without a mind, not that a moral law was built into the universe.

And I'm showing how that notion is silly. There is no reason to think that moral ideals do or could exist apart from minds.

I would think that the moral law you refer to only effects animals of higher intelligence, like humans, great apes, dolphins, etc.

So if one chimp kills another chimp he is held morally accountable?

Sure. How would you differentiate between the three?

Like anybody else.

[seer]

None of anything you said above matters seer if their are objective morals that if adhered to could bring about that heaven on earth that you believe would exist if they were adered to. By agreeing with that, you are agreeing that there are objective morals and that those morals need have nothing to do with authority, they only have need of being adhered to. You are agreeing with that, you just can't get yourself to admit that you are agreeing with that because you would then have to concede being wrong about the need for a God. You have lost this argument, so as far as i'm concerned we can end it here. You believe in God, but your argument that a God is needed for objective morals to exist has been defeated even by your own words.

What are you talking about Jim? There are no objective morals apart from God. The golden rule which I referenced would not be objective in a godless universe, it would be subjective.

[JonathanL]

I mean those buzzy, annoying little insects that sting . . .

Yellow_jacket_wasp.jpg

[JimL]

What are you talking about Jim? There are no objective morals apart from God. The golden rule which I referenced would not be objective in a godless universe, it would be subjective.

Right, morals are not objective in the sense that they are things that have existence, they are objective in the sense that, as laws, they work to the advantage of human society. You have already admitted to that in agreement with me when you said sure, if men adhered to the golden rule then the world would be a better place, a heaven on earth as you put it. Thats all there is to it seer. God and authority isn't needed for such an effective objective moral system to exist as laws. You've actually already agreed with that, so if you still have an argument to make, it must be the fact that though objective morals can exist, men won't necessarily follow them. Thats obviously true, which is why we have enforcement. But whether they exist and whether they are adhered to and enforced are to different questions.

[seer]

Right, morals are not objective in the sense that they are things that have existence, they are objective in the sense that, as laws, they work to the advantage of human society. You have already admitted to that in agreement with me when you said sure, if men adhered to the golden rule then the world would be a better place, a heaven on earth as you put it. Thats all there is to it seer. God and authority isn't needed for such an effective objective moral system to exist as laws. You've actually already agreed with that, so if you still have an argument to make, it must be the fact that though objective morals can exist, men won't necessarily follow them. Thats obviously true, which is why we have enforcement. But whether they exist and whether they are adhered to and enforced are to different questions.

Jim, what don't you get? Even I agree with you that following the golden rule is a good way to run a society other men differ. They prefer power, dominance and control. And our opinion is no more valid than theirs. It's just our personal preference. So your whole point is nonsensical.

[Psychic Missile]

And I'm showing how that notion is silly. There is no reason to think that moral ideals do or could exist apart from minds.

Moral ideals are just rules of behavior, and those exist for species most would not consider to have a mind.

So if one chimp kills another chimp he is held morally accountable?

Why not?

Like anybody else.

I was hoping you would define the differences.