A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[seer]

Tass, I asked for one universal moral wrong - just one.

[Charles]

Tass, I asked for one universal moral wrong - just one.

And you have very good reason for asking. Because you have nothing objective to provide yourself (but you would rather not talk about that part, I know).

[seer]

And you have very good reason for asking. Because you have nothing objective to provide yourself (but you would rather not talk about that part, I know).

Did I say "objective?" And the law of God is universal, it is the only thing that possibly could be universal. What else could be?

[Charles]

Did I say "objective?" And the law of God is universal, it is the only thing that possibly could be universal. What else could be?

How can the law of a God that you subjectively believe in but cannot prove the existence of be universal? It is your subjective view from the limited understanding and limited knowledge you have as a human being under the influence of time, space and culture. But it is not universal.

Give any reason to support the idea that it is universal and I will show you why it does not apply. I will be waiting...

[seer]

How can the law of a God that you subjectively believe in but cannot prove the existence of be universal? It is your subjective view from the limited understanding and limited knowledge you have as a human being under the influence of time, space and culture. But it is not universal.

Charles, the law of God would exist even if we all completely misunderstood it or ignored it. Its existence does not, or would not, depend on us. You are again confusing epistemology with ontology.

Give any reason to support the idea that it is universal and I will show you why it does not apply. I will be waiting...

Because God is universal, and has the authority and means to enforce His law.

[Charles]

Charles, the law of God would exist even if we all completely misunderstood it or ignored it. Its existence does not, or would not, depend on us. You are again confusing epistemology with ontology.

Seer, I am not confusing anything. You are confusing your own subjective ideas with universal truth. You cannot avoid the fact that you cannot prove the existence of a God providing these laws by pointing to ontology instead of epistemology. Or, if you can, then everyone else can do so, and then it would not be universal. Admit it seer, what you have got is just a claim.

Because God is universal, and has the authority and means to enforce His law.

God is universal? Which God is universal. The God you cannot prove the existence of. Allah, Thor or anyone else? Some unknown God? And he has the authority and means to enforce His law? I guess the proof of that is in some afterlife? Can you prove the existence of that? Or would you say this world provides any proof?

Seer, you are so sceptical about all sorts of ideas in here. And then, when it all comes down, all you have got are subjective ideas and claims that cannot be justified.

[shunyadragon]

Did I say "objective?" And the law of God is universal, it is the only thing that possibly could be universal. What else could be?

Natural Laws

[shunyadragon]

Are you completely daft Shuny? If this is true, that God endowed us with certain ethical norms, attributes and informed us through His prophets of His law, then no, evolution can not alone explain our morals and ethics, because without God we would not have developed, ethically, as we did.

Does not respond to my post.

[shunyadragon]

But you said that to cause the wrongful death of another human was a universal wrong. Obviously you were wrong.

I asked Tass to present one universal moral wrong - you put your nose in with something you could not back up.

It is a fact that wrongful death is believed by all cultures and religions of the world, supporting that it is a universal wrong in human societies.

[seer]

It is a fact that wrongful death is believed by all cultures and religions of the world, supporting that it is a universal wrong in human societies.

That is an appeal to the majority, and not all cultures believe this. Just as the Maoist or Stalinist.

[seer]

Does not respond to my post.

What are you talking about - the fact is if God really did have the input into human ethics that you suggest then nature alone can not explain our morality.

[shunyadragon]

That is an appeal to the majority, and not all cultures believe this. Just as the Maoist or Stalinist.

Not an appeal to the majority. Maoists and Stalinists are not cultures, but nonetheless they too defined wrongful death so that those they chose to survive did just as the Hebrews tried to exterminate the Canaanites, because they only want to allow those they wanted to survive.

They all failed to achieve their goal, even the Hebrews, because the Canaanites survived as others because of evolutionary drive to survive, the Lebanese based on the genetic evidence.

[seer]

Seer, I am not confusing anything. You are confusing your own subjective ideas with universal truth. You cannot avoid the fact that you cannot prove the existence of a God providing these laws by pointing to ontology instead of epistemology. Or, if you can, then everyone else can do so, and then it would not be universal. Admit it seer, what you have got is just a claim.

That is nonsense Charles, again if the law of God exists it would still exist even if we never knew about it, or completely misunderstood it. Just as the laws of logic would still be valid even if there were no rational creatures to apprehend them. And please stop with the "prove" thing, we know how many things you believe are true without proof. Don't be hypocritical.

God is universal? Which God is universal. The God you cannot prove the existence of. Allah, Thor or anyone else? Some unknown God? And he has the authority and means to enforce His law? I guess the proof of that is in some afterlife? Can you prove the existence of that? Or would you say this world provides any proof?


Seer, you are so sceptical about all sorts of ideas in here. And then, when it all comes down, all you have got are subjective ideas and claims that cannot be justified.

The point is only such a God can offer a source or ground for universal ethics. I certainly don't expect you to agree, but if you don't give up any idea of universal moral truths or find an alternative - which you have been able to do.

[seer]

Not an appeal to the majority. Maoists and Stalinists are not cultures, but nonetheless they too defined wrongful death so that those they chose to survive did just as the Hebrews tried to exterminate the Canaanites, because they only want to allow those they wanted to survive.

I'm not sure what you mean, killing millions of political dissenters was not morally wrong?

They all failed to achieve their goal, even the Hebrews, because the Canaanites survived as others because of evolutionary drive to survive, the Lebanese based on the genetic evidence.

You mean like the things that Moses, a manifestation of God, did?

[Tassman]

That is an appeal to the majority, and not all cultures believe this. Just as the Maoist or Stalinist.

Yes all cultures do believe that causing wrongful deaths is wrong. The difference between some is the definition of "wrongful".