A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

Charles we are discussing a foundation for ethics, mine is God, and yours is?

Whether I can prove God or not, the fact remains, without such a being you have no possible source for universal moral truths. That has been my point from the beginning, and a point Charles that you have failed to counter. Why don't you just give it up and embrace moral relativism, like the author in your link. That is the most rational position for the materialist, or the godless. Why the need or desire for universal moral realities?

I have made you aware that I am not a materialist. As an agnostic I do not rule out the possibility of a God beyond the realm of human understanding to exist. I simply hold to it because I find that it corresponds a lot better to reality and that in lines of reasoning it is the view that is most likely to be true. Even if you think I have failed to counter the idea that universal moral values can only exist if God exists, I think I have made it quite obvious that it is rather difficult to see how the sheer fact that God holds something makes it a moral truth. And what we mainly seem to discus is not really what God holds but what seer thinks or believes God holds.

God may disagree with seer
You always use the word God as if it is the answer to all big questions. Thus I cannot allow myself to question him. However, you are doing the same against a lot of other Gods whose existence cannot be proved either. How can you launch an attack against those Gods? How can you even claim, you understand God and is capable of presenting his view? Why should I believe in the moral character of your God and not the moral character of another God?

Babies in hell

[Charles]

Exactly. This knowledge played a huge role in Kant's reasoning about the deontological ethics. Not saying you have to agree with it, I do not do so to the full extent but to some. But it makes it even more absurd that those ideas that casued so much pain and suffering are still presented as the universal answer. But there is always hope :-)

[Charles]

Like I have asked - if an alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food would that be a moral wrong?

I would be interested in hearing your own take on that scenario. How would the Bible in your reading of it apply to an alien race.

[seer]

God may disagree with seer
You always use the word God as if it is the answer to all big questions. Thus I cannot allow myself to question him. However, you are doing the same against a lot of other Gods whose existence cannot be proved either. How can you launch an attack against those Gods? How can you even claim, you understand God and is capable of presenting his view? Why should I believe in the moral character of your God and not the moral character of another God?

Babies in hell

Charles, I made it clear, I'm not attempting to prove a particular God, just that a god akin to classic theism, whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam would offer a source for universal moral truths, and you have offered nothing. Then to throw the debate off track you bring up babies in hell, Nazis, some subjective notion of dignity, etc... But this is not the discussion Charles and you know it, but you need to blow smoke. So let's get back on point. You said that we could not claim that God is good, or that God could not claim Himself good without an objective standard to compare - but you have no such objective moral law or rule, you can not demonstrate such. So yes, you are free to question God, but you are doing so from a morally relative position - based on the opinion of one who was raise in a particular culture at a particular time. You are limited in understanding (unlike God you can not know the beginning and the end) , your logic is flawed since you could never have all the facts, and your moral sense is effected by cultural mores, sin and a mutable moral character.

To sum up, you question the claim of God's goodness but you have offered no objective standard to bring that goodness into question. You call the reasoning circular, but you fail to offer a non-circular definition of goodness. So when in doubt you appeal to emotion; Nazis, babies in hell, arbitrary notions of fairness and dignity... Nice that...

[seer]

I would be interested in hearing your own take on that scenario. How would the Bible in your reading of it apply to an alien race.

It would be a moral wrong.

[seer]

Stop being a hypocrite Tass, you believe all this is determined in the first place. We are determined by the laws of nature to believe in god or gods and determined to act the way we do. So again you are saying "not good" to what nature has wrought. Why do you hate nature so much?

[Charles]

Charles, I made it clear, I'm not attempting to prove a particular God, just that a god akin to classic theism, whether Judaism, Christianity or Islam would offer a source for universal moral truths, and you have offered nothing. Then to throw the debate off track you bring up babies in hell, Nazis, some subjective notion of dignity, etc... But this is not the discussion Charles and you know it, but you need to blow smoke. So let's get back on point. You said that we could not claim that God is good, or that God could not claim Himself good without an objective standard to compare - but you have no such objective moral law or rule, you can not demonstrate such. So yes, you are free to question God, but you are doing so from a morally relative position - based on the opinion of one who was raise in a particular culture at a particular time. You are limited in understanding (unlike God you can not know the beginning and the end) , your logic is flawed since you could never have all the facts, and your moral sense is effected by cultural mores, sin and a mutable moral character.

To sum up, you question the claim of God's goodness but you have offered no objective standard to bring that goodness into question. You call the reasoning circular, but you fail to offer a non-circular definition of goodness. So when in doubt you appeal to emotion; Nazis, babies in hell, arbitrary notions of fairness and dignity... Nice that...

Three points: I am not pointing to emotion only. That simply is nut true. Second: if you cant find objective values you are trapped like Leibniz claims. It is not only my problem but also yours. And way too easy to skip the part about all the contraintuitive stuff, babies in Hell and so on, in your view.

[JimL]

It would be a moral wrong.

Why, and how would you know?

[seer]

Three points: I am not pointing to emotion only. That simply is nut true. Second: if you cant find objective values you are trapped like Leibniz claims. It is not only my problem but also yours. And way too easy to skip the part about all the contraintuitive stuff, babies in Hell and so on, in your view.

Again Charles, that is the point. You have no objective moral law or rule by which to judge any act of God and we are left with opinion. Therefore any moral declaration, including yours, would be trapped in Leibniz's circle. So where do you go? Moral intuition? But why would that be the guide? Based on what? Knowledge? Logic? Personal/cultural ethical beliefs? You rail against perceived acts of God while standing on shifting moral ground.

[Charles]

Again Charles, that is the point. You have no objective moral law or rule by which to judge any act of God and we are left with opinion. Therefore any moral declaration, including yours, would be trapped in Leibniz's circle. So where do you go? Moral intuition? But why would that be the guide? Based on what? Knowledge? Logic? Personal/cultural ethical beliefs? You rail against perceived acts of God while standing on shifting moral ground.

You can claim that as much as you like, but I actually did point to some of the reasoning for what I think, and I answered your objections and questions. You may disagree which is completely fair but be honest about that.

Claiming that your circular statements formulated on shaky ground are godly makes no sence since you cannot prove your God exists or holds the view you claim he holds. If culture, moral intuition, emotion and so on plays a factor, you are not less likely to be influenced by it. But there is always hope :-)

[seer]

You can claim that as much as you like, but I actually did point to some of the reasoning for what I think, and I answered your objections and questions. You may disagree which is completely fair but be honest about that.

Charles, I must have missed these universal moral truths. You didn't do to well with the lying thing - you could not actually universalize it. There would have been other problems but we never got that far.

Claiming that your circular statements formulated on shaky ground are godly makes no sence since you cannot prove your God exists or holds the view you claim he holds. If culture, moral intuition, emotion and so on plays a factor, you are not less likely to be influenced by it. But there is always hope :-)

Charles you keep wanting me to prove God when that is not the discussion, and you know that. You are just retreating now. Never mind that we all believe things that we can not prove, like that other minds similar to mine exist, that what goes on in our head corresponds to reality, that my mother actually loved me, etc... And I'm not sure about your point about influence, I know my faith influences me greatly-it is a driving force in my life.

[JimL]

It would be a moral wrong.

Why? and how would you know?

[Tassman]

Stop being a hypocrite Tass, you believe all this is determined in the first place. We are determined by the laws of nature to believe in god or gods and determined to act the way we do. So again you are saying "not good" to what nature has wrought. Why do you hate nature so much?

Determinism is not fatalism as you well know and you reinforce your fundamental dishonesty by continually pretending it is. Now answer the question. How can religious people resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive?

[Tassman]

It would be a moral wrong.

Why? Is it "morally wrong" when lions kill and eat gazelles?

[Charles]

Charles, I must have missed these universal moral truths. You didn't do to well with the lying thing - you could not actually universalize it. There would have been other problems but we never got that far.



Charles you keep wanting me to prove God when that is not the discussion, and you know that. You are just retreating now. Never mind that we all believe things that we can not prove, like that other minds similar to mine exist, that what goes on in our head corresponds to reality, that my mother actually loved me, etc... And I'm not sure about your point about influence, I know my faith influences me greatly-it is a driving force in my life.