Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A request to theists...

ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

I don't read religious doctrine so I don't know.

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

It depends on the underlying reason for why it's immoral.

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason
PolyCarp
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 11:28:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason

So it's not whatever God is real, then? So, God is subservient to logic?
"Perhaps the atheist cannot find God for the same reason the thief cannot find a policeman"

--G.K Chesterton
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 11:28:49 AM, PolyCarp wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason

So it's not whatever God is real, then? So, God is subservient to logic?

God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:00:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

I don't read religious doctrine so I don't know.

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

It depends on the underlying reason for why it's immoral.

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason

Reason is not in your realm, being a proponent of that which I described above. Quit trying to copy me, and you'll likely do better. I believe this just might be the weakest post I've ever seen you make.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:04:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:28:49 AM, PolyCarp wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason

So it's not whatever God is real, then? So, God is subservient to logic?

God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

That is nothing but a bunch of vague, pseudo-philosophical rubbish. If it's the human mind that has abstracted it, no god is necessary. You always claim that this is the only possible "grounding." You never define what you mean by being "grounded," nor do you ever explain how or why. All you have is a blanket assertion with no evidential support. Any claim/assertion made without evidence may be rationally dismissed, without evidence. You god and your grounding are dismissed.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:05:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

And what does God need to be grounded in?

Oh, that's right, God doesn't need to be grounded in anything. You're argument is not very difficult to figure out...

1. Make up a problem (the idea that everything our minds can contemplate needs to be grounded in something)
2. Invent a solution (define God as "that which grounds everything")
3. Marvel at how your solution just happens to solve the problem
4. Claim this as rational justification for believing the solution is real
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Since we are made in the image and likeness of God it is universally, objectively, absolutely wrong for one person to murder another person. God is the only one who has the right to take life because He created it and requires man to love his fellow man.

Because of sin, man choosing to go outside the scope of God's good commands, it is necessary for God through man to address the problem of his evil. Thus because of the Fall God has given man situations in which it is necessary to take life, and to police wrongful actions.

Lying is absolutely, objectively, universally wrong. God says that no liar will enter heaven. If we all told the truth in love there would be no need to lie. There would be no one seeking to exploit another person through manipulation and deceit, yet again we live in a fallen world where man chooses to do his own thing rather than what God has commanded.

Stealing is absolutely, objectively, universally wrong. It falls along the same lines as coveting. It is only because we live outside of God's boundaries that we find it necessary to take what does not belong to us without asking, and when we ask we are turned down because we covets that something more and will not share it.

When we worship and put other things above the Person of God we create an idol and give honor and submission to something that is not by nature God. We exchange truth for a lie. This is wrong once again.

I could go down the list of the Ten Commandments but Jesus summed it up with just two - love God first and love others next. Love does no wrong.

We find in most societies and cultures the understanding that it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to want to own something that belongs to someone else that we cannot have (envy and lust), yet the further we get away from God the more blurred the distinction becomes.

Hollywood promotes ideas and ideas that go against the good of the person more often than not. Many people actually see the Hollywood community as a bunch of self-serving narcissists and egotists who live a lenient lifestyle, going from relationship to relationship, cheating, lying and disrespecting other people. The mass media is where we get much of our guidance from since we spend a good portion of our time entertaining ourselves in from of a TV or on the Internet. We idolize these "Stars" to the point of obsession.

Our institutions teach us man made rules that often go against what God has shown as good. The Darwinian paradigm changed the way many, if not most look at the universe. It strings together chains of events that has learned to justify itself because people look through this paradigm to seek answers and if the answers don't fit this paradigm they are rejected. These paradigms can only take you so far and no further and when you start to peel back what they ultimately rest upon you find nothing - no reason, no agency, no logic - just matter in motion, bumping here and there randomly.

If you want to find out something about someone then find out who and what influences them. Our gatekeepers, those who guard our societies and cultures are becoming more and more either secular or radical, having their own agendas or promoting worldviews that go against the one true and living God. We see this with the radicalization of Islam or with world leaders such as Putin. Everywhere you look you see something that is dreadfully wrong. The more secular or radical we become the more we lose God's principle of love and placing others above ourselves and the more we see and take on an agenda to make others what we have become, without good reason.

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Since we live in a fallen world, a world in which man has chosen to do his own thing, to determine his own "good" we will constantly find man crossing the boundaries of decency and love. Each man takes to doing what is right in his own eyes or the eyes of those who control the masses. Our true compass, our guideline, is God and when we depart from His council we run amok.

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

God, yet He has given us human governments and laws to guide us and keep our evil in check. When we depart from those laws we find ourselves in ruthless countries with ruthless dictators that do not have our good in mind, just what is beneficial to them and them staying in power. Power becomes the name of the game and you witness it almost unilaterally across the world to some degree or another.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:27:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:04:07 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:28:49 AM, PolyCarp wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason

So it's not whatever God is real, then? So, God is subservient to logic?

God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

That is nothing but a bunch of vague, pseudo-philosophical rubbish. If it's the human mind that has abstracted it, no god is necessary.

The problem you have is which one(s)? There are so many contrary views out there who do you believe and why is what they say the true truth?

You always claim that this is the only possible "grounding." You never define what you mean by being "grounded," nor do you ever explain how or why. All you have is a blanket assertion with no evidential support. Any claim/assertion made without evidence may be rationally dismissed, without evidence. You god and your grounding are dismissed.

Something grounded would not change like the seasons. What Ben has is what would be necessary. Why is it necessary that I believe what you are peddling? You are a subjective being, thus subject to change. Show me one that is not.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:05:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

And what does God need to be grounded in?

Oh, that's right, God doesn't need to be grounded in anything. You're argument is not very difficult to figure out...

1. Make up a problem (the idea that everything our minds can contemplate needs to be grounded in something)
2. Invent a solution (define God as "that which grounds everything")
3. Marvel at how your solution just happens to solve the problem
4. Claim this as rational justification for believing the solution is real

You either build what you believe on something or someone that is subject to change or on One that is the ground on which everything else is built.

Matthew 7:24-28New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Two Foundations

24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell"and great was its fall."

28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;


Why should I ground myself on your subjective, limited, groundless beliefs?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter

What do you mean "which ones"?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:38:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:33:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter

What do you mean "which ones"?

You think morality is subjective to the individual. Which one - yourself, another, others, which one(s). Why do you get to determine what is right, what is good? And can goodness change? What happens to the individual, like you, who grounds goodness on murdering and raping? Why is his opinion of goodness any less valid than yours since you are placing it upon the individual to determine?

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:40:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:38:59 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:33:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter

What do you mean "which ones"?

You think morality is subjective to the individual. Which one - yourself, another, others, which one(s). Why do you get to determine what is right, what is good? And can goodness change? What happens to the individual, like you, who grounds goodness on murdering and raping? Why is his opinion of goodness any less valid than yours since you are placing it upon the individual to determine?

Peter

It's subjective to everyone. Individuals define morality for themselves. No one's "definition" is correct. However, there are "norms" in society that will put you down if your "sense of morality" is radically different from the norm.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:52:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:40:15 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:38:59 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:33:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter

What do you mean "which ones"?

You think morality is subjective to the individual. Which one - yourself, another, others, which one(s). Why do you get to determine what is right, what is good? And can goodness change? What happens to the individual, like you, who grounds goodness on murdering and raping? Why is his opinion of goodness any less valid than yours since you are placing it upon the individual to determine?

Peter

It's subjective to everyone. Individuals define morality for themselves. No one's "definition" is correct.

Good! Then I will find a quite spot, take my gun and shot you. Since you disagree with me this will be good.

Unfortunately way to many people think like this. They have nothing but themselves to ground morality upon, each to his own.

However, there are "norms" in society that will put you down if your "sense of morality" is radically different from the norm.

Societies "Norms" can be bypassed. People do it every day and some get away with it. And societies "Norms" are made up by individuals who have preferences just like you to what is "good." Some societies think abortion is a good thing, some think same-sex marriage is, some thing honor killing is. What do you prefer? You make an error when you have nothing objective, nothing unchanging, nothing that applies to all people in all times, nothing best, nothing as the ideal but what you make it as good. You lose the identity of what good is. It becomes anything anyone wants to make it as long as they have the means to do so. If ISIS has the means to make rape good, and they do in some regions at present, then rape becomes good. Anyone can justify anything and nothing becomes meaningful because the distinction is lost to what goodness is.

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:54:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:52:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:40:15 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:38:59 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:33:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter

What do you mean "which ones"?

You think morality is subjective to the individual. Which one - yourself, another, others, which one(s). Why do you get to determine what is right, what is good? And can goodness change? What happens to the individual, like you, who grounds goodness on murdering and raping? Why is his opinion of goodness any less valid than yours since you are placing it upon the individual to determine?

Peter

It's subjective to everyone. Individuals define morality for themselves. No one's "definition" is correct.

Good! Then I will find a quite spot, take my gun and shot you. Since you disagree with me this will be good.

Unfortunately way to many people think like this. They have nothing but themselves to ground morality upon, each to his own.

However, there are "norms" in society that will put you down if your "sense of morality" is radically different from the norm.

Societies "Norms" can be bypassed. People do it every day and some get away with it. And societies "Norms" are made up by individuals who have preferences just like you to what is "good." Some societies think abortion is a good thing, some think same-sex marriage is, some thing honor killing is. What do you prefer? You make an error when you have nothing objective, nothing unchanging, nothing that applies to all people in all times, nothing best, nothing as the ideal but what you make it as good. You lose the identity of what good is. It becomes anything anyone wants to make it as long as they have the means to do so. If ISIS has the means to make rape good, and they do in some regions at present, then rape becomes good. Anyone can justify anything and nothing becomes meaningful because the distinction is lost to what goodness is.

Peter

I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's. Societal norms are developed, meaning that they aren't "correct" either. No one is. "Good" and "evil" is subjective, and I can't objectively tell you otherwise.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:08:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:54:26 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:52:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:40:15 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:38:59 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:33:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:32:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:06:56 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

I'm a theist and I think morality is subjective to the individual. This is evidenced by the fact that humans can't experience anything objectively.

Which one(s)?

Peter

What do you mean "which ones"?

You think morality is subjective to the individual. Which one - yourself, another, others, which one(s). Why do you get to determine what is right, what is good? And can goodness change? What happens to the individual, like you, who grounds goodness on murdering and raping? Why is his opinion of goodness any less valid than yours since you are placing it upon the individual to determine?

Peter

It's subjective to everyone. Individuals define morality for themselves. No one's "definition" is correct.

Good! Then I will find a quite spot, take my gun and shot you. Since you disagree with me this will be good.

Unfortunately way to many people think like this. They have nothing but themselves to ground morality upon, each to his own.

However, there are "norms" in society that will put you down if your "sense of morality" is radically different from the norm.

Societies "Norms" can be bypassed. People do it every day and some get away with it. And societies "Norms" are made up by individuals who have preferences just like you to what is "good." Some societies think abortion is a good thing, some think same-sex marriage is, some thing honor killing is. What do you prefer? You make an error when you have nothing objective, nothing unchanging, nothing that applies to all people in all times, nothing best, nothing as the ideal but what you make it as good. You lose the identity of what good is. It becomes anything anyone wants to make it as long as they have the means to do so. If ISIS has the means to make rape good, and they do in some regions at present, then rape becomes good. Anyone can justify anything and nothing becomes meaningful because the distinction is lost to what goodness is.

Peter

I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's. Societal norms are developed, meaning that they aren't "correct" either. No one is. "Good" and "evil" is subjective, and I can't objectively tell you otherwise.

If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:29:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.

YOU: "I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's."

Which is it?

Can you not define it or can you define it? How can you say that your morals are "good" if you do not have a best standard to compare goodness to? You just told me that you can't tell if your morals are more correct than anyone else's so how does that make them "good?"

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:35:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:29:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.

YOU: "I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's."

Which is it?

Can you not define it or can you define it? How can you say that your morals are "good" if you do not have a best standard to compare goodness to? You just told me that you can't tell if your morals are more correct than anyone else's so how does that make them "good?"

Peter

"I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's." I chose my own morality, but that doesn't mean I can define it for you because I am aware that mine is technically incorrect. I "chose" what makes the most sense to me personally. The statements do not contradict each other.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:31:22 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:05:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

And what does God need to be grounded in?

Oh, that's right, God doesn't need to be grounded in anything. You're argument is not very difficult to figure out...

1. Make up a problem (the idea that everything our minds can contemplate needs to be grounded in something)
2. Invent a solution (define God as "that which grounds everything")
3. Marvel at how your solution just happens to solve the problem
4. Claim this as rational justification for believing the solution is real

You either build what you believe on something or someone that is subject to change or on One that is the ground on which everything else is built.

Demonstrate that your God is the grounds for everything else.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:51:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:35:41 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:29:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.

YOU: "I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's."

Which is it?

Can you not define it or can you define it? How can you say that your morals are "good" if you do not have a best standard to compare goodness to? You just told me that you can't tell if your morals are more correct than anyone else's so how does that make them "good?"

Peter

"I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's." I chose my own morality, but that doesn't mean I can define it for you because I am aware that mine is technically incorrect. I "chose" what makes the most sense to me personally. The statements do not contradict each other.

So what makes your morality good or just or right then? You don't know. How can you know it is good then? You can't by your own admission. For all you know raping a baby (heaven forbid) may be just as good as eating ice-cream. It all boils down to what you prefer. What gives you the right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds?

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:53:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:51:43 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:35:41 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:29:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.

YOU: "I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's."

Which is it?

Can you not define it or can you define it? How can you say that your morals are "good" if you do not have a best standard to compare goodness to? You just told me that you can't tell if your morals are more correct than anyone else's so how does that make them "good?"

Peter

"I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's." I chose my own morality, but that doesn't mean I can define it for you because I am aware that mine is technically incorrect. I "chose" what makes the most sense to me personally. The statements do not contradict each other.

So what makes your morality good or just or right then? You don't know. How can you know it is good then? You can't by your own admission. For all you know raping a baby (heaven forbid) may be just as good as eating ice-cream. It all boils down to what you prefer. What gives you the right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds?

Peter

I have no right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds because if I did then that would be me defining morality. I may not be right, but that isn't going to stop me from condemning them.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As you pointed out, the phrase "objective morality" gets tossed around a lot without defining terms. So let me define this phrase first because it can be taken in at least two different ways.

First way:
Morality is what we take to be right and wrong. Objective morality would then be moral conclusions we came to without the influence of bias or prejudice, but rather that we came to through a fair and impartial look at the facts informing our circumstances.

Second way:
Morality is, in fact, what is actually right or wrong. Objective morality would then include moral obligation we would have whether we choose them or not, whether we believed in them or not, whether we approved of them or not, etc. In other words, the moral imperatives would be incumbent on us independently of human sentiment.

When theists use the phrase "objective morality," we are using it in that second sense, not in the first. Since moral obligations do not derive from any human thought or decision, they must come from some source outside of humanity. We believe it comes from God.

So we humans do not invent right and wrong; rather, we recognize right and wrong. Moreover, morality exists independently of the Bible. It is not merely because some imperative is in the Bible that it is therefore wrong as if the Bible made it wrong. Rather, it is wrong already because God forbids it, and the Bible merely records it because it is true. So the Bible recognizes that certain things are true or false, but it doesn't make them true or false.

After all, Adam, Eve, and Cain were punished for their immorality before the Bible was ever written. God punished the world with a flood for their immorality before Moses ever received the law on Mt. Sinai. And other nations who never received the Mosaic Law were still punished for their immorality.

But as far as specifics go, most moral imperatives have prima facie force. That is, they apply in most circumstances but are not without exception. To be objective is not necessarily to be absolute. For example, it's generally wrong to life to people, but there are circumstances in which lying is the right thing to do. I went into more detail about that on my blog.

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

All it takes for objective morality to exist for there to be any action at all in any situation that it would either be wrong to do or wrong not to do regardless of what any human thought. And it's not hard to think of examples.

1. A man who beats his wife with a baseball bat just because she forgot to get Oreos while she was at the store is doing something that is morally wrong.

2. A single man who has sex with the wife of another man is doing something morally wrong.

3. A woman who slips a date rape drug in her dad's drink, then rapes him while he is incapacitated is doing something morally wrong.

Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text."

It's because morality consists of imperatives. Moral law is prescriptive. It imposes obligation. It tells people what they must and must not do. Imperatives can only come from persons. If all that existed in all of reality were non-sentient material objects, nothing would be right or wrong. The universe could be thoroughly described merely with "is" statements, but no "ought" statements. Imperatives can only come from one person imposing their will on another person.

People have instituted governments that make laws which are also prescriptive. But no human law can make something that is otherwise wrong become right or vice versa. Even laws can be just or unjust. For example, a law that required parents to sacrifice their firstborn child in a fire would be morally wrong. It would be wrong to make such a law, and it would even be wrong to obey such a law if it were passed. So the moral law has authority over every conceivable human law, and it is the basis upon which human laws can be judged either just or unjust.

So the authority behind the moral law must be personal, absolute, autonomous, and transcendent. No conceivable creature could have such authority, even if there were a superior alien species from another planet. Something like a god would be necessary to ground morality. The fact that the God conceived of by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and even deists is a person who is autonomous and transcendent and responsible for creating everything else that exists makes that sort of God a sufficient source of morality. It is hard to think of anything else that would suffice.

If a moray is "objective," it is static.

That is not true. What gives a moral imperatives their objectivity is that they comes a legitimate authority whether that authority requires the same thing all the time or whether the authority requires different things at different times.

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

A moral does not need to be derived from holy texts before they can be universal and objective. As I said before, it isn't holy texts that make things right or wrong. Holy Texts can only record things. Any authority holy texts have is grounded in God. God would have that same authority whether the holy text existed or not.

In my view, God created us in such a way that we are able, through reflection on our experience, reason, and intuition, to discern between right and wrong. As the Bible puts it, God's law is written on our hearts. While the Bible can clarify things for us in many cases, for the most part, everybody knows right from wrong even if they're ignorant of the Bible.

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

Some moral are stated in broad terms, then applied to specific circumstances. When the circumstances change, so does the appropriate action. On the surface, it may appear as if the moral obligation has changed since at one time, a person should do X, but at another time, they should do Y. But in reality, the reason they should do X at one time, and Y at another time, is because of some broader moral principle that hasn't changed at all.

For example, it might be appropriate to give a person medicine while they are sick, but once that person is no longer sick, it is no longer appropriate to give them medicine. So it isn't as if the moral law changed from "Give medicine" to "Withhold medicine." Rather, the general moral principle in both cases is "Take care of the person's health," and what changed over time was what the person needed to stay healthy.

So time and circumstances can affect the specific moral obligations we have in virtue of more general moral principles. That's where our "reason" comes into play. It isn't as if there's a moral code that specifies every possible situation you could be in. Rather, there are general moral principles we are instinctively aware of, and we have to use our reason to discover how they apply to specific circumstances, which change through time.

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

We have to make a distinction between moral ontology and moral epistemology. Ontologically, the final arbiter of any moral disagreement is God because it is God who determines what is right or wrong. But epistemologically, disagreements have to be settled on the merits of the arguments for and against both sides, and sometimes people never succeed in settling their differences. Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses have an organizational structure designed to interpret scripture on behalf of everyone else, and they also settle disagreements.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:54:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:44:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:31:22 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:05:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

And what does God need to be grounded in?

Oh, that's right, God doesn't need to be grounded in anything. You're argument is not very difficult to figure out...

1. Make up a problem (the idea that everything our minds can contemplate needs to be grounded in something)
2. Invent a solution (define God as "that which grounds everything")
3. Marvel at how your solution just happens to solve the problem
4. Claim this as rational justification for believing the solution is real

You either build what you believe on something or someone that is subject to change or on One that is the ground on which everything else is built.

Demonstrate that your God is the grounds for everything else.

Why? You are not going to believe me anyway.

What is necessary for morality? Good would have to be based on what is best, the ideal, the reference that all other references are based on. Give me something other than God who fits the bill.

Peter
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:08:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:00:53 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:58:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:33:54 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
The term "objective morality" is a term that gets tossed around by theists quite a bit. Further, it is never clearly defined as to which morals are determined by their individual "holy texts." It is often spoken as though any holy text has ever clearly delineated, specifically, any complete moral "code." Conversely, I have never heard any theist offer a rational explanation as to WHY it can only be objective, when emanating from a deity or a "holy text." Thus, I am curious as to what believers feel is a valid "moral," and what it is that eliminates the validity of a moral if it is not established by some deity or another. Further, violations of morality are committed within the pages of these "holy texts," BY DIVINE COMMAND. If a moray is "objective," it is static. That means it is not subject to any condition, human or "social."

My specific questions are as follow:

Can any theist state, specifically, which morals are "universal and objective" that cannot be derived outside of the "holy texts?"

I don't read religious doctrine so I don't know.

Once an "objective moral" has been defined, what significance could the phrase "appropriate to the time" possibly have on the objectivity of a moray?

It depends on the underlying reason for why it's immoral.

Who is the final arbiter of a disagreement between two (individual or groups of) humans regarding the "objective" moray within any holy text?

Reason

Reason is not in your realm, being a proponent of that which I described above. Quit trying to copy me, and you'll likely do better. I believe this just might be the weakest post I've ever seen you make.

I'm sorry to say, but "reason" is the very foundation of objective morality. There are correct ways to reason and there are incorrect ways to reason. Objective morality appeals to the correct way to reason. Atheist moral objectivists also unanimously appeal to "reason" to support their views.. Immanuel Kant said that morality was a "rational enterprise" and argued for objective morality on the basis of reason alone. I agree. But the only way that objective morality can be *binding* is if God exists. Some arbiter of human purpose, some authoritative agent of intentionality must exist in order for moral objectivism to be logically coherent.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:08:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:53:18 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:51:43 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:35:41 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:29:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.

YOU: "I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's."

Which is it?

Can you not define it or can you define it? How can you say that your morals are "good" if you do not have a best standard to compare goodness to? You just told me that you can't tell if your morals are more correct than anyone else's so how does that make them "good?"

Peter

"I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's." I chose my own morality, but that doesn't mean I can define it for you because I am aware that mine is technically incorrect. I "chose" what makes the most sense to me personally. The statements do not contradict each other.

So what makes your morality good or just or right then? You don't know. How can you know it is good then? You can't by your own admission. For all you know raping a baby (heaven forbid) may be just as good as eating ice-cream. It all boils down to what you prefer. What gives you the right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds?

Peter

I have no right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds because if I did then that would be me defining morality. I may not be right, but that isn't going to stop me from condemning them.

Then if someone was to break into your house and harm your wife and kids, those dearest to you (heaven forbid), it might be right and it might be wrong, it might be good or it might be bad, but you will condemn them anyway based on your own personal preferences that can't quite get a handle on goodness. But because you like or dislike something you are willing to call it good or bad yet you are not going to allow the person who breaks into your own house the same luxury.

Your whole stance on morality is very inconsistent. Do you see this or not?

Peter
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:09:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 2:08:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:53:18 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:51:43 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:35:41 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:29:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:15:11 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
If you can't objectively tell me otherwise and can't tell me that shooting you is incorrect for all people at all times just because I want to then I can justify shooting you as good for me. I just have to bypass the consequences of this society in doing so. Scary stuff, right?

Your thoughts are inconsistent. On the one hand you say, "I can't define morality" or "tell you my morals are more correct" then in the next breath (previously actually) you are. You are telling me that what you believe is good, that every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is, then you are telling me that you can't define morality. Which is it?

If good and evil is subjective then you have no grounds to tell someone else that abortion is right or wrong.

What you are doing is blurring the grounds between feelings and goodness, likes and rightness. Just because I like to do something does not necessarily make it right, yet this is what you are pushing for. On your analysis anyone can justify anything and by doing so it is right to them. You lose the idea of what right is. It can mean anything thus nothing.

Peter

I don't understand how me telling you that "every individual makes up his own belief as to what goodness is" is me defining morality, but okay.

YOU: "I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's."

Which is it?

Can you not define it or can you define it? How can you say that your morals are "good" if you do not have a best standard to compare goodness to? You just told me that you can't tell if your morals are more correct than anyone else's so how does that make them "good?"

Peter

"I can't define morality, and I can't tell you if my morals are more "correct" than anyone else's." I chose my own morality, but that doesn't mean I can define it for you because I am aware that mine is technically incorrect. I "chose" what makes the most sense to me personally. The statements do not contradict each other.

So what makes your morality good or just or right then? You don't know. How can you know it is good then? You can't by your own admission. For all you know raping a baby (heaven forbid) may be just as good as eating ice-cream. It all boils down to what you prefer. What gives you the right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds?

Peter

I have no right to condemn what anyone else does on such grounds because if I did then that would be me defining morality. I may not be right, but that isn't going to stop me from condemning them.

Then if someone was to break into your house and harm your wife and kids, those dearest to you (heaven forbid), it might be right and it might be wrong, it might be good or it might be bad, but you will condemn them anyway based on your own personal preferences that can't quite get a handle on goodness. But because you like or dislike something you are willing to call it good or bad yet you are not going to allow the person who breaks into your own house the same luxury.

Your whole stance on morality is very inconsistent. Do you see this or not?

Peter

No, I don't see how it's inconsistent.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:54:37 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:44:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:31:22 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/21/2015 12:05:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:37:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is the only possible means to ground the abstract, invariant, and universal laws of logic. It's a reflection of God's mind that interacts with our own.

And what does God need to be grounded in?

Oh, that's right, God doesn't need to be grounded in anything. You're argument is not very difficult to figure out...

1. Make up a problem (the idea that everything our minds can contemplate needs to be grounded in something)
2. Invent a solution (define God as "that which grounds everything")
3. Marvel at how your solution just happens to solve the problem
4. Claim this as rational justification for believing the solution is real

You either build what you believe on something or someone that is subject to change or on One that is the ground on which everything else is built.

Demonstrate that your God is the grounds for everything else.

Why? You are not going to believe me anyway.

I'm not going to believe you because you can't demonstrate it.

What is necessary for morality? Good would have to be based on what is best, the ideal, the reference that all other references are based on. Give me something other than God who fits the bill.

Explain how it is coherent to assert that God fits the bill.